Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

The Awful Truth


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 314 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jul 2013 19:07:29 BDT
Heretic says:
AJ Murray says: "But where does the idea that her God mustn't be tested come from?"

King James Version (KJV) Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

SWH

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jul 2013 19:13:43 BDT
Heretic says:
Source?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jul 2013 22:22:47 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 26 Jul 2013 22:26:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Jul 2013 22:30:48 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 26 Jul 2013 22:32:12 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jul 2013 23:38:36 BDT
richard says:
but doesn't it go even further than this because apparently god will decide not to answer peoples prayers in a directly meaningful way as well. if someone prays for 'whatever' and 'whatever' doesn't happen then it's because god has other plans for the person. maybe god will even cause something else to happen in the persons life in response to the prayer because god knows what's best for the person and knows that what they are praying for is not in their best interests!

so if god is being tested he wont answer the prayer but if god is not being tested then the prayer not being fulfilled is due to god having other plans for the person. lastly of course we must have the possibility that even if the person didn't pray for 'whatever' that 'whatever' would happen anyway but if the person prayed for it then god made it come to pass and maybe even if the person didn't pray for 'whatever' they still feel that god is watching over them and made it happen!

one can't test god because one can't know the mind of god. well unless god is being tested in which case apparently we can know the mind of god because we know he doesn't want to be tested.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 00:26:14 BDT
Do you think you might turn gay Tom?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 05:37:42 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Yet we will and act in the material. It makes vastly more sense ON THE EVIDENCE to see ourselves as spiritual beings with a material component than material beings."
Just to clarify 'Tom', are you saying it makes more sense that we are spiritual or that it is a conclusion based on evidence that we are spiritual because they aren't the same thing, and I don't agree with either of those statements being true.

You have no evidence for non-material components and it's just through personal incredulity you insist upon them so the 'making sense' aspect is highly subjective and prone to your own short comings.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 05:48:31 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"As modern science shows for the only evidence based universe we know of , ours, the odds against intelligent life existing given all of the other possible configurations are 10^10^123rd against."
It's not science that shows this at all and you're not good enough with statistics to see that the probabilities are actually 1.

"We, the final cause of creation thusfar, the highest known lifeform in our temporal realm, are the cause of water and fire. Love brought us into being in our interdependent existence ordered towards love."
That sounds nice, a little bit clever but also makes no sense whatsoever. There's no way you can unpick it or explain it in simpler terms you can only act all indignant that someone would call you on it.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 06:05:58 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Bellatori cleverly, if not intelligently or wisely, would like to avoid discussions about the statistical gross improbability of there being a universe like ours, for... given one single universe.. .it's virtually impossible to avoid the design of God."
I'm sure Bellatori would jump in but even if he wasn't interested in a discussion of your statistics I would be, as I repeatedly asked I'd like to see your equation that gives you your figure (or quoted figure) there can be lots had in going over to input figures - so let's discuss them!

Oh look you hint at them later in the post and try to go it alone in making your argument...
"There IS evidence of one universe only and the universal constants allow for variation to the tune not just of 10^123rd, but of 10^10^123rd."
So with 1 observable data set that is following a progressive linear path through time you manage to suggest that your singular data set was variable without managing to observe a single variation of them. That's not science and it's not statistics it's just trying to impress people with big numbers.

Going back to your earlier statement:
"For any people who like to consider themselves 'evidence' based , or scientific, the case boils down to necessity, chance or God."
You in fact show it to be necessity so God (why is it your particular flavour of god?) is a superfluous hypothysis. Your own argument did that!

Science 'Tom'.

Science.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 07:11:01 BDT
brunumb says:
Tom M: "...the odds against intelligent life existing given all of the other possible configurations are 10^10^123rd against."

May I ask what "all of the other possible configurations" means, and how the probability was determined?

Posted on 27 Jul 2013 07:21:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Jul 2013 07:30:30 BDT
Withnail says:
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/evidence-for-god-from-probability/

I suspect that this is his point. As many people have pointed out, even if the odds are very high, the fact remains that we exist on Earth in our present form, and there is no need to invent a god in order to explain this.

Edit... And if you were to add to the list of very unlikely events that led to this "and it all happened because something we called God just decided to do it" the odds would increase.

In other words it is a stupid argument that fools only the most gullible.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 08:12:01 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:04:54 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 08:18:35 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:04:55 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 08:22:14 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:04:56 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 09:24:51 BDT
Mrs. F. Shaw says:
How can a calculation for the statistical improbability of a universe be derived when you have nothing to compare it to? The other problem I have with statistical improbability calculations is THAT WE ARE HERE which rather puts a dent in your calculations doesn't it? Whether the odds are 1:2 or 1:dodecagazillion doesn't matter. We are here so odds bear out that it's possible in spite of mathematical thought experiments.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 09:41:33 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:05:08 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 09:46:04 BDT
Mrs. F. Shaw says:
I know nothing, Bellatori :)

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 09:57:19 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:05:10 BDT]

Posted on 27 Jul 2013 10:18:58 BDT
Mrs. F. Shaw says:
Maybe I'm out of my depth here, Bellatori. I shall leave you all to discuss philosophy and science. Take care. It's been interesting and for the most part fun but I think this forum is not for me.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 10:32:22 BDT
Heretic says:
Mrs. F. Shaw says: "Maybe I'm out of my depth here, Bellatori. I shall leave you all to discuss philosophy and science. Take care. It's been interesting and for the most part fun but I think this forum is not for me."

I hope that you will stay, the site needs ordinary people that can put their twopenny worth in. I frequently get lost in some of these message threads and all can do then is 1. ask questions or 2, just read and hope I learn something.

Sometimes an intelligent question can break a cycle or logjam that a thread has managed to get itself into. Also people that consistently attack ideas that people hold but not the people that hold them are valuable in any forum and this forum might need them more than most.

Peace

SWH

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 10:36:20 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:05:13 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 13:46:25 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Mrs Shaw - don't you dare go - your posts are far too valuable, and we need intelligent women on this forum. Anyway, we don't need to flash our qualifications around, do we...? ;)

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 16:47:29 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:05:26 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2013 17:44:10 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Jul 2013 17:44:33 BDT
We need your patience, your eloquence, and your erudition. There are few enough of your calibre of poster, and it would be a shame to lose you Mrs S.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  314
Initial post:  25 Jul 2013
Latest post:  2 Aug 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions