rainbow walking

David: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Christopher Columbus, Eric the Red and many others are remembered impersonally. People who think of these people today don't think of them because of their accomplishments and nothing else. What these people did is remembered, who those people were as individuals has been forgotten.

rw: Don't you think what a person accomplishes, especially if it's worthy of remembrance, is the greatest expression of that persons individuality, David?

Ryanfire

This is no doubtly done out of Rainbow's love, and his love for fellow man.

Love is the state wherein somebody else's happiness is essential to your own.

Ryanfire

As a friend David, I will give you the answer to that. It's called the human mind. One strong human mind can defeat billions of minds.

power above power.

Contemplate the above statement to seek better understanding.

rainbow walking

Hello Rainbow Walking,

Hi David

rw: Atheism embraces naturalism as its justification. Theism attempts to embrace naturalism but has no justification for doing so when it appeals to supernaturalism as the source. Naturalism is predicated on a methodology dedicated to observation, verification, falsification and application. Theism’s appeal to supernaturalism immediately negates its appeal to the methodologies incorporated in naturalism so the theist resorts to hijacking naturalism by engulfment which is a totally disingenuous argument with no basis in fact.

David: I am a theist and I embrace naturalism. I have tremendous respect for science and scientific research, I read books written by scientists and read the magazines devoted to science, I watch the scientific programs on television and I even may read a scientific journal from time to time. I embrace naturalism, and I am a theist.

Rw: I’m sure you do David and I commend your wisdom in doing so. However that is not the issue I’m challenging. Earlier you claimed that even if methodological naturalism discovers a natural origin for life and this universe you’d still subscribe to the belief that god created it all to exhibit this effect. That’s called “engulfing” your opponents position and is a typical presuppositional tactic. It kinda reminds me of the way we use to decide which team went to bat first in a ballgame. Perhaps you’re familiar with the old hand over hand up the bat until somebody was able to place their hand over the end of the bat method of choosing? The only problem with using this method in determining the truth-value of the respective explanations is that yours is not falsifiable or testable. Who can prove you wrong with scientific methods? It’s equivalent to placing your hand out beyond the end of the bat and claiming victory. It only serves to demonstrate dogmatism rather than rationality.

David: Before you complain about this situation, I must point out that there are many scientists who are also theists. Science and scientific research in reality do not exclude theism. Therefore I can embrace naturalism insofar as it is represented by science.

Rw: Again David, you’ll get no argument from me on this point. I whole-heartedly agree with you and concede to you the truth of this claim. However, again, this is not the issue in dispute. The particular religious affiliation of any or all scientists involved in the major disciplines investigating the questions of origins has nothing to do with a philosophical presupposition that godunnit has pre-imminence over science. I am quite certain that no believing scientist can allow his beliefs to guide his professional investigations. He certainly can’t use religious rites or rituals to verify his premises.

Rw: I have attributed nothing to atheism David except its exact definition. I have rightfully attributed those advances to science and methodological naturalism from which atheism derives its basis in fact. Until you make a genuine effort to understand the difference you will continue to stumble over this misconception and make the same faulty arguments.

David: The exact definition of atheism is the rejection and denial of belief in God (gods). As such, atheism is not science, and science is not atheism.

Rw: I know you’ve said this before but on several occasions you’ve mis-applied the terms and obfuscated my arguments in the process. I hope we won’t have to address this misunderstanding again. I have tried diligently to specifically apply the proper ideology or methodology in each of my replies or rebuttals to your claims.

rw: I repeat, no evidence has been found thusfar to verify the claims and wholly contrived explanations offered by you in particular and theism in general. So your theistic attempts to account for the origins of life and the universe are nothing more than wishful speculations without any basis in fact. Even if billions of you make the same claim for thousands of years that doesn’t make it true.

David: They may be wishful speculation, but they do not exclude any & all scientific descriptions of the origin and development of the Universe. As such, theism is not necessarily incompatible with any origin theory which naturalism might speculate.

Rw: You would have to have evidence of the particular area of compatibility for this assertion to stand the test of peer review.


