Discussion:
Let's Kill Hitler review with Spoilers
(too old to reply)
The Doctor
2011-10-11 13:57:47 UTC
Permalink
In article <4eaf990c-bff1-4908-991d-***@k24g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 11, 2:30=A0pm, "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>> So it was an experiement, just not a very scientific one. =A0I wonder why
>> noone ever tried to prove or disprove it....
>
>Because it was not very scientific.
>
>Plus... what does a very tiny weight loss at the time of death
>actually prove?
>
>And one of the bad results was discarded because it recorded no
>result? Convenient. Was the result discarded because the scales
>were wrong or were the scales deemed wrong because they didn't give
>the required result?
>
>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

Atheists do not believe in real science.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Stephen Wilson
2011-10-11 19:04:53 UTC
Permalink
"Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j70gp7$2s0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> Still answer us rationally what do you expect God to be?
>>>
>>>Doc, he can't answer that, because rationally, he doesn't beleive there
>>>is a
>>>God.
>>>
>>
>> That is if he could answer that question.
>
> He expects God to be nonexistent. He's already said as much.

I'm prepared to accept that there's plenty going on in the universe that we
don't understand, and plenty that we don't perceive. I'm open to the
possibility that there may be some greater power out there. But if there is,
I don't think I would call it "God".

What most Christians don't seem to grasp is that if they've accepted the god
of the Bible, it means they have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, and
the thousands of other gods that are worshipped by other people today. In
fact, most people reject all those gods without even looking into them to
see what worth they might have. Meanwhile of course, all the people who
worship all those thousands of other gods have chosen to reject the god of
the Bible. So Christians think other gods are imaginary. Non Christians
think the Christian God is imaginary. Who's right? Well the followers of one
particular religion don't experience any special benefits compared to the
followers of any other religion. If there really is a God, he'd remove all
ambiguity and make it obvious enough to everyone. Even to me. But he hasn't.
The only logical conclusion I can form is that none of the gods - Christian
or otherwise - are real.

Stephen F. Roberts summed it up as follows: "I contend that we are both
atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours."
The Doctor
2011-10-11 21:03:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <br0lq.1683$***@newsfe08.ams2>,
Stephen Wilson <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:j70gp7$2s0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Still answer us rationally what do you expect God to be?
>>>>
>>>>Doc, he can't answer that, because rationally, he doesn't beleive there
>>>>is a
>>>>God.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is if he could answer that question.
>>
>> He expects God to be nonexistent. He's already said as much.
>
>I'm prepared to accept that there's plenty going on in the universe that we
>don't understand, and plenty that we don't perceive. I'm open to the
>possibility that there may be some greater power out there. But if there is,
>I don't think I would call it "God".
>
>What most Christians don't seem to grasp is that if they've accepted the god
>of the Bible, it means they have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, and
>the thousands of other gods that are worshipped by other people today. In
>fact, most people reject all those gods without even looking into them to
>see what worth they might have. Meanwhile of course, all the people who
>worship all those thousands of other gods have chosen to reject the god of
>the Bible. So Christians think other gods are imaginary. Non Christians
>think the Christian God is imaginary. Who's right? Well the followers of one
>particular religion don't experience any special benefits compared to the
>followers of any other religion. If there really is a God, he'd remove all
>ambiguity and make it obvious enough to everyone. Even to me. But he hasn't.
>The only logical conclusion I can form is that none of the gods - Christian
>or otherwise - are real.
>
>Stephen F. Roberts summed it up as follows: "I contend that we are both
>atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
>why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
>dismiss yours."
>
>

Thank you DL, still looks as if SW is a follower of irrationality.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Dragon Lady
2011-10-12 04:17:01 UTC
Permalink
"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:j72aui$3q3$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <br0lq.1683$***@newsfe08.ams2>,
> Stephen Wilson <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:j70gp7$2s0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still answer us rationally what do you expect God to be?
>>>>>
>>>>>Doc, he can't answer that, because rationally, he doesn't beleive there
>>>>>is a
>>>>>God.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is if he could answer that question.
>>>
>>> He expects God to be nonexistent. He's already said as much.
>>
>>I'm prepared to accept that there's plenty going on in the universe that
>>we
>>don't understand, and plenty that we don't perceive. I'm open to the
>>possibility that there may be some greater power out there. But if there
>>is,
>>I don't think I would call it "God".
>>
>>What most Christians don't seem to grasp is that if they've accepted the
>>god
>>of the Bible, it means they have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Buddha,
>>and
>>the thousands of other gods that are worshipped by other people today. In
>>fact, most people reject all those gods without even looking into them to
>>see what worth they might have. Meanwhile of course, all the people who
>>worship all those thousands of other gods have chosen to reject the god of
>>the Bible. So Christians think other gods are imaginary. Non Christians
>>think the Christian God is imaginary. Who's right? Well the followers of
>>one
>>particular religion don't experience any special benefits compared to the
>>followers of any other religion. If there really is a God, he'd remove all
>>ambiguity and make it obvious enough to everyone. Even to me. But he
>>hasn't.
>>The only logical conclusion I can form is that none of the gods -
>>Christian
>>or otherwise - are real.
>>
>>Stephen F. Roberts summed it up as follows: "I contend that we are both
>>atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
>>why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
>>dismiss yours."
>>
>>
>
> Thank you DL, still looks as if SW is a follower of irrationality.

