God is almost omnipotent. He has many limits

by Greatest I am Tue May 29, 2012 9:11 pm

First topic message reminder :

God is almost omnipotent. He has many limits.

Omnipotent is defined in part as having power or authority without limits IOW, almighty.

Seems to me that God has a few limits.

He cannot reproduce true.
He cannot enjoy sex.
He cannot reproduce without bestiality or cross species breeding.
He can only reproduce half breed chimeras like Jesus.
He could not create a heaven without Satan.
He could not create Eden without evil in it.
He cannot control wayward demons or devils.
He cannot sin, although scripture says he does.
He cannot live without needs like adoration, honour, obedience, love.
He cannot accept a soul into heaven without us accepting Jesus and human sacrifice.
He could not forgive sin without having Jesus sacrificed.
Feel free to add to this list.

How then can Christians say that God omnipotent, all-powerful and without limits when he clearly has many?

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:46 pm

polyglide wrote:As I have tried to expain previously, you do not take everything in a literal sense.
....
You cannot have something from nothing ....

That sort of unequivocal statement is sometimes described as giving hostages to fortune. You can certainly have the appearance of producing something from nothing - ask any Wall Street bond salesman about derivatives. In the school laboratory, two invisible gasses - Hydrogen and Oxygen - can readily be combined to produce a liquid - Water.

by Tosh Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:00 pm

Good evening Oftenwrong,

The problem with the " Kalam "cosmological argument is in its premise, one cannot take causation principles from our universe and apply them outside our universe. It is an illogical premise which renders the conclusion as a logical fallacy.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:28 pm

Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Spock.

by Greatest I am Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:30 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Spock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbg6xoS3K3U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBxFXQy7-M

Regards
DL

by Guest Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:28 am

polyglide wrote:
You cannot have something from nothing…

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Everything that is, was, and ever will be from nothing. Since then, nothing has been created or uncreated, a fundamental truth finally (3100 years later?) verified by scientists.

by True Blue Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:43 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
polyglide wrote:
You cannot have something from nothing…

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Everything that is, was, and ever will be from nothing. Since then, nothing has been created or uncreated, a fundamental truth finally (3100 years later?) verified by scientists.

LOL... polyglide has given support to the existence of god... because... you cannot have something from nothing... therefore, something came from something... LOL.

Polyglide... back to the drawing board for you. ROB has supported your claim by showing that God was the something from which came something. So all is right in the world and no universal no nos have been confounded.

by Guest Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:04 am

“Ozzie” (True Blue),

The following makes my head hurt. “In the beginning”, decent Hebrew transliteration “b’r’shythe”, is connotatively a “pinpoint” location in time and space “prior to” the existence of time and pace. In fact, b’r’shythe is “prior to” matter and energy, forces (electromagnetic, gravity, strong, and weak), and everything else within existence; thus, at b’r’shythe, there is nothing.

So Elohim, the transliterated word we translate “God”, the pre-existent incalculable, immeasurable power by which existence come into existence, is there at “nothing.”

Chew on that rag for awhile. I’m taking a couple of Tylenols.

by True Blue Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:33 am

Phunnie... you are asking an atheist to puzzle that one through eh? Well, lucky for you, being a Hedonist and all... It gives me pleasure to assist your thinking. Smile

First up, there are two perspectives at work... God's perspective and the Human perspective... and it is that tension on perspectives in which the word 'nothing' operates.

From a Human perspective... if there is no universe, there is nothing. From a God perspective... if there is no universe, there is merely no universe... God existence is not dependant upon a universe in existence.

In the beginning... is a reference to the beginning of man and his relationship to god.

by Guest Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:54 am

True Blue wrote:
Phunnie... you are asking an atheist to puzzle that one through eh?

All men (gender inclusive) are ha adama, “… IN THE INAGE OF Elohim created he him, male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26).

True Blue wrote:
It gives me pleasure to assist your thinking.

Thank you.

True Blue wrote:
First up, there are two perspectives at work... God's perspective and the Human perspective... and it is that tension on perspectives in which the word 'nothing' operates.

From a Human perspective... if there is no universe, there is nothing. From a God perspective... if there is no universe, there is merely no universe... God existence is not dependant upon a universe in existence.

Almost. God’s existence (YHVH Elohim’s existence), as you’ve stated, is not dependent upon the universe’s existence. Go one step further; God exists “when” nothing exists.

