# Faith in Randomness



## Thanatos (Jan 12, 2013)

At the very beginning of what we call time there was a spark, an ignition, an explosion to begin this universe. What we argue for, and against is how that happened. In the following words I will submit to you that it takes more faith to believe that this initial event happened randomly over someone having faith in a first mover, or a creator. 

The idea that we are here randomly requires Atheist to believe that we came about through a LARGE amount of random actions/occurrences over billions of years. Fast forward to when life began on earth...In living cells, most catalysts are protein enzymes, composed of amino acids, but in the 1980s another kind of catalyst was discovered. These are RNA molecules composed of nucleotides that are now called ribozymes. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300,  a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe. On top of knowing that improbability here is the reason why it does not make sense. If the universe was created by randomness and it's random chance that human's evolved THEN WHERE IS THE RANDOMNESS AT NOW???

Every where you look in our universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system and on our planet there is order. Let's look at two simple examples. Full disclosure: through my research I've saved some of this data off the internet. Most of it is my thoughts and words but SOME of it is copied from other sources.  

First let's look at the Basics of Life. 

 Quark: Simply energy. Can’t be seen under any microscope. They exist in nature as pairs or triplets 

Atom: Made from quarks. Has protons, neutrons. These make molecules.  three quarks make a proton, and three are needed to make a neutron. An atom will have one or more protons and zero or more neutrons. But it will also have an electron for each proton, and this is not made from quarks. So, an atom is made from quarks, but not just quarks

Molecule: These are made from Atoms. Examples of molecules are: Hydrogen, Oxygen.

Organelle: Made of molecules and are the small organs in each cell. Examples in aminal cells are: Neucleus, Ribosome, Lysosome.

Cell: Made up of organelles. Cells are the building blocks of life. Cells are composed of organelles, but more: the are also made of cytoplasm containing those organelles and wrapped in a cell membrane

Tissue: Made from similar cells. Each organ has specific types of cells that make that particular organ and its parts.

Organ: A structure that contains at least two different types of tissue functioning together for a common purpose.(example muscle tissue, heart tissue) makeup an organ. 

Organ System:  Organ systems are composed of two or more different organs that work together to provide a common function. There are 10 major organ systems in the human body: Skeletal System, Muscular System, Circulatory System, Nervous System, Respiratory System, Digestive System, Excretory System, Endocrine System, Reproductive System and the Lymphatic/Immune System.

Organism: An organism is the person/thing. It is an individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus. It has a body made up of organ systems in the case of larger organisms.

Do you see the order here? From the smallest particles of life to the biggest organisms on that plant? The order of these particles and systems are a constant. You can not have the latter systems without the former. They build on each other. There is ZERO percent randomness happening here. Randomness CANNOT happen here and randomness has NEVER been observed here.

Let's talk about Phases of matter 

There are four states of matter: Solids, Liquids, Gas, and Plasma. Every thing in the universe is made up of these four states. If we get into quantum mechanics you could talk about even more states of matter but we will keep it simple for this topic. 

A phase change is the transformation of a thermodynamic system from one state of matter to another. Some examples would be when a solid turns into a gas it is called sublimation. When a solid is turned into a liquid we call it melting or fusion. From a gas into a solid it is called deposition. From a gas to plasma is called deionization.  Every single time one of these thermodynamic systems are changed the results are ALWAYS constant. Randomness in these states of matter have never been observed and when scientist perform an experiment to change a liquid into a gas or a solid into a liquid it ALWAYS results in the same phase change. ALWAYS. NO RANDOMNESS. EVER.

Looking at some of the simplest but most important scientific processes we see order there with randomness being completely absent. Yet, when Atheist need an explanation of how we started they want to take a LEAP OF FAITH and tell us that it happened randomly even though science tells us this is almost impossible and very improbable.

Next, is the Coup de Grace. This was not written by me, but it speaks loudly to you who have faith in being here by chance.

"_No scientist has ever observed anything in the universe that is self-creating and self-existing. If you know of anything you may well win the Nobel Prize. Everything ever observed on this planet and beyond is dependent on something proceeding. There is not a single thing in the universe that is self-existing, and not dependent in nature, including the universe itself, which is running down towards heat death and maximum entropy ( loss of usable energy, information and order): And ultimately won't have any energy to do anything, let alone wind itself up to its initial state. If it has no capability to wind itself up it too is dependent on something else, and therefore fully dependent (unless there is a external self-existing cosmic gas station that reverses the cosmic entropy process ). 

To escape the necessity of a non-dependent transcendent cause outside the universe to the atrophic cosmic fine tuning, scientists normally head for the unverifiable faith based (theoretical) multiple universe option. The problem here is that as the multiple universes are all parallel equivalents to this universe, they too must be likewise dependent in nature, and also heading towards heat death. And if any of these has been around for an infinite amount of time they would have already reached heat death 

There is no escape! As acknowledged by Nobel Prize winner, David Gross, one of the founders of string theory. We dont know what we are talking about. . .Strings and M-Theory are based on little more than fancy math and a grab-bag of ideas. (BBC Focus, May 2006.) Michio Kuku agrees: Once we try to mathematically calculate the quantum fluctuations that give rise to new universes, the answer blows up, in other words the theory becomes meaningless. (Astronomy. May 1996). Such beliefs are purely hypothetical, and therefore based on blind faith that prove nothing. Such God replacingconcepts are more imagined than real. 

We are ultimately left with a dependentdying universe, that is unable to explain itself. 

This ultimately leaves us with only two logical options. Either an infinite regress of "dependent" causes where nothing ever has the capacity to bring itself into existence, not ever. Or a non-dependent self-existing first cause, which is ultimately the only philosophical and scientific option to explain why anything exists: An infinite dependent regress is forever dependent on something other than itself, and thus there is never ever any basis for existence. Therefore, to ask the question as to who made God, is to automatically put God in the infinite dependent regress category which can never provide a basis for existence, and so the question is self defeating. [ Incidentally, both in philosophic and scientific terms, anything that is dependent is by nature limited, and anything limited cannot be self-existing.] 

Also the belief that the universe was caused by a natural process alone is difficult to sustain, for many reasons, but primarily because methodological naturalism has absolutely no way to explain the origin of natural law naturalistically, nor the cosmological constants, nor the mathematical regularity of the universe. Which means the purely naturalistic is itself based on unverifiable blind faith. The bottom line is that an intelligent dependent effect, always ultimately demands a non-dependent self-existing first cause._"

Last, please forgive me for the Asath style posting. My apologies.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 12, 2013)

"_This ultimately leaves us with only two logical options. Either an infinite regress of "dependent" causes where nothing ever has the capacity to bring itself into existence, not ever. Or a non-dependent self-existing first cause, which is ultimately the only philosophical and scientific option to explain why anything exists: An infinite dependent regress is forever dependent on something other than itself, and thus there is never ever any basis for existence. Therefore, to ask the question as to who made God, is to automatically put God in the infinite dependent regress category which can never provide a basis for existence, and so the question is self defeating. [ Incidentally, both in philosophic and scientific terms, anything that is dependent is by nature limited, and anything limited cannot be self-existing.]_"


Ambush1:1

The singularity was, has always been and forever will be.  In a random act the singularity generated God, who in his loneliness created everything else.....

Now we stand on equal footing and can tear down each others' fairy tales.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 12, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> "_This ultimately leaves us with only two logical options. Either an infinite regress of "dependent" causes where nothing ever has the capacity to bring itself into existence, not ever. Or a non-dependent self-existing first cause, which is ultimately the only philosophical and scientific option to explain why anything exists: An infinite dependent regress is forever dependent on something other than itself, and thus there is never ever any basis for existence. Therefore, to ask the question as to who made God, is to automatically put God in the infinite dependent regress category which can never provide a basis for existence, and so the question is self defeating. [ Incidentally, both in philosophic and scientific terms, anything that is dependent is by nature limited, and anything limited cannot be self-existing.]_"
> 
> 
> Ambush1:1
> ...



So your calling your god Singularity (yes I know this is a scientific term) and I call mine Jesus. Is this correct? If so, I've accomplished  what I wanted. I will debate my faith in Christianty in a forth coming thread.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2013)

Everything coming from nothing is a Creationists point of view that they give to Atheists and scientists because those Atheists and scientists don't believe in the way Creationists do.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2013)

http://www.smartpeoplepodcast.com/2011/03/20/episode-15-dr-lawrence-krauss/


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Everything coming from nothing is a Creationists point of view that they give to Atheists and scientists because those Atheists and scientists don't believe in the way Creationists do.



Are you saying that you believe in the deity Singulaity as well?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Are you saying that you believe in the deity Singulaity as well?



nope i do not believe in a deity


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2013)

There is good reading on all the pages but here on page 4 "nothing" is summed up pretty well.
http://scienceforums.com/topic/23724-universe-from-nothing/page__st__45


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There is good reading on all the pages but here on page 4 "nothing" is summed up pretty well.
> http://scienceforums.com/topic/23724-universe-from-nothing/page__st__45



Bullet that is some great info. I've bookmarked that page to visit it in the future.

The problem is that everything those individuals were writing about speaks directly to my point in the thread above. I don't know if you didn't understand my wall of text above but that is what I stated. Existence has always been here. Some call it a singularity and some call it God, but the name is semantics for this argument. "It" created the universe and then "it" created human beings. Either directly or by causality.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 12, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> So your calling your god Singularity (yes I know this is a scientific term) and I call mine Jesus. Is this correct? If so, I've accomplished  what I wanted. I will debate my faith in Christianty in a forth coming thread.





Thanatos said:


> Bullet that is some great info. I've bookmarked that page to visit it in the future.
> 
> The problem is that everything those individuals were writing about speaks directly to my point in the thread above. I don't know if you didn't understand my wall of text above but that is what I stated. Existence has always been here. Some call it a singularity and some call it God, but the name is semantics for this argument. "It" created the universe and then "it" created human beings. Either directly or by causality.



