ForumGarden

Take eraser's example of Santa Clause, most don't outright tell a child Santa Clause doesn't really exist and extinguish all the hope an happiness the Ideal of Santa Clause brings. Though we all find our own way that he isn't though most still grow up to celebrate christmas with the same giving, kind, and hopefull spirit that embelishes the idea of Santa Clause. I believe the same goes for God no matter if you do or don't believe in God the good, an hope and security in our beliefs is more important than the actuality of that god

We can know that God is real by examining the " Spirit world", in that it defintely exist. When I studied the great flood of Noahs time, I was surprised that almost every culture in human history records a great flood, equally surprised I was to discover that those cultures believed in and wrote about Spirits. I am never surprised at the number of killers who told interviewers that " A voice told them to do it", and gave them the energy to do it also. There are just as many examples of Spirits leading humans to do good. So there are inordinate spirits, and good spirits. Definte proof that Gods spirit world exist, and that he wanted these spirits to intermigle with humanity.

We see so often that some people just go crazy, and often for no physical reason. In many cases, classic examples of " Spirit possession". This type of possession is again proof of God, its proof that spirits are real; that Gods spirit world is real. Humans cannot create spirit, nor could this theory of evolution; this spirit world is very real, and very evidence that God is real.

the spirit world? like the Native American Spirits, or the Chinese Demons or Ghost, or like something from that movie insidious

littleCJelkton;1367844 wrote: the spirit world? like the Native American Spirits, or the Chinese Demons or Ghost, or like something from that movie insidious




The native Americans and Chinese wrote of " Spirits", as did most cultures, and they recorded the flood, like most cultures did, so its historical, and sarcasm combined with cynicism cannot change history. We can know by history that God is real, humans have been consciously " Sensing him for centurys", and I think many Atheist sense that God may be real, but lack the courage and honesty to admit it. Espically on the internet. The number of unbelievers converting to believers, is in serious excess of the number of believers converting to unbelief. And its a spirit in that. The spirit of belief, is superior than the spirit of unbelief; hands down academic.

Mickiel;1367857 wrote: The sarcasm combined with cynicism cannot change history.


No you seem quite capable of doing that on your own, well not changing but only telling the parts that support your case in a manner that suggest nothing ever happened that doesn't.

Citizen Mickiel; Although I disagree with 99.9`of what you have posted on this thread, I agree 100% with you having the right to freely express your opinion.

Personally I couldn’t give a stuff whether any earthling believes in a “supreme being” or not. I don’t and that’s all I know. But when I am asked “Why can’t you leave Christians alone?” or “Why is it that you want to disprove god?” I have a very simple answer. “Because religious earthlings won’t leave me alone.”

Religion is everywhere and I am constantly seeing and hearing stuff that tells me to repent or I am gonna burn in hell! Almost daily religious fanatics knock on doors, preach on street corners, and on TV promise that prayers will be answered if $40 is sent to some dude with big hair holding a bible. (why are bibles mostly black?)

We atheist don’t preach on corners urging Christians to repent and not believe, we don’t ask for 10% of your salary every month, we don’t ring your doorbell and hand you a little magazine that urges you to become an atheist.

Atheists don’t fly planes into buildings, strap explosives to themselves, cut of the heads off Christians or demand that gays be executed. Unlike Christians who continually preach and beat the bible drum, we atheists just quietly get on with our lives.

Religion started the argument not atheism.

And it not as if any of what is written in the bible is fact either. The writers of this best selling novel changed what had already been written into biblical stories, then if that which had been prophesized did not occur, well then Yahweh had intervened!

Many phrases in the bible are a direct copy of those in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This was once described by one of the Popes as, and I quote: “A curious coincidence.”

The Roman Catholic Church really wrote the bible, adding and subtracting whatever they thought would best suit them and allow them to control the unwashed masses. In doing so they gained the approval of the nobility who showed their gratitude in monetary terms.

There you go Mick.

jones jones;1367896 wrote: Citizen Mickiel; Although I disagree with 99.9`of what you have posted on this thread, I agree 100% with you having the right to freely express your opinion.

Personally I couldn’t give a stuff whether any earthling believes in a “supreme being” or not. I don’t and that’s all I know. But when I am asked “Why can’t you leave Christians alone?” or “Why is it that you want to disprove god?” I have a very simple answer. “Because religious earthlings won’t leave me alone.”

Religion is everywhere and I am constantly seeing and hearing stuff that tells me to repent or I am gonna burn in hell! Almost daily religious fanatics knock on doors, preach on street corners, and on TV promise that prayers will be answered if $40 is sent to some dude with big hair holding a bible. (why are bibles mostly black?)