True Blue wrote:
In the beginning... is a reference to the beginning of man and his relationship to god.

I’ve slightly altered your statement so that I can respond to your statement.

True Blue wrote:
In the beginning... is a reference to the beginning of man and his relationship to [YHVH Elohim].

“In the beginning”, “b’r’shythe”, is a reference to “the singularity” of Big Bang.

by Tosh Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:15 pm

In the beginning... is a reference to the beginning of man and his relationship to god.

Sumerians considered the hunter-gatherer tribes outside their walls and laws as animals, being human meant being civilised and moral. The Jews took it one step further, humanity began with and was created by the word of God, the Christians chipped in: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

It seems to me God was the personnification of universal morality, our primitive ancestors worshipped Gods that protected them from natural threats, urbanisation, farming, domestication of animals minimised most natural threats. However social complexity and vast numbers created an even bigger survival threat, a variety of tribalistic/familiar morals and customs in a non-tribal/non familiar environment. They created a divine authority of universal law and order, human immorality had become their biggest survival threat, morality was simply death and conflict avoidance.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 27, 2015 6:36 pm

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cold+sore+virus+holds+cure+for+skin+cancer

Astonishing success from science yet again, and I'll not gild the lily here listing every disease science has cured, but will note that prayer has not only never been proven to have cured a single patient of so much as a cold, but that research shows conclusively that beyond a placebo effect intercessory prayer had no discernible effect. In one study it actually had a detrimental effect on recovery.

Is anyone surprised though, since theists claim their god thought out and then designed & created all these diseases why would it want to cure them? Theodicy is indeed a thankless task given how absurd it is to claim a benevolent and omnipotent deity created things like cancer, and malaria, to name just two. I look forward to our resident religious apologist justifying the bombastic and totally unevidenced claim that his personal omnipotent deity created everything yet is benevolent despite this, with an equally unevidenced and equally absurd claim that it's all somehow the fault of this chosen deity's puny human creation, ironically for turning out exactly as an omniscient being would have known they would all along. Rolling Eyes

Just to get the ball rolling, why didn't the bible contain a detailed explanation of this cure? That's not much to ask from a being with limitless power and benevolence is it?

by stuart torr Wed May 27, 2015 8:28 pm

Oh prayers be to heaven please come and cure me of this cancer that you gave me in the first place, satan/god?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu May 28, 2015 9:02 am

stuart torr wrote:Oh prayers be to heaven please come and cure me of this cancer that you gave me in the first place, satan/god?

Hi stu. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I'm slightly irreverent here, but you know my concern is genuine and I despise false piety.

The reason I say this is I was minded to ask you after reading your post if you had asked your oncologist whether he or she would lead their medical team in prayer for a remission of your cancer?

It's odd how theists like polyglide like to paint science and scientists as cold and uncaring, and their deity as benevolent and compassionate, yet all the facts indicate the opposite is true if you accept that an omnipotent deity exists.

by stuart torr Thu May 28, 2015 5:04 pm

Sheldon, I was being a bit facicious myself do not worry.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu May 28, 2015 9:25 pm

stuart torr wrote:Sheldon, I was being a bit facicious myself do not worry.

Thank you stu, I knew you'd not take offence. For the record if I thought prayer would help I'd be doing so right now, so I hope you'll simply accept my best wishes for the best treatment medical science can offer in lieu of superstitious hokum.

by stuart torr Thu May 28, 2015 10:44 pm

Don't worry Sheldon,I always know your thoughts are with me.

by polyglide Fri May 29, 2015 1:50 pm

Stu,
Every desease has a cause and most can be traced to the misuse of one thing or another.

Science can only involve that which has been created.

It would be far better to concentrate on not causing illness in the first place, rather than finding cures.

Of course I sympathise with anyone suffering from anything be it physical or mental, having seen much loved ones suffering the most horendoes illnesses etc;

What the scientists fail to see is that there are dark forces doing their very best to influence the gullible and being very successful in doing so.

regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri May 29, 2015 6:54 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu,
Every desease has a cause and most can be traced to the misuse of one thing or another.

That's untrue.

Polyglide wrote: Science can only involve that which has been created.

Nope, that's another lie.

Polyglide wrote: It would be far better to concentrate on not causing illness in the first place, rather than finding cures.