Don't thank me. I see his point. The fact that I don't agree with him is
beside the point.

There isn't anything rational about religion. It's a belief sytem.
Everybody has one.
The Doctor
2011-10-12 12:24:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <j734ku$64n$***@dont-email.me>,
Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:j72aui$3q3$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> In article <br0lq.1683$***@newsfe08.ams2>,
>> Stephen Wilson <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:j70gp7$2s0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still answer us rationally what do you expect God to be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doc, he can't answer that, because rationally, he doesn't beleive there
>>>>>>is a
>>>>>>God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is if he could answer that question.
>>>>
>>>> He expects God to be nonexistent. He's already said as much.
>>>
>>>I'm prepared to accept that there's plenty going on in the universe that
>>>we
>>>don't understand, and plenty that we don't perceive. I'm open to the
>>>possibility that there may be some greater power out there. But if there
>>>is,
>>>I don't think I would call it "God".
>>>
>>>What most Christians don't seem to grasp is that if they've accepted the
>>>god
>>>of the Bible, it means they have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Buddha,
>>>and
>>>the thousands of other gods that are worshipped by other people today. In
>>>fact, most people reject all those gods without even looking into them to
>>>see what worth they might have. Meanwhile of course, all the people who
>>>worship all those thousands of other gods have chosen to reject the god of
>>>the Bible. So Christians think other gods are imaginary. Non Christians
>>>think the Christian God is imaginary. Who's right? Well the followers of
>>>one
>>>particular religion don't experience any special benefits compared to the
>>>followers of any other religion. If there really is a God, he'd remove all
>>>ambiguity and make it obvious enough to everyone. Even to me. But he
>>>hasn't.
>>>The only logical conclusion I can form is that none of the gods -
>>>Christian
>>>or otherwise - are real.
>>>
>>>Stephen F. Roberts summed it up as follows: "I contend that we are both
>>>atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
>>>why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
>>>dismiss yours."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thank you DL, still looks as if SW is a follower of irrationality.
>
>Don't thank me. I see his point. The fact that I don't agree with him is
>beside the point.
>
>There isn't anything rational about religion. It's a belief sytem.
>Everybody has one.
>

Explain away Atheism then.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Stephen Wilson
2011-10-11 19:26:18 UTC
Permalink
"Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j70gp8$2s0$***@dont-email.me...
>
> "Stephen Wilson" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:rg0jq.1363$***@newsfe15.ams2...
>>
>> "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:j6go8n$3dg$***@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, for one thing, if you accept the existence of God, you also
>>>>> accept the
>>>>> existence of a soul,
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't follow. They're independent concepts, though many
>>>> religions
>>>> share both concepts. I personally accept neither concept.
>>>
>>> I recall reading somewhere that the body actually loses an infintesimal
>>> amount of weight at death that is not accounted for by the voiding of
>>> wastes that occurs. I wish I could remember where I read it, so I
>>> could look it up and see if it was a reliable source, but it seems
>>> obvious to me that *something* animates the body, otherwise we'd all
>>> just be corpses. Whatever it is, it chooses to vacate the body when said
>>> body is harmed to the point of it being to painful to remain. So, yeah,
>>> I believe in a soul. I just have my doubts it's what organized religion
>>> would have me believe.
>>
>> Sounds like a daft idea to me. For a start - who weighs a body just prior
>> to the point of death and again just after death has occurred?
>
> A doctor? Perhaps it was some sort of research study done in a nursing
> home. I don't really remember.
>
>>
>> Well of course something animates the body. The brain sends signals to
>> various muscles that cause them to relax or contract. We have a nervous
>> system which looks after all these signals. The way the body is animated
>> is no more a mystery than the way a car moves when you press down on the
>> accelerator pedal.
>
> Yeah, yeah, and those signals cease because the body wears out. Entropy,
> and all that.
> It just seems to me that energy has to be going somewhere when it leaves
> the body.
> Isn't there something about matter not being destroyed, but converted?
> What happens to energy? It dissapates, right? But where does it go?
> Does it just disappear?