No.  Absolutely not. No.

Calling it 'God' implies a will; a conscience, a 'guy'.

The only evidence you have of this is whatever book you've been taught (unless you are one of those people with the special 'hearing voices' powers).


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 12, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> No.  Absolutely not. No.
> 
> Calling it 'God' implies a will; a conscience, a 'guy'.
> 
> The only evidence you have of this is whatever book you've been taught (unless you are one of those people with the special 'hearing voices' powers).



If you believe that this singularity kick started the universe then causality tells us it is your creator. Correct? Might I add this singularity is not possible within today's laws of physics. So 1) the singularity created you and 2) you have to have faith that it created you because you can't prove it...man that's starting to sound an awful lot like a deity.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 12, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> If you believe that this singularity kick started the universe then causality tells us it is your creator. Correct? Might I add this singularity is not possible within today's laws of physics. So 1) the singularity created you and 2) you have to have faith that it created you because you can't prove it...man that's starting to sound an awful lot like a deity.



Which part?  The singularity got lonely or bored?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2013)

No decision making deity involved.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2013)

We know more and more the longer we exist. The longer we are able to survive as a species hopefully the more we will learn. So far the more we have learned the less likely it seems an intelligent creator specifically designed or created anything. Being that we can observe and try to understand only about 4% of our Universe we have a long long long way to go. However we got here may very well and probably is because of something that has always been. I do not for one second think that it is "god" worthy.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 12, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Which part?  The singularity got lonely or bored?



You tell me. It's your god and your bible you're writing. 

Is that the best retort you have to my statement on your singularity having the qualities of what many people call their God? I expected something with more substance.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We know more and more the longer we exist. The longer we are able to survive as a species hopefully the more we will learn. So far the more we have learned the less likely it seems an intelligent creator specifically designed or created anything. Being that we can observe and try to understand only about 4% of our Universe we have a long long long way to go. However we got here may very well and probably is because of something that has always been. I do not for one second think that it is "god" worthy.



It seems to me the smarter we get the more unanswered questions we've asked? Take the Big Bang theory. Huge advancement is science and it coincides with Genesis on the creation of the universe. Before the BBT you could have more easily believed in creation from randomness 

I love how fast we advancing scientifically , but it is sad to see people ignoring evidence that is right there for them to grab onto and consume or if they do it is skewed to the position they've already taken. The difference is that I thrive on faith and it seems like you want to run away from it. Faith is part of our everyday lives. It can help us and hurt us. Tht is why we must research an question it continuously.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2013)

There is not anything that points to a God let alone a specific God, let alone to any of the tall tales of ancient men saying their God did it. I stand my ground and run nowhere because there is nothing worthwhile to have faith in.
If there was no story told about a God that has pre-filled heads with what they think are real events and facts, no one would come to the same conclusions of the Bible just from daily life experiences. Humans would wonder if there was a "super us" responsible for it all, that is human nature but no one would come to the story organized religion tries to pass off. It is easier to jump on the bandwagon and tweak it to suit rather than accept the world and our lives for what it is.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There is not anything that points to a God let alone a specific God, let alone to any of the tall tales of ancient men saying their God did it. I stand my ground and run nowhere because there is nothing worthwhile to have faith in.
> If there was no story told about a God that has pre-filled heads with what they think are real events and facts, no one would come to the same conclusions of the Bible just from daily life experiences. Humans would wonder if there was a "super us" responsible for it all, that is human nature but no one would come to the story organized religion tries to pass off. It is easier to jump on the bandwagon and tweak it to suit rather than accept the world and our lives for what it is.



I've already said this a couple of times in this thread. The point of the OP is directed at Atheist, not Agnostics. If you believe in a prime mover I include you as an Agnostic. We can debate the merits of which faith is right,  wrong, or neither in ANOTHER separate thread .


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 13, 2013)

Well start a few threads us Christians can reply too because you've definitely got my interest. Anyone who can get that in depth,( and it's all interesting in an Asath sort of way), just to ask Atheist if they have a faith in randomness. They've got Asath, we've got Thanatos.
His deepness is shallow compared to this thread. For some strange reason, it all makes since.

I would like to know your belief on how the Christian God is the one who trumps the others so to speak. I could use some help explaining that question myself. My Christian beliefs coexist with science. It appears scientist are always lumped together with Atheist. I don't think that's the case and maybe that's not what you are alluding to. Maybe you are alluding to "we've all got to serve somebody."


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 13, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Well start a few threads us Christians can reply too because you've definitely got my interest. Anyone who can get that in depth,( and it's all interesting in an Asath sort of way), just to ask Atheist if they have a faith in randomness. They've got Asath, we've got Thanatos.
> His deepness is shallow compared to this thread. For some strange reason, it all makes since.
> 
> I would like to know your belief on how the Christian God is the one who trumps the others so to speak. I could use some help explaining that question myself. My Christian beliefs coexist with science. It appears scientist are always lumped together with Atheist. I don't think that's the case and maybe that's not what you are alluding to. Maybe you are alluding to "we've all got to serve somebody."



Hey Art. As stated above I REALLY want to get into why I believe the Judeo-Christian God is the one I have seen evidence enough to place my faith in. I want to create separate post just for that reason. I really look forward to hearing your thoughts in that post. 

Most scientist have been schooled and trained that the only thing they can have faith in is empirical evidence. The irony starts and increases exponentially when they start talking about the faith in the systems and mechanics that runs the universe from beginning to end. It sounds like you and I are on the same page. The more knowledge we gain the more we humble ourselves in front of our God in awe of his creation. People like Asath and the guys who posted above are extremely intelligent. The problem that comes with this superior intellect and reasoning is pride. In my opinion pride is the worse sin of all. It is my biggest fault as well.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2013)

Pride is earned. Pride can come from the result of being duped and then doing something to figure out why so it doesn't happen again. Pride is the result of those accomplishments. 

If You(or anyone) believes that some sort of a God created me in his image and gave me some sort of moral qualities and that God is the cause of who I am and how I came to be today....well did that God give me Pride too? I can have Pride if I believe, just not if I don't believe.......?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If You(or anyone) believes that some sort of a God created me in his image and gave me some sort of moral qualities and that God is the cause of who I am and how I came to be today....well did that God give me Pride too? I can have Pride if I believe, just not if I don't believe.......?



Only if you have free will.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> I've already said this a couple of times in this thread. The point of the OP is directed at Atheist, not Agnostics. If you believe in a prime mover I include you as an Agnostic. We can debate the merits of which faith is right,  wrong, or neither in ANOTHER separate thread .



Once again, no.

A bubbling pile of everlasting space goo doesn't need a conscience to become god.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 13, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> A bubbling pile of everlasting space goo doesn't need a conscience to become god.



And, where did the sapce goo come from......and why did it become something else.....etc, etc.  Something is an OC.

The goo is your prime mover.  Supernatural because it is infinite and created the heavens and the earth.

The difference in your creator and mine is a consience.  Interesting that you would be more willing to believe an unintelligent pile of space goo could create everything we see.....without even trying, jut by being.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> And, where did the sapce goo come from......and why did it become something else.....etc, etc.  Something is an OC.
> 
> The goo is your prime mover.  Supernatural because it is infinite and created the heavens and the earth.
> 
> The difference in your creator and mine is a consience.  Interesting that you would be more willing to believe an unintelligent pile of space goo could create everything we see.....without even trying, jut by being.




At some point it comes down to the "smell test".  The idea of a 'guy' just reeks of superstition.  The life model that I've come up with through my experience indicates random.  

I would prefer you call what happened to the goo 'Prime Motion' as opposed to referring to it as 'Prime Mover' which implies an intent.  

A guy....really?  Be painfully honest.  Where did you get the notion of a 'guy'?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 13, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> A guy....really?  Be painfully honest.  Where did you get the notion of a 'guy'?



"Guy" is the face we put on God.  The notion of what he is comes from tradition.  I got mine from the way I was raised.

Truthfully, "guy" is just that, a face to the name.  God is a deity, or an entity.  Who knows what he really looks like, or if he has form.  Man's "image" could just be a commentary on the existence of a soul.  God doesn't have to look like a renissaince painting.  Heck, he could look like the chik in your avatar, or the mist over a lake....or, he could not look like anything we can imagine, or, he could be invisible 

But, yes, conscience is definitely the difference.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> "Guy" is the face we put on God.  The notion of what he is comes from tradition.  I got mine from the way I was raised.



And you're good with that as a basis for your belief?



JB0704 said:


> Truthfully, "guy" is just that, a face to the name.  God is a deity, or an entity.  Who knows what he really looks like, or if he has form.  Man's "image" could just be a commentary on the existence of a soul.  God doesn't have to look like a renissaince painting.  Heck, he could look like the chik in your avatar, or the mist over a lake....or, he could not look like anything we can imagine, or, he could be invisible
> 
> But, yes, conscience is definitely the difference.



Lets discuss the source of where you derive your concept of how the guy operates.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 13, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> And you're good with that as a basis for your belief?



Logic is the basis of my belief in God (the OC issue we constantly get nowhere with).  I will readily admit that my Christianity requires faith in things I cannot see, or justify.  Now, if I was raised Hindu, or Buddhist, or Islam, I would most likely adhere to those faiths.  I was not, so I do not.

Pretty sure I wouldn't buy into scientology.  



ambush80 said:


> Lets discuss the source of where you derive your concept of how the guy operates.



Sure.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 13, 2013)

Ambush,

In the first post I wrote this,

_"The idea that we are here randomly requires Atheist to believe that we came about through a LARGE amount of random actions/occurrences over billions of years. Fast forward to when life began on earth...In living cells, most catalysts are protein enzymes, composed of amino acids, but in the 1980s another kind of catalyst was discovered. These are RNA molecules composed of nucleotides that are now called ribozymes. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe."
_
How does your theory of the singularity creating the universe fit in with the creation of life on this planet?


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 14, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Once again, no.
> 
> A bubbling pile of everlasting space goo doesn't need a conscience to become god.



