No... of course you wasn't. Are you sure about this? Tell me how you know that God is an invention of human imagination. Only an opinion? I'm in shock. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
God is founded in simple times; embedded into simple people; unaware populous; uneducated populous; that continues to this day
Obviously I don't agree. Why don't you show how you confident claim is true, or if you can't, at least give a good explanation. jan.
Can you show how you confident claim is true, or at least how you have come to the conclusion? Telling me to look into ancient history does not cut it. Please try and explain how you have arrived at your conclusion. jan.
You will have to investigate back to Babalonian cuniform writings. Finding a babe in the reeds; the flood; both writen a thousand years before the bible account. Also the killing of Sophia ( a Gnostic teacher) by christians ; savagely by the way and then destroying Alexandria library.
Then why don't you use Babalonian cuniform writings to make your case. There's no point in me looking in them, because I don't know what you're talking about, outside what you say now. I don't know what to look for. Now for the last time, can you explain how you came to your conclusion? jan.
Come on. Can't you just give a little explanation? Why do you make these statements with no intention of giving an explanation, if asked? jan.
You are right, and I apologize. It was supposed to be a response to Spellbound. First this is NOT the Kitzmiller trial, it is a lecture about ID and IC. Why don't you watch it in its entirety? I find him quite palatable. Did you know he is a theist? This is not an atheist attack on ID. but rather a lecture on Irreducible Complexity and has several interesting illustrations which you may not be familiar with. But I owe you this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4r2J6Y5AqE . The good stuff begins @ 28:00 I dare say that you might be pleasantly surprised on several points.
Because it will become pointless. I will make a statement as I have; you will counter; as you have; and on and on. I have more knowledge than you right now on this subject . I don't say this out of arrogance on my part but out of fact. Delve into the ancient history of religion. Go back as far as you can ; then move forward.
alternately: It has been said that: " "GOD" created "man" in "GOD's" own image." then, man, totally incapable of comprehending "GOD" created "gods" in man's own image. ................ Rumsfeld: the known knowns the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns .............. anyone up for an euhemerist take on the subject at hand?
The image of God given to man is less like a photographic image, and more like a disk image. God is spirit and not matter, so a disk image is a better analogy since it represents the essence. The essence of man became will, choice and creativity. God made the universe appear from a void, while man made computers appear from what was a void 100 year ago.
You could say that and god did ; but the interesting thing is HOW this so called god so. THAT is what needs to be investigated. And when you do you will find genetic engineering.
Where did you "prove" that? You can't prove historical facts mathematically any more than you can prove God mathematically. Nothing is the "result" of mathematical functions. The melting ice cap is a result of physical functions - i.e. heat. We can use mathematics to describe those functions just like we can use English to describe those functions. Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? That was why I brought up the chicken-and egg example: The chicken was caused by the egg, as you seem to understand. The egg was not caused by the chicken (species). The correlation goes in both directions but the causation goes in only one direction. Fire and smoke are correlated but smoke does not cause fire. So there is a correlation between mathematics and physics but mathematics doesn't cause physics. They're correlated because mathematics was invented to correlate with physics. Yes, mathematics is more universal than Chinese. That's why we invented it. On the other hand, Chinese may be better than mathematics for describing how a hole was dug. You still haven't told us how you can mathematically determine the difference between an eroded hole and a mechanically-dug hole (of the same size). I am. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have agreed right from the start that mathematics is a good way of describing physical phenomena. What I'm asking for is evidence that mathematics causes those phenomena (or "results" in those phenomena).
I would like to know as well. Mathematicians need to get off their high horse mentality. Write4U, not in this instance.