Nope. Energy doesn't disappear. It simply changes from one type of energy to
another. Set fire to wood. The wood loses mass. You feel the energy the mass
is being changed to in the form of the heat that is radiated.

There are thousands of biological processes going on in every living cell in
the human body. We take in food and oxygen. Blood is pumped around the body,
taking oxygen and required nutrients to cells. Cells multiply. The body is
kept at a constant temperature. We sweat. We excrete waste products.

Our mass does not remain constant while we are alive. A slight change in
mass at point of death would not indicate some mystical process going on.
It's really not something worth testing. Apart from the issues of having a
precise way of weighing a dying person and a precise way of determining
point of death, any results would have no benefit and prove nothing.
The Doctor
2011-10-11 21:04:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <gL0lq.39395$***@newsfe29.ams2>,
Stephen Wilson <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:j70gp8$2s0$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Stephen Wilson" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:rg0jq.1363$***@newsfe15.ams2...
>>>
>>> "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:j6go8n$3dg$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, for one thing, if you accept the existence of God, you also
>>>>>> accept the
>>>>>> existence of a soul,
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't follow. They're independent concepts, though many
>>>>> religions
>>>>> share both concepts. I personally accept neither concept.
>>>>
>>>> I recall reading somewhere that the body actually loses an infintesimal
>>>> amount of weight at death that is not accounted for by the voiding of
>>>> wastes that occurs. I wish I could remember where I read it, so I
>>>> could look it up and see if it was a reliable source, but it seems
>>>> obvious to me that *something* animates the body, otherwise we'd all
>>>> just be corpses. Whatever it is, it chooses to vacate the body when said
>>>> body is harmed to the point of it being to painful to remain. So, yeah,
>>>> I believe in a soul. I just have my doubts it's what organized religion
>>>> would have me believe.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a daft idea to me. For a start - who weighs a body just prior
>>> to the point of death and again just after death has occurred?
>>
>> A doctor? Perhaps it was some sort of research study done in a nursing
>> home. I don't really remember.
>>
>>>
>>> Well of course something animates the body. The brain sends signals to
>>> various muscles that cause them to relax or contract. We have a nervous
>>> system which looks after all these signals. The way the body is animated
>>> is no more a mystery than the way a car moves when you press down on the
>>> accelerator pedal.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, and those signals cease because the body wears out. Entropy,
>> and all that.
>> It just seems to me that energy has to be going somewhere when it leaves
>> the body.
>> Isn't there something about matter not being destroyed, but converted?
>> What happens to energy? It dissapates, right? But where does it go?
>> Does it just disappear?
>
>Nope. Energy doesn't disappear. It simply changes from one type of energy to
>another. Set fire to wood. The wood loses mass. You feel the energy the mass
>is being changed to in the form of the heat that is radiated.
>
>There are thousands of biological processes going on in every living cell in
>the human body. We take in food and oxygen. Blood is pumped around the body,
>taking oxygen and required nutrients to cells. Cells multiply. The body is
>kept at a constant temperature. We sweat. We excrete waste products.
>
>Our mass does not remain constant while we are alive. A slight change in
>mass at point of death would not indicate some mystical process going on.
>It's really not something worth testing. Apart from the issues of having a
>precise way of weighing a dying person and a precise way of determining
>point of death, any results would have no benefit and prove nothing.
>
>

Well Dl, SW is arguing that universal mass is a constant.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Dragon Lady
2011-10-12 02:08:10 UTC
Permalink
"David Johnston" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8632cf86-fb4b-47f5-ae0a-***@v38g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>On Oct 10, 10:18 pm, "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Stephen Wilson" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:rg0jq.1363$***@newsfe15.ams2...
>> > "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:j6go8n$3dg$***@dont-email.me...
>> > Well of course something animates the body. The brain sends signals to
>> > various muscles that cause them to relax or contract. We have a nervous
>> > system which looks after all these signals. The way the body is
>> > animated
>> > is no more a mystery than the way a car moves when you press down on
>> > the
>> > accelerator pedal.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, and those signals cease because the body wears out. Entropy,
>> and all that.
>> It just seems to me that energy has to be going somewhere when it leaves
>> the
>> body.
>> Isn't there something about matter not being destroyed, but converted?
>> What
>> happens to energy? It dissapates, right? But where does it go? Does it
>> just disappear?
>
>It's radiated as heat.