That's gibberish, and the scientific causes of diseases and illnesses does not in any way support your asinine claim.

Polyglide wrote: Of course I sympathise with anyone suffering from anything be it physical or mental, having seen much loved ones suffering the most horendoes illnesses etc; What the scientists fail to see is that there are dark forces doing their very best to influence the gullible and being very successful in doing so.

That's because science doesn't indulge superstitious hokum, science studies the natural physical world, not kiddies ghost stories stories about fictitious spirits demons and hobgoblins. You don;t really believe this crap do you, hells bells.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 30, 2015 10:02 am

It's worth reiterating here, in light of Polyglide's asinine lies, that every disease that has been cured, and all the innumerable medical treatments that alleviate suffering have all been the result of benevolent scientific rigour, while a supposedly omnipotent benevolent deity looked on impotent.

There has been some research into the efficacy of intercessory prayer and the results showed quite conclusively that it had no discernible benefit beyond the occasional placebo effect, double blind clinical trials were conducted of course, but in one test group that knew they were being prayed for it actually had a detrimental effect which the researchers surmised was due to that group feeling pressured to respond to the prayers.

Polio, smallpox, rickets, leprosy, etc to name a very small few, have all been cured, treated or even eradicated due to the benevolent efforts of science, and science conducts untold medical research, much of it based on the science of evolution of course, that alleviates the suffering of millions, and all while a supposedly benevolent deity with limitless power looked on and did nothing. Exactly the response we'd expect from a fictional non-existent deity in reality, whose claimed characteristics defy are refuted by all the evidence of our situation and by any logical rational argument. Benevolent beings don't create untold suffering, or even allow it, especially if they have limitless power and can stop it all instantly, and hokum satanic fantasies that are as unevidenced and implausible as the existence of the deity itself are hardly rational responses to these objections. Especially since this fictional bad guy could easily be stopped by a being with omnipotence, and all claims that restrict this deity's choices also restrict its power and destroy the very religious claims for it's existence.

by polyglide Sat May 30, 2015 10:36 am

Stu,
I just wish that Dr, Sheldon could realise that God according to the belief of Christians, God cannot at this time do anything about that which Satan is responsible for.

If Satan was not at large and attempting to sway the gullible, often by the scientist's assistance, with a load of, it evolved from this into that, with odds gainst such events being beyond 10 to the power of millions, then God would and could sort Satan out, however, Satan's time will shortly be up and then God will sort matters out.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 30, 2015 2:19 pm

polyglide wrote: God cannot at this time do anything about that which Satan is responsible for.

So he's not omnipotent then? So he's not god then? Either he is omnipotent and nothing is impossible by definition, or he is not, in which case your religions claims start to unravel. What is there to realise here? You making unevidenced claims doesn't constitute a complex piece of evidence that is hard to understand, it represent bare claims that have innate logical contradictions, and I simply dismiss such claims as per Hitchen's razor, but of course take the time to point out the logical contradictions in claiming a being exists with omnipotence but as you have just said again "can't do something."

Polyglide wrote: If Satan was not at large and attempting to sway the gullible, often by the scientist's assistance, with a load of, it evolved from this into that, with odds gainst such events being beyond 10 to the power of millions, then God would and could sort Satan out, however, Satan's time will shortly be up and then God will sort matters out.

You have no evidence that a being such as Satan exists, beyond pointing to the world we live in, and blithely claiming there you go, which of course isn't evidence at all. Just why you're incapable of understanding that any limitation of what your deity can do would negate the claim it is omnipotent I don't know, I really can't dumb it down any more. Omnipotence means limitless power, there is nothing that can't be done by such a being, yet here again you claim there is something it can't do. Or you then switch to it being a choice which of course would contradict the claims that such a being is benevolent. There is a reason theologians have struggled with theodicy for thousands of years you know, geniuses with minds able to understand and explain the most complex philosophical arguments. Yet the hubris you exhibit here again with unashamed claims to have solved it is quite breathtaking.

Your comments on science speak for themselves of course, and I'll happily let others read and then decide if the claim that science isn't valid because of a satanic conspiracy is worthy of anything other than outright derision. Though again it's worth perhaps pointing out that Satan only seems bothered to fiddle with scientific claims that contradict bronze age superstition, not very a cunning deceiver if this was true, in fact quite a stupid clumsy and utterly transparent demon.

by stuart torr Sat May 30, 2015 2:42 pm

You see Sheldon,instead of answering you,he has a go at you through myself does he not? Laughing

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 30, 2015 2:55 pm

stuart torr wrote:You see Sheldon,instead of answering you,he has a go at you through myself does he not?