From your previous statement on the responsibilities  of Mr.Goo.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a duck.


----------



## Four (Jan 14, 2013)

thanatos said:


> "no scientist has ever observed anything in the universe that is self-creating and self-existing. If you know of anything you may well win the nobel prize. Everything ever observed on this planet and beyond is dependent on something proceeding. There is not a single thing in the universe that is self-existing, and not dependent in nature, including the universe itself





thanatos said:


> either an infinite regress of "dependent" causes where nothing ever has the capacity to bring itself into existence, not ever. Or a non-dependent self-existing first cause, which is ultimately the only philosophical and scientific option to explain why anything exists



ಠ_ಠ


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 14, 2013)

My overall view is that a god could possibly exist. Some consciousness that created things. 

Thanatos, would you agree that your specific thoughts of that consciousness that you call God are just as random as the randomness you are trying to argue against? It looks like Art might agree.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 14, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> My overall view is that a god could possibly exist. Some consciousness that created things.
> 
> Thanatos, would you agree that your specific thoughts of that consciousness that you call God are just as random as the randomness you are trying to argue against? It looks like Art might agree.



I believe in randomness but not that God randomly exist. I believe in the randomness of where the highway wrecks will be today, whose air conditioner will quit working today, or who'll get sick from Chinese food today.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 14, 2013)

Four said:


> ಠ_ಠ



I sure would like some words to go along with the evil eyes...lol. I always enjoy your conjecture...well most of the time anyway


----------



## Four (Jan 14, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> I sure would like some words to get along with the evil eyes...lol. I always enjoy your conjecture...well most of the time anyway



Haha, i didn't want to spell out what i was thinking, hoping someone else would pick it up.

It seems to me that the first text is making an argument that we've never observed anything existing that was self-creating and self-existing. But then in the second text i quoted, you now make a case for something existing that is self-existing and self-creating.

So you're conclusion seems to contradict at least that particular argument.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 14, 2013)

Four said:


> Haha, i didn't want to spell out what i was thinking, hoping someone else would pick it up.
> 
> It seems to me that the first text is making an argument that we've never observed anything existing that was self-creating and self-existing. But then in the second text i quoted, you now make a case for something existing that is self-existing and self-creating.
> 
> So you're conclusion seems to contradict at least that particular argument.



The title of this thread is Faith in Randomness. My faith is in the God of the Christian Bible. Which in my opinion requires less faith than Ambushes' God Mr. Goo. Which theory do you have faith in?


----------



## Four (Jan 14, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> The title of this thread is Faith in Randomness. My faith is in the God of the Christian Bible. Which in my opinion requires less faith than Ambushes' God Mr. Goo. Which theory do you have faith in?



I don't have faith in anything. That being said I don't use faith as a synonym for belief. It makes things confusing.

I'm not totally brushed up with the Mr. Goo God theory, so I can't comment on it. I've certainly set aside the Abrahamic gods, as well as all the other traditional gods.

The new age god definitions all seem just like silly ways to try to save the word.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 14, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> The title of this thread is Faith in Randomness. My faith is in the God of the Christian Bible. Which in my opinion requires less faith than Ambushes' God Mr. Goo. Which theory do you have faith in?





Four said:


> I don't have faith in anything. That being said I don't use faith as a synonym for belief. It makes things confusing.
> 
> I'm not totally brushed up with the Mr. Goo God theory, so I can't comment on it. I've certainly set aside the Abrahamic gods, as well as all the other traditional gods.
> 
> The new age god definitions all seem just like silly ways to try to save the word.



He keeps trying to impose some kind of intent or consciousness where it isn't needed to the goo.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 14, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> He keeps trying to impose some kind of intent or consciousness where it isn't needed to the goo.



Let's see...belief in goo that had no intent or conscience and through the past 14.7 billion years we've randomly or accidentally been created and we the small insignificant human race do have a conscience, or A deity started it all and here we are today. Thanks for reaffirming my belief in something that takes less faith than the theory you proposed.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 14, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> He keeps trying to impose some kind of intent or consciousness where it isn't needed to the goo.



I am still interested in your response on the singularity's affect on carbon based life coming forth on earth.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Ambush,
> 
> In the first post I wrote this,
> 
> ...





Thanatos said:


> I am still interested in your response on the singularity's affect on carbon based life coming forth on earth.



1.  Source of that quote?

2.  Why do people sometimes win the lottery first time they play?


----------



## shane256 (Jan 15, 2013)

That quote also doesn't take into account that trillions of "tries" can be done simultaneously... it isn't "try one, that one didn't work, try another one, that one didn't work..." Think of a soup with billions and billions of 'tries' all at one time and constantly running. Of course, that's just the worst case scenario. Once a few 'working' samples occur, those can be built upon, a failure in one branch of 'tries' eliminates all combinations past that point so they can be 'never tried'.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 15, 2013)

shane256 said:


> That quote also doesn't take into account that trillions of "tries" can be done simultaneously... it isn't "try one, that one didn't work, try another one, that one didn't work..." Think of a soup with billions and billions of 'tries' all at one time and constantly running. Of course, that's just the worst case scenario. Once a few 'working' samples occur, those can be built upon, a failure in one branch of 'tries' eliminates all combinations past that point so they can be 'never tried'.



....but it's so much more warm and fuzzy to think that Vishnu made all this just for me.....


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 15, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> 1.  Source of that quote?
> 
> 2.  Why do people sometimes win the lottery first time they play?



1. Thanatos circa 2013 on Gon forum. Simple math. 
I got the RNA info from a science journal. 

2. Cosmic goo...check. Cosmic good luck...check. Leap of faith tht puts the religious to shame...check.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 15, 2013)

shane256 said:


> That quote also doesn't take into account that trillions of "tries" can be done simultaneously... it isn't "try one, that one didn't work, try another one, that one didn't work..." Think of a soup with billions and billions of 'tries' all at one time and constantly running. Of course, that's just the worst case scenario. Once a few 'working' samples occur, those can be built upon, a failure in one branch of 'tries' eliminates all combinations past that point so they can be 'never tried'.



I'll take God for 4.14951557e180, Alex.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> 1. Thanatos circa 2013 on Gon forum. Simple math.
> I got the RNA info from a science journal.
> 
> 2. Cosmic goo...check. Cosmic good luck...check. Leap of faith tht puts the religious to shame...check.



You mean this blogger _"Dave Dreamer"_?

http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 15, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You mean this blogger _"Dave Dreamer"_?
> 
> http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance



Yep! I though it was online science journal. Great article!

Note: I said this in the opening thread.

"Every where you look in our universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system and on our planet there is order. Let's look at two simple examples. Full disclosure: through my research I've saved some of this data off the internet. Most of it is my thoughts and words but SOME of it is copied from other sources. "

Does the source make this info any less relevant? It's math and what some could argue common sense.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 15, 2013)

Wish Pnome would chime in here.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Yep! I though it was online science journal. Great article!
> 
> Note: I said this in the opening thread.
> 
> ...



Order: Spina bifida?  Cocaine?  Backlashes?  Now you have to come up with some other fable to explain all that mess....

I'm afraid in the case of _Dave the Dreamer_ The source matters.



Thanatos said:


> Wish Pnome would chime in here.



He's around...lurking.....


----------



## pnome (Jan 16, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Wish Pnome would chime in here.



I look at it this way....

There must be purpose.  Otherwise we can't get from nothing to something.  However, this does not preclude the idea that the existence of human beings is a random occurrence.  Only if we make one assumption about this creator can we rule out randomness.  And that is, if we assume that the creator knew what he was creating.  If he knew what he was creating then we are an expected result.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 16, 2013)

pnome said:


> I look at it this way....
> 
> There must be purpose.  Otherwise we can't get from nothing to something.  However, this does not preclude the idea that the existence of human beings is a random occurrence.  Only if we make one assumption about this creator can we rule out randomness.  And that is, if we assume that the creator knew what he was creating.  If he knew what he was creating then we are an expected result.



Appreciate you posting. Now I need you to head over to the thread called Random and share your ideas about the concept of randomness...lol!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2013)

pnome said:


> I look at it this way....
> 
> There must be purpose.  Otherwise we can't get from nothing to something.  However, this does not preclude the idea that the existence of human beings is a random occurrence.  Only if we make one assumption about this creator can we rule out randomness.  And that is, if we assume that the creator knew what he was creating.  If he knew what he was creating then we are an expected result.



Does that include birth defects, abnormalities, dwarfism etc... and the good old built in self destruct mechanism called cancer?


----------



## shane256 (Jan 17, 2013)

pnome said:


> There must be purpose.  Otherwise we can't get from nothing to something.



That's a pretty big assertion... can you elaborate?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We know more and more the longer we exist. The longer we are able to survive as a species hopefully the more we will learn. So far the more we have learned the less likely it seems an intelligent creator specifically designed or created anything. Being that we can observe and try to understand only about 4% of our Universe we have a long long long way to go. However we got here may very well and probably is because of something that has always been. I do not for one second think that it is "god" worthy.



I think that number is way way high. I would say we understand about 4% of our own planet. More like 0.0000000004% of our universe.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Does that include birth defects, abnormalities, dwarfism etc... and the good old built in self destruct mechanism called cancer?



The problem of evil does not elliminate the existence of God.  It just challenges our notions of him.

If God exists, does it really matter whether or not you or I can call him "good?"  If he created the universe, I would contend that we cannot define him according to our standards......they are simply our method of judging him.  God can exist with evil in the world, because evil does not exclude the existence of a creator.

Now.....I put it on a tee for y'all.  Let's hear about how that challenges the common Christian conception of God.  Which is a useless exercise as well, given that you give zero credibility to tht notion, and your efforts only serve to prove that you are right, and we are wrong.

And, who's way is "the only way?"  Perhaps both sides of the fance make such a claim.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> I think that number is way way high. I would say we understand about 4% of our own planet. More like 0.0000000004% of our universe.



