EVIDENCE FOR GOD

[?Impact]

9 hours ago, betsy said:

That, only shows, you're not getting the rational argument given in this thread.  Really.

Pay attention Scott, rational is not only bolded but it is in larger font and underlined. That makes it triple true.

[Scott Mayers]

20 hours ago, blackbird said:

The word "morality" actually is a relativistic term.  It comes from the word mores, which refers to the general practices of what society accepts or does not accept.  It can change with the times as new fads or ideas develop.  We see this with the wide acceptance of abortion and LGBT rights.  Other "rights" seem to be coming more to the fore now or being proclaimed as rights.

I think if you look into it you will find all societies throughout history have some kind of mores which they taught their children.  What they taught their children was likely derived from what their particular religion in their area taught them, whatever it was.

It is only in recent times in the west that the idea of secular humanism has developed and grabbed onto by society.  This may be partly because of the immigration system.  Previously most of the immigrants to Canada and the U.S. came from Europe.  That meant they were either Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant.  But in the last fifty years, with the increasing immigration from third world non-christian countries, it has been decided that no religion should be taught in public schools.  Some provinces get around this by providing extra funding to Catholic schools, which are guaranteed by the Constitution to receive funding.  But Pierre Trudeau I believe introduced or promoted the idea of multiculturalism.  This meant the religion of all immigrants would have to be treated equally in public schools.  We also see fewer people attending churches in Canada in recent years.  This has resulted in a greater emphasis of no religious teaching in public schools.  Except in recent times, the Ontario government has added some human rights code or law to require public schools to "accommodate" other religions to some extent.  This is why we see some schools allowing a 15 minute prayer meeting for Islam in the gymnasium on Fridays.

I read both this and your post below this one. While I understand that you interpret our "Multiculuralism" by Trudeau as a sincere intent to remove biases universally, this is not the case when you read into the Constitution with a 'lawyer's' eye. I'm not a lawyer but strong on logic (formal, computational, and rhetoric). The WAY the laws were written were in light of the United States First Amendment and how, if we took this type of law, it would not only OPEN our society to ALL cultures but to include those of the Catholic and Anglican predominance in power here in Canada. While the forms of 'Catholic' beliefs are relatively 'liberal' in contrast to many religions, they are at risk of losing their power here, especially with the concerns of Quebec from the 1960's on.

"Multiculturalism" is only technically 'multicultural' by the meaning that 'multi-' means "more than one". But this is intentionally meant to hide the fact that they are NOT universally accepting of all cultures WITHOUT the guidance of the Catholic/Anglican establishment of Canada. IF Trudeau hadn't pushed for the WAY the words were written in our laws, evolution would STILL move towards a 'multicultural' (not the trademarked version here and now) but with the devolution of Quebec's French and the rest of Eastern Canada's ESTABLISHED families. They OWN the problems associated with the discrimination against the Natives and why by making a constitution that adds them is a means to quiet the inevitable backlash of that most populous part of the impoverished and suffering in Canada.

Multiculturalism thus acts to SEGREGATE groups BY LAW in various logic classes to isolate those who would raise doubt and hold the established groups liable to their faults. It is NOT 'universal' other than in a feigned appearance to some of the wording that most falsely interpret is equal in force to the United States forms of protections. Our system, for instance introduces the Charter of Rights with an imposed credit of US ALL to some "God" [preable]. We then get granted a right to our 'conscience' but this is already true regardless of an intolerant government. This only rhetorically asserts that we can THINK what we want about reality, and speak of it (not without consequences!)....but does NOT assure us any actual freedoms to act on those beliefs. 

The proof of this is in the following guarantees to the 'Aboriginals' (how are we not ALL 'aboriginal' to Earth?) and to the Anglican (Church of England) and Quebec's old-school faith in the Catholic religions. [by "Old school", I mean that France was NOT in support of Quebec given they were of the older beliefs in AUTHORITARIAN rule prior to the Revolution in France.] This KIND of 'Constitution' is like the pigs in Animal Farm responding to the question of their established power over all other animals:

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

When ANY government asserts some constitution of 'freedom' but grants specific privilege of SOME over all others to control that 'freedom', it is only a rhetorical device meant to purposely gain supporters and IMMUNIZE those skeptical of it as the ones being intolerant.