It's sad that he can't see how childish that is, or how it makes him appear, yet he keeps coming back to preach. It's obvious he can't take cynical criticisms of his beliefs, which I can understand, but then why come to a forum designed precisely for such discussion and pretend to involve himself in it. He'd be far happier on a site where theists exchange sound-bites and platitudes that reaffirm their beliefs, and contention is limited to theological discussions between believers.

by stuart torr Sat May 30, 2015 3:17 pm

Actually Sheldon he would like to discuss things other than religion, so I have told him to do so as this is basically a political forum is it not?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 30, 2015 3:22 pm

stuart torr wrote:Actually Sheldon he would like to discuss things other than religion, so I have told him to do so as this is basically a political forum is it not?

Well he doesn't really want to discuss religion as much as preach it. Perhaps he'd be better off in the politics thread. It might involve more realistic claims anyway.

by polyglide Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:52 pm

Stu,
I will keep posting as long as you do, as for science curing cancer, this is debateable, only in exceptional circumstances have people been cured.

The thing that should be considered is that science has caused it by several means and it is the cause that should be irradicated with no need for a cure.

I wish Dr, Sheldon could understand the meaning of Omnipotent it would help the thread.[when applied to different situations]

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:57 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu, I will keep posting as long as you do, as for science curing cancer, this is debateable, only in exceptional circumstances have people been cured.

Read the article before making knee jerk comments, as my title referred to a very specific type of cancer for which science has found a hugely successful treatment, the success rates speak for themselves if you had bothered to read the article, instead of making up asinine lies.

Polyglide wrote:The thing that should be considered is that science has caused it by several means and it is the cause that should be irradicated with no need for a cure. I wish Dr, Sheldon could understand the meaning of Omnipotent it would help the thread.[when applied to different situations]

Eradicated, not iradicated (sic) and there are numerous contributing factors that can be a catalyst for cancers, none of them directly attributable to science of course, this is just more of your puritanical hatred of science because it has dismantled so many of your religions "immutable" truths.

Polygllide wrote: I wish Dr, Sheldon could understand the meaning of Omnipotent it would help the thread.[when applied to different situations]

Since you're still pedalling this silly lie I will yet again post the Oxford English Dictionary definition, and if you don't like it, mighty polymath that you are, then I suggest you contact them, and stop blaming me.

omnipotent

(Of a deity) having unlimited power:
God is described as omnipotent and benevolent

by **Ivan** Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:39 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:-
Well he doesn't really want to discuss religion as much as preach it. Perhaps he'd be better off in the politics thread. It might involve more realistic claims anyway.

I share your disgust that anyone could infer disease is usually caused by people’s “misuse of one thing or another”. I can’t imagine how the parents of children born with genetic disorders would react to that remark. It implies that anyone who is sick doesn’t deserve sympathy, since their condition must be all their own fault.

In his book ‘The End of Faith’, Sam Harris wrote: “We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad’, ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional’…….Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.”

There seem to be some striking similarities between how religious and political ideas are formed. Atheists are only convinced by factual evidence, not what Harris calls “beliefs for which there is no rational justification”. I think it’s fair to generalise that in politics, left-wingers are more inclined to use facts. When confronted with some damning evidence, Tory Catholic Iain Duncan Smith’s reply was simply: “That’s not what I believe”. That example, albeit anecdotal, reflects the tendency of many Christians to be right-wing in their politics, even though that second commandment, “to love your neighbour as you love yourself”, smacks of caring for others in the community rather than Tory individualism.

I wish that all of you who use the religion board would venture elsewhere on the forum occasionally, and not just to the politics boards. We have 20 boards, which include history, book reviews, media, sport, word games and amusing tweets harvested from Twitter, and yet 62% of all posts made on this forum are concentrated on just three boards.

by stuart torr Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:00 am

I shall try Ivan,but my memory being what it is at the moment,history would be almost out of the question, and I do not read that much,but I will look at the rest for you.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:04 am

I read Harris's book, though it was some time ago. I may give it another read and venture into the book forum. I am just coming to the end of the portable atheist, quite an interesting read.

