Neither of us is surprised, my dear.

Thanks for the welcome.

You say interesting things.  Nobody likes justifying "why" because they can't.  Who likes pretending to do something they know deep down in their brains they can't do?  That's not meant to sound derogatory - not at all, I'm just tactless, and the statement is just a fact.

And why is that?  Because acceptable justifications need to have objective evidence to be "acceptable" and there is no objective evidence to support the conclusions that theists come to.

But if it helps, here is some objective facts for you.  There are over 10,000 religions on this planet, and for each of them, their adherents believe just as strongly as you do in whatever it is they believe.  They believe that they have all the evidence they need to support their conclusions.  That makes your chances of being correct as 1 in 10,000 (estimate).  Not great odds, but admittedly better than 0.  Unless you're Christian, unfortunately.  Because there are 1000s of denominations of Christianity, and they are different because they have different beliefs regarding Christ/Bible/God whatever.  So if you're a Christian, it's a 1 in 10,000 chance that the correct religion is Christianity, and then a 1 in 1000s more chance that you chose the correct denomination.  Still, it's a greater chance than zero.  If you're ABSOLUTELY sure you're right (which sadly would mean you're in denial because there is no human way to know that, but I digress) then I recommend you beat a hasty path to the nearest lottery ticket office and buy one.  You're about to be a millionaire!

My kingdom for an edit button.  I hate seeing my own grammatical errors :/

No offense taken at all. Like you I am tactless and matter of factly some of the time. Sometimes I piss people off by my tactlessness...lol.

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic....but in my adult years I did away with "religion" itself. God to me is not religion in the true sense of the word. I dont like religion at all. But my belief in God is purely, simply, nonsensically FAITH...and I am happy with that.

If you choose to call it pretending that's your prerogative and I have no problem with that at all.

Of course  I know there's no objective evidence to support the notion that God, any God exists. That is why it is called Faith. You either have it or you dont. It is not something that needs to be justified in my opinion, nor should anyone have to.

I guess it can be compared to buying a lottery ticket, you have one in a billion or so chances of hitting the big one.....just as there just might be one in a billion chances God does exist for those who dont believe....but as you said...nobody can prove otherwise, and one in a billion is better than none.

But guess what, I still buy them.....lottery tickets I mean.

Isn't that funny?!  I've never bought a lottery ticket.  Never!  There is a scientific study here waiting to happen! :)

Gosh I hope you're not going through life wanting or needing scientific justification for everything. There's something (much) to be said about the wonder of wonders. Dont begrudge yourself the satisfaction of enjoying something mysterious just for the "wonderment" of it.

Yeah, it sucks, doesn't it.

My eyes are getting really bad, and I have trouble spotting my typos because there's no font-size choice when crafting a reply.  Plah.

Actually, Maria, since I was a young child, I have held fast to one specific belief.  That IF there is some sort of deity, the ONLY true form of worship for that creator is learning to understand every facet of his/her/its creation.  How else can I properly respect the "wonderment?"  Not doing that is the equivalent of "Oh look!  Something shiny!"

I'm not talking only about religion...I meant everything else as well. I dont know about you but I happen to enjoy an enigma as purely an enigma. That way I can have the pleasure of imagining all sorts of things. Is it unrealistic?....of course it is...but it's still one of the little joys in my life...lol

Nice parody except for one overlooked fact.  My dialogue follows Ockham's Razor.  Yours does not.  Very much does not.  But it was cool, anyway :)  Thanks for the reply :)

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”

Actually, I do follow Ockham’s Razor as closely as you do.

In your example above, the musician is a mere bystander who never really gives us proof of what his true beliefs are.

On trial, in your example, is religion. (Science is never quizzed) which would follow Ockham’s Razor.

The only thing that I did was switch your example around. My “pizza guy” is an innocent bystander who never shows what his true beliefs are. And science is on trial.

Neither example follows Ockham because the two theories are never placed side by side. (To rule one out.)

Nice talking to you..!!

Actually, in my example, the Musician simply asks questions and in the end he points out that the heart is a muscle and as such can't process information.  He never says anything that isn't based on objectivity.  

In your example, "magic/super particles" are introduced, and so I must disagree that your example follows our dear Ockham.

In addition, you make several assumptions about biogenesis which are held by creationists but not scientists - namely that all life came from a mud puddle and that that mud puddle created the first living organism.  Scientists do not believe this as you posit it.

I appreciate your stance, but you need to do more research - including research that would reveal that I am not your typical fool that preaches atheism.  Atheism isn't any more provable than creationism is.  But I admit it.

You’re a very funny guy, (I needed a good laugh.)

I know that Ockham suggests that you “keep it simple”, but ruling out a theory because someone said that they feel or know something “because it is in my heart.”..??

WOW, that is one sharp razor.

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but every February 14 th, people give out these heart shaped objects. Folks say things like: “I love you with all my heart.”

Come on..??