We atheist don’t preach on corners urging Christians to repent and not believe, we don’t ask for 10% of your salary every month, we don’t ring your doorbell and hand you a little magazine that urges you to become an atheist.

Atheists don’t fly planes into buildings, strap explosives to themselves, cut of the heads off Christians or demand that gays be executed. Unlike Christians who continually preach and beat the bible drum, we atheists just quietly get on with our lives.

Religion started the argument not atheism.

And it not as if any of what is written in the bible is fact either. The writers of this best selling novel changed what had already been written into biblical stories, then if that which had been prophesized did not occur, well then Yahweh had intervened!

Many phrases in the bible are a direct copy of those in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This was once described by one of the Popes as, and I quote: “A curious coincidence.”

The Roman Catholic Church really wrote the bible, adding and subtracting whatever they thought would best suit them and allow them to control the unwashed masses. In doing so they gained the approval of the nobility who showed their gratitude in monetary terms.

There you go Mick.




I am not a christian, I am not religious and I don't go knocking on peoples doors, I couldcareless what people believe. So this response is not for me; I am not the one . When Atheist want to gripe and rant, I am not the one.

Hmmmm selective are you? Nice cop out dude! You are faced with something to which you have no logical answer and you duck it. What a wimpy reply!

jones jones;1367912 wrote: Hmmmm selective are you? Nice cop out dude! You are faced with something to which you have no logical answer and you duck it. What a wimpy reply!


I am not interested in Atheist rants. Christian rants either.

Mickiel;1367927 wrote: I am not interested in Atheist rants. Christian rants either.


So why do you think anyone would have enough interest in your rants. This whole thread is you doing one big rant.

littleCJelkton;1367946 wrote: So why do you think anyone would have enough interest in your rants. This whole thread is you doing one big rant.


Why are you reading it; why is it getting read so much? Explain that to me.

Mickiel;1367958 wrote: Why are you reading it; why is it getting read so much? Explain that to me.


To see what abuse of logic you come up with next?

Bryn Mawr;1367965 wrote: To see what abuse of logic you come up with next?




I just can't get to that, over 7,100 views are because people want to see what logic I abuse next. I certainly dissagree with that, your basically calling people simple minded, because only simple minded people would show an intrest in abuse of logic, and maintain that intrest.

No, people are interested, and theres nothing any Atheist here can do about it. Oh you can try to discredit the thread, you have done that before; and you have never been able to stop people from their intrest. And you can't stop your own intrest.

I think thats another proof of God, when what you read just attracts something in you to it, to that truth. Not to the person writing it, but to the truth they write. And I think certain Atheist see that truth, and have a fear of it. So they have to say something negative about it; such is their way.

Mickiel;1367968 wrote: I just can't get to that, over 7,100 views are because people want to see what logic I abuse next. I certainly dissagree with that, your basically calling people simple minded, because only simple minded people would show an intrest in abuse of logic, and maintain that intrest.

No, people are interested, and theres nothing any Atheist here can do about it. Oh you can try to discredit the thread, you have done that before; and you have never been able to stop people from their intrest. And you can't stop your own intrest.

I think thats another proof of God, when what you read just attracts something in you to it, to that truth. Not to the person writing it, but to the truth they write. And I think certain Atheist see that truth, and have a fear of it. So they have to say something negative about it; such is their way.


No, I'm basically saying that just because someone reads a thread it does not meant that they agree with or even accept what is being said in it.

In my case it is for the reason I gave, mostly amusement at the "logic" you use, but a more general answer would be that my reasons from going into a thread vary from the "this is fascinating, I cannot wait so see which direction the thread takes next" to the car crash "this is awful but I cannot look away" and threads induce reactions ranging from delight through boredom to annoyance.

But then, I'm a very simple minded person - if what is posted breaks the rules of logic then it is a flawed post. Where that flawed logic appears to be deliberate and aimed at twisting the truth then I will speak out.

You claim not to be religious but every post of yours that I've seen in the Garden is aimed at proving in some way or another the existence of God - the actions do not back up the claim so I'm left asking myself why make a such a claim?

For your information I am not an atheist - I have no knowledge about the existence or otherwise of God and can see no logical way of proving one position or the other so why would I claim to know that God does not exist. What I do believe in is logic and truth and that if you use false logic then you reach a false truth.

Bryn Mawr;1368025 wrote:

But then, I'm a very simple minded person - if what is posted breaks the rules of logic then it is a flawed post. Where that flawed logic appears to be deliberate and aimed at twisting the truth then I will speak out.

.




Well speak out, do what you must. Obviously you feel the need to come after me. I understand, your not the first.

But just understand, I will mostly ignore such attacks. I am more interested in reason.

mickiel;1368056 wrote: . I am more interested in reason.


really ?????