Which goes where?
Dragon Lady
2011-10-12 02:20:10 UTC
Permalink
"Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4eaf990c-bff1-4908-991d-***@k24g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>On Oct 11, 2:30 pm, "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>> So it was an experiement, just not a very scientific one. I wonder why
>> noone ever tried to prove or disprove it....
>
>Because it was not very scientific.

So? Are you saying it *couldn't* have been done scientifically?

>
>Plus... what does a very tiny weight loss at the time of death
>actually prove?

IF it's real, and IF it can't be accounted for, it proves something leaves
the body at the time of death.

>
>And one of the bad results was discarded because it recorded no
>result? Convenient. Was the result discarded because the scales
>were wrong or were the scales deemed wrong because they didn't give
>the required result?

It produced no result because he didn't have time to calibrate the scale.
That proves nothing in and of itself, although it seems pretty clear the guy
had an agenda.
Duggy
2011-10-12 02:52:08 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 12, 12:20 pm, "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >On Oct 11, 2:30 pm, "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> So it was an experiement, just not a very scientific one. I wonder why
> >> noone ever tried to prove or disprove it....
> >Because it was not very scientific.
> So?  Are you saying it *couldn't* have been done scientifically?

To find thousands of people and record their weight at the moment of
death?

Pretty much.

> >Plus... what does a very tiny weight loss at the time of death
> >actually prove?
> IF it's real, and IF it can't be accounted for, it proves something leaves
> the body at the time of death.

It proves that something that has not yet accounted for happens at the
time of death.

Hense proves nothing.

===
= DUG.
===
Dragon Lady
2011-10-12 04:10:45 UTC
Permalink
"James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:j71e82$4u5$***@dont-email.me...
> On 10/10/2011 11:35 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>
>> "James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:j6hf70$r5m$***@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/05/2011 12:49 AM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:j68o89$s6v$***@dont-email.me...
> ...
>>>> You have concluded that there can be no purpose to an omnipotent,
>>>> omnisceent
>>>> God creating humans with free will. ...
>>>
>>> Incorrect, I've explicitly acknowledged the possibility of such a
>>> purpose; but it would have to be one that I would consider evil.
>>
>> And yet, not being omnisceint, you cannot know this.
>
> Yes I can; God's claimed omnipotence simplifies His options immensely;
> so immensely that it doesn't require omniscience to understand the
> implications of His choices between the available options. An ordinary
> fallible human brain is sufficient to reach the appropriate conclusions.
> Make Him less than omnipotent, and suddenly it's a lot easier for his
> purposes and goals to be beyond my understanding.
>
I fail to see how omnipotence simplifies his options. Omnisceince might,
but it might also bring in a shitload of new options of which we, not being
omnisceint, cannot be aware. I don't think any ordinary human being can
ever understand either omnisceince or omnipotence, and my biggest problem
with your argument is that it would be right for Him to use his power in the
way you suggest. For all we know, his omniscience tells him this will
result in the worst possible outcome for all concerned.

> ....
>>> I've exploring some of the implications of the assumption that He does
>>> exist, I'm not using those implications as part of an argument that he
>>> doesn't exist. I don't believe He exists, but I've said nothing specific
>>> about the reasons for my unbelief, and your claim to know what my
>>> reasons are has no basis that I'm aware of.
>>>
>> Then why do you keep saying there is no excuse for an omniscent,
>> omnipotent
>> being to create beings with free will that is not evil?
>
> That's not an argument against His existence; it would be entirely
> consistent with that argument that He both exist, and be evil. I
> wouldn't want to live in such a world, but I don't use that as argument
> for the non-existence of such a world. Just because we don't like
> something doesn't justify assuming that it isn't so.
>
> ...
>>> True, but I was talking about a being whose behavior was not monotonous,
>>> not routine, fully in possession of active intelligence, yet inherently
>>> incapable of using that intelligence to reach the conclusion that he
>>> should do something that happens to be wrong. It's nothing an omnipotent
>>> creator of the universe couldn't put together, and the possibility of
>>> putting together such a being makes God's supposed decision to build us,
>>> instead, shoddy workmanship.
>>>
>> You just said they would be inherently incapable of using active
>> intelligence,
>
> I made no such claim. They can use active intelligence, they are merely
> incapable of using it to make evil decisions.

