God sucks!

[awol]

I think a compelling case can be made that all of those qualities can be ascribed to god, as he's defined by the masses... 

yes.  and i believe that is a mistake.

it is presumptuous to attribute human morality to god.

that said, perhaps cancer was the best possible outcome for mrs. baker.  why?  because she was famous for being the lady who cried alone.  she cried, and cried, cried.  and the viewing world laughed at her makeup.  so, finally, the viewing world empathizes with mrs. baker.  and perhaps that is worth the pain.

[Bo D]

The concept of a 'creator' is a logical dead-end. 

If one were to depend on logic then, yes, you are correct. However, all rules of logic may break down when trying to justify a creator. Just as our laws of physics and logic break down when approaching a "black hole."

[Henry Hawk]

I believe that many on here, simply supress the truth, of Gods existences, because it cramps their style, to know that they MAY have a higher standard to live to, other than accounting for their own personal agenda....THIS is the easy way out............my take is, that for those who chose to believe that, better hope they are correct...because 'eternity' can be a very, very long time...

[Y]

If one were to depend on logic then, yes, you are correct. However, all rules of logic may break down when trying to justify a creator. Just as our laws of physics and logic break down when approaching a "black hole."

1. Break down?  I refer you to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on
Black Holes :

"...In 1971 John Archibald Wheeler named such a thing a black hole, since light could not escape from it. Astronomers have many candidate objects they think are probably black holes, on the basis of several kinds of evidence (typically they are dark objects whose large mass can be deduced from their gravitational effects on other objects, and which sometimes emit X-rays, presumably from infalling matter). But the properties of black holes I'll talk about here are entirely theoretical. They're based on general relativity, which is a theory that seems supported by available evidence..."

"...I have to hit the singularity eventually, and before I get there there will be enormous tidal forces-- forces due to the curvature of spacetime-- which will squash me and my spaceship in some directions and stretch them in another until I look like a piece of spaghetti. At the singularity all of present physics is mute as to what will happen, but I won't care. I'll be dead..."

Twisted Physics: How Black Holes Spout Off

"...Black holes are complex beasts. Among their mysterious traits are intense jets of matter that sometimes shoot out from the rotational poles at nearly light-speed.

The jets are the result of some really twisted physics, according to a new computer model. And to unravel the mystery, a researcher invokes some imaginary string, a corkscrew and a certain child's plaything -- the Slinky..."

"...One idea is that the spinning of the black hole drags space and time, which twists magnetic field lines and generates a coiled force akin to what allows Tigger to bounce on his tail. Researchers led by Vladimir Semenov of the State University in St. Petersburg, Russia, have created a new computer model that supports this notion..."

2. Why are you trying to tie logic (especially as it concerns a 'creator') into the physics surrounding 'black holes'?  Aren't you simply committing a bit of the old flawed 'Apples & Oranges' fallacious logic?

[Bo D]

1. Yes. Our current understanding of the laws of physics may not be applicable when describing a black hole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes


Hitting the singularity
As an infalling object approaches the singularity, tidal forces acting on it approach infinity. All components of the object, including atoms and subatomic particles, are torn away from each other before striking the singularity. At the singularity itself, effects are unknown; a theory of quantum gravity is needed to accurately describe events near it. Regardless, as soon as an object passes within the hole's event horizon, it is lost to the outside world. An observer far from the hole simply sees the hole's mass, charge, and angular momentum change to reflect the addition of the new object's matter.

Black hole unitarity
An open question in fundamental physics is the so-called information loss paradox, or black hole unitarity paradox. Classically, the laws of physics are the same run forward or in reverse. That is, if the position and velocity of every particle in the universe were measured, we could (disregarding chaos) work backwards to discover the history of the universe arbitrarily far in the past. In quantum mechanics, this corresponds to a vital property called unitarity which has to do with the conservation of probability.

Black holes, however, might violate this rule. The position under classical general relativity is subtle but straightforward: because of the classical no hair theorem, we can never determine what went into the black hole. However, as seen from the outside, information is never actually destroyed, as matter falling into the black hole appears from the outside to become more and more red-shifted as it approaches (but never ultimately appears to reach) the event horizon.