Mickiel;1367958 wrote: Why are you reading it; why is it getting read so much? Explain that to me.


Why do you keep playing the stupid card is it because you are, or is it because you have played it so much your actions have come to define you?

r

Mickiel;1367958 wrote: Why are you reading it; why is it getting read so much? Explain that to me.


Obviously anyone just browsing hear is going to look for "hot topics" your post

A) has a controversial title

B) because you Rant and Rant and Rant and Rant on about all this opinionated (selected facts, and history) supported ( all the rest of the worlds facts and history don't matter) B.S. You have a lot of post when a person new to this sees that combined with the topic, they go to it and "view" it. Why though do you not get many post other than yourself, because people who read this see it for what it is B.S. and see that when questioned about it you play the stupid card or ignore it, and as you said people aren't simpleminded they can tell if it Looks, acts, sounds, and smells like!@#$, it is !@#$. so they stop and move on.

C) views you get from most of us senior members are for the reasons bryn stated to see what !@#$ rant you come up with next, as such we having a liking to FG want to get rid of what ever @#%! we find as you don't want !@## at a place you like to go right? Though, thus far you ignore our attempts to reason the !@#% out have been ignored and you continue to rant paying no mind to anyone else but yourself, which is the way of you religious "god is real" to me so he must be real to you too types.

We can know God is real by using " Anthropic Principles", which point out that there are over 100 varibles to this universe, which would have made life impossible as we know it if they were slightly different. God created the universe as is, it didnot develop over time, nor did it develop itself. If you walked down the street and saw a quarter, you would think someone dropped it. If you saw several quarters you would think someone had a hole in their pocket. If you went down the street and saw 100 quarters on the sidewalk and they were all carefully balanced on their edges, you would think someone did this deliberately. The Universe is that carefully balanced, its obvious someone did this deliberately.

Mickiel;1368083 wrote: We can know God is real by using " Anthropic Principles", which point out that there are over 100 varibles to this universe, which would have made life impossible as we know it if they were slightly different. God created the universe as is, it didnot develop over time, nor did it develop itself. If you walked down the street and saw a quarter, you would think someone dropped it. If you saw several quarters you would think someone had a hole in their pocket. If you went down the street and saw 100 quarters on the sidewalk and they were all carefully balanced on their edges, you would think someone did this deliberately. The Universe is that carefully balanced, its obvious someone did this deliberately.




Just some examples of Anthropic principles, which are related to Irreducible Complesity;

Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism, if it had been merely 1033 times weaker, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster. So gravity had to be created exactly as it is now, it couldnot have developed itself, adjusted itself slowly over the years " Until it got it right."

In your study, consider Irreducible Complexity; how the creations of God cannot be reduced by this theory of evolution. It is a theory that seeks to reduce the complexity of creation, so the theory can " Take over the truth." Protons are positively charged subatomic particles which ( along with neutrons) form the nucles of an atom ( around which negatively charged protons orbit). Wether by providence or fortutious luck ( depending on your insight) protons just happen to be 1,836 times larger than electrons. If they were a little bigger or smaller, we wouldnot exist. ( Because atoms couldnot form the molecues we require).

Protrons carry a positive electrical charge equal to that of the negatively charged electrons. If protons didnot balance electrons and vice versa, we wouldnot exist. This had to be exact from the get go, from the very start, evolution couldnot take billions of years to create what had to be exact in its orgin.

littleCJelkton;1368071 wrote: C) views you get from most of us senior members are for the reasons bryn stated to see what !@#$ rant you come up with next, as such we having a liking to FG want to get rid of what ever @#%! we find as you don't want !@## at a place you like to go right? Though, thus far you ignore our attempts to reason the !@#% out have been ignored and you continue to rant paying no mind to anyone else but yourself, which is the way of you religious "god is real" to me so he must be real to you too types.


I would disagree with this totally.

If a member has a point of view, wishes to post that point of view and that point of view is not posted in a way that is against the ToS then (s)he is welcome to post it.

If you disagree with that point of view then either post reasons why and enter into a discussion or keep out of the thread.

Mikiel has as much right to post as any of us and should be able to do so without this type of a response.

Mickiel;1368088 wrote: Protrons carry a positive electrical charge equal to that of the negatively charged electrons. If protons didnot balance electrons and vice versa, we wouldnot exist. This had to be exact from the get go, from the very start, evolution couldnot take billions of years to create what had to be exact in its orgin.


This is an absurdity, evolution had nothing to do with the creation of sub-atomic particles - evolution is a process that changes lifeforms, not the properties of matter.

The reason that protons and electrons carry equal and opposite charges is down to the fact that they are made from the same underlying component parts. You would not say that it was a miracle that the two ends of a magnet have equal and opposite charges would you?

The argument that, had things been different we could not exist is specious. If the laws of matter were different then the way that atoms and molecules form might well be different - all that would mean is that the lifeforms that resulted would be saying, "just think, if the size of an electron were just that tiny bit larger we couldn't exist". We are as we are because the universe is as it is not the other way round.

Bryn Mawr;1368106 wrote:

". We are as we are because the universe is as it is not the other way round.


I maintain that the universe is as it is because God originally created it that way. I disagree with the theory of evolution; or that things took billions of years to " create themselves and perfect themselves." Every known life depends on water. Waters solid form is less dense than its liquid form. This causes Ice to float. If Ice didnot float, our planet would experience runaway freezing. I view this as definte design, this was done deliberately, it didnot " Self-design", it was clearly a thing thought out to accomidate humanity.

Earths atmosphere is a clear rersult of deliberate design. If there were too much of just one of the many gases which make up our atmosphere, our planet would suffer a runaway greenhouse effect. On the other hand, if there were not enough of these gases, life on this planet would be devastated by cosmic radiation. Simular to irreducible Complexity, these things cannot be changed, nor could have begun at inferior levels, and then over time, " Adjust and correct themselves until nature got it right."

This universe as it is, was concentrated balance. The theory of evolution is based on " Anticipated chance change", wild in its assumption, it is too unbalanced to have created a balanced universe from random luck.

Bryn Mawr;1368103 wrote: I would disagree with this totally.

If a member has a point of view, wishes to post that point of view and that point of view is not posted in a way that is against the ToS then (s)he is welcome to post it.

If you disagree with that point of view then either post reasons why and enter into a discussion or keep out of the thread.

Mikiel has as much right to post as any of us and should be able to do so without this type of a response.




I know how to ignore such things. It is unfortunate to have to be treated in such a manner, but I understand the zeal behind it. Still, Thank you for the point of reason.

Mickiel;1368119 wrote: I maintain that the universe is as it is because God originally created it that way. I disagree with the theory of evolution; or that things took billions of years to " create themselves and perfect themselves." Every known life depends on water. Waters solid form is less dense than its liquid form. This causes Ice to float. If Ice didnot float, our planet would experience runaway freezing. I view this as definte design, this was done deliberately, it didnot " Self-design", it was clearly a thing thought out to accomidate humanity.

Earths atmosphere is a clear rersult of deliberate design. If there were too much of just one of the many gases which make up our atmosphere, our planet would suffer a runaway greenhouse effect. On the other hand, if there were not enough of these gases, life on this planet would be devastated by cosmic radiation. Simular to irreducible Complexity, these things cannot be changed, nor could have begun at inferior levels, and then over time, " Adjust and correct themselves until nature got it right."



This universe as it is, was concentrated balance. The theory of evolution is based on " Anticipated chance change", wild in its assumption, it is too unbalanced to have created a balanced universe from random luck.


No, if there were too much or too little of any component of the air and life were not possible on Earth then we would be sitting on a different planet having exactly the same conversation. There are billions of planets with a near infinite range of atmospheres - if one is not right the next one might be, add all of the might be probabilities and, over enough planets, you get certanty.

Again, evolution is not, in any way, responsible for the state of the universe. It acts on living systems, it does not "balance the universe" whatever that might mean.

Bryn Mawr;1368126 wrote: No, if there were too much or too little of any component of the air and life were not possible on Earth then we would be sitting on a different planet having exactly the same conversation. There are billions of planets with a near infinite range of atmospheres - if one is not right the next one might be, add all of the might be probabilities and, over enough planets, you get certanty.

Again, evolution is not, in any way, responsible for the state of the universe. It acts on living systems, it does not "balance the universe" whatever that might mean.


Evolution cannot explain our orgins, because it acts only from living systems, this universe was created from nothing. The living systems evolution needs to be a viable theory, had to be balanced in order for the universe to maintain order and not destroy itself. That order is proof God is real. The lack of destruction in the Universe is proof God is real. And Anthropic principles are evidence God is real. Earths reflectivity or " Albedo" , the total amount of light reflected off the planet verses the total amount of light absorbed. If earths Albedo were much greater than it is now, we would experience a runaway freezing, if it were muchless, we would experience a runaway greenhouse effect. There wouldnot be the balance we now experience.

Its the same with earths magnectic field, if it were much weaker, our planet would be devasted by cosmic radiation. If it were much stronger, we would be devastated by severe electromagnectic storms, so evolution cannot be a viable theory because we wouldnot exist if nature had to bear the impossible burden of taking millions of years to get this right. It couldnot do it by random selection, because the miscalculations would cause too much destruction.

Mickiel;1368128 wrote: Evolution cannot explain our orgins, because it acts only from living systems, this universe was created from nothing. The living systems evolution needs to be a viable theory, had to be balanced in order for the universe to maintain order and not destroy itself. That order is proof God is real. The lack of destruction in the Universe is proof God is real. And Anthropic principles are evidence God is real. Earths reflectivity or " Albedo" , the total amount of light reflected off the planet verses the total amount of light absorbed. If earths Albedo were much greater than it is now, we would experience a runaway freezing, if it were muchless, we would experience a runaway greenhouse effect. There wouldnot be the balance we now experience.

Its the same with earths magnectic field, if it were much weaker, our planet would be devasted by cosmic radiation. If it were much stronger, we would be devastated by severe electromagnectic storms, so evolution cannot be a viable theory because we wouldnot exist if nature had to bear the impossible burden of taking millions of years to get this right. It couldnot do it by random selection, because the miscalculations would cause too much destruction.


I do not understand the first three lines at all - the words are there but do not convey your argument.

There are two separate concepts here and you appear to be running them into a single argument. Firstly there is evolution, it is a process that works on living beings adapting them to their environment. Then there is the formation of the universe - a non-living system not affected by evolution but controlled by the laws of physics. I do not understand your contention that "the living systems evolution needs to be a viable theory" in order for the universe not to destroy itself - they are not related and evolution does not and cannot affect the existence of the universe.

Taking your last paragraph where I think I can understand the point you are trying to make. Consider the timescales that you are talking about. The Earth was created about four billion years ago, life formed less than a billion years ago. The Earth's magnetic field was stable for a couple of billion years before life started and life evolved to take account of the level of magnetism and radiation that existed - if either were slightly higher or lower then life would have, possibly, evolved slightly differently, if either was wildly different then the planet would have been sterile and we are back to life evolving on a different planet whose inhabitants would be calling Earth and wondering how blind chance had made the conditions there just right to support life.

Life evolves to match the conditions in which it finds itself. If those conditions will support life then the life that evolves will be perfectly adapted to living in those conditions - it is not the life that creates the conditions that it needs, it is the conditions that shape life.

Bryn Mawr;1368133 wrote: I do not understand the first three lines at all - the words are there but do not convey your argument.

There are two separate concepts here and you appear to be running them into a single argument. Firstly there is evolution, it is a process that works on living beings adapting them to their environment. Then there is the formation of the universe - a non-living system not affected by evolution but controlled by the laws of physics. I do not understand your contention that "the living systems evolution needs to be a viable theory" in order for the universe not to destroy itself - they are not related and evolution does not and cannot affect the existence of the universe.

Taking your last paragraph where I think I can understand the point you are trying to make. Consider the timescales that you are talking about. The Earth was created about four billion years ago, life formed less than a billion years ago. The Earth's magnetic field was stable for a couple of billion years before life started and life evolved to take account of the level of magnetism and radiation that existed - if either were slightly higher or lower then life would have, possibly, evolved slightly differently, if either was wildly different then the planet would have been sterile and we are back to life evolving on a different planet whose inhabitants would be calling Earth and wondering how blind chance had made the conditions there just right to support life.

Life evolves to match the conditions in which it finds itself. If those conditions will support life then the life that evolves will be perfectly adapted to living in those conditions - it is not the life that creates the conditions that it needs, it is the conditions that shape life.




Well again, I have trouble with evolution comming from life- then humans evolving from that evolution of life through " Adaptation." In my view, evolution and adaptation run along the same principles; the excluding of creation, and the inclusion of self creating adapting life. Its based on far too much " Chance", and ignores obvious deliberate order. Earths place in the solar system is just too purposeful. If we were much further from the Sun, our planets water would freeze, if we were much closer, it would boil. No, our position seems more " Privileged of a place" in the solar system. It highly suggest " A placement", not a random dice roll of hughe planets that just settle where they may. The idea that nature will eventually " Get it Right", does not sit well with me. Happenstance adaptation couldnot avoid the obvious destruction that random " Misplacement" could produce.

In example; simply the mere color of the Sun. If the Sun were much redder, on the one hand, or bluer on the other; " Photosynthesis would have been impeded, which is a natural biochemical process crucial to life on earth. Even the mere color of the Sun had to be correct from its inception, or the damage it could have inflicted on other planets,( until natural selection of the proper color was attained) would have been catastrophic.

Mickiel;1368140 wrote: Well again, I have trouble with evolution comming from life- then humans evolving from that evolution of life through " Adaptation." In my view, evolution and adaptation run along the same principles; the excluding of creation, and the inclusion of self creating adapting life. Its based on far too much " Chance", and ignores obvious deliberate order. Earths place in the solar system is just too purposeful. If we were much further from the Sun, our planets water would freeze, if we were much closer, it would boil. No, our position seems more " Privileged of a place" in the solar system. It highly suggest " A placement", not a random dice roll of hughe planets that just settle where they may. The idea that nature will eventually " Get it Right", does not sit well with me. Happenstance adaptation couldnot avoid the obvious destruction that random " Misplacement" could produce.