>
>> ... yet in another post, you claim they would make better generals
>> and be better at strategy. How does that work?
>
> I said that they would make better decisions that generals who lacked
> intelligence. I didn't say that they'd make better decisions than a
> general who also had the ability to make evil choices, though I have to
> say I consider it perfectly obvious that this is the case.

Frankly, I do too, but it's isn't true. Generals are faced with decisions
all the time that are the lesser of two evils. A being incapable of chosing
evil would be incapable of making such a decision, and would basically be
frozen, incapable of choosing the better strategy because no matter what
he/she did, it would result in evil.

>
> Let's simplify it down to three choices, A, B, and C. A is better than
> B, because it achieves the desired goals more efficiently. A and B are
> both better than C, because C is an evil choice. A general with free
> will can evaluate those three choices, and choose the one he prefers,
> which could be any one of those three. The mindless automaton that you
> referred to would not be capable of evaluating any of the choices; it
> would simply choose one. The kind of being I was talking about would be
> inherently incapable of choosing C, but would have the active
> intelligence needed to evaluate A and B, and recognizing that A is the
> better choice.

And what's he/she going to do if the only option is A, which is evil, and B,
which is less evil, but still evil?

>
> Why is the intelligent being I was talking about not inherently a
> superior choice for an omnipotent creator to create than the one with
> free will?

I don't know. I'm not omniscient. That's been my point all along. I don't
know and neither do you, because you're using human knowledge and logic to
come to your conclusion, and being human, you don't know everything.

>
> ...
>>> such thing as a valid proof of ANY such statement. If you can construct
>>> a valid proof for something, what it proves is necessarily an abstract
>>> statement with no necessary connection to reality, such as 1+1=2. No
>>> proof is any better than it's premises, and there's no way to guarantee
>>> the truth of the premises of a valid proof of a statement about reality.
>>> Note: what I've just said are statements about proofs and logic, not
>>> about reality per se. They are therefore not self-referential.
>>
>> Sorry, I've always concluded reality exists.
>
> I think so as well, though it can't be proven. However, I wasn't talking
> just about reality's existence, but about it's nature. Any conclusions
> that you may have made about reality's nature are necessarily capable of
> being false; it's not possible to have justifiable certainty about any
> of those conclusions.

Perhaps not, but there is always the law of cause and effect, which can be
applied to human actions as well as chemical, etc, if you know the human
well enough. :P

>
> ...
>>> If, as I've stated earlier, I can't even provide objective proof of my
>>> own existence, how in the world would you expect me to provide objective
>>> proof of God's non-existence?
>>
>> Yet you seem to feel you have subjective proof that he doesn't exist?
>
> No, just a substantial lack of evidence that should be there if He did
> exist, as well as substantial inconsistencies between the assumption
> that he exists and various other things that I do believe (based upon
> the available evidence) to be true. Those reasons are, in principle, no
> different from the reasons why I believe that Frodo Baggins does not
> exist. I can't prove that, either.

*LOL* For all we know, Frodo Baggins does exist in some alternate reality!

So, you're basing your conclusion that God doesn't exist on a lack of
evidence? I happen to agree that just because a whole bunch of people say
something is so doesn't mean it is. I just don't agree with your conclusion
in this case. Lack of evidence does not prove non-existence. We may just
not have progressed enough to be at the point where we could prove or
disprove his existence. It's rather like saying lack of evidence proves
someone didn't commit a crime.
Seems to me you should be agnostic, not atheist.
James Kuyper
2011-10-12 11:56:44 UTC
Permalink
On 10/12/2011 12:10 AM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>
> "James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:j71e82$4u5$***@dont-email.me...
...
>> Yes I can; God's claimed omnipotence simplifies His options immensely;
>> so immensely that it doesn't require omniscience to understand the
>> implications of His choices between the available options. An ordinary
>> fallible human brain is sufficient to reach the appropriate conclusions.
>> Make Him less than omnipotent, and suddenly it's a lot easier for his
>> purposes and goals to be beyond my understanding.
>>
> I fail to see how omnipotence simplifies his options.

Consider a simple problem: how do I get from my home to the downtown
museum, and how the answer changes as my powers increase:

Only power: walking - I have to have a detailed map showing the walking
routes. Most don't - they emphasize highways that I can't legally walk
on. Sometimes, there's no legal walking path that allows you to cross
certain barriers, so the only option is to walk around those barriers,
rather than crossing them.

Add transit card: I have to walk to the nearest bus stop, take the
appropriate bus (or two) to the nearest subway station, choose the
appropriate train lines (usually two) to the station nearest the museum.
Walk to the museum from that station.