I said we can observe and TRY to understand about 4% of our universe.
Meaning currently we can observe 4% of the universe and have a hard time trying to understand even that amount.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The problem of evil does not elliminate the existence of God.  It just challenges our notions of him.
> 
> If God exists, does it really matter whether or not you or I can call him "good?"  If he created the universe, I would contend that we cannot define him according to our standards......they are simply our method of judging him.  God can exist with evil in the world, because evil does not exclude the existence of a creator.
> 
> ...



I didn't mention a thing about evil.

I was talking about "purpose"....are those examples i gave a result of "perfect" design...design with purpose or more likely random happenings when the right combination can't or won't come together in cell growth.


----------



## pnome (Jan 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Does that include birth defects, abnormalities, dwarfism etc... and the good old built in self destruct mechanism called cancer?



Yes.  Why wouldn't it?  I'm not attempting to assign motive here.  Or understand why things are the way they are.  Just stating the obvious that if the creator knew what he/she/it was creating then we are part of that creation and thus, an expected result.


----------



## pnome (Jan 17, 2013)

shane256 said:


> That's a pretty big assertion... can you elaborate?



I elaborate in this thread:
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=616115


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 18, 2013)

pnome said:


> I elaborate in this thread:
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=616115



This^

Pnome talks about everything I've been trying to communicate, but in a smart, simple way


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I said we can observe and TRY to understand about 4% of our universe.
> Meaning currently we can observe 4% of the universe and have a hard time trying to understand even that amount.



We don't even understand our own solar system. Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. How big does science tell you our universe is?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> We don't even understand our own solar system. Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. How big does science tell you our universe is?



11ft .065in smaller than what science tells you it is. Mine doesn't account for egos.   

I guess Pluto is no longer considered a planet because we were able to understand that a little better recently.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 11ft .065in smaller than what science tells you it is. Mine doesn't account for egos.
> 
> I guess Pluto is no longer considered a planet because we were able to understand that a little better recently.



I am sticking up for Pluto! In my book it is totally planetary!!!

I think I will write a song about Pluto and try to make $$ for a charity to have it re-instated!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> I am sticking up for Pluto! In my book it is totally planetary!!!
> 
> I think I will write a song about Pluto and try to make $$ for a charity to have it re-instated!!!



LOL!!!
"We Were A World....."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 19, 2013)

bullethead said:


> LOL!!!
> "We Were A World....."



Gimmicky enough to actually work. "Pluto for Pyrea", "Pluto for Piles", or "Pluto for Palsy". I apologize as I know these are real diseases.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 21, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Gimmicky enough to actually work. "Pluto for Pyrea", "Pluto for Piles", or "Pluto for Palsy". I apologize as I know these are real diseases.



Pluto for Planetation!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 22, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> I am sticking up for Pluto! In my book it is totally planetary!!!
> 
> I think I will write a song about Pluto and try to make $$ for a charity to have it re-instated!!!



Your book? Why? Because it was what you were taught when you were a kid in school? Taught from a book that was written years ago. You may not agree with it, but the book writers changed their minds due to research and evidence. You call it a planet if you'd like to hang on to what you were taught as a kid by an old book. Our kids will believe with the same conviction that it is not... Your mind is molded and stuck in old ways just like theirs are becoming.


----------



## Four (Jan 23, 2013)

This thread reminded me of an episode from an old podcast i used to listen to. The podcast is evolution 101.

It basically spoke about randomness in relation to evolution. It's only about 12 minutes.

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Biology/Evolution-101-Podcast/18776#

Also, here is another responce i've heard to the old creationist argument on chance etc.



			
				 Creationist argument said:
			
		

> Even the simplest of life forms are too complex to have come together by random chance. Take a simple organism consisting of merely 100 parts. Mathematically there are 10 to the power of 158 possible ways for the parts to link up. There are not enough molecules in the universe or time since the beginning to account for these possible ways to come together in even this simple life form, let alone human beings. The human eye alone defies explanation by the randomness of evolution. It is the equivalent of the monkey typing Hamlet, or even "to be or not to be." It will not happen by random chance.





			
				 response said:
			
		

> Natural selection is not "random" nor does it operate by "chance." Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. The eye evolved from a single, light-sensitive cell into the complex eye of today through hundreds if not thousands of intermediate steps, many of which still exist in nature. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet's soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the process operates much faster. How much faster? Richard Hardison constructed a computer program in which letters were "selected" for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. This takes the computer less than 90 seconds. The entire play can be done in about 4.5 days!


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Your book? Why? Because it was what you were taught when you were a kid in school? Taught from a book that was written years ago. You may not agree with it, but the book writers changed their minds due to research and evidence. You call it a planet if you'd like to hang on to what you were taught as a kid by an old book. Our kids will believe with the same conviction that it is not... Your mind is molded and stuck in old ways just like theirs are becoming.



Uh, no, I was totally kidding. My post was only intended to be humerous. I am trying not to be so "preachy".


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 24, 2013)

Nah, that one wasn't preachy.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> I am sticking up for Pluto! In my book it is totally planetary!!!
> 
> I think I will write a song about Pluto and try to make $$ for a charity to have it re-instated!!!



I 'believe' you can do it....lol.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Your book? Why? Because it was what you were taught when you were a kid in school? Taught from a book that was written years ago. You may not agree with it, but the book writers changed their minds due to research and evidence. You call it a planet if you'd like to hang on to what you were taught as a kid by an old book. Our kids will believe with the same conviction that it is not... Your mind is molded and stuck in old ways just like theirs are becoming.



You don't think my history book of 1963 has changed??? What's the difference? Was I wrong to believe it then, and am I wrong because I know differently now? I'm not stuck there, I do have an open mind. The older I get the more I learn. What's the problem with that?
You've never changed your mind about what happened way back when?

ETA I know more about the Bible than I did in 1963, too. See any difference?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> At the very beginning of what we call time there was a spark, an ignition, an explosion to begin this universe. What we argue for, and against is how that happened. In the following words I will submit to you that it takes more faith to believe that this initial event happened randomly over someone having faith in a first mover, or a creator.
> 
> The idea that we are here randomly requires Atheist to believe that we came about through a LARGE amount of random actions/occurrences over billions of years. Fast forward to when life began on earth...In living cells, most catalysts are protein enzymes, composed of amino acids, but in the 1980s another kind of catalyst was discovered. These are RNA molecules composed of nucleotides that are now called ribozymes. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300,  a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe. On top of knowing that improbability here is the reason why it does not make sense. If the universe was created by randomness and it's random chance that human's evolved THEN WHERE IS THE RANDOMNESS AT NOW???
> 
> ...



..the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10^40,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth. --Victor J. Stenger

... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there',  and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 7, 2013)

So you're telling me there's a chance....  ????   - Lloyd Christmas

a chance of 1 in 6 billion doesn't mean you have to try 6 billion times to get it to happen. Each "try" has that chance. If there is any chance, then try it once and it could happen.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So you're telling me there's a chance....  ????   - Lloyd Christmas
> 
> a chance of 1 in 6 billion doesn't mean you have to try 6 billion times to get it to happen. Each "try" has that chance. If there is any chance, then try it once and it could happen.



Precisely.
It could happen on the first try, the last try, or at anytime in between.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Precisely.
> It could happen on the first try, the last try, or at anytime in between.



Furthermore the randomness may be happening innumerable times in a singe primordial drop of water, or in a puddle of water, or in innumerable puddles of water, or on innumerable planets---all at the the same time.

Could be happening right now somewhere.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Precisely.
> It could happen on the first try, the last try, or at anytime in between.





ambush80 said:


> Furthermore the randomness may be happening innumerable times in a singe primordial drop of water, or in a puddle of water, or in innumerable puddles of water, or on innumerable planets---all at the the same time.
> 
> Could be happening right now somewhere.



hmmmmm, either one of you want to show some evidence of this galactic science project taking place where we have seen results anywhere but here on earth?

If it's going on that much, seems like there would be "earths" all over.

It's a moot point, because you still have the problem of where the space goo came from to start the project, without a "scientist".


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> hmmmmm, either one of you want to show some evidence of this galactic science project taking place where we have seen results anywhere but here on earth?
> 
> If it's going on that much, seems like there would be "earths" all over.
> 
> It's a moot point, because you still have the problem of where the space goo came from to start the project, without a "scientist".



Plenty of "earths" around.

Point is valid. Space goo was always around just like your "scientist" that is much harder to prove.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> hmmmmm, either one of you want to show some evidence of this galactic science project taking place where we have seen results anywhere but here on earth?
> 
> If it's going on that much, seems like there would be "earths" all over.
> 
> It's a moot point, because you still have the problem of where the space goo came from to start the project, without a "scientist".



Be serious, you had to be snickering when you wrote this right?
 I mean because your asking others to provide what you yourself cannot. Whereas every star up in the sky provides the probability of an earth like we know it and planets that may be habitable by life unlike ours.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Plenty of "earths" around.


Where? I'm only aware of one.



> Point is valid. Space goo was always around just like your "scientist" that is much harder to prove.



No, space goo hasn't always been around, do you want to go over the fact that matter can't be eternal agian?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Be serious, you had to be snickering when you wrote this right?
> I mean because your asking others to provide what you yourself cannot.


Don't worry about my evidence, I don't have any that you accept, I'm asking for yours.



> Whereas every star up in the sky provides the probability of an earth like we know it and planets that may be habitable by life unlike ours.



You're a man of great faith Bullet.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Where? I'm only aware of one.


Crack open a google search





stringmusic said:


> No, space goo hasn't always been around, do you want to go over the fact that matter can't be eternal agian?


Matter is renewable


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Don't worry about my evidence, I don't have any that you accept, I'm asking for yours.


I'll provide just one of the many examples:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2022489,00.html





stringmusic said:


> You're a man of great faith Bullet.