Polyglide just despises science, for reasons that are becoming fairly obvious, but to blame for causing disease is as offensive as it is erroneous. I made the point that it's science that cures diseases and discovers and provides treatments that alleviate suffering, while a supposedly omnipotent deity looks on doing nothing. Yet theists like Polygide love to paint scientists as cold and uncaring, ironic really.

by polyglide Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:35 am

Ivan,
I never said or meant that scientists cause all desease.

Take the effects of the nuclear bombs on the Japanese people and even on those exposed to the radiation whilst testing the same

You talk about the babies born with defects do you mean those who were exposed to radiation?.

Science has a place but it has, has several scientists said in a recent dicussion, caused as many problems as it has solved including the means to destroy everything.

Dr, Sheldon has a very narrow understanding of everything and places all on the evidence of the scientists.

The scientists were Adam Ant that nothing could escape from a black hole, low and behold, they are now saying they were 100% wrong, what would have happened if the world had depended on their first scientific opinions and theories, the list is endless.

I have nothing against science, not forgetting it has many different aspects, however, all science has not resulted in being benificial.

.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:05 pm

Polyglide wrote: I never said or meant that scientists cause all desease.

Polyglide wrote: by polyglide on Fri May 29, 2015 2:50 pm
Stu, Every desease has a cause and most can be traced to the misuse of one thing or another.

Hmm..oh what a tangled Web we weave....etc. You certainly implied it.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:11 pm

polyglide wrote: Take the effects of the nuclear bombs on the Japanese people and even on those exposed to the radiation whilst testing the same

That's not the fault of science, humans decide how to apply what is learnt, it's they must take the responsibility, and lets not forget the man who had sole responsibility for deciding to drop those bombs was a Christian, and not a scientist. He was the son of a baptist minister. In stark contrast Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist in charge of the Manhattan project, pleaded with Truman not to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese.

Polyglide wrote: Science has a place but it has, has several scientists said in a recent dicussion, caused as many problems as it has solved including the means to destroy everything.

What scientists are these? What was the context of their "discussion"? It's very telling how often you pluck these discussion out of thin air when it suits you, but refuse to answer when asked who they are, or what the context was, or indeed to evidence your claim at all in any way, so I suspect you're making it up, again. Though again science can not be blamed for how politicians apply what it discovers.

Polyglide wrote: Dr, Sheldon has a very narrow understanding of everything

Whereas your posts indicate you have no understanding at all of anything..preferring to live in a delusion based on a bronze age fantasy.

Polyglide wrote: The scientists were Adam Ant that nothing could escape from a black hole, low and behold, they are now saying they were 100% wrong, what would have happened if the world had depended on their first scientific opinions and theories, the list is endless.

It's lo and behold, not "low and behold". What list is endless? You're not making much sense as usual. Scie ce doesn;t claim to be infallible, whereas your religion does, yet your religion insisted that we lived in a geocentric universe as just one example? Even when a scientist empirically evidenced this was incorrect they refused to accept the evidence and tried him for heresy, just like you and those idiot creationists with their asinine denials of evolution. Where would the world be if science hadn't triumphed and dragged your religion kicking and screaming to the truth? You've been told enough times the fact that science treats all it's knowledge as tentative, and open to scrutiny, is it's greatest strength, it means it can always adapt to new evidence, instead of idiotically and blindly clinging to obviously false doctrines, the way religions do, with demonstrably false claims like creationism.

Polyglide wrote: I have nothing against science, not forgetting it has many different aspects, however, all science has not resulted in being benificial.

You detest science that much is obvious, but then it's equally obvious from your posts you haven't even a basic grasp of how it works. Science has been vastly beneficial, and the few misapplications of science is the fault of those who misuse it, not of science itself. I can't think of a single war fought solely for scientific objectives, yet religion, that could hardly be claimed to be totally beneficial, has been the direct cause of wars, genocides and persecutions too numerous to even list here, and still does. It's beneficial btw, not benificial (sic).

by polyglide Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:47 am

Ivan,
You have not replied to my post,however, before you, do please read Walter Lats's explanation of the origin of diseases etc.

He is well qualified to give an opinion, being a scientist and he explains clearly why science is the cause of most illnesses.

I like to test Dr, Sheldon's appreciation of spelling, he knows nothing else and only because he has a dictionary.