Add ability to drive car: plot a simple direct route using highway
system. Hard part: find affordable parking near museum.

Add ability to fly: Determine straight line route from Home to the
Museum. Fly along that route.

Add ability to teleport: Determine location of destination. Blink - I'm
there.

Add omnipotence: It's already here where I happen to be. It wasn't here,
a moment ago. I didn't have to move.

> ... Omnisceince might,
> but it might also bring in a shitload of new options of which we, not being
> omnisceint, cannot be aware. I don't think any ordinary human being can
> ever understand either omnisceince or omnipotence, and my biggest problem
> with your argument is that it would be right for Him to use his power in the
> way you suggest. For all we know, his omniscience tells him this will
> result in the worst possible outcome for all concerned.

Only if he's not omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, he can do whatever he
wants, AND get the best possible outcome, too. Omnipotence means there's
no unavoidable consequences. An omnipotent being could kill someone, and
then resurrect them, undamaged and untraumatized by their own death.

That's the fundamental problem with the concept that there exists an
omnipotent being.

...
> Frankly, I do too, but it's isn't true. Generals are faced with decisions
> all the time that are the lesser of two evils. A being incapable of chosing
> evil would be incapable of making such a decision, and would basically be
> frozen, incapable of choosing the better strategy because no matter what
> he/she did, it would result in evil.

That could not happen unless God allowed the creation of a situation
where the only choices available to the general were evil. That is in
fact inherently implied by the idea that there's any need for a general.
An omnipotent God has no need to allow such situations to exist, and it
would be evil of Him to let them happen.

...
>> Why is the intelligent being I was talking about not inherently a
>> superior choice for an omnipotent creator to create than the one with
>> free will?
>
> I don't know. I'm not omniscient. That's been my point all along. I don't
> know and neither do you, because you're using human knowledge and logic to
> come to your conclusion, and being human, you don't know everything.

I see a clear, obvious advantage to the creation of such a being, and no
reason for an omnipotent being to create the other kind, and the
arguments leading to those conclusions are simple and clear enough that
even a being of my limited mental capacity is capable of judging their
validity. If God existed and were less than omnipotent, then there could
be unavoidable consequences of such a decision that might justify some
other decision, and not being omnipotent myself, I might not be able to
even understand those reasons. But if all undesirable consequences are
avoidable, as they must be if He were omnipotent, He could not have any
such justification for that choice.

...
> Perhaps not, but there is always the law of cause and effect,

Only as an high level approximation. Quantum uncertain wreaks havoc with
the concept of "cause" and "effect" when you start looking into the
details, particularly if you quantize general relativity. In particular,
denial of the possibility of uncaused causes, which is fundamental to
one of the most popular arguments for believing in God, is incompatible
with quantum mechanics.

...
> *LOL* For all we know, Frodo Baggins does exist in some alternate reality!

I'll go farther: I think it's quite possible, in a universe as huge as
ours, that somewhere there might be someone who bears an uncanny
resemblance to him, up to and including the culture context he lived in.

> So, you're basing your conclusion that God doesn't exist on a lack of
> evidence?

Do you normally use any other method for concluding that hypothetical
people don't exist? Can you use any other method? I don't see how.


> ... Lack of evidence does not prove non-existence. ...

Agreed - as I've pointed out many previous times in this very thread,
it's not possible to prove any statement about the nature of reality.
However, lack of evidence, when it has been confirmed over a
sufficiently broad range of locations where evidence might be expected
to exist, is supporting evidence for non-existence.

> Seems to me you should be agnostic, not atheist.

Technically, yes. I'm in doubt about the truth of every possible
statement about reality. However, I've no greater level of doubt about
God's non-existence than I do about Homer Simpson's. In point of fact, I
know a lot more about God's purported attributes than I do about Homer's
(I'm not a fan of that show), so it's easier for me to feel sure that
God doesn't exist. For practical purposes, given my extremely low level
of doubt, and the fact that I have a non-zero level of doubt about
everything, I think it's appropriate to call myself an atheist.
--
James Kuyper
Dragon Lady
2011-10-12 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:j71hu7$9lo$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <j70gp6$2s0$***@dont-email.me>,
> Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>news:j6hh45$3sh$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>> In article <j6gltt$oql$***@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:j68joo$6mv$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 10/01/2011 08:43 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I was referring to the first paragraph, and why would he be asking
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> someone to pray for him if he didn't think he could be forgiven by
>>>>>> repenting
>>>>>> after he died?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because he didn't think he could be forgiven by repenting after he
>>>>> died,
>>>>> so the only way he could get forgiven after he died would be if
>>>>> someone
>>>>> other than himself requested the forgiveness.
>>>>
>>>>Just another contradcition of organized religion. No wonder people are
>>>>confused....
>>>>
>>>
>>> Too bad the Societ of Acts has to be rediscovered.
>>
>>I have no idea what you're talking about here.
>>
>
> Read the Book of Acts by Luke to understand what I said.