 

I assure you, our Constitution is only a legal paper that FAVORS the establishment. The recent ACCEPTANCE of believing victims with the excuse to permit these victims secrecy is only a means to prevent charges to be pressed against the families who gained their substantial power on the historical peoples. Our country was an accidental one based on "Loyal" anti-democratic feudalists who favor AUTHORITATIVE government over the 'commoners'.This is not a thread about Constitution but with regards to religion, our constitution IS a form of theocracy hidden behind a veil of democracy with the intent to preserve the dying cultures due to natural evolution. By fostering OTHER cults that are similarly segregationists and enhancing this isolation through tactics like re-founding lost languages and cultures, this further prevents the collective masses of 'individuals' from the power they need to overthrow these rulers AND hold them personally accountable.

I am against this whole age of Identity politics because of this. It is a form of "social conservatism" disguised as toleration of 'diversity'. The only 'diversity' meant is to the kind the American Confederates thought of about Black people as being distinct peoples who only should embrace their fortune as 'slaves'. We are BENEVOLENT but NOT INTOLERANT. This is the arrogance of our Canadians when we impose these views around the world. And the very intolerance is coming from the ones who APPEAR as selling the opposite.

[Scott Mayers]

@Betsy,

I believe that I addressed your opening post. While you might have other means to address factors within religion as a topic, you were suggesting that science was in definite support of your views .....especially to Christianity of your particular beliefs. You also attack secular atheism as a form of religion. I pointed out that even an atheist like myself CAN have a different view against others in the scientists' accepted view on the Big Bang and even 'agree' that it supports a religious view. It's not important whether I'm wrong about the theory. What IS important is that I CAN agree with you about some point and STILL find no reason to believe religion is some alternative.

The Big Bang theory was actually an opposite theory of Steady State, NOT of any religious theory. It is a theory that suggests an origin from a HOT singularity where the Steady State theory held the view of a COLD eternal state with no actual singularity....only the appearance of it. Instead, it treated space as being a non-empty field that allows matter to be formed from everywhere. Both theories had (or have) its religious supporters interpreting the science supports them. So even if the Steady State theory WAS the accepted version, you'd still find some reason to assert it as supporting your view. (or at least seek for some part of it to).

For instance, many who did not like the Steady State theory felt IT WAS RELIGIOUS because it seemed to suggest you can get something from nothing everywhere in the here and now. While this is not detailed enough, you can argue that that theory 'proves' that God can be everpresent as a creator. See? I'm sure others can imagine ANY possible science theory that one could ADAPT to proving some religion. It makes the religious arguments perpetually able to adapt (as they actually do) to changing certainties when they become commonly accepted.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[betsy]

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

@Betsy,

I believe that I addressed your opening post. While you might have other means to address factors within religion as a topic, you were suggesting that science was in definite support of your views .....especially to Christianity of your particular beliefs. You also attack secular atheism as a form of religion. I pointed out that even an atheist like myself CAN have a different view against others in the scientists' accepted view on the Big Bang and even 'agree' that it supports a religious view. It's not important whether I'm wrong about the theory. What IS important is that I CAN agree with you about some point and STILL find no reason to believe religion is some alternative.

The Big Bang theory was actually an opposite theory of Steady State, NOT of any religious theory. It is a theory that suggests an origin from a HOT singularity where the Steady State theory held the view of a COLD eternal state with no actual singularity....only the appearance of it. Instead, it treated space as being a non-empty field that allows matter to be formed from everywhere. Both theories had (or have) its religious supporters interpreting the science supports them. So even if the Steady State theory WAS the accepted version, you'd still find some reason to assert it as supporting your view. (or at least seek for some part of it to).

For instance, many who did not like the Steady State theory felt IT WAS RELIGIOUS because it seemed to suggest you can get something from nothing everywhere in the here and now. While this is not detailed enough, you can argue that that theory 'proves' that God can be everpresent as a creator. See? I'm sure others can imagine ANY possible science theory that one could ADAPT to proving some religion. It makes the religious arguments perpetually able to adapt (as they actually do) to changing certainties when they become commonly accepted.

 

I never said that you can't give an opinion.  However, in your issue about the Big Bang......you can't expect your opinion to be taken seriously for discussion without any supporting sources. 

Albert Einstein had considered Steady State theory too, but he quickly abandoned it.