Ruling a theory out because someone said “it’s in your heart”..??

I’m talking about BIG holes in theories, not little “vocal ticks” like that.

I will concede the “mud puddle of life” because there are several theories on how life began. “Churning oceans.” Or “Alien life carried on an asteroid” or, the aforementioned “mud puddle of life.” (I’m not sure which one you believe..??)

Let’s focus on the “talking monkey.”

Evolution cannot explain intelligence because when it tries to, evolution contradicts itself. “Survival of the fittest.” Wouldn’t an “ape / man” be MORE FIT than a monkey? Wouldn’t more apes gain intelligence?

No, only a select- handful of apes EVER gained intelligence. No other ape ever did. And no other ape ever will. (No other animal ever has.)

Cause and effect…

I want to use an analogy, here:

You and I are walking in a field. An apple falls from the tree. I tell you that gravity made the apple fall. You ask: “Why are no other apples falling from the tree? Why only that ONE apple?”

After thinking about it for a minute, I tell you that the one apple that fell “has gravity, but none of the other apple do.”

This makes no sense to you, being educated, and you have reason to question it. So you ask: “Why did only ONE apple get gravity? All the apples are hanging from the same tree? Wouldn’t all the apples “get gravity?”

Of course, like science, I tell you: “Don’t worry about it, don’t think about it, just believe it. Only that one apple has gravity.”

That is what evolution does when it tries to explain intelligence.

I’m not here to “fight for God”. I’m not even that religious. However, the founding fathers did talk about freedom of religion and that religious people should be free from persecution. You might want to look up the definition of the word “persecution” and re-read your post.

Here’s all I am saying: (to steal a line from some movie):

1,000 years ago, man believed that if he sailed too far out into the ocean, he would sail off the edge of the world.

500 years ago, man believed that if he just drained off enough “bad” blood, he could cure the sick.

Today, people believe that a handful of apes gained intelligence, and no other ape ever did..??

Can you imagine what people will believe 500 years from today?

You are losing your critical thinking skills. You need to practice them. I am not your “strawman” conservative, and if you had research it, you would have known.

I place very little stock in what a guy in a white lab coat tells me to believe. Just as I would never “believe” everything that a guy in religious robes tells me to believe.

This is where I disagree with Ockham’s razor. If you have two theories that BOTH have “holes” in them, why try and eliminate one? (Like some dictatorship.)

Leave both theories out there to challenge our children’s minds.

See, there was no “blood on the highway”, as you mentioned early on. Two people can debate.

See ya..!!

I had a couple of responses up here, but I deleted them.  I think I can do better.

First of all, your response is very wandering.  It's hard to follow.  I can only assume that this is because it isn't based on objectivity.  If it were, you could give numbers, facts, statistical analyses to the things you're talking about, but sadly, you can not.

If you wish to debate with me, let me let you in on a secret that will allow you to win said debate.  Have facts.  That's all there is to it.  Have facts.  So simple, isn't it?

You basically poo-poo'd my statement that the heart is a muscle and doesn't "feel."  Well is that an objective fact or isn't it?  Can you show me the documentation that suggests a heart thinks?  No?  Then with all due respect, shut up, you're wrong and I'm right.

You're gonna quote Valentine's Day to support that a heart thinks?  By doing so, you eliminate yourself from the set of intelligent human beings that know the difference between muscle tissue and neurons.

I'm not sure why I'm taking the time to write this.  You're clearly just another, of millions, that want to believe things are a certain way because it makes it easier for you to exist on a day to day basis.  Spare me your responses, they're a waste of blog space.  1's and 0's are not your friend here.

Wow, how quickly you have reverted to hostility. (Not very objective) Also, a self- defense mechanism.

For a religious person to say they “feel it with their heart” is NOT a very good reason to exclude a theory. Since many people use this expression. (Yes, I know that the heart is a muscle.)

I will just add one more thing and I will leave you alone, because I see that you are not ready to debate. (Maybe in a year or two, you will appreciate a challenge.)

Have you heard of “Ardi”? (I will assume that you have.)

Science finds very old bones in Africa. These new bones change EVERYTHING that science once believed, in man’s evolution.

Science changes every day.

(Matter of fact, science just found bones that are OLDER than “Ardi.”)

You are NOT stupid. I can tell by your writing.

YOU KNOW THAT SCIENCE WILL CHANGE. That is a fact. (Maybe, not the fact that you where looking for.)

When speaking about science, how could you EVER say that what you know today, is the truth..?? (When you know that it will change tomorrow?)

That is why I have problems with evolution being presented as “the only theory” going. And I have BIG problems when teachers and writers present evolution as FACT. (Last time I checked, it was still a theory.)

Ok, I will leave you alone now.

Again, nice talking to you..!!

Hostility?  Nah, you haven't seen me hostile, and the more you keep drudging out these same old tired arguments (that I most associate with young earth creationists - gads, you're not one of those