In example; simply the mere color of the Sun. If the Sun were much redder, on the one hand, or bluer on the other; " Photosynthesis would have been impeded, which is a natural biochemical process crucial to life on earth. Even the mere color of the Sun had to be correct from its inception, or the damage it could have inflicted on other planets,( until natural selection of the proper color was attained) would have been catastrophic.


None of this addresses my point - it is just giving further examples of your same train of thought.

if either was wildly different then the planet would have been sterile and we are back to life evolving on a different planet whose inhabitants would be calling Earth and wondering how blind chance had made the conditions there just right to support life.

Life evolves to match the conditions in which it finds itself. If those conditions will support life then the life that evolves will be perfectly adapted to living in those conditions - it is not the life that creates the conditions that it needs, it is the conditions that shape life.


Until you have addressed that point, repeating the same line of argument is waisted. For example, on your last repeat :-

How can natural selection change the colour of the sun? The sun is the colour it is and life evolves systems (like photosyntheses) to make use of light of that colour.

You are putting cause and effect backwards - the cart is pushing the horse. That life uses photosyntheses does not cause the sun to change colour, the sun being the colour it is allows life to use photosyntheses. That we are here discussing the formation of life means that here is where conditions were suitable for the formation of life, if it was not suitable "here" then we would be "there" where it was suitable and we'd be calling "there" "here".

Well I am not into this " Calling there here", I am talking about Anthropic principles, which is relating to humans and their existence. It is well known that our existence in this universe depends on numerous cosmological constants and parameters whose numerical values are not this " Here and there thing", but are real values that must fall exactly within a very narrow range of values. If even a single varible were off, we wouldnot exist. The extreme improbability that so many varibles would align so auspiciously in our favor merely by chance is unacceptable in reason and has led some scientist and philosophers to propose instead that it was God who providentially engineered the universe to suit our specific needs.

This is the Anthropic Principle; that the Universe appears to have been fine-tuned for our existence. Thus, componants of the theory of evolution cannot seperate evolution from the development of the universe and try to construct it to be an event seperate from the orgin of the universe, which takes over the reins of creation after life appears.

Mickiel;1368153 wrote: Well I am not into this " Calling there here", I am talking about Anthropic principles, which is relating to humans and their existence. It is well known that our existence in this universe depends on numerous cosmological constants and parameters whose numerical values are not this " Here and there thing", but are real values that must fall exactly within a very narrow range of values. If even a single varible were off, we wouldnot exist. The extreme improbability that so many varibles would align so auspiciously in our favor merely by chance is unacceptable in reason and has led some scientist and philosophers to propose instead that it was God who providentially engineered the universe to suit our specific needs.

This is the Anthropic Principle; that the Universe appears to have been fine-tuned for our existence. Thus, componants of the theory of evolution cannot seperate evolution from the development of the universe and try to construct it to be an event seperate from the orgin of the universe, which takes over the reins of creation after life appears.


Well known by whom? I've looked up your "anthropic principle" :-

the anthropic principle is the philosophical argument that observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.


Again, it is about face. The universe does not need to be compatible with the life that observes it, life must be compatible with the universe.

What you are forgetting is that the universe is effectively near infinite in size. If conditions are not right at one point in the universe then they will be right in another. If one planet does not lie in the goldilocks zone then another one will - somewhere in this near infinite universe there will be a point where the conditions are right and at that point you will have lifeforms who are saying aren't we lucky that the universe is so perfectly adapted to us and fine tuned to suit our specific needs.

As to your second paragraph, could you please explain :-

Thus, componants of the theory of evolution cannot seperate evolution from the development of the universe and try to construct it to be an event seperate from the orgin of the universe, which takes over the reins of creation after life appears.


I am really struggling to understand what you are trying to convey. What components are you separating the theory of evolution into? Who or what cannot separate evolution from the development of the universe and why not? They are obviously separate concepts. Is the "event" you refer to evolution? Evolution is anything but an event.

Bryn Mawr;1368159 wrote:

I am really struggling to understand what you are trying to convey. What components are you separating the theory of evolution into? Who or what cannot separate evolution from the development of the universe and why not? They are obviously separate concepts. Is the "event" you refer to evolution? Evolution is anything but an event.




