Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by Tosh Thu May 16, 2013 5:43 pm

There is an evident need to arbitrate the competing claims on this thread, to establish whose "Expert" is more expert than anybody else's Expert.

There is only one expert and it is logic,with no other universes to compare against, to suggest ours is fine tuned for life or designed is simply illogical.

by Tosh Thu May 16, 2013 6:00 pm

According to the logic of some aliens, evidence of God can be found in the fundamental meaning of words, semantics proves God exists.

Laughable.

by Tosh Thu May 16, 2013 6:16 pm

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, OM, FRS[1] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was a British astrophysicist of the early 20th century. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honor.

I find it rather amusing that the ID wackos have to dredge up a physicist born in the 19th century to support their case.

Eddington: He regarded the tantalizing concern for a proof for the existence of God as of minor importance in comparison with "conviction of the revelation of a supreme God." For "consciousness alone determines the validity of a conviction."

A scientist who considers consciousness as sufficient proof of God's existence, this man should have a bone through his nose.

by snowyflake Thu May 16, 2013 7:29 pm

Personal truth is truth.

It is personal truth related to the person only and even then it might not be truth. Just because the person believes it to be true doesn't make it true.

by Shirina Fri May 17, 2013 1:32 am

It is personal truth related to the person only and even then it might not be truth. Just because the person believes it to be true doesn't make it true.

LOL! How true. I remember many times in my life carrying a bag of groceries (or some other large object) up a flight of stairs. Once in awhile, I would believe (as truth) that there were more stairs than there actually were. I believed in those extra stairs ... until I raised my foot to climb the next stair only to hit empty air and nearly lose my balance. My personal truth did not create an extra stair for me to climb even though I firmly believed an extra stair existed.

What you're asserting, Rock, is cartoon physics, a world in which Wiley E. Coyote can hang suspended in mid-air so long as the coyote's personal truth says there is ground beneath his feet. Only when he looks down and realizes there is no ground does the coyote fall.

Reality is not created through our personal beliefs. It never has, and it never will be.

by Guest Fri May 17, 2013 3:04 am

Vera Kistiakowsky, (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

Personal truth: As my armchair onscreen (television and Internet) study of physics continues, I here find myself in agreement with MIT physicist Vera Kistiakowsky.

Personal truth is truth.

by Shirina Fri May 17, 2013 5:59 am

I here find myself in agreement with MIT physicist Vera Kistiakowsky.

Some people never grow out of primitive superstition and arguments from ignorance ... no matter how well educated.

by Guest Fri May 17, 2013 8:08 am

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Full texts of Terms of Use available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Arno Allan Penzias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics.

Penzias was born in Munich, Germany, the son of Justine (née Eisenreich) and Karl Penzias, who ran a leather business.^[2][3] At age six, he was among the Jewish children evacuated to Britain as part of the Kindertransport rescue operation. Some time later,^[4] his parents also fled Nazi Germany for the U.S., and the family settled in the Garment District of New York City in 1940. In 1946, Penzias became a naturalized citizen of the United States. He graduated from Brooklyn Technical High School in 1951 and received a bachelor's degree from the City College of New York in 1954. From Columbia University, he received his Master's degree in 1958 and his Ph.D. in 1962.^[5]

He went on to work at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, where, with Robert Woodrow Wilson, he worked on ultra-sensitive cryogenic microwave receivers, intended for radio astronomy observations. In 1964, on building their most sensitive antenna/receiver system, the pair encountered radio noise which they could not explain.^[6] It was far less energetic than the radiation given off by the Milky Way, and it was isotropic, so they assumed their instrument was subject to interference by terrestrial sources. They tried, and then rejected, the hypothesis that the radio noise emanated from New York City. An examination of the microwave horn antenna showed it was full of pigeon droppings (which Penzias described as "white dielectric material"). After the pair removed the dung buildup, and the pigeons were shot (each physicist says the other ordered the deed), the noise remained. Having rejected all sources of interference, the pair published a paper announcing their findings. This was later identified by Robert Dicke ^[7] as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the radio remnant of the Big Bang. This allowed astronomers to confirm the Big Bang, and to correct many of their previous assumptions about it.

He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1975.[8] Penzias and Wilson received the 1978 Nobel Prize, sharing it with Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa (Kapitsa's work was unrelated to Penzias and Wilson's). In 1977, the two had received the Henry Draper Medal of the National Academy of Sciences.^[9] Penzias is also the recipient of The International Center in New York's Award of Excellence. In 1998, he was awarded the IRI Medal from the Industrial Research Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Allan_Penzias

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

by polyglide Fri May 17, 2013 11:16 am

Shirina, I cannot understand your lack of common sense or the ability to consider anything other than your very limited opinions.