Fortunately for me your wrong. Unlike your invisible buddy, there are actual real suns and planets that we can see. Some are in the right "zone" as our planet is to our sun. I'm just following the odds, not the imaginations of ancient tribes.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Don't worry about my evidence, I don't have any that you accept



You don't have any evidence of anything outside of your mind. You don't have anything that is acceptable to anyone that asks for actual evidence.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Crack open a google search


If I wanted to figure it out myself, I would have googled it, I want to have a conversation with you about it.



> Matter is renewable



Matter is not eternal.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'll provide just one of the many examples:
> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2022489,00.html


Ok, so there is a planet that has a chance to be kinda like earth. When are you going to provide me with some evidence that there are other earths, with water and food and beings etc, etc. You made the outrageous claim that other earths exist.

I want undeniable proof, not your fantasies, or hope that there are other planets. I want pictures of the beings, I want to drink some of the water off the other planet, and eat some new cuisine.




> Fortunately for me your wrong. Unlike your invisible buddy, there are actual real suns and planets that we can see. Some are in the right "zone" as our planet is to our sun. I'm just following the odds, not the imaginations of ancient tribes.



Nice straw man, but I'm not arguing that suns and planets don't exist. I want proof that other "earths" exists, not just a chance that other "earths" exist. I don't buy into your strong faith.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You don't have any evidence of anything outside of your mind. You don't have anything that is acceptable to anyone that asks for actual evidence.



I just removed your name and put mine, 'cause I could say the same for you.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, so there is a planet that has a chance to be kinda like earth. When are you going to provide me with some evidence that there are other earths, with water and food and beings etc, etc. You made the outrageous claim that other earths exist.


You asked about other earths and I gave you real planets that are similar in distance from their sun just like ours.
Now you want fully stocked grocery shelves and a ticker tape parade.



stringmusic said:


> I want undeniable proof, not your fantasies, or hope that there are other planets. I want pictures of the beings, I want to drink some of the water off the other planet, and eat some new cuisine.


You asked for an earth like planet(s) and I gave them to you.  Nobody, especially me, said anything about these other earths being exactly like ours. But there is undeniable fact that these earth type planets exist. They are within similar distances from their sun as we are and they are of similar size as our earth is. Conditions are similar to ours and they are considered to be as close to our planet as we have observed.
Build your own rocket.






stringmusic said:


> Nice straw man, but I'm not arguing that suns and planets don't exist. I want proof that other "earths" exists, not just a chance that other "earths" exist. I don't buy into your strong faith.


Where is the straw man?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You asked about other earths and I gave you real planets that are similar in distance from their sun just like ours.
> Now you want fully stocked grocery shelves and a ticker tape parade.
> 
> 
> ...


You made this statement....


bullethead said:


> Plenty of "earths" around.


When you said there were plenty of other earths around, I thought you meant there were plenty of other earths around, meaning just like earth, and you have yet to provide any evidence for your assertion.

Showing that other planets exists that are also round and in the correct "zone" isn't evidence for a planet like ours. That's why I want irrefutable evidence that a planet exactly like earth exists complete with water samples and delicious food. Just give me the evidence that it would take for you to believe in the God of the bible.




> Where is the straw man?





bullethead said:


> Unlike your invisible buddy, there are actual real suns and planets that we can see.



You argued the fact that real suns and planets that we can see exist, I wasn't arguing they didn't, hence the straw man.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You made this statement....
> 
> When you said there were plenty of other earths around, I thought you meant there were plenty of other earths around, meaning just like earth, and you have yet to provide any evidence for your assertion.
> 
> Showing that other planets exists that are also round and in the correct "zone" isn't evidence for a planet like ours. That's why I want irrefutable evidence that a planet exactly like earth exists complete with water samples and delicious food.



You change the criteria after the fact. I gave you earths, now you want specific details included to suit your needs. Now it must be "exactly" like earth with water samples and delicious food......
If inhabitants drank lava and the food was not to your taste you would still have left yourself an escape route.
I can't do any more than give real honest physical examples of planets that are similar to ours. You want me to include a bullethead and stringmusic having an internet peeing match on those planets too.........good luck with that.



stringmusic said:


> Just give me the evidence that it would take for you to believe in the God of the bible.


Scientists can see these planets with telescopes and instruments on spacecraft that we sent out to find such planets. Technology is not great enough to get us there yet, but we can see they exist.
On the other hand..
No God, No where, no picture, no physical evidence, nothing.






stringmusic said:


> You argued the fact that real suns and planets that we can see exist, I wasn't arguing they didn't, hence the straw man.


A few of those planets are similar to ours, since you do not argue their existence, you have your evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2013)

I'll give you some reading for the weekend and if you can send me some similar articles that nasa and scientists have found god I'll be sure to read those.
We can chat about each on Monday.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/many-earth-like-planets/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-5...-planet-found-in-distant-suns-habitable-zone/

http://www.newser.com/story/111165/5-new-earth-like-planets-spotted.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/ten-billion-earths/

http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/earth-like-planet-life.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/may-500-000-earth-planets-galaxy-alone-192855359.html

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2022489,00.html


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You change the criteria after the fact. I gave you earths, now you want specific details included to suit your needs. Now it must be "exactly" like earth with water samples and delicious food......
> If inhabitants drank lava and the food was not to your taste you would still have left yourself an escape route.
> I can't do any more than give real honest physical examples of planets that are similar to ours. You want me to include a bullethead and stringmusic having an internet peeing match on those planets too.........good luck with that.
> 
> ...



You said there are other earths, I thought you meant there are other earths, obviously you meant there are other planets kinda like earth.

Those other planets aren't really like earth if they don't have trees and plants and people and food and etc, etc.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You said there are other earths, I thought you meant there are other earths, obviously you meant there are other planets kinda like earth.
> 
> Those other planets aren't really like earth if they don't have trees and plants and people and food and etc, etc.



Cmon string, they may very well have life, water, ice...who knows what but if your looking for an exact mirror image of what we have going on here your only fooling yourself.
I'm not making any wild claims. I am going by evidence put forth by our scientists.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Matter is not eternal.



How is something that can be neither created or destroyed not be eternal?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> How is something that can be neither created or destroyed not be eternal?



One of the best writings by a yahoo user that I have seen on the subject:



> God, The Creator, Trumped By The First Law Of Thermodynamics
> 
> First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed but it may be transformed from one kind into another.
> Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable (E=mc2).
> ...


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> One of the best writings by a yahoo user that I have seen on the subject:



You call it a singularity and we call it God. We have faith that He exist, and you have faith that He does  not exist. Nothing special or different in that quote. It is the same thing we've been discussing for awhile now.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> You call it a singularity and we call it God. We have faith that He exist, and you have faith that He does  not exist. Nothing special or different in that quote. It is the same thing we've been discussing for awhile now.



To a point your are somewhat right. The deciding factor for me is that when I take all available evidence for both sides and I take all the newest information that continually is found and I factor in actual facts I make my choice by actual factual evidence.
Now I am not saying all the information on the side I choose it 100%...yet, but over the years of human advancement we have constantly been making progress in science while the old religious tales have been not holding their own. Faith vs Facts. No problem for a "believer" to look past one to the other for he wants/needs to be right, but please do not insert magical invisible friends to try to explain gaps in what science is slowly but surely figuring out.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> To a point your are somewhat right. The deciding factor for me is that when I take all available evidence for both sides and I take all the newest information that continually is found and I factor in actual facts I make my choice by actual factual evidence.
> Now I am not saying all the information on the side I choose it 100%...yet, but over the years of human advancement we have constantly been making progress in science while the old religious tales have been not holding their own. Faith vs Facts. No problem for a "believer" to look past one to the other for he wants/needs to be right, but please do not insert magical invisible friends to try to explain gaps in what science is slowly but surely figuring out.



I am a big proponent and believer in science and God being in a synergistic relationship. BUT! There are two things that happened that goes against rational belief and the forces of science that run the cosmos. That would be a man who lived a perfect life. Then, that man dying and being raised again 3 days later.


----------



## Asath (Mar 28, 2013)

And you can offer exactly no evidence whatsoever that such a thing ever happened.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

Asath said:


> And you can offer exactly no evidence whatsoever that such a thing ever happened.



Exactley. If I had the evidence that my rational mind craved then I would not need to have faith. This is not easy for me. I'm in a constant battle to beat back my ego and be more submissive to God. If I were a better Christian I probably would not have this problem but I am working on it.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> To a point your are somewhat right. The deciding factor for me is that when I take all available evidence for both sides and I take all the newest information that continually is found and I factor in actual facts I make my choice by actual factual evidence.
> Now I am not saying all the information on the side I choose it 100%...yet, but over the years of human advancement we have constantly been making progress in science while the old religious tales have been not holding their own. Faith vs Facts. No problem for a "believer" to look past one to the other for he wants/needs to be right, but please do not insert magical invisible friends to try to explain gaps in what science is slowly but surely figuring out.



Man! It is convenient that these little beings were placed (or evolved right?) in the perfect PLACE and TIME in the history of our universe to study WHERE and WHEN we are in it. Then, we sit there and use that data to try and disprove that we are here for no reason at all. It just "happened". Irony at it's best...or worst. I urge you to read the book Privileged Planet. Someone posted an agnostic's book review and the review was heavily slanted toward their Godless perspective of their existence rather than an actual review. Even if you do not want to subscribe to the theories in that book there is a LOT of good scientific data in it. In fact I will buy it for you and send it to you if you will read it. PM me your address if you are interested. Same goes to Asasth.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> I am a big proponent and believer in science and God being in a synergistic relationship. BUT! There are two things that happened that goes against rational belief and the forces of science that run the cosmos. That would be a man who lived a perfect life. Then, that man dying and being raised again 3 days later.



We all know each others stance. It is just that if you are going to make claims like that you NEED to, but don't, back them up.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We all know each others stance. It is just that if you are going to make claims like that you NEED to, but don't, back them up.



Neither can you backup that he is not real or that he did not rise from the dead. Back to square one again...you've got your faith and I have mine.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Neither can you backup that he is not real or that he did not rise from the dead. Back to square one again...you've got your faith and I have mine.