You know I was reluctant to engage you, but I went ahead anyway. We are simply diamectrically opposed, and nothing will change that. I mean it could just go on and on, to no avail. Its literally useless, you are way away from me; its just that simple. And I just can't get to the fruit of such useless debate, I have already been around these mountians with you in the past, still stalemates. You are an evolutionist, I am a creationist. We view things in totally different contexts. Why you have more zeal and patience or desire with this than me, I just don't know. Eventually I simply tire of it, I don't have what you have.

There is no need for you to struggle with me, I think as I do, you think as you do. Evolutionist are trying to force their theory into reality, in any manner they can. They have bypassed the orgin of life and are now saying that evolution starts after life starts. But , they suggest that even though evolution is not the foundation of life, it took over after life began, and is now the architect of life, and somehow managed it from then on. Some evolutionist suggest the big bang theory, as if a destructive mythical force can create life. Now the more passive admittance approach; that okay life " Somehow began", but our theory took the reins away from this beginning force, and now rules reality.

In creation there is no such seperation of unexplained phenom, the constant source is God. Anyhow, I want to get back on topic, I see no end to debate with you, just endless exchange of differing views.

Mickiel;1368162 wrote: You know I was reluctant to engage you, but I went ahead anyway. We are simply diamectrically opposed, and nothing will change that. I mean it could just go on and on, to no avail. Its literally useless, you are way away from me; its just that simple. And I just can't get to the fruit of such useless debate, I have already been around these mountians with you in the past, still stalemates. You are an evolutionist, I am a creationist. We view things in totally different contexts. Why you have more zeal and patience or desire with this than me, I just don't know. Eventually I simply tire of it, I don't have what you have.

There is no need for you to struggle with me, I think as I do, you think as you do. Evolutionist are trying to force their theory into reality, in any manner they can. They have bypassed the orgin of life and are now saying that evolution starts after life starts. But , they suggest that even though evolution is not the foundation of life, it took over after life began, and is now the architect of life, and somehow managed it from then on. Some evolutionist suggest the big bang theory, as if a destructive mythical force can create life. Now the more passive admittance approach; that okay life " Somehow began", but our theory took the reins away from this beginning force, and now rules reality.

In creation there is no such seperation of unexplained phenom, the constant source is God. Anyhow, I want to get back on topic, I see no end to debate with you, just endless exchange of differing views.


So be it, I've been trying to understand you viewpoint and the logic behind it as much as anything but no problem

Bryn Mawr;1368163 wrote: So be it, I've been trying to understand you viewpoint and the logic behind it as much as anything but no problem




Well I think sooner or later one has to realize that one person is a man, the other is a woman, just two fundamently different things; which won't change. Simular to the creationist and the evolutionist; two different approachs. Now I know some have crossed the lines and can comfortably mix those lines; I personally do not. We have debated before, neither of us have changed. What is there to understand about those things you fundamentally disagree with?

No matter how many times we go around the mountian, the mountian won't move.

Even still, all respects to you. You are a good debator.

Mickiel;1368208 wrote: Well I think sooner or later one has to realize that one person is a man, the other is a woman, just two fundamently different things; which won't change. Simular to the creationist and the evolutionist; two different approachs. Now I know some have crossed the lines and can comfortably mix those lines; I personally do not. We have debated before, neither of us have changed. What is there to understand about those things you fundamentally disagree with?

No matter how many times we go around the mountian, the mountian won't move.

Even still, all respects to you. You are a good debator.


How should I phrase this - I disagree with you :wah:

It is always useful to understand other peoples viewpoints even if you don't agree with them.

The mountain might not move, but with understanding it does get smaller.

Peace, be well :-6

Bryn Mawr;1368218 wrote: How should I phrase this - I disagree with you :wah:

It is always useful to understand other peoples viewpoints even if you don't agree with them.

The mountain might not move, but with understanding it does get smaller.

Peace, be well :-6




Well I agree with how you put that, understanding is always gain. I quess with me its like I said, I grow tired of going around the same mountian, over and over again in a debate thats going nowhere. In some cases iron can sharpen iron, but in other cases they just bump steel and start scratching each other.

Peace to you as well.

Is God Real? Well I think one just has to look at " Woman", and in that one can see that God is real; Only a God could create such bueaty and passionate pretty! Woman is God finest creation; at least that I have seen. The most bueatiful thing on earth! It is downright impossible for Woman to be continuous with the idiot hierarchies of speechless apes.

Mickiel;1368443 wrote: Is God Real? Well I think one just has to look at " Woman", and in that one can see that God is real; Only a God could create such bueaty and passionate pretty! Woman is God finest creation; at least that I have seen. The most bueatiful thing on earth! It is downright impossible for Woman to be continuous with the idiot hierarchies of speechless apes.


How about an ape with speech

or even a female ape with speech

Is God Real? Well his son Jesus was recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Origen, Pling the Younger, The Talmud, Lucian, Celsus, Tertullian and Sextus Julius Africanus. As well as Tacitus. All known historians, this is further historical evidence that leads to God being real.