Here's something about the Steady State theory, the reason why it's been abandoned:

 

Quote

 

While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the mid-20th century, even though the Big Bang theory had more popularity, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the Steady State model does not predict.

Problems with the steady-state theory began to emerge in the 1950s and 60s, when observations began to support the idea that the universe was in fact changing: bright radio sources (quasars and radio galaxies) were found only at large distances (therefore could have existed only in the distant past), not in closer galaxies.

 

For most cosmologists, the definitive refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

 

 

So......your opinion above is all rambling! 

 

  Furthermore, your opinion is prompted by your bias against religion and God.  Your statement said so.   That's the only reason why you can't accept the Big Bang.

 

For "authority" regarding science's stance on the Big Bang  - I have to go with what's stated in the faq of NASA.   The Big Bang is deemed valid by the science community.  Unless there is any revision to their statement, imo.....that faq still stands.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

10 hours ago, betsy said:

 However, in your issue about the Big Bang......you can't expect your opinion to be taken seriously for discussion without any supporting sources.

Yes unsupported opinions are only the realm of the bible thumpers.

I suggest you reread the "rambling" with an open mind.

[Scott Mayers]

19 hours ago, betsy said:

 

I never said that you can't give an opinion.  However, in your issue about the Big Bang......you can't expect your opinion to be taken seriously for discussion without any supporting sources. 

Albert Einstein had considered Steady State theory too, but he quickly abandoned it.

Here's something about the Steady State theory, the reason why it's been abandoned:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

 

 

So......your opinion above is all rambling! 

 

  Furthermore, your opinion is prompted by your bias against religion and God.  Your statement said so.   That's the only reason why you can't accept the Big Bang.

 

For "authority" regarding science's stance on the Big Bang  - I have to go with what's stated in the faq of NASA.   The Big Bang is deemed valid by the science community.  Unless there is any revision to their statement, imo.....that faq still stands.

 

 

Your trying to turn the table on me to be obliged to prove something to you when it is you here who is making the claims. IF you trust the Big Bang theory BASED ON AUTHORITY, then should you also NOT trust the majority of the scientific community to at least doubt any SPECIFIC religious beliefs without proof?

That is, you are using a method of attack that falsely grants credit by others who do NOT believe that science 'supports' a religious belief by default. How would you like it if I used some quote you said as some authority to support atheism as though YOU believed it? This is appropriating another's words in contexts that is false.

If you credit Einstein, for instance, as some trustworthy source for science, he also does NOT support YOUR beliefs and so either you should take his advise or stop using him as though he's a scientist in support of your belief.

[On Steady State, Einstein held firm on this and opted out of the debate to attend to another one more relevant at the time. See this article that summarizes this: New Discovery Reveals Einstein Tried To Devise A Steady State Model Of The Universe. Personally, this 'discovery' is NOT new. It is just a disappointing view by those supporting Big Bang. If you want to debate this we can use some other thread. I don't know if Michael would be concerned about this here or not given it is more on the topic of science. But it does have a lot of political significance which defines what we call the 'end' of the era known as "modernity". After the 1960's, we adopted a "post-modernist" view which IS about the abandonment of the old ways of thinking that ended with those like Einstein.]

 

On religion, I asked you why you 'deny' my claim of being your god. Do you not see how this demonstrates that you are selectively choosing when or where you can assert disbelief. Atheism, while it IS a term that comes in an anti-religious culture of the vast majority of the world, it is the state of what a child or even a cat is without being taught anything. While science is something we teach, its enemy is those who 'deny' the practice of treating objective truth as based on one's personal FEELINGS. Religion is based solely on realities that are NOT able to be confirmed NOR denied. One can be atheist AND be agnostic (without knowledge) of what IS the reality while some can also deny it based on some rational arguments (gnostic == knowledge). I DO hold a denial and so am rightfully claiming to also be able to argue against the beliefs in SPECIFIC claims of religion. But this is not necessary. 

Your welcome to debate with me on these but your claims for this thread is not able to be proven with respect to a scientific support that is UNIQUE. That is why I even mentioned Steady State here. It nor Big Bang speak about whether some god exists BUT supports many religious views. So you are not correct in using a scientific theory to justify anything about your beliefs. "Science" is a word derived from "to see", which is not able to speak of what all people CANNOT agree to 'see' collectively. 