If 99% of people thought you would not get burnt if you put your hand in the fire, presumably in your opinion you would take no notice of the 1%
who said you would.

Since Darwin came up with his idiotic assumption regarding evolution
there has been many more occurances and discoveries that completely discredit his findings that presume life began by chance.

The actaull facts are related in the examples I gave and if you do not accept the findings of the most respected scientists several of whom were evolutionists then their is little hope that anything you say can be considered as reasonable.

by Shirina Fri May 17, 2013 1:05 pm

If 99% of people thought you would not get burnt if you put your hand in the fire, presumably in your opinion you would take no notice of the 1% who said you would.

Wrong. If the 1% could show me irrefutable evidence that my hand would be burned, I would believe them. I don't base my opinions on how popular they are. Atheism in America is VERY unpopular. I base my opinions on factual information, and if only 1% of the population is smart enough to figure out what's true, so be it. I'm no one else's keeper.

there has been many more occurances and discoveries that completely discredit his findings that presume life began by chance.

Oh yeah? Such as what, specifically?

The actaull facts are related in the examples I gave

You haven't given any examples other than, "Oh, I'm so over-awed at the universe that it MUST be God!"

and if you do not accept the findings of the most respected scientists several of whom were evolutionists then their is little hope that anything you say can be considered as reasonable.

Cherry picking a handful of scientists who believe in creationism does not prove creationism. It doesn't even prove that most scientists believe in it ... which they don't. A 1998 article in Nature shows that only 7% of scientists in the National Academy of Science believe in God.

by Tosh Fri May 17, 2013 2:14 pm

Vera Kistiakowsky.

85 year old geriatric who lives and breathes Christianity.....lolol.

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics.

Another octogenarian, do you have any Physicist who is not on life support ?

Side splitting stuff.

by Tosh Fri May 17, 2013 2:27 pm

I see Texas is back to spamming again, he just can't resist it when he is getting pulverized in a debate, but no worries he loves Snowy.

This man screams fake and fraud.

by Tosh Fri May 17, 2013 8:30 pm

As for polyglide, don't get me started, this person is beyond words, he is a throwback to the bronze age.

by snowyflake Fri May 17, 2013 8:40 pm

I think belief in God is like an addiction to drugs with all the physical and psychological dependency associated with addiction. It encompasses all of the characteristics of addiction like delusion, self-loathing, lying, denial, obsession, compulsion.

For believers, God is crack.

by Tosh Fri May 17, 2013 9:53 pm

For believers, God is crack.

For fundamentalists, God is crack.

by snowyflake Fri May 17, 2013 9:58 pm

For fundamentalists, God is crack.

Unfortunately, believers fuel the fundamentalists by their tacit acceptance of religious lunacy.

by oftenwrong Fri May 17, 2013 10:52 pm

There's no substitute for that well-scrubbed sensation of having a pure Soul.

Only the defunct know whether such belief is worth a damn.

by snowyflake Fri May 17, 2013 11:09 pm

Only the defunct know whether such belief is worth a damn.

Unlikely. They're dead and don't know anything anymore.

by Shirina Sat May 18, 2013 8:22 am

I think belief in God is like an addiction to drugs with all the physical and psychological dependency associated with addiction. It encompasses all of the characteristics of addiction like delusion, self-loathing, lying, denial, obsession, compulsion.

It makes perfect sense. Addictions are often psychological - gambling, hoarding, addiction to the internet, addiction to certain emotions, addiction to chocolate ... there are all kinds of addictions.

There is no reason whatsoever to think that addiction to religion and God is not a real phenomenon. It's just that some of us actually made it through rehab.

by tlttf Sat May 18, 2013 8:31 am

An interesting article on how American christian sects see evolution.

The conservative Protestants vying for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination left many mainline Protestants wondering what had happened to their religion, not to mention their country. For most of the United States’ history, science had been the helpmate of Protestants, who viewed it as a gift from God to help them learn about their world and make more pious choices. Those years of persecution back in Europe had also impressed upon them the benefits of building a high wall between religion and government.

Yet here was Ron Paul, a Southern Baptist, rejecting evolution as just “a theory.” Rick Perry, who attends a Southern Baptist church, similarly told a schoolboy that evolution is “a theory that is out there— and it’s got some gaps.”