I have read the book of Acts. I do not recall anything about Societ of
Acts. What Bible are you using?
The Doctor
2011-10-12 12:24:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <j734ep$58a$***@dont-email.me>,
Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:j71hu7$9lo$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> In article <j70gp6$2s0$***@dont-email.me>,
>> Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:j6hh45$3sh$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>> In article <j6gltt$oql$***@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:j68joo$6mv$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 10/01/2011 08:43 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> I was referring to the first paragraph, and why would he be asking
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> someone to pray for him if he didn't think he could be forgiven by
>>>>>>> repenting
>>>>>>> after he died?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because he didn't think he could be forgiven by repenting after he
>>>>>> died,
>>>>>> so the only way he could get forgiven after he died would be if
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>> other than himself requested the forgiveness.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just another contradcition of organized religion. No wonder people are
>>>>>confused....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Too bad the Societ of Acts has to be rediscovered.
>>>
>>>I have no idea what you're talking about here.
>>>
>>
>> Read the Book of Acts by Luke to understand what I said.
>
>I have read the book of Acts. I do not recall anything about Societ of
>Acts. What Bible are you using?
>

English bible.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Dragon Lady
2011-10-12 04:11:52 UTC
Permalink
"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:j71hpg$9is$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <j70g7b$tan$***@dont-email.me>,
> Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>"James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:j6hfmt$u26$***@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/05/2011 01:00 AM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> It still wouldn't hold. A computer program does not have free will.
>>>> The
>>>> only way this analogy would hold would be if humans *didn't* have free
>>>> will,
>>>> in which case they would be incapable of doing evil unless they were
>>>> created
>>>> to do evil, in which case they would be incapable of doing good.
>>>
>>> That doesn't follow. You're confusing "choosing" good and "doing" good.
>>> If a given action would be a good thing to perform, had there actually
>>> been omnipotent Creator, He could have created us incapable of choosing
>>> not to do that action. We would be doing good, despite being incapable
>>> of choosing to do good. And I can't see any benefit to creating us any
>>> other way (in a hypothetical world where good and evil were objectively
>>> determinable).
>>
>>Sorry, you're right. It was poorly worded. A computer program is neither
>>good nor evil in and off itself. It simply does what it was created to
>>do.
>>Therefore, if humans were created to be incapable of doing evil, they
>>would
>>not be good, they would simply be. It is not intelligent, and personally
>>I
>>suspect that intelligence requires freedom of choice.
>>
>
> Genesis does make the case for human beings.

Genesis is a story, Doc. To me, that's all it is. And it doesn't really
make a case for anything.
The Doctor
2011-10-12 12:24:50 UTC
Permalink
In article <j734c1$4ru$***@dont-email.me>,
Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:j71hpg$9is$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> In article <j70g7b$tan$***@dont-email.me>,
>> Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:j6hfmt$u26$***@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 10/05/2011 01:00 AM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> It still wouldn't hold. A computer program does not have free will.
>>>>> The
>>>>> only way this analogy would hold would be if humans *didn't* have free
>>>>> will,
>>>>> in which case they would be incapable of doing evil unless they were
>>>>> created
>>>>> to do evil, in which case they would be incapable of doing good.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't follow. You're confusing "choosing" good and "doing" good.
>>>> If a given action would be a good thing to perform, had there actually
>>>> been omnipotent Creator, He could have created us incapable of choosing
>>>> not to do that action. We would be doing good, despite being incapable
>>>> of choosing to do good. And I can't see any benefit to creating us any
>>>> other way (in a hypothetical world where good and evil were objectively
>>>> determinable).
>>>
>>>Sorry, you're right. It was poorly worded. A computer program is neither
>>>good nor evil in and off itself. It simply does what it was created to
>>>do.
>>>Therefore, if humans were created to be incapable of doing evil, they
>>>would
>>>not be good, they would simply be. It is not intelligent, and personally
>>>I
>>>suspect that intelligence requires freedom of choice.
>>>
>>
>> Genesis does make the case for human beings.
>
>Genesis is a story, Doc. To me, that's all it is. And it doesn't really
>make a case for anything.
>