He constantly refers to personal aspects yet indulges in them in every post, strange.

by stuart torr Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:25 pm

One expects a very straight answer from Ivan, as he will give no other, Polyglide why do you dislike Sheldon so much that is one question, and also if you are reading T.G nice to know you are on the forum my friend,just keep looking and you will find us. Laughing

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:58 pm

polyglide wrote:Ivan, You have not replied to my post,however, before you, do please read Walter Lats's explanation of the origin of diseases etc. He is well qualified to give an opinion, being a scientist and he explains clearly why science is the cause of most illnesses.

If he's offered anything more than a subjective personal opinion, i.e. proper scientific evidence then just link his research and the peer reviewed publications that carried it. Or are you plucking another creationist out of obscurity and making a false claim about evidence that is nothing of the sort? Since you don't offer anything beyond the claim I know where my money is,

Polyglide wrote: I like to test Dr, Sheldon's appreciation of spelling, he knows nothing else and only because he has a dictionary. He constantly refers to personal aspects yet indulges in them in every post, strange.

Your spelling is execrable, it's sad then that you don't appreciate someone trying to help, despite the appalling ad hominem you levy at me all the time which have no direct bearing on anything I've posted. Nor are my comments personal either, as they refer directly to your post content, so you really ought to pay more attention on one of the numerous occasions I've taken the trouble to define ad hominem for you, then you might not keep making this very basic mistake. You might even desist from your constant use of childish petty insults in place of cogent response.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:10 pm

stuart torr wrote:One expects a very straight answer from Ivan, as he will give no other, Polyglide why do you dislike Sheldon so much that is one question, and also if you are reading T.G nice to know you are on the forum my friend,just keep looking and you will find us.

Well why don't we post a list of the diseases science has cured, eliminated, or completely eradicated from the planet as in the case of Smallpox, and Rinderpest, and there is another that science is very close to completely eradicating. Life expecting has gone from 43 years at the start of the 19th century to 78 by it's close. The standard of living people can enjoy and the quality of life and medical aid in developed countries is truly astonishing when compared to just 100 years ago. None of those diseases were caused by science btw, but then polyglide hasn't offered one disease or any evidence for his claim. Radiation existed as a causal effect of cancer and disease long before the atomic age, or even science, and oddly enough it causes massive deaths from skin cancer every year, and that is precisely the disease that science has found a highly successful cure for and what prompted my thread title.

BY COMPARISON IT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO ASK WHERE GOD IS?

When we consider that the last public execution for heresy by the inquisition, one of religions major contributions over the last few hundred years, was in 1834 I think that speaks for itself.

I notice in all the excitement Polyglide has again neglected to tell what this discussion was or who took part in it, or what their qualifications are? It's startling how often his grandiose but entirely unevidenced claims about science, when questioned, result in deafening silence. Wink

by stuart torr Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:27 pm

That is until he sends PMs to myself about you Sheldon. Laughing

by polyglide Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:12 pm

Stu,
Just log on to Science the cause of disease.

There are 48 qualified experts in their field who explain in clear terms how science has caused the vast majority of illnesses, mostly through the wrong use of drugs etc;

Then consider, mustard gas, radio active material, nuclear weapons, numerous other chemical, scientifically created weapons etc; and then say science is all good.

by stuart torr Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:02 pm

Forget it Polyglide,as science is helping my disease,it will not cure it, but will help.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:36 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu, Just log on to Science the cause of disease. There are 48 qualified experts in their field who explain in clear terms how science has caused the vast majority of illnesses, mostly through the wrong use of drugs etc; Then consider, mustard gas, radio active material, nuclear weapons, numerous other chemical, scientifically created weapons etc; and then say science is all good.

Care to show where science requires those things to be created or used against people? As I said blaming science for the way people use it is like blaming a rock when someone uses it to stone another person to death, it's asinine. Ah I see more scientific experts are being cited - anonymously of course. No one has said science is all good either, that's just another lie you've made up, though the innumerable good science has done speaks for itself, as opposed to the long history of repression, violence, torture, murder and rapine religions have foisted on the world.

I notice in all the excitement Polyglide has yet again neglected to tell us what this discussion was or who took part in it, or what their qualifications are? It's startling how often his grandiose but entirely unevidenced claims about science, when questioned, result in deafening silence.

by Sponsored content