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/how-americas-endless-civil-war-between-protestant-sects-is-at-the-heart-of-american-identity/34331/

You should read it to perhaps understand the strange things happening in their heads!

by polyglide Sat May 18, 2013 10:53 am

NO Shirina you would have burnt your hand.

Hideki Yukawa in the mid 1930s pre4icted the existance of meson.

Since that time we have also had DNA and all that followed proves beyond any doubt that the highest intelligence is involved in the creation of all forms of life.

You only have to study the make up of DNA to see that, as all life forms depend on it, there must have been a considreable amount of forethought and intelligence involved not to mention the ability to impliment as well as design.

by snowyflake Sat May 18, 2013 11:49 am

Since that time we have also had DNA and all that followed proves beyond any doubt that the highest intelligence is involved in the creation of all forms of life.

The discovery of DNA doesn't prove that God exists. How on earth do you conclude that?

You are saying that because things are complex and you can't understand it, therefore there must be a God. This is the most fallacious logic on the planet.

This is not 'proof' of anything other than DNA is a complex molecule that conveys heritable characteristics from one generation to the next. As DNA is a tracking device that can be traced backwards over time (by genetic mutations and genetic drift) to common ancestors, of which there is a fossil record supported by genetics, chemistry, geology, anthropology, microbiology, paleontology and a host of other -ologies perhaps you can pinpoint for us at what point in time did God make himself known to man? How can you discount all of the physical evidence in support of magic?

Your ignorance of science and your arrogance in your ignorance is to proclaim that because you don't, can't and won't understand something concludes for you that God exists. That's fine. Just stop denigrating others for their own points of view that are based on facts and evidence.

Your God of the Gaps argument is irritating. Either provide real evidence that is not the usual Christian claptrap of 'complexity and design = God' or stop talking. It doesn't prove the existence of God anymore than it proves the existence of Zeus and it's a lazy man's thinking.

by Tosh Sat May 18, 2013 2:30 pm

The symmetry of a snowflake proves God exists, and the common structure of DNA confirms this.

It all makes perfect sense if you lob your brain into the tumble dryer for a quick spin.

by Shirina Sat May 18, 2013 4:44 pm

Since that time we have also had DNA and all that followed proves beyond any doubt that the highest intelligence is involved in the creation of all forms of life.

Even if that were true (which it isn't), you still haven't shown me the proof that this "highest intelligence" is the Christian God of the Bible.

The existence of a creator does not explain why myself or anyone else should subscribe to a religion and suddenly start acting like dolts because of it.

by Guest Mon May 20, 2013 7:11 am

Paul Davies & Hugh Ross (audio)
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={12AF479A-6ED6-4F57-BBF6-D931469DC742}

Astrophysicist Paul Davies & Mathematician John Lennox (audio)
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={CD6D82AC-9A89-41D7-8D9E-F6712260177F}

Paul Davies is a British astrophysicist and popular science author currently based at Arizona State University. An agnostic, much of his writing has focussed on the extraordinary "fine tuning" of the Universe that allows life to exist and why the universe's order and intelligibility defy a purely naturalistic explanation.

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={12AF479A-6ED6-4F57-BBF6-D931469DC742}

by polyglide Mon May 20, 2013 1:03 pm

Start like acting like dolts, you must be kidding yourself, every post you make proves beyond doubt that you should be well pleased at not being called worse.

You ask for a fact, then just come up with the same old nonsense that it does not prove God exists.

There is no absolute proof that God exists, there is absolute proof that life cannot be explained by evolution or any other means.

I have sympathy for the thoughts of Empedocies and there is no doubt that they merits but does not preclude tha existance of God

Even the most stupid person who has any interest in life must come to the conclusion that intelligence is involved in creation and if so the answer is to look for the source.

Shirina and Snowyflake can only indulge in repeating, prove that there is a God.

No sense, no reason, no alternative, just an acceptance that they cannot contemplate the truth.

by Tosh Mon May 20, 2013 11:22 pm

polyglide,

Let us join hands and review your case for God.

1. The universe and nature looks designed, the presence of life seems to compliment this perception.
2. The fine tuned mathematical symmetry of our physical universe infers design.
3. We do not know how life began.
4. The universe may have been created from nothing but in effect we do not know.
5. You do not accept genetic variation and natural selection can create new species, so common ancestry is false.
6. The Bible is true.

Now if I have missed anything out please say.