Mickiel;1368456 wrote: Is God Real? Well his son Jesus was recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Origen, Pling the Younger, The Talmud, Lucian, Celsus, Tertullian and Sextus Julius Africanus. As well as Tacitus. All known historians, this is further historical evidence that leads to God being real.


Joesephus's Testimonium Flavianum is also known among most all scholars and historians to have been tampered with by christians, You yourself say your not a christian but you use Jesus as a proof for God's existence?

Suetonius never really had any mention on Jesus just the christiani are blamed by Nero for setting the fires in rome, which doesn't prove there was a Jesus just that there were people who believed there was a jesus and he was the son of god. In fact Suetonius I believe latter says Nero refers the Christiani as a superstitio.

A Thallus is the undifferentiated vegetative tissue of some organisms in diverse groups such as algae, fungus, some liverworts, lichens

Origen Adamantius is know for his philosophical ideals about the writings of Jesus and actually writes to disprove Jesus as the son of a god

Tacitus is the only one that that the evidence is there in his annuals that give reference again to the mass execution of Christians by Nero through Pontius Pilatus, but no actual reference to Jesus or that Jesus was or was not the son of god

Tertullian, and Sextus Julius Africanus were christian to begin with and you don't go asking a christian to seperate the factual evidence of Jesus's existence from the belief of his existence as to them they are one and the same

The Talmud never makes any reverence to Jesus though many try to say that Balaam is jesus of which there is no proof to that either.



Lucian of Samosata I am guessing that is who you refer to doesn't make any reference to historical evidence of Jesus, though in his notes on the gullibility and ignorance of Christians he states they worship a man who was crucified in Palestine.

As for Celsus, what we know of what he wrote on Christianity comes from Origen's notes(which are incomplete) on his book (which is lost), but from what most historians account Origen's notes On Celsus's book state that Jesus was a regular man born of a Roman Soldier which goes against your idea it proves god somehow.



To the point though You believe Jesus was the son of God, thus you are a christian, now all the God=fake stuff makes sense.

As one considers if God is real, a search of your own family history may help. Search your familys past and see what they believed. Look back and see for yourself if a majority always have believed in God.

You will be surprised by your history and this worlds.

Mickiel;1368460 wrote: As one considers if God is real, a search of your own family history may help. Search your familys past and see what they believed. Look back and see for yourself if a majority always have believed in God.

You will be surprised by your history and this worlds.


Half my family is Buddhist one Quarter is Episcopal one sixteenth is Catholic and the rest is a mixture of Baptist Atheist and Pagan. Though just because the majority believes it doesn't make it real for a long while the majority believed the earth was flat, or that the earth was at the center of all celestial bodies. From your last quote It is you who will probably be surprised by History if you actually read and studied what history actually shows instead of pick and choose history that supports your beliefs.

You can know God is real by the desperate attempts by others to put out his Fire! God is burning his way into history; burning his way into the hearts of his people; burning his way through his incredible universe; and no one has been able to extinguish him. No Atheist, no science, no nothing! When humans try to erase something for centuries and cannot do it; that something is simply more powerful than humans.

God is he who cannot be stopped; cannot be extinguished; cannot be removed from the hearts of the people.

You know one reason why? Because hes relentlessly real!

Mickiel;1368605 wrote: You can know God is real by the desperate attempts by others to put out his Fire! God is burning his way into history; burning his way into the hearts of his people; burning his way through his incredible universe; and no one has been able to extinguish him. No Atheist, no science, no nothing! When humans try to erase something for centuries and cannot do it; that something is simply more powerful than humans.

God is he who cannot be stopped; cannot be extinguished; cannot be removed from the hearts of the people.

You know one reason why? Because hes relentlessly real!


God isn't relentlessly real, but those who believe in god (what ever god that is you believe in) in order to believe in it you have to constantly tell yourself that this or that is a reason to continue your belief in that god. A god relies upon a humans relentless belief in that god, The person does not depend on the god to belief in him/her. Though that is really where the security comes from halving somebody believe in you so why not cut out the middle man and believe in yourself

You can know God is real by having security in him. You can cut out the middleman of fear and human dependance, and believe that God is interested in yourself. Believe in yourself, believe in him, be confident in yourself and be confident in him- thats a secure combination. We cannot do anything for ourselves without having life. Know that it is God who gave you that life, it was not the " Peeping Tom called evolution." Do not place your security in thinking that your orgin was that your ancestors came out from under a rock in some kind of grotequse form, then swam in a miracle pool of chemicals and became a monkey. Thats insecurity.

Place your security in God. The Real solid rock!