YOU made the claims. I asked for proof.
If your stance is that YOU make a claim and others must prove it false then you have already lost the argument because Your claim gets lumped in with all the other folklore, imaginary, campfire tales and local legend that are in the same spot as your Jesus.
I think the odds say Jesus was a real person and he made claims(like many before and after) that he was the son of a god. You say what he did that would substantiate those claims and yet cannot give us any evidence to back it up.
Burden is on you.

Now, I on the other hand just saw Bigfoot and the Jersey Devil in a hip-hip dance off out in one of the local farm fields. The battle was a tie so they both flew up to Heaven.
Prove I didn't.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> YOU made the claims. I asked for proof.
> If your stance is that YOU make a claim and others must prove it false then you have already lost the argument because Your claim gets lumped in with all the other folklore, imaginary, campfire tales and local legend that are in the same spot as your Jesus.
> I think the odds say Jesus was a real person and he made claims(like many before and after) that he was the son of a god. You say what he did that would substantiate those claims and yet cannot give us any evidence to back it up.
> Burden is on you.
> ...



I agree and I've stated before the preponderance of evidence that lead to my FAITH and belief in God. 

You're saying that you are unwilling to make the statement, "Your God does not exist". If you did then I would need to see the proof he does not exist. If you did not have said proof, then you are relying on faith the same as I.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> I agree and I've stated before the preponderance of evidence that lead to my FAITH and belief in God.
> 
> You're saying that you are unwilling to make the statement, "Your God does not exist". If you did then I would need to see the proof he does not exist. If you did not have said proof, then you are relying on faith the same as I.



LOLOLOL you are a riot. NOBODY has seen your god, talked to him, texted him, hit him up on twitter or anything else.
Oh I'll say it, "Your God does not exist"
The sheer absence and non involvement of a god is proof that one does not exist. THAT is the proof. I don't need a shred more than what your god provides for himself and that is ZERO evidence of it's own existence. He can't prove he exists it, you can't prove it, nobody has or can. I submit to you ALL of the evidence that you cannot muster to help your case as my proof.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> LOLOLOL you are a riot. NOBODY has seen your god, talked to him, texted him, hit him up on twitter or anything else.
> Oh I'll say it, "Your God does not exist"
> The sheer absence and non involvement of a god is proof that one does not exist. THAT is the proof. I don't need a shred more than what your god provides for himself and that is ZERO evidence of it's own existence. He can't prove he exists it, you can't prove it, nobody has or can. I submit to you ALL of the evidence that you cannot muster to help your case as my proof.



Your stance is based on not believing the Bible is true. Can you prove the writings in the Bible are not true?  Sure you can doubt them but can you prove Moses didn't speak to God? Can you provide unequivocal proof? Can you? If so do it. 

It's sad/silly when little insignificant people try to use their simplistic narrow minded little brains to reason God out of existence.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> NOBODY has seen your god, talked to him, texted him, hit him up on twitter or anything else.


How does any of that prove or disprove anything? If that's all it takes to prove or disprove anything, then....
We could say the same about George Washington. I am totally relying on other peoples word he even existed, no one today has seen him, texted him, hit him up on twitter or anything else have they? I bet he lied at least once in his life...


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> How does any of that prove or disprove anything? If that's all it takes to prove or disprove anything, then....
> We could say the same about George Washington. I am totally relying on other peoples word he even existed, no one today has seen him, texted him, hit him up on twitter or anything else have they? I bet he lied at least once in his life...



Please stop


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Can you prove the writings in the Bible are not true?  Sure you can doubt them but can you prove Moses didn't speak to God? Can you provide unequivocal proof? Can you? If so do it.



Many have tried to prove God doesn't exist, no one has been successful.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Please stop



I can't........you know I can't.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Please stop



This is why I can not reject my faith.

The universe/universes are infinite and our knowledge is finite. We will never get to the point of having infinite knowledge. Therefore we will always have faith in something. We were "made" to have faith. Do you agree?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Your stance is based on not believing the Bible is true. Can you prove the writings in the Bible are not true?  Sure you can doubt them but can you prove Moses didn't speak to God? Can you provide unequivocal proof? Can you? If so do it.
> 
> It's sad/silly when little insignificant people try to use their simplistic narrow minded little brains to reason God out of existence.



I and others have repeatedly proved that the writings in the Bible are not true. There is no god so Moses did not speak to him. You and I each have the same amount of proof that there is no God. I just accept it.

I am not sure what you mean by the last statement but at 6'1" and 243lbs I am not exactly little, unless your over 7 feet tall then I'll give you that.  If you are saying I am insignificant I sure do take up some of your time and I make a good difference in a lot of peoples lives that are close to me....so STEEE-rike two. And to address your final comment my simple narrow minded little brain is advanced enough to not NEED an imaginary friend to explain the unexplainable and keep the boogy-man away when I'm dead.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Many have tried to prove God doesn't exist, no one has been successful.



Indeed. They can only postulate he does not exist.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> This is why I can not reject my faith.
> 
> The universe/universes are infinite and our knowledge is finite. We will never get to the point of having infinite knowledge. Therefore we will always have faith in something. We were "made" to have faith. Do you agree?



Absolutely not


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I and others have repeatedly proved that the writings in the Bible are not true. There is no god so Moses did not speak to him. You and I each have the same amount of proof that there is no God. I just accept it.
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by the last statement but at 6'1" and 243lbs I am not exactly little, unless your over 7 feet tall then I'll give you that.  If you are saying I am insignificant I sure do take up some of your time and I make a good difference in a lot of peoples lives that are close to me....so STEEE-rike two. And to address your final comment my simple narrow minded little brain is advanced enough to not an imaginary friend to explain the unexplainable and keep the boogy-man away when I'm dead.



In the context of the universe you are nothing and your thoughts and opinions are nothing. You are dew drop evaporating off a blade of grass as the sun warms the air for only a moment on a single day.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> In the context of the universe you are nothing and your thoughts and opinions are nothing. You are dew drop evaporating off a blade of grass as the sun warms the air for only a moment on a single day.



Welcome to the club. Unlike your god we will have at least left our mark.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Absolutely not



Well...that tells us a lot. Thanks for playing. I know you dont give a hoot, but I do pray for you guys. I will continue to do so.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Welcome to the club. Unlike your god we will have at least left our mark.



I will evaporate into heaven and you will evaporate into h ell. 

LoL


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Well...that tells us a lot. Thanks for playing. I know you dont give a hoot, but I do pray for you guys. I will continue to do so.



Don't waste your time praying. Free Will erases it and predestination says I never had a chance. Those are your gods rules.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> I will evaporate into heaven and you will evaporate into h ell.
> 
> LoL



Whatever helps you sleep at night.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Don't waste your time praying. Free Will erases it and predestination says I never had a chance. Those are your gods rules.



...and you should never doubt God's will and nothing overcomes that. He would not be omnipotent if it did. Hope and love man. That's what it's all about. Good night man. Take care and God bless.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Whatever helps you sleep at night.



I dont. My 1 year old wakes me up all hours of the night.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> ...and you should never doubt God's will and nothing overcomes that. He would not be omnipotent if it did. Hope and love man. That's what it's all about. Good night man. Take care and God bless.



Clearly there is ZERO omnipotence involved even if there was a shred of a chance that the god you worship exists. The only book you have that explains him derails his omnipotence and omniscience.

Peace out. I will sacrifice a goat in your name.
Blesses to you in the names of these Gods.
I'll just go with the Greek ones tonight:

Greek Gods: A
Achelois, Achelous, Acheron, Achilles, Achthonian, Acidalia, Adamanthea, Adephagia, Adonis, Adrastea, Adrasteia, Aeacos, Aeacus, Aegaeon, Aegina, Aegle, Aello, Aellopos, Aeolos, Aeolus, Aer, Aesculapius, Aethalides, Aether, Aethon, Aetna, Agave, Agdistes, Agdos, Aglaea, Aglaia, Aglauros, Aglaurus, Agraulos, Agrotara, Agrotora, Aiakos, Aigle, Aiolos, Air, Aither, Alcemana, Alcides, Alcmena, Alcmene, Alcyone, Alecto, Alectrona, Alexandra, Aloadae, Alpheos, Alpheus, Amalthea, Amaltheia, Amarynthia, Ampelius, Amphion, Amphitrite, Amphitryon, Amymone, Ananke, Andromeda, Antaeus, Antaios, Anteros, Anticlea, Antiklia, Antiope, Apate, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apollon, Arachne, Arcas, Ares, Arethusa, Argeos, Argus, Ariadne, Arion, Arion(2), Aristaeus, Aristaios, Aristeas, Arkas, Artemis, Asclepius, Asklepios, Asopus, Asteria, Asterie, Astraea, Astraeus, Atalanta, Ate, Athamas, Athamus, Athena, Athene, Atlantides, Atlas, Atropos, Attis, Attropus, Augean Stables, Augian Stables, Aurai, Autolycus, Autolykos, Auxesia
Greek Gods: B
Bacchae, Bacchantes, Balius, Bellerophon, Bia, Bias, Boreads, Boreas, Briareos, Briareus, Bromios
Greek Gods: C
Cadmus, Caeneus, Caenis, Calais, Calchas, Calliope, Callisto, Calypso, Cassandra, Castor, Cecrops, Celaeno, Celaeno(2), Celoneo, Ceneus, Cerberus, Cercopes, Cerigo, Cerynean Hind, Ceryneian Hind, Cerynitis, Ceto, Chaos, Charites, Charon, Charybdis, Cheiron, Chelone, Chimaera, Chimera, Chione, Chiron, Chloe, Chloris, Chronos, Chronus, Circe, Clio, Clotho, Clymene, Coeus, Coltus, Comus, Cottus, Cotys, Cotytto, Cretan Bull, Crius, Cronos, Cronus, Cybele, Cyclopes, Cyclops, Cynthia, Cyrene, Cytherea
Greek Gods: D
Danae, Daphnaie, Deimos, Deimus, Deino, Delos, Delphyne, Demeter, Demphredo, Deo, Despoena, Deucalion, Deukalion, Dice, Dike, Dione, Dionysos, Dionysus, Dioscuri, Dithyrambos, Doris, Dryades, Dryads
Greek Gods: E
Echidna, Echo, Eileithyia, Eirene, Ekhidna, Ekho, Electra, Electra(2), Electra(3), Elektra, Eleuthia, Elpis, Empousa, Empousai, Empusa, Enosichthon, Enyalius, Enyo, Eos, Epaphos, Epaphus, Ephialtes, Epimeliades, Epimeliads, Epimelides, Epimetheus, Epiona, Epione, Epiphanes, Erato, Erebos, Erebus, Erichthoneus, Erichthonius, Erinyes, Eris, Eros, Erotes, Erymanthean Boar, Erymanthian Boar, Erytheia, Erytheis, Erythia, Ether, Eumenides, Eunomia, Euphrosyne(2), Europa, Euros, Eurus, Euryale, Eurybia, Eurydice, Eurynome, Eurystheus, Euterpe
Greek Gods: F
Fates, Furies
Greek Gods: G
Ga, Gaea, Gaia, Gaiea, Galeotes, Ganymede, Ganymedes, Ge, Geryon, Geryones, Geyron, Glaucus, Gorgons, Graces, Graeae, Graiae, Graii, Gratiae, Gyes, Gyges
Greek Gods: H
Hades, Haides, Halcyone, Hamadryades, Hamadryads, Hapakhered, Harmonia, Harmony, Harpies, Harpocrates, Harpyia, Harpyiai, Hebe, Hecate, Hecatoncheires, Hecatonchires, Hekate, Hekatonkheires, Helen, Helice, Helios, Helius, Hemera, Hemere, Hephaestus, Hephaistos, Hera, Heracles, Herakles, Hermaphroditos, Hermaphroditus, Hermes, Hespera, Hesperethousa, Hesperia, Hesperides, Hesperids, Hesperie, Hesperis, Hesperos, Hesperus, Hestia, Himeros, Hippolyta, Hippolytos, Hippolytta, Hippolytus, Hope, Horae, Horai, Hyacinthus, Hyades, Hydra, Hydriades, Hydriads, Hygeia, Hygieia, Hymen, Hymenaeus, Hymenaios, Hyperion, Hypnos, Hypnus, Hyppolyta, Hyppolyte
Greek Gods: I
Iacchus, Iambe, Iapetos, Iapetus, Ilithyia, Ilythia, Inachus, Ino, Io, Ion, Iphicles, Irene, Iris
Greek Gods: J
No deities currently known - Godchecker.com
Greek Gods: K
Kadmos, Kalais, Kalliope, Kallisto, Kalypso, Kekrops, Kelaino, Kerberos, Keres, Kerkopes, Keto, Khaos, Kharon, Kharybdis, Kheiron, Khelone, Khimaira, Khione, Khloris, Khronos, Kirke, Kleio, Klotho, Klymene, Koios, Komos, Kore, Kottos, Krios, Kronos, Kronus, Kybele, Kyklopes, Kyrene
Greek Gods: L
Lachesis, Laertes, Lakhesis, Lamia, Lampetia, Lampetie, Leda, Leimoniades, Leimoniads, Lethe, Leto, Limoniades, Limoniads, Linus
Greek Gods: M
Maenads, Maia, Maiandros, Maliades, Mares of Diomedes, Meandrus, Medea, Medousa, Medusa, Meliades, Meliads, Meliai, Melidae, Melpomene, Memnon, Menoetius, Menoitos, Merope, Metis, Minos, Minotaur, Mnemosyne, Modesty, Moirae, Moirai, Momos, Momus, Mopsus, Mormo, Mormolykeia, Morpheus, Mount Olympus, Mousai, Muses, Myiagros
Greek Gods: N
Naiades, Naiads, Naias, Nemean Lion, Nemeian Lion, Nemesis, Nephele, Nereides, Nereids, Nereus, Nike, Nikothoe, Niobe, Nix, Nomios, Nona, Notos, Notus, Nox, Nymphai, Nymphs, Nyx
Greek Gods: O
Oannes, Obriareos, Oceanides, Oceanids, Oceanus, Ocypete, Odysseus, Oeager, Oeagrus, Oenomaus, Oinone, Okeanides, Okypete, Okypode, Okythoe, Olympus, Omphale, Oreades, Oreads, Oreiades, Oreiads, Oreithuia, Oreithyia, Orion, Orithyea, Orithyia, Orpheus, Orphus, Orth, Orthrus, Ossa, Otus, Ourania, Ouranos
Greek Gods: P
Paeon, Paieon, Paion, Pallas, Pallas(2), Pallas(3), Pallas(5), Pallas Athena, Pan, Panacea, Panakeia, Pandemos, Pandora, Pasiphae, Pasithea, Pegasos, Pegasus, Pelops, Pemphredo, Penia, Penie, Perse, Perseis, Persephone, Perseus, Persis, Perso, Petesuchos, Phaethousa, Phaethusa, Phaeton, Phantasos, Phema, Pheme, Phemes, Philammon, Philomenus, Philyra, Philyre, Phobetor, Phobos, Phobus, Phoebe, Phoebe(2), Phoibe, Phorcys, Phorkys, Phospheros, Pleiades, Ploutos, Plutus, Podarge, Podarke, Pollux, Polyhymnia, Polymnia, Polyphemos, Polyphemus, Pontos, Pontus, Poros, Porus, Poseidon, Priapos, Priapus, Prometheus, Proteus, Psyche, Pyrrha, Python
Greek Gods: Q
No deities currently known - Godchecker.com
Greek Gods: R
Rhadamanthus, Rhadamanthys, Rhamnusia, Rhea, Rheia
Greek Gods: S
Sabazius, Salmoneus, Sarapis, Sarpedon, Scamander, Scylla, Seilenos, Seirenes, Selene, Semele, Serapis, Sibyl of Cumae, Sibyls, Silenos, Silenus, Sirens, Sisyphus, Sito, Skamandros, Skylla, Spercheios, Spercheus, Sperkheios, Sphinx(2), Sterope, Stheno, Stymphalian Birds, Stymphalion Birds, Styx, Syrinx
Greek Gods: T
Tantalus, Tartaros, Tartarus, Taygete, Telchines, Telkhines, Terpsichore, Terpsikhore, Tethys, Thalassa, Thaleia, Thalia, Thamrys, Thanatos, Thanatus, Thanotos, Thaumas, Thea, Thebe, Theia, Thelxinoe, Themis, Theseus, Thetis, Thetys, Three Fates, Titanes, Titanides, Titans, Tithonus, Triptolemos, Triptolemus, Triton, Tritones, Tyche, Tykhe, Typhoeus, Typhon
Greek Gods: U
Ulysses, Urania, Uranus
Greek Gods: V
No deities currently known -
Greek Gods: W
No deities currently known -
Greek Gods: X
Xanthos, Xanthus
Greek Gods: Y
No deities currently known -
Greek Gods: Z
Zephyros, Zephyrs, Zephyrus, Zetes, Zethes, Zethus, Zeus


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Clearly there is ZERO omnipotence involved even if there was a shred of a chance that the god you worship exists. The only book you have that explains him derails his omnipotence and omniscience.
> 
> Peace out. I will sacrifice a goat in your name.
> Blesses to you in the names of these Gods.
> I'll just go with the Greek ones tonight:



The fact that you can state clearly you understand how the will of man and the will of God works together when countless other theologians spend their whole livies trying to figure this principle out shows the hubris it takes to claim, "God does not exist".


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> The fact that you can state clearly you understand how the will of man and the will of God works together when countless other theologians spend their whole livies trying to figure this principle out shows the hubris it takes to claim, "God does not exist".



I'm a quick learner


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> The fact that you can state clearly you understand how the will of man and the will of God works together when countless other theologians spend their whole livies trying to figure this principle out shows the hubris it takes to claim, "God does not exist".



There are people that run around the woods, dedicating their lives to studying "Typical 'Squatch Behavior" and not a single one of them has ever or will ever actually observe a "squatch". Yet they are "experts"
The same can be said of your theologians. The reason they can't figure it out is because they are looking for the impossible. They can't figure it out because there is absolutely nothing to figure out.
It does not take much to be an expert of nothing.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There are people that run around the woods, dedicating their lives to studying "Typical 'Squatch Behavior" and not a single one of them has ever or will ever actually observe a "squatch". Yet they are "experts"
> The same can be said of your theologians. The reason they can't figure it out is because they are looking for the impossible. They can't figure it out because there is absolutely nothing to figure out.
> It does not take much to be an expert of nothing.



You are comparing Cryptozoology to Christianity....If you want people to take you seriously then be serious.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> You are comparing Cryptozoology to Christianity....If you want people to take you seriously then be serious.



There are just as many people that study every other religion as in depth as they study your Christianity. Every single one of you are in the same sinking boat and the Captain is not only not staying with the ship....there never was a Captain.
Now I am comparing religion to religion. Serious enough for you?


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There are just as many people that study every other religion as in depth as they study your Christianity. Every single one of you are in the same sinking boat and the Captain is not only not staying with the ship....there never was a Captain.
> Now I am comparing religion to religion. Serious enough for you?



Better logic for sure. The problem is that the boat you're on is sinking too you just don't believe it is.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Better logic for sure. The problem is that the boat you're on is sinking too you just don't believe it is.



Why because every day in the news there is more and more evidence of any gods, let alone your god?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Better logic for sure. The problem is that the boat you're on is sinking too you just don't believe it is.



OR wait, I am missing out on what your God provides in an afterlife so I am on a sinking boat by not joining the party?
Well I have a couple billion others in with me that are bailing water and the boat is still afloat.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Better logic for sure. The problem is that the boat you're on is sinking too you just don't believe it is.