2. I really don't think so, although I admit it is just a bit of a stretch. All of the theories about black holes describe something which we cannot see but most certainly exists. And we think that our current state of the laws of physics, especially without a unified theory, will not apply as we approach the singularity.

I hypothesize that our rules of logic may not apply when we try to apply them to the concept of a creator, which we cannot see. Whether a creator exists, however, cannot be proven. But we also cannot prove that a creator does not exist.

[Y]

I believe that many on here, simply supress the truth, of Gods existences, because it cramps their style, to know that they MAY have a higher standard to live to, other than accounting for their own personal agenda....THIS is the easy way out............

Man, isn't that 'chock full o'nuts'!

1. Unless you're simply making all that up from whole cloth to support your religious beliefs and self-justify your adherence to them, where's your evidence on this suppression of a) "the truth"  b) "god's existence"?  How about the evidence showing your religious morality is a "higher standard", "it cramps their style", and "is the easy way out"? 

Throwing out unsupported claims amounts to no more than the "Monkey in the Zoo" tactic...throw shit at the wall just to see what will stick. 

So, Henry, have you stopped beating your wife yet?     (Get tha' point?)

...my take is, that for those who chose to believe that, better hope they are correct...because 'eternity' can be a very, very long time...

2:  This is at least the second time recently you've thrown out the oft-refuted Pascal's Wager as a fear-based justification for your adherence to x-tianity.

The Rejection of Pascal's Wager:

********

In the seventeenth century the French mathematician and theologian, Blaise Pascal (1623- 1663) put forward a wager in his Pensees (Thoughts):

   If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.

Pascal's wager sounds deceptively simple. Many a religious person finds such a call attractive: one only needs to believe without considering the evidence and one would immediately be in a better position than that of the non-believer. After all, they say, if I believe and then it turns out to be true I get to enjoy heavenly bliss; but if my belief turns out to be false, and there is no God, then when I die, I lose nothing. An atheist, the religious person may continue, if he turns out to be wrong will suffer an eternity of torment. If the atheist turns out to be right then it is only equal to the believer's "worst case." Obviously then, the believer will say, you must wager on the side of belief.

But Pascal's argument is seriously flawed. The religious environment that Pascal lived in was simple. Belief and disbelief only boiled down to two choices: Roman Catholicism and atheism. With a finite choice, his argument would be sound. But on Pascal's own premise that God is infinitely incomprehensible, then in theory, there would be an infinite number of possible theologies about God, all of which are equally probable.

First, let us look at the more obvious possibilities we know of today - possibilities that were either unknown to, or ignored by, Pascal. In the Calvinistic theological doctrine of predestination, it makes no difference what one chooses to believe since, in the final analysis, who actually gets rewarded is an arbitrary choice of God. Furthermore we know of many more gods of many different religions, all of which have different schemes of rewards and punishments. Given that there are more than 2,500 gods known to man, and given Pascal's own assumptions that one cannot comprehend God (or gods), then it follows that, even the best case scenario (i.e. that God exists and that one of the known Gods and theologies happen to be the correct one) the chances of making a successful choice is less than one in 2,500.

Second, Pascal's negative theology does not exclude the possibility that the true God and true theology is not one that is currently known to the world. For instance it is possible to think of a God who rewards, say, only those who purposely step on sidewalk cracks. This sounds absurd, but given the premise that we cannot understand God, this possible theology cannot be dismissed. In such a case, the choice of what God to believe would be irrelevant as one would be rewarded on a premise totally distinct from what one actually believes. Furthermore as many atheist philosophers have pointed out, it is also possible to conceive of a deity who rewards intellectual honesty, a God who rewards atheists with eternal bliss simply because they dared to follow where the evidence leads - that given the available evidence, no God exists! Finally we should also note that given Pascal's premise, it is possible to conceive of a God who is evil and who punishes the good and rewards the evil.

Thus Pascal's call for us not to consider the evidence but to simply believe on prudential grounds fails. As the atheist philosopher, J.L. Mackie wrote:

   Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable.

********

[Y]

1. Yes. Our current understanding of the laws of physics may not be applicable when describing a black hole

2. I really don't think so, although I admit it is just a bit of a stretch. All of the theories about black holes describe something which we cannot see but most certainly exists. And we think that our current state of the laws of physics, especially without a unified theory, will not apply as we approach the singularity.

