Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

One day science will overcome it's own biased skepticisms that deny God and delve into the concept of collective consciousness (that shared knowledge that allows ants to build and engineer fantastically efficient underground dwellings far beyond the capabilities of any single ant to construct) as it applies to spiritualism.
I can enthusiastically recommend the book Seven Mysteries of Life by Guy Murchie (a writer and follower of the Bha'i faith and favored by people like Richard Byrd, Issac Asimov and Kurt Vonegut) as it explores these themes in depth.

 

I've always been of the opinion that ALL philosophies, including materialist atheism have an infinite regression problem. I figure it's an unknowable issue.

 

you're wrong again, 'it' is the subject

try to keep up, i already made that completely clear

and if you'd been following the conversation you would have understood what we were talking about

like i said, you can't show me

 

I suggest you take your own advice immediately.

 

Yes, I try to do so.
I try to find the Truth and adapt it to my life.

 

your comments say you're not doing very well at that

 

And what is it? Without a reference for "it" to apply to you have a passive voice and a sentence without a true subject.
"It lays at the bottom of the ocean,"...now tell me what "it" is.

If it was at all clear you wouldn't have had to explain what the hell you were referring to.

Like the rest of your lazy unpunctuated and uncapitalized gibberish your sentence structure and ideas are as pitiful and incomplete as they can be. Lazy thinking produces lazy ideas and sentences.

What? Can't show you what? Jesus! Have you ever produced a fully informed and expressed thought in your entire life? What a hopeless case.

The atheists are welcome to you.

 

it was perfectly clear, try reducing the spin and pay more attention

don't you feel the least bit of embarrassment for not being able to follow the conversation?

 

Obviously it was NOT perfectly clear. Do yourself a favor...http://www.english4dummies.com/grammar/basic_elements_of_the_sentence.html

Even going all the way back to the sentence you were commenting on...
So you are using the words of a man who didn't believe in YOUR "god" to prove the existence of YOUR "god"? your comment (it has been debunked) ...makes no sense at all.

What has been debunked? What in the world has been debunked?

The words? The man? Your God? The existence of your God? The proof of the existence of your God?
What? You are using a pronoun (it) to identify something that could be any number of things.
Aren't you a little embarrassed to be relearning elementary English you should have learned in the fourth grade? Or is embarrassment beyond you?

I appeal to some of the other brighter people in here. Is decent grade school level grammar too much to ask for?

 

I have always made the case for the complexity argument. Intelligent design is everywhere not just some cluster random outcomes from a random explosion.

 

like where for example?

what a joke, you couldn't even figure out what the obvious subject of my sentence was

and you can't show me the exact quote, you know, the one you're trying to ignore, that doesn't exist

 

At least on the macro scale it appears to be.

 

Really.
And how does gravity "organize" the universe around it? It certainly is a basic force in the universe itself.
But as an organizing and creating force behind the universe per se? How do you see this as being so?

 

What a joke indeed that you think any one of four or five elements that I listed just two posts ago is an "obvious" subject.
I've already made an appeal to any reasonably bright poster to tell me if I am being unreasonable asking
for actual fourth grade level sentence structure in the posts we must decipher here so I'd appreciate you butting out of this until then.

No. I don't know an exact quote that doesn't exist. How can I if it doesn't exist and how can I ignore something that does not exist to begin with?
Boy, you can't keep your head above the water line, can you.

 

We have another dodge and non answer!

YOU MADE A CLAIM. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU AND YOU CAN'T BACK IT UP!

Face it, you've lost this argument. Period. Just because YOU call something fallacious
doesn't make it so. But if you can put up evidence to support your claim then do so.
YOU CAN'T because you have no such evidence.

The fifth, or is it the sixth, dodge and non answer in 3... 2... 1...

 

it really is, i'm sure i've forgotten reading more books than you'll ever lay your hands on

of course your assertion was false, that's the whole point

you can't show me a quote that supports what you said

i don't think he has

 

Oh, I'm sure of it. Your well thought out posts have scholar written all over them.

And again, what are you referring to?
My assertion...which assertion was that? I don't think I've ever seen a single well constructed sentence from you.

 

Sure he has. He made a claim and can't back it up. He's dodged answering
at least 5 times. Just because he says something doesn't make it true.

He needs to back up his claim or acquiesce.

 

as they should, i've been a student for many decades

i've shown you several times, are you really that lost?

show me the claim you're referring to

 

Some people can stretch out junior high forever it seems.

Then show me again.




show me the claim you're referring to[/QUOTE]

 

it's in post # 683, but i'm betting you'll stick to your charade

 

Can you be more specific? Either you admit Einstein said he believed in the impersonal God of Baruch Spinoza (as I've already cited)
in which case you lose. Or you disagree with Einstein's own stated views on the issue...in which case you lose
again. So which do you claim?

Heads you lose. Tails Einstein wins.

 

of course you can't back up this claim and of course you continue the charade, like i said

really, aren'y you the least bit embarrassed?

 

I cited this once before.....
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html
and you didn't dispute it. You can't dispute the man's own account of his own beliefs. So what can you do?

I'm embarrassed for you.

- - - Updated - - -

I cited this once before.....
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html
and you didn't dispute it. You can't dispute the man's own account of his own beliefs. So what can you do?

I'm embarrassed for you.

 

it doesn't support what you said about me allegedly making an admission

an admission that you keep failing to produce, no matter how many times i keep asking you to show me where i said it

that never happened, it's just another one of your fairy tales