As far as being Atheists I have you by ONE less God. For the same reasons that you use to rule out all those others Gods I use against yours. You think it is absurd for others to worship the phony jibberish that they think is real. And you do all that while pulling the same stunt. You don't have a single thing that stands out to make your god any more believable than any of the others and you DON'T tell me I am wrong for not believing in ALL of the same ones that you refuse to believe in but I am wrong because I lump yours into the same group. OK buddy. 10-4


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> As far as being Atheists I have you by ONE less God. For the same reasons that you use to rule out all those others Gods I use against yours. You think it is absurd for others to worship the phony jibberish that they think is real. And you do all that while pulling the same stunt. You don't have a single thing that stands out to make your god any more believable than any of the others and you DON'T tell me I am wrong for not believing in ALL of the same ones that you refuse to believe in but I am wrong because I lump yours into the same group. OK buddy. 10-4



I get so tired of posting the same thing over and over...ive stated my beliefs and the evidence of the Judeo Christian God before. I will do it again I suppose. I need to write a whole post so when it comes up again I can link it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> I get so tired of posting the same thing over and over...ive stated my beliefs and the evidence of the Judeo Christian God before. I will do it again I suppose. I need to write a whole post so when it comes up again I can link it.



If it was noteworthy it would not be so soon forgotten. Evidence that you accept and evidence that is unquestionable are two very different things.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If it was noteworthy it would not be so soon forgotten. Evidence that you accept and evidence that is unquestionable are two very different things.



From your Atheist viewpoint looking into Christianity, do you have a choice to be a Christian? In other words, when you did believe, did you or do you now have a choice to be a Christian or did our Potter, not yours, form you for another reason? Maybe your formation was to strengthen our faith. Kinda bad that you are collateral damage for Christians who do believe that is your mission.
I don't follow that belief. Now I'm going to have to research how many Christians follow election vs freewill.
I wonder what God's mission was to promise you Salvation and then snatch it form you if you did once believe and now you don't?  That's why I believe it's your choice, I can't see God letting you think you have salvation only to change your mind and think you don't have salvation.
Wow, it just got confusing. Isn't that exactly what God did to the Jews? Just when I think I've got it figured out, something like this enters my mind. It's way past my bed time, hopefully through prayer, dreams, and a good nights sleep, i'll have more insight.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> From your Atheist viewpoint looking into Christianity, do you have a choice to be a Christian? In other words, when you did believe, did you or do you now have a choice to be a Christian or did our Potter, not yours, form you for another reason? Maybe your formation was to strengthen our faith. Kinda bad that you are collateral damage for Christians who do believe that is your mission.
> I don't follow that belief. Now I'm going to have to research how many Christians follow election vs freewill.
> I wonder what God's mission was to promise you Salvation and then snatch it form you if you did once believe and now you don't?  That's why I believe it's your choice, I can't see God letting you think you have salvation only to change your mind and think you don't have salvation.
> Wow, it just got confusing. Isn't that exactly what God did to the Jews? Just when I think I've got it figured out, something like this enters my mind. It's way past my bed time, hopefully through prayer, dreams, and a good nights sleep, i'll have more insight.



I think it is much more simple than that. You are here. I am here. No god is here. Occam's Razor. It is usually the most simple solution. Things are what they are.
Free Will. Predestined. Excuses for whichever situation arises that one or the other will fit, but if either one is true they cancel the other out. Can't have both.


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think it is much more simple than that. You are here. I am here. No god is here. Occam's Razor. It is usually the most simple solution. Things are what they are.
> Free Will. Predestined. Excuses for whichever situation arises that one or the other will fit, but if either one is true they cancel the other out. Can't have both.



Unless there is a God that gave man free will and the ability to use that inside of God's own will


----------



## Thanatos (Mar 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If it was noteworthy it would not be so soon forgotten. Evidence that you accept and evidence that is unquestionable are two very different things.



Why do you  say my God can not exist when I can not produce this unquestionable evidence when you can not produce unquestionable proof of your own theory of how we began? Is that not a double standard? We base all of our decisions and have faith in ideas, people on the information we are given.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 31, 2013)

Hilarious!!! No one can disprove anything. It is not possible. Someone talked about the "fact" that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It is eternal.

Well, I invite anyone to come up with ANY scientific experiment that includes the variable of eternity. Good luck.

It makes me laugh to see that some people have the utmost faith in something like science, when they don't have a clue how it works.

Don't tell me that my gun shoots blanks when yours shoots backwards. Point the barrel forwards.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 4, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Hilarious!!! No one can disprove anything. It is not possible. Someone talked about the "fact" that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It is eternal.
> 
> Well, I invite anyone to come up with ANY scientific experiment that includes the variable of eternity. Good luck.
> 
> ...



Can matter be created or destoyed oh wise scientist? Can you tell me how the law of conservation of mass/energy/matter is wrong? Any links?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Can matter be created or destoyed oh wise scientist? Can you tell me how the law of conservation of mass/energy/matter is wrong? Any links?



Current observable matter cannot be created or destroyed, but logic tells us that it cannot be eternal either, thus, a supernatural explaintion for how matter came to be is reasonable.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Current observable matter cannot be created or destroyed, but logic tells us that it cannot be eternal either, thus, a supernatural explaintion for how matter came to be is reasonable.



Logic and supernatural should not be used together.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Current observable matter cannot be created or destroyed, but logic tells us that it cannot be eternal either, thus, a supernatural explaintion for how matter came to be is reasonable.



I wanna hear the logic part of it!!


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I wanna hear the logic part of it!!



We've went through it before, many times, but I suppose we could go at it again if you'd like.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> We've went through it before, many times, but I suppose we could go at it again if you'd like.



string you make posts about logic(and whatever), we discuss it to death,then you make references to it as if what you've posted before somehow is the definitive version. You suddenly just stop talking about subjects when you run out of substantial replies hoping the others forget about it, then bring it back up later.
Yeah lets talk about it. You post about Triton going past the rings of Saturn.......that logic might work for you but it does not work for others.
We observed and understand less than 1% of the Universe. It is far much easier to send in some supernatural explanation than think that we are the result of a Universe full of complex matters. We have not even scratched the surface of our Universe and people want to go beyond that with claims of a supernatural maker, and not only that but narrow those crazy odds into ONE single maker and understand it's thoughts and intentions.
Yes, lets discuss the Logic of it.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string you make posts about logic(and whatever), we discuss it to death,then you make references to it as if what you've posted before somehow is the definitive version. You suddenly just stop talking about subjects when you run out of substantial replies hoping the others forget about it, then bring it back up later.


The part in red is why I "suddenly" stop talking about subjects



> Yeah lets talk about it. You post about Triton going past the rings of Saturn.......that logic might work for you but it does not work for others.We observed and understand less than 1% of the Universe. It is far much easier to send in some supernatural explanation than think that we are the result of a Universe full of complex matters. We have not even scratched the surface of our Universe and people want to go beyond that with claims of a supernatural maker, and not only that but narrow those crazy odds into ONE single maker and understand it's thoughts and intentions.
> Yes, lets discuss the Logic of it.



Logic is universal, there is no logic that works for you and doesn't work for me.

If A is before B, then B is not before A.

You can look at that scenario any way you want to, but it wont change the logic of it.

I'll bump my Willard thread and we'll discuss this there. 

Ambush is going to be so happy.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

God is supernatural. He exists outside of our natural world. "He" is a man as we are made in "his" image. God must have arms and fingers and toes. This supernatural man lives in a supernatural place. "He" has supernatural friends called angels that live there with him. Anyone that believes in this supernatural man that lives in a supernatural place also becomes supernatural when they die as they now float,fly,ascend, glide, take elevators supernaturally "up" to a supernatural place called Heaven. This place "exists"(supernaturally of course) in a realm outside of our own. Because "he" is supernatural "he" can jump in and out of both the supernatural "world" and the natural world. We actually don't have a single shred of proof of  it's existence but somehow we know all about these supernatural places and people that exist BEYOND the observable Universe(which we have no understanding of) but these supernatural things we have a total understanding of, despite NEVER being observed anywhere at any time by anyone.
Supernatural, naturally illogical.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> God is supernatural.


You got one part right.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You got one part right.



Logically, If that is right then all the other stuff is right too.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Logically, If that is right then all the other stuff is right too.



Not really. You can't just say "God is supernatural" and then go about making up random things about the definition of supernatural.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Not really. You can't just say "God is supernatural" and then go about making up random things about the definition of supernatural.



Whoa fella, I didn't make up anything. I used your supernatural buddies book.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Current observable matter cannot be created or destroyed, but logic tells us that it cannot be eternal either, thus, a supernatural explaintion for how matter came to be is reasonable.



Without using willard can you explain how stuff that cannot be created or destroyed NOT be eternal?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Without using willard can you explain how stuff that cannot be created or destroyed NOT be eternal?



Willard can't either.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 4, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Can matter be created or destoyed oh wise scientist? Can you tell me how the law of conservation of mass/energy/matter is wrong? Any links?



As a wise scientist I would answer,"I don't know." to both questions you posed.

That is my point oh wisen heimer.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> As a wise scientist I would answer,"I don't know." to both questions you posed.
> 
> That is my point oh wisen heimer.



Tell us about the one thing that you know for certain and how you know it.  Any believers can answer.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Tell us about the one thing that you know for certain and how you know it.  Any believers can answer.



Philosophically and scientifically, nothing is certain.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 6, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Philosophically and scientifically, nothing is certain.



Yet you claim that you know god is real, the bible is the truth, and an absolute truth exsists.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 6, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Yet you claim that you know god is real, the bible is the truth, and an absolute truth exsists.



I have faith in these things. Why do you have such a hard time discerning between knowing and believing?


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

I wonder out of all the space and time embodied by the universe how much of it contains life. Sure seems like a lot of lifeless space and time to be designed with us in mind.


----------