 

For your own effort, you'd have to show WHY any particular scientific belief is UNIQUE as a support to your view as well as to how specifically it eliminates alternate religious beliefs UNIQUELY. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

CORRECTION: Michael is not administrator here. I falsely assumed that in the above post.

[betsy]

5 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Your trying to turn the table on me to be obliged to prove something to you when it is you here who is making the claims.

 

My, my......aren't you so confused.  You're the one who's making outrageous claims about the Big Bang! 

Read this again....slowly......and weep.

Quote

The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid.

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

 

 

Quote

IF you trust the Big Bang theory BASED ON AUTHORITY, then should you also NOT trust the majority of the scientific community to at least doubt any SPECIFIC religious beliefs without proof?

 

You're comparing the Big bang - a scientific theory that's supported by science - with religious belief???? 

Why should I take science as the "authority" on the supernatural?? Hello? 

 

 

Do you know the difference between natural and supernatural? Physical and metaphysical?  I seriously doubt that you do.....

 

Quote

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

 

........ 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

See? Everything went over your head......or, you're truly on DEAF-CON mode.  You're not making any sense.

Edited January 29, 2018 by betsy

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Personally I don't really see evidence of god, there are moments that seem outright heavenly and it makes me wonder but it is far outweighed by the bad that happens in our world every day. I think it is possible for complex life to form and evolve over billions of years but as far as the development of the universe itself the big bang makes no sense to me.

That being said there are things happening every day that push human existence to the edge of annihilation (especially the last seventy years) but here we are. That is very good reason to believe someone or something is watching over us. I read an article the other day that pointed out the chances against us developing to the stage we are today are simply astronomical, there are are so many planet ending and life eliminating events that earth has dodged and the chances of the planet containing just the right materials and energy to be able to support life is so miniscule that is entirely possible we are the only living organisms in existence.

We really have no clue, we have evidence of seemingly impossible human accomplishments from the past, maybe we were seeded here many thousands of years ago and the true "gods" are those that placed us here, maybe they are watching over us right now? I wonder where some of the brilliant minds got/get their insites? Allot is just theoretical but much has been proven and their insite is being used in the technology we use today.   

We will never know how it all began and the future will always be a mystery  

[Scott Mayers]

Betsy, 

Your post above is attempting to make me defend something here. I used the FACT OF my unusual opinion to show that I CAN remain an 'atheist' because you inappropriately tried to use science to support religion. My opinion here is irrelevant though I can defend it elsewhere. This forum on politics doesn't seem appropriate for me to expand on my reasoning on scientific theory.

What DOES matter is the point that ANY science being used to defend some religious idea is itself is futile because ANY theory, right OR wrong in science is ABLE to be used to support some aspect of any religion. What you'd need to do is show how ALL science proves any specific being UNIQUELY, something that cannot be done. 

[Scott Mayers]

On 22/03/2018 at 1:25 PM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

That being said there are things happening every day that push human existence to the edge of annihilation (especially the last seventy years) but here we are. That is very good reason to believe someone or something is watching over us. I read an article the other day that pointed out the chances against us developing to the stage we are today are simply astronomical, there are are so many planet ending and life eliminating events that earth has dodged and the chances of the planet containing just the right materials and energy to be able to support life is so miniscule that is entirely possible we are the only living organisms in existence.

THAT the odds are extreme throws people off without justice. If you have a lottery ticket with severely low odds to win, while you as one individual among many to be purchasing a winning ticket is extremely rare, note how the odds of ANYONE winning it somewhere is actually high: what 6/49 draw ever has taken, say, 1 year for SOMEONE SOMEWHERE to win? (I used a 'year' although this is itself too long on average. I just don't have the specific number of average pots being won.)

In this example case, the odds of one ticket winning 6/49 is 1 in 14, 000, 000. The example generous odds of ANYONE winning the pot is 1 in 360! 

You can easily see that there are some draws that have a winner in two consecutive draws! That's 1 ticket to win in 1 draw somewhere......100%.

The stats about 'Goldilocks' type odds for living human-like beings are rarer than the lotto 6/49 draw. BUT being that we 'win' at being humans, we KNOW there is a 100% that WE won!! So you are misunderstanding the stats.

 

In ANY high odds of some lottery, ANYONE winning anywhere will interpret their OWN winning an act of God. This is delusional thinking.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Scott Mayers