Okie Dokie,

Points 1 & 2 are valid perceptions albeit subjective, there is no scientist claiming they can prove design, but its something. Lets give both 10 out 20, its a coin toss between random and design = 20/40.
Points 3 & 4 are gaps in our knowledge that you could fit God into, but we could also fit other explanations too. These two are basically " don't knows with no evidence ", lets give point 3 a 3/20 and point 4 a 10/20 = 13/40
Point 5. It contradicts the evidence, plus you want a standard of evidence that is unscientific and unnecessary, lets give it near 0 out 10, 0/10.
Point 6. The god of the Bible is the designer/creator, this gets near 0/10, there is simply no evidence that links the two, its just one idea out of potentially thousands.

So when you add it all up, it seems not bad at 36%, but unfortunately for you a theory is only as good as its weakest link and you have two links scoring near zero, this makes your belief a near zero probability, and that requires blind faith.

Blind faith/zero probability is not acceptable for most Christians in the 21 st century, and they believe in points 1,2,3 and 4, and sort of spiritually attach these concepts to the life and death of Jesus. The main thing is to act and behave like Jesus, its a philosophy of spiritual kindness.

I do not know any creationists or apocalyptics, in Europe these people are considered cranks, and their biggest critics are not atheists but mainstream Christians, they consider you lot a threat to religion, it is causing Christianity as a whole to be ridiculed. Your blind faith is distracting people from the message.

You must know your beliefs are considered to be eccentric if not laughable by most Christians, you are an embarrassment to them.

by Tosh Mon May 20, 2013 11:50 pm

I ask you, what kind of faith needs to stoop to these levels ?

Arguments Creationists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis

Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research. Because there are so many good arguments for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches), we have no need to grasp at straws—arguments using questionable logic and tenuous or no evidence. Answers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible.

Furthermore, there is little harm in avoiding questionable arguments—or, at least, stating that certain interpretations of evidence are doubtful—since there are plenty of valid arguments with well-documented evidences against molecules-to-man evolution, atheism, and the like. Using bad arguments allows evolutionists to easily “refute” creationists by sidestepping the actual case for biblical creation. Even one instance of using a faulty argument can lead someone to write off creationism as pseudoscientific and dismiss creationists as shoddy researchers—or charlatans!

This has to be all about money, nobody tries this hard for free.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

by oftenwrong Tue May 21, 2013 12:13 pm

What was the historical converse of a species becoming extinct?

by polyglide Tue May 21, 2013 3:05 pm

There is no doubt many species after creation have become extinct, many examples of which can be traced by fossils etc;

There also must have been many occurances on earth to substantiate the fact that land matter has been consistantly changed, coal more than one mile below the surface, the result of compressed vegitation etc.

We know that dinosaurs are a past fact because their remains have been located in many different places as also have many other kinds of animal life.

However, this does not in any way prove the method of creation.

There must be a method of creation or nothing would exist.

I do not pretend to know the answer to the whys and wherefores of the past creations Iam only interested in the present mankind.

When it says in the beggining regarding the creation of man by God, it does not necessarily mean the beginning of creation.

There are thousanda of examples of the beginning of something other than that which already exist

The most significant matter choose whose side you take is that there is no explanation of creation other than by a means of which we cannot understand.

If not then explain.

by Shirina Tue May 21, 2013 3:30 pm

we cannot understand.

If not then explain.

Imagine a man living 30,000 years ago, a man who exists in a world where the stone speartip is the most advanced piece of technology in existence. Suppose this man were to somehow stumble across a typical desktop computer (we'll assume it has access to electrical power). Even assuming this man could figure out how to turn the computer on, he could never hope to understand how the computer works or manufacture one himself. It's not because this man is stupid - he is genetically identical to modern humans which means his brain is capable of understanding computers. The problem is that he lived so long ago that he does not have the knowledge base to understand what a computer is, what it does, and how to make one.

By your logic, this man should just throw up his hands and proclaim, "This computer is just too complicated for human understanding, so humanity will NEVER know how this thing works."

Never mind the fact that computers eventually came to be invented and understood very well -- by HUMANS.

Your problem, polyglide, is a lack of historical perspective. There is almost no doubt that 1,000 years from now, there will be things well understood that today are but strange and frightening mysteries, things people like you claim will NEVER be understood. You operate from the assumption that we know all there is to know, that we are at the peak of our knowledge. No new discoveries will ever be made and, therefore, how life came to be will forever be beyond our understanding.