David: How many people who died in 1869 do you remember, no matter who they were and what they accomplished they are all nearly forgotten even by their descendants. If you look at the obituaries in the newspaper you will discover that about 99% of people who die every day are unknown to you, soon enough they will be unknown to everyone.

Rw: How many of these folks died believing they were headed for heaven…or worse?

How many allowed this belief to dull their senses and intellect to the inevitability of death?

How much of this false acquiescence permitted them to live in utter disregard of an alternative possibility?

How many of them, had they not been led to this acquiescence, could have made some meaningful contribution to the subjugation of death?

How long must mankind endure this blind alley perpetrated by the doctrines of faith?

David: The people who live after us won't have any time to remember us because they will be too busy living to waste time on the dead. As Jesus said: "let the dead bury their own dead." You see, those who are alive can't become distracted on behalf of those who have already died.

Rw: Distracted from what, the possibility that they can participate in the extension of the life of the human organism? Why wouldn’t a person dedicate some of their life to extending the lives of their progeny, even knowing it may not offer any immediate benefit to them personally?

rw: if I dedicate myself to their development, articulation and communication, may live far longer than I, maybe even until man subdues death.

David: If you are going to die, why should you care whether or not future generations of humans die? It seems a waste of time on your part as it promises no direct benefit to your own survival.

Rw: Are you suggesting that man has no forward looking capabilities because of some selfish desire to only be concerned with his own life? Men derive purpose and meaning from their lives from their labors. I hold that a man perceiving himself laboring for a cause as worthy as the subjugation of death would find tremendous meaning and purpose for his own existence from such an endeavor. Men have and still do.

rw: if I live long enough to reach my potential I intend to unleash upon this world a weapon capable of striking a deadly blow at the Achilles heel of all theism, exposing the true motives of your masters and robbing them of many victims.

David: Given that there are billions of theists, that weapon better be mighty powerful.

Rw: Wielded properly it can be.

Rw: And you would think this because your mind has been twisted into the belief that death is inevitable with the resultant consequence of having lowered your vision. While there currently exists a need for scientists and medical researchers in every discipline, what doesn’t exist is a unifying philosophy that specifically addresses their purpose and empowers them with words that put a voice to all men’s common desire by exposing the true enemy and his allies. That will be my contribution. The founding fathers of our nation caught a glimpse of it and established a sound foundation in the pursuit of happiness with the prerequisite of LIFE and LIBERTY but they failed to carry it to its final solution. Their greatest contribution was to separate church and state. This, more than anything else, has preserved the integrity of life in America until an even more perfect union could be visualized. But politics and economics have arisen to challenge the integrity of LIFE and LIBERTY and threaten to de-rail that vision before it comes to fruition. THEISM is not the only enemy of life. I will address the diversions, sweeping them aside like so much flotsam, and show men, in common language, their destiny and greatest enemy. After that I can do no more.

David: You are an idealist and a visionary. I must say that I like that.

Rw: I am a realist and a visionary. Science has already made extensive progress into the enemies camp. That is the source of my realism. That much more ground needs covering and the present political and economic systems are not designed to meet the exacting difficulties that lie ahead, coupled with the pervading philosophies and religious doctrines that have allied themselves against any greater vision, are the impetus of my labors.

David: Death actually grants a little urgency to life as we struggle to accomplish whatever we want to accomplish within the little time we have.

Rw: A struggle that has produced the desperation of crime, addiction, and general devastation of the human population.

David: I don't think that death is the motives of these crimes. Humans commit these acts of violence because they want something or they want to take something away from someone else.

Rw: Why do humans want something urgently enough to violate the rights of their fellows to acquire it? I don’t think you realize how much of our psychology is affected by that subliminal biological clock and the fear driven pressures it places upon our psyches in ways we haven’t even suspected. Couple that with the almost universal acceptance of the inevitability of death and you should be able to extrapolate a common thread running through-out man’s violent aggressive history. How many bad choices have you made in haste? Why were you so hasty in making them?

David: Because God did not heal those people for the sake of healing. He healed them to reassure people of His existence and concern for humanity, or as a means of setting the prophet apart from the people.

