Theli

So you are saying there is nothing even remotely true about it?

John the Atheist

Right.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: John the Atheist ]</p>

John the Atheist

Hey Theli,

I'm just having some fun with ya. I might go back and re-read it and give you some more feedback.

Haven't seen you around before, so I appreciate you posting on the SW. Pleased to meet you.

John

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: John the Atheist ]</p>

Theli

hehe... thanks!

I thought you called it horseshit, I'm pleased with that you didn't. If you would look at it, it would be great.

Theophage

Theli,

Even though your writing style is a little klunky, I enjoyed your post and I agree with what you have to say.

I think you left a God out of your package, however: the God of the Gaps. In this capacity, God is personified nature, and is responsible for everything that we don't alredy understand how it works.

Unfortunately, this God seems to be shrinking fairly rapidly...

[edited to add]

Oops, now that I read your post again, it seems that this God is partially covered by #2

(ewww...I wouldn't want to be partially covered by #2!)

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Megatron

Hahahahahaha...

Only if you have a freezer colder than Absolute Zero. Otherwise they still squirm too much...

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Resulting in a weeklong massacre of Christians who didn't think that Jesus was God. Result: Ore dead Christians from Christian hands that the Romans killed in 300 years.
With friends like them...

Theli

So much violence... one would do best in digging a pit deep in the wood and hide there until one dies.

John the Atheist

Okay Theli,

I got time for one after re-reading it. I have to admit when I seen the title to this subject, I thought this was going to be another attempt by a theist to try to rationalize the Trinity. But reading the header post showed this wasn't the case. Don’t have too much to say, just a few brief comments. You mention that: “fantasies are much more appealing than reality.” I don’t think you’re going to get much disagreement with this from anybody. Everybody can relate to this from their own personal experiences. But when it comes to science, a healthy dose of skepticism is a very important tool of the trade. If one doesn’t practice it here, they won’t last long in their field.

3. The creator. Who is claimed to have created the entire universe. Since this is very much a scientific theory it should be treated just as any other scientific theories.
Once good way to argue this is, "Does the universe need a conscious being to exist as it does today?" By debating gods existence from if you can measure him or not is futile and won't lead anywhere.

I don’t think it can be put in a scientific theory. All God definitions that I ever see have no empirical data and no falsifiability built into it. Quantum Physics is well out of my league, but to try to grasp your question, Professor Victor Stenger presents his case that the universe doesn’t need a conscious. He has books out such as “Not by Design” and “The Unconscious Quantum--Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology”.

John

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: John the Atheist ]</p>

Theli

Thanks for reading it. What I was getting at here is that I find it difficult to see the "creator god", the "biblical god" and the "personal god" as one single entity.