I hypothesize that our rules of logic may not apply when we try to apply them to the concept of a creator, which we cannot see. Whether a creator exists, however, cannot be proven. But we also cannot prove that a creator does not exist.

I have to ask you to clarify your use of the terms "break down" and "may not be applicable", because it certainly appears physics is able to define, describe, and identify properties of black holes.  As my second source indicated, even going as far as to create computer models. 

Obviously, physics, as all branches of science, evolves as more information is accrued, it seems disingenuous to insinuate that a) any discoveries/information about black holes are going to cause science to throw the entirely of physics out the window, b) physics cannot evolve to include any new discoveries/information about black holes, c) something seemingly invisible to the naked eye which with science we can identify and reasonably point to its existence based up scientific evidence is somehow a basis for, and related to, another thing (the proposition of a creator) for which we cannot identify nor reasonably point to its existence based upon one iota of scientific evidence.

You're simply trying to tie logic in based on 'invisibility', a flawed association from the get go.

As far as your hypothesis concerning the 'failure' of logic in describing/proving a 'creator', I suggest it doesn't hold water and refer you to one of my recent replies to Awol in the Church Lady's Corner regard possibilities and probabilities.  Logic, while understanding possibilities, leads us to to discard the improbable for the probable based on the available evidence (Occam's Razor for one).

[Henry Hawk]

Okay, Y, I would definatly get my arse kicked if I was in a court of law, trying to win a case.....It is just an obseration from myself, that is all....not EVERYTHING is subject to scientific explanation....I'm not making anything up....It is my opinion, it is entirely and un-supported claim... ......maybe it is 'chock full o'nuts'.     ...I'm not forcing it upon anyone...just making a statement...

[Y]

Okay, Y, I would definatly get my arse kicked if I was in a court of law, trying to win a case.....It is just an obseration from myself, that is all....not EVERYTHING is subject to scientific explanation....I'm not making anything up....It is my opinion, it is entirely and un-supported claim... ......maybe it is 'chock full o'nuts'.     ...I'm not forcing it upon anyone...just making a statement...

Since when isn't "everything" subject to a scientific explanation?   That's what science is for, to give us 'explanations'...truthful ones based upon the available evidence. 

[Bo D]

I have to ask you to clarify your use of the terms "break down" and "may not be applicable", because it certainly appears physics is able to define, describe, and identify properties of black holes.  As my second source indicated, even going as far as to create computer models. 

I don't believe that I am the first to describe the breakdown of the laws of physics in the presence of a singularity.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/9/4/1

"the singularity at the centre of the hole, where the density of matter and energy become infinite and all known laws of physics break down."

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/blackhole_bet.html


"The equations of general relativity lead to the inescapable conclusion that collapsing stars, if massive enough, will keep right on collapsing, until they tear a hole in the fabric of space-time. At such a location, called a singularity, gravity is so intense that the familiar laws of physics break down."

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/bh_structure.htm

"At the center of the black hole lies a singularity, that is, a region where the current laws of physics break down because the circumstances are so extreme."

http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/blackholes.html

"The boundary around the collapsed star having this radius is referred to as the 'event horizon'. Anything, whether it be light or matter passing this boundary will be forever lost within the black hole with no chance of escape. What happens beyond the event horizon nobody can tell, because all the laws of physics break down and no longer apply.

[Henry Hawk]

Since when isn't "everything" subject to a scientific explanation?   That's what science is for, to give us 'explanations'...truthful ones based upon the available evidence. 

Opinions is NOT subject to scientific explanation.......

[pariann]

Opinions are NOT subject to scientific explanation.......

FTFY

[Henry Hawk]

FTFY

thanks youse vary muuch..

[pariann]

You want me to fix that too?

[Locutus]

Looks like Jerry Falwell got the same results that so many others have.

One week before his death, Falwell told CNN's Christiane Amanpour he needed at least 20 more years to accomplish his vision for Liberty University. (Watch Falwell explain why he wanted '20 more years' )

Falwell told the story of Hezekiah, who in the Bible asked to live for 15 more years.

"I'm praying the same prayer with an option to renew," Falwell said.

Given that this statement was made just last week, it appears that Falwell also got the middle finger from god.