That is a patently false idea. If every generation believed that it has reached the pinnacle of knowledge, humanity would still be skulking around in caves guarding our precious fire all the while believing that stone speartips is the apex of human technology -- forget about computers!

by Tosh Tue May 21, 2013 9:27 pm

If not then explain.

The Grand Design

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-grand-design.html

Let me know what your scientific objections are, and I will see if I can help.

by polyglide Wed May 22, 2013 10:47 am

As usual a lot of old tripe.

Nothing you say explains creation which is the ultimate question.

I am well aware of the past history of the earth probably more so than you.
if you want me to quote where to find it, I will tell you.

However, this has nothing to do with creation.

Of course mankind has made many discoveries, the actual results must have the elements already there to make them, as God provided.

The problem is that man has not always used them in the manner intended.

Children used to go outside and realy enjoy that whuich God provided and now all many want to do is look at a computer all day, or play mind games or watch pornography.

If you call that progress and think the future holds any prospect of a better life based on your ideas then you are more stupid that your posts suggest and that is realy saying something.

by Tosh Wed May 22, 2013 4:38 pm

Nothing you say explains creation which is the ultimate question.

The Grand Design explains creation and answers your ultimate question, you forgot to give your scientific objections to this explanation.

by trevorw2539 Thu May 23, 2013 9:18 am

polyglide wrote:As usual a lot of old tripe.

Nothing you say explains creation which is the ultimate question.

I am well aware of the past history of the earth probably more so than you.
if you want me to quote where to find it, I will tell you.

However, this has nothing to do with creation.

Of course mankind has made many discoveries, the actual results must have the elements already there to make them, as God provided.

The problem is that man has not always used them in the manner intended

Children used to go outside and realy enjoy that whuich God provided and now all many want to do is look at a computer all day, or play mind games or watch pornography.

If you call that progress and think the future holds any prospect of a better life based on your ideas then you are more stupid that your posts suggest and that is realy saying something.

I don't see the need for rudeness.

As for the past history of the earth try looking around you. Then try reading the history of ancient civilisations. Their views of creation. All creation stories are etiological (telling how the earth and humanity came into being).

Biblical 'creation' was a much later explanation, taken from those which had gone before and adapted to the Hebrew way of thinking.

Like you I used to think Christianity was the 'true' religion. In doing so I was condemning the rest of humanity to hell for not believing - even those who had never heard of Christianity.
If there is a creator I doubt that was his intention.

Then for 'physical' earth look at geology. It doesn't lie when studied properly.

As for children. In the main you are wrong. It isn't until comparatively recently that children had any time for play. Down the millenia 'working class' children have been incorporated into the 'income producing' part of the family as early as they are able to manage to do something useful. For neccessities sake.
Today many do still go out of doors, when it's safe. Many young people spend time on the computer studying due to our 'push' for education.
Broaden your horizons a little. In a large part of the world children do not have the chance to play, due to deprivation, war, hunger and thirst. Indeed, for these playing is a luxury.

We cannot stop progress by banning computers, games consoles etc. You yourself use a computer to post on here.

by Tosh Thu May 23, 2013 12:34 pm

Trevor,

You are talking to the deaf and dumb, anyone who literally believes in any religious text is a mind looking for a home,they are lost in reality, it unsettles them. Simple minds demand simple explanations and demand simple solutions, its Satan, its disobedience, its armageddon and its backward lunacy. No point in showing them evidence of reality they live in a bubble of religious significance and meaning, and you are trying to break their bubble.
There are two fundamentalists on here, one has a functioning brain and the other is bordering on remedial, and yet they basically share the same beliefs. So the commonality is not whether you can reason or not, its what they both seek and need that unites them.

Humans must relate to something, we are but reflections and some do not like what they see, the solution for them is to change the mirror, a mirror that alters their reflection.

In a nutshell they are basket cases.

by Shirina Thu May 23, 2013 7:25 pm

polyglide wrote:As usual a lot of old tripe.

That's because you haven't refuted any of the old tripe.

polyglide wrote:Nothing you say explains creation which is the ultimate question.

Gee, ya think? If I had that answer, I'd be heading to Sweden to collect my Nobel Prize. I explained why not having an explanation doesn't mean there is a God.

polyglide wrote:I am well aware of the past history of the earth probably more so than you.

Somehow, I very much doubt that.

polyglide wrote:The problem is that man has not always used them in the manner intended.

You've never explained what this "intended use" is supposed to be.

polyglide wrote:If you call that progress

I do call it progress. Suggesting that all the great things computers have allowed us to do - from medical research to engineering - is negated because children don't go outside and play is ... well ... absurd on its face.

polyglide wrote:then you are more stupid that your posts suggest and that is realy saying something.