Genesis is history IMHO.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
The Doctor
2011-10-12 12:22:02 UTC
Permalink
In article <j72sqd$t9$***@dont-email.me>,
Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"David Johnston" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8632cf86-fb4b-47f5-ae0a-***@v38g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>On Oct 10, 10:18 pm, "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> "Stephen Wilson" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:rg0jq.1363$***@newsfe15.ams2...
>>> > "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:j6go8n$3dg$***@dont-email.me...
>>> > Well of course something animates the body. The brain sends signals to
>>> > various muscles that cause them to relax or contract. We have a nervous
>>> > system which looks after all these signals. The way the body is
>>> > animated
>>> > is no more a mystery than the way a car moves when you press down on
>>> > the
>>> > accelerator pedal.
>>>
>>> Yeah, yeah, and those signals cease because the body wears out. Entropy,
>>> and all that.
>>> It just seems to me that energy has to be going somewhere when it leaves
>>> the
>>> body.
>>> Isn't there something about matter not being destroyed, but converted?
>>> What
>>> happens to energy? It dissapates, right? But where does it go? Does it
>>> just disappear?
>>
>>It's radiated as heat.
>
>Which goes where?
>
>

Energy is conserved.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
The Doctor
2011-10-12 12:22:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <j72tgu$4ia$***@dont-email.me>,
Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4eaf990c-bff1-4908-991d-***@k24g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>On Oct 11, 2:30 pm, "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> So it was an experiement, just not a very scientific one. I wonder why
>>> noone ever tried to prove or disprove it....
>>
>>Because it was not very scientific.
>
>So? Are you saying it *couldn't* have been done scientifically?
>
>>
>>Plus... what does a very tiny weight loss at the time of death
>>actually prove?
>
>IF it's real, and IF it can't be accounted for, it proves something leaves
>the body at the time of death.
>
>>
>>And one of the bad results was discarded because it recorded no
>>result? Convenient. Was the result discarded because the scales
>>were wrong or were the scales deemed wrong because they didn't give
>>the required result?
>
>It produced no result because he didn't have time to calibrate the scale.
>That proves nothing in and of itself, although it seems pretty clear the guy
>had an agenda.
>

Energy and mass is conserved. That is a given.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
The Doctor
2011-10-12 12:23:31 UTC
Permalink
In article <9a81d26f-51b7-4141-9d06-***@p29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 12, 12:20=A0pm, "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >On Oct 11, 2:30 pm, "Dragon Lady" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> So it was an experiement, just not a very scientific one. I wonder why
>> >> noone ever tried to prove or disprove it....
>> >Because it was not very scientific.
>> So? =A0Are you saying it *couldn't* have been done scientifically?
>
>To find thousands of people and record their weight at the moment of
>death?
>
>Pretty much.
>
>> >Plus... what does a very tiny weight loss at the time of death
>> >actually prove?
>> IF it's real, and IF it can't be accounted for, it proves something leave=
>s
>> the body at the time of death.
>
>It proves that something that has not yet accounted for happens at the
>time of death.
>
>Hense proves nothing.
>
>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

Mass and energy is conserved in the universe.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Dragon Lady
2011-10-12 04:11:52 UTC
Permalink
"The Doctor" <***@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:j71hpg$9is$***@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <j70g7b$tan$***@dont-email.me>,
> Dragon Lady <***@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>"James Kuyper" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:j6hfmt$u26$***@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/05/2011 01:00 AM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> It still wouldn't hold. A computer program does not have free will.
>>>> The
>>>> only way this analogy would hold would be if humans *didn't* have free
>>>> will,
>>>> in which case they would be incapable of doing evil unless they were
>>>> created
>>>> to do evil, in which case they would be incapable of doing good.
>>>
>>> That doesn't follow. You're confusing "choosing" good and "doing" good.
>>> If a given action would be a good thing to perform, had there actually
>>> been omnipotent Creator, He could have created us incapable of choosing
>>> not to do that action. We would be doing good, despite being incapable
>>> of choosing to do good. And I can't see any benefit to creating us any
>>> other way (in a hypothetical world where good and evil were objectively
>>> determinable).
>>
>>Sorry, you're right. It was poorly worded. A computer program is neither
>>good nor evil in and off itself. It simply does what it was created to
>>do.
>>Therefore, if humans were created to be incapable of doing evil, they
>>would
>>not be good, they would simply be. It is not intelligent, and personally
>>I
>>suspect that intelligence requires freedom of choice.
>>
>
> Genesis does make the case for human beings.

Genesis is a story, Doc. To me, that's all it is. And it doesn't really
make a case for anything.
Loading...