Rw: And you know this …how?

David: Because God refused to heal Paul's thorn the flesh and God allowed Stephen to die.

Rw: I don’t follow the logic of your apologetic here. Did god not care for Paul and/or was Paul not one of his apostles/prophets? Is that why Paul received no healing?

Rw: Why does your deity require the existence of mankind? Could it be because your deity did not exist prior to mankind? Let’s test this, shall we?

David: Your questions are not written correctly.

Rw: Is there some grammatical or syntactic error or incorrect punctuation?

David: The first question presupposes that God required the existence of mankind,

Rw: Is that not implied in your claim that he created mankind? Are you saying god created man without said creation being a requirement of some particular aspect of his purpose? Was man an accident of creation?

David: the second question presupposes that God did not exist prior to humankind's existence.

Rw: Yes, I did submit it with a presupposed answer in mind.

David: I do not accept either proposition: God does not need humankind, God existed before humankind.

Rw: How do you imagine these blanket “nuh uh’s” adequately respond to my claims?

rw: 1. Prior to the creation of man god could not have known himself as perfect. Perfection requires the existence of something less than perfect to be compared with to identify perfection. Nothing imperfect existed from which to arrive at such self-knowledge. Thus god could not have been omniscient. He required the creation of a man who, according to the myth, fell under the spell of imperfections from which god was then able to justify his attribute of perfection…or was he?

David: Humans say "God is perfect." There is no evidence that God says such things about Himself, except in his communication with humans.

Rw: There is no evidence that god says anything. There is textual support that humans claim god inspired them to declare his perfection. Are you saying humans invented these definitions of god? If so, why are they not also evidence to suggest that humans invented god? A thing is, after all, known only by how it is defined…yes?

rw: 2. There is one thing man is perfect at, the ability to find the imperfections in his universe, his community, himself and even god. Man is the perfect critic. Thus god required man’s imperfect existence and nature for his perfection only man, as perfect critic, has discovered god’s imperfections. How could he not? It is his nature as man to warily eye every aspect of his existence with a critical expertise born of centuries of struggling with his own identity. That is the foundation of his science and philosophy and his nature.

3. Thus god has displayed his imperfection in creating a perfect critic.

David: I don't regard humans as "perfect critics" of God, or even as qualified to criticize God in any way.

Rw: Why not?

rw: 4. Conclusion: Man created god in the image of man as he imperfectly imagined perfection to be. Without mankind, the concept of your deity wouldn’t exist.

David: Of course. If mankind did not exist, I would not exist. How then could I have a concept of God?

Rw: And how does this respond to my claim that man invented god? I didn’t say man invented you. I didn’t say man invented himself. You claim god invented man with little or no argumentation to support your claim. I. At least, offer some basic logical and physiological support for my claim. In fact I almost stated my premises in a syllogism. What you need David is a better definition of god. Just for kicks and giggles here is a definition I devised back before I grew a brain. Try it on some of the newcomers here as an exorcise in logic if you like:


Let us see if we can “deduce”, from what we know to exist, enough information to conclude a god concept that is both reasonable and sustainable.

First we start with invisibility.” How”, you may ask, “can we “envision” a concept that is invisible?” How do you envision the concept of GRAVITY? By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that our universe is governed by forces we call LAWS which are “invisible”. What IS visible are their effects. The cause is not. This leaves us with an observable universe under the direct control of invisible forces. The recent discovery of “quarks”; sub-atomic particles that blink into existence and vanish again without rhyme or reason, further support this factor, as evidence that there are dimensions of this universe which we have yet to un-veil.

The second factor of a god concept is “dynamism”. By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that the universe is in constant motion from the sub-atomic to the macros of the galaxies not one particle is absolutely still. A god concept must necessarily represent the dunamis underlying this property of the universe. The amount and type of “power” required for “dynamism” is only that which is necessary to get things started, including the “laws” which ensure that everything moves in rhythm. Once the system begins the forces/laws kick in and it becomes virtually a perpetual motion machine.


A third factor necessary to a god concept is “bio-logical”. By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that “LIFE” is uniquely contradistinctive from all other aspects of the universe. Not only must a god concept encompass invisible power but “invisible LIVING power” in order for there to be a “BIO” logic connection. Since we know ourselves to be biological creatures we cannot justify or sustain an in-animate god concept being responsible for our animated biology.

A fourth factor necessary to a god concept is superior intelligence. By observation and scientific enquiry we have discovered that bio-logic functions progress from the simple to the complex; that the more complex the function, the more information is required to be stored and processed to sustain the complexity; that the more information involved the more intelligence required; that all molecular structures contain data; that the non-molecular energetic forces of the universe “convey” data; that the entire biological apparatus has been synchronized into a “food chain” whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts by virtue of the data contained therein. A god concept would necessarily encompass an “intelligence” superior to any singular functional species within the “food chain”, by virtue of the incredible amount of data contained within and conveyed throughout the system. Data that appears meaningless until interpreted by the bio-logic functioning of scientific enquiry, a function of “intelligence” developed by humans as a means of collecting, assimilating, organizing and applying said data to the “purpose” of sustaining and elevating their position within the food chain. The superior intelligence factor is a necessity of the god concept by virtue of the FACT that the “organization” and “activation” of such a HUGE amount of data into what is collectively recognized as the “UNIVERSE” is a function that EXCEEDS the intellectual capacity of any species within said universe actively involved in the “food chain”.

A fifth factor necessary to a god concept is “macro-logical. By observation “WE” have discovered THAT we are, WHAT we are, and WHO we are. By conceptual “agreement” we have established WHERE we are and WHEN we are. During the process of reaching this point we discovered that certain data collected could be assimilated into the body of data already interpreted creating a “progressiveness” that “evolved” into a “systematic” approach being facilitated by the tools of ‘logic” and further developed into “scientific enquiry”. Via “scientific enquiry” we discovered a consistency inherent in the data collected and began to develop “theories” based on this “consistency” The more consistent data being categorized as “laws”, while data under investigation as hypothesis. One such “law” which “reveals” the “macro-logical factor of the god concept is the law of “CAUSATION.” Causation interpreted says that “something” CAUSES all data in the universe to be “consistent” because the “EFFECT” of that consistency is readily “observable”. Macro-logic incorporates the interpretation of data into a cosmic “search” for the original “cause”. Due to the “invisibility” factor of the god concept the search continues. The macro-logical factor is a necessity of the god concept in order to fulfill the “law of causation” which will provide us with an answer to the “WHY” we are.

The final factor necessary to a god concept is psycho-logical. This factor incorporates several “invisible” characteristics of the “bio-logical”. Consciousness, rationality, emotionality, will and reason. The effects are readily observable; the cause remains elusive. The psycho-logical “profile” of the bio-logical reveals a “determinism”. One characteristic determines the function of another thus “dictating” the EFFECT. The manifestation of the “dominant” characteristic will be “determined” by the INPUT and COMPUTATION of data. The “default” dominant characteristic is the “will”. The “will” is determined by data computed into REASONS which are either “rational” or “emotional.” Reason is the computational faculty of assimilating data from external and internal(memory)sources into conclusions that can be logical, illogical, or an admixture of both. Consciousness is the characteristic that correlates all the other factors into a sense of “self” which is developed into an “identity” peculiar to each bio-logical entity. The psycho-logical factor is a necessity of the god concept as it ascribes a “PURPOSE” to all data and an “IDENTITY” derived from said purpose.

In conclusion we can see that the factors incorporated into this god concept are both reasonable and sustainable. Dynamic power, intelligence and three variations of logic are all scientifically substantiated concepts. The “invisibility” factor should not be an objectionable inclusion since we know there are many aspects of our universe which are invisible, such as the wind, but which we can readily observe the effects.

A final summary: What is portrayed as a viable god concept is an "(1.)INVISIBLE,(2.) POWERFUL,(3.) LIVING,(4.)SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE,(5.) WHOSE IDENTITY IS REVEALED IN HIS DESIGN if you're not afraid to LOOK before you LEAP.

Philosoft

Forgiveth me for the intrusion but I just have to ask...

<strong>David spake thusly:

David: Humans say "God is perfect." There is no evidence that God says such things about Himself, except in his communication with humans.</strong>

Huh?

David Mathews

Hello Rainbow Walking,

David: I can and should engulf an opponent's position when it is consistent with my own. I have no intention of disagreeing with myself, hence I must engulf this argument of yours.

David: In reality, the question of God's existence is not scientifically falsifiable.

David: God does not exclude these scientific origin scenarios. Therefore, the conflict that you are seeking is nonexistent.

David: Present the naturalistic scenario and we will determine whether or not it contradicts theism.


David: I don't see the connection between your complaint against religion and the fact that all (or nearly all) of these people are forgotten, and their hopes, dreams and accomplishments are forgotten as well.

David: People are distracted by their day-to-day life. I must say that in the course of this day I have not spent any time thinking about anyone who is now dead. I don't have the time for such thoughts.

I think that people are already struggling against death but those people who are doing so are not attempting to bring death to an end, rather they are seeking to extend life and healthy life through medicine. Inevitably, all people will die. No matter what, all people will die.

David: I agree. The goal is a noble one.

David: From a philosophical perspective, these questions are legitimate and worthy of consideration. I must say that it is unlikely that mortality is the primary or even secondary cause of any act of violence or crime, except (of course) for murder, which is the desire to make someone else dead.

David: God told Paul that His strength was sufficient for Him, therefore refusing to heal Paul's physical problem. I believe that God did not want Paul or the Christians to so dependent upon God that they would appeal to Him to solve all of their physical problems.

David: God created man because He wanted to create man, and for no other reason. God did not need humans, God still does not need humans, and God will never need humans.

David: God need not have said anything about His perfection. The principle is derived from philsophical consideration of God's nature in comparison with human nature.

Even if humans invented definitions of God that does not mean that humans invented God. These definitions are merely tools meant to convey some qualities of God in a manner which is meaningful to humans.

David: Humans are not qualified critics of their own self, how then are they qualified to criticize God?

David: If you would like to define God in this manner, I do not object.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

wordsmyth

Perhaps, but it does make it more likely.

Human history is filled with myths and legends of immortal God(s) and the supernatural.

How can you honestly look at all those other Gods and say "all those other Gods were created by human imagination, but not my God"?

How many Gods do you need to see created by human imagination before you will accept the possibility that yours is simply a human creation too?

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: wordsmyth ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Please pardon me everyone for digressing, but I would like to make a comment:

Rw,
I must note here that I admire your deep passion and intent of purpose.

Someone (Martin Luther?) said " A man who has not found something he is ready to die for is not fit to live"

Reading your well-articulated and impassioned arguments, I see a man who has found a purpose worth dedicating his life towards.

And for that, I both admire and envy you.
I think its a good purpose and for some reason, I feel you are the right person to act as the harbinger and flagbearer of this great purpose.

All great ideas start from one person. This person must be ready to countenance the complacence, resistance, mediocrity, institutionalised contentment and herd-mentality that will act as the stumbling blocks in the effort to chart out new horizons that present new hope to humanity.

I feel you are equipped to counter the wave of complacence and despair. All you need is to be able to sustain the enthusiasm and passion in the face of the huge disinterest that your ideas are likely to meet. All of us, from childhood, have been taught that THIS IS IT. To change that perception requires a man who has reached where you have.

Good Luck.

Answerer

No, it is very clear that God is intent to punish Adam and Eve and thats why He said(in the bible) that they would suffer when they were being banned as mortals, your beliefs isn't my concern and rather, what the bible said is. And please don't try to evade my question again and again, I just want to know why God is so unjust when it comes to punishing humansas describe in the bible.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello wordsmyth,

David: I don't believe that these other gods were necessarily created by the human imagination. I am confident that all descriptions of God in all of the cultures and in all of the religions are descriptions of the One God. Human diversity makes these descriptions different.

I have a tremendous respect for all of the religions. That is why I read their scriptures.

Sincerely,

David Mathews