Here's a nickel's worth of free advice: If you're going to call someone "stupid," you really shouldn't make boneheaded spelling and grammar errors while doing so.

by polyglide Fri May 24, 2013 11:19 am

I apologise for the lack of correcting my spelling errors but some of your posts make me laugh so much I forget.

God intended that all he created could be enjoyed by mankind in the manner intended.

The intended manner is obvious when considering that which is involved.

The world today is in a terrible state in every respect.

Vertual reality is a fact of life to many children, they never experience that which nature offers and all that is good in the world

Anyone who thinks life itself has been improved by computers must be sadly lacking in the departments most desired.

Because man finds cures for the problems he has caused just shows your lack of understanding.

Surely, even you can see that it would have been better not to cause all the problems in the first place.

But then???????

by trevorw2539 Fri May 24, 2013 2:36 pm

polyglide wrote:I apologise for the lack of correcting my spelling errors but some of your posts make me laugh so much I forget.

God intended that all he created could be enjoyed by mankind in the manner intended.

The intended manner is obvious when considering that which is involved.

The world today is in a terrible state in every respect.

Vertual reality is a fact of life to many children, they never experience that which nature offers and all that is good in the world

Anyone who thinks life itself has been improved by computers must be sadly lacking in the departments most desired.

Because man finds cures for the problems he has caused just shows your lack of understanding.

Surely, even you can see that it would have been better not to cause all the problems in the first place.

But then???????

God intended that all he created could be enjoyed by mankind in the manner intended.

Does that include the earthquakes, floods and disasters of nature that cause man such suffering?

Vertual reality is a fact of life to many children, they never experience that which nature offers and all that is good in the world

Virtual reality is what nature offers.

Anyone who thinks life itself has been improved by computers must be sadly lacking in the departments most desired.

Your life today would not be as comfortable, healthy and varied without the use of computers.
While computers are put to detrimental uses, they are also used for the good of mankind. Rapid exchange of information can lead to averting many disasters. It speeds up medicine in various ways. It keeps families in speedy contact face to face. It helps in 'calculations' of all types in science, medicine. It is invaluable in education of children.
The use of computers in detrimental ways is outweighed by its advantages.

By your reasoning can God be finding solutions to the problems in the Nature he has created? Computers to predict natural disasters perhaps.

by Shirina Fri May 24, 2013 3:11 pm

God intended that all he created could be enjoyed by mankind in the manner intended.

Thanks for that non-answer. Now, how about some specifics?

The world today is in a terrible state in every respect.

Really? Then why not tell me which historical era or year you would like to live in.

Vertual reality is a fact of life to many children, they never experience that which nature offers and all that is good in the world

Wait, wait ... back up.

"... all that is good in the world"?

And here I thought the world today sucks. Doesn't it?

Anyone who thinks life itself has been improved by computers must be sadly lacking in the departments most desired.

Well, polyglide, I'm disabled, hobbled by chronic pain. My mobility is limited. I can only be grateful that I became disabled during the computer age because, without computers and the internet, the only thing I would have to do with myself is to sit around watching television, and before television, I would only have radio, and before that ... nothing. I actually feel sorry for people in my condition who were born too early to enjoy technology, for all they could do was sit in a silent, empty room and suffer.

Thanks to computers and the internet, I have the knowledge of the world at my fingertips. It's not as though I can just rush off to the library whenever I want. Plus, I can communicate with people from all over the world, read news from the most remote corners of the globe. I can keep in touch with people going as far back as grade school. I don't have to painfully hobble to a store whenever I want something. And I feel far less alone than I would if all I had was an oil lamp and a painting on the wall for entertainment. I can even play games both by myself and with other people online.

So yeah, my life has been improved and enriched immeasurably by computers. Sure, I would love to be outdoors more like I was when I was younger, but that just isn't going to happen.

Because man finds cures for the problems he has caused just shows your lack of understanding.

That's life, polyglide. There are always going to be problems and we do our best to fix them. So what? If you want Eden, go take it up with Eve.

Surely, even you can see that it would have been better not to cause all the problems in the first place.

Of course, but that's not reality. We have to make the best of the cards we were dealt. If religion works for you, great, but it doesn't for me. Not by a longshot.

by Tosh Fri May 24, 2013 7:46 pm

Try sign language, even chimps can master that.

Debating with polyglide is simply beneath me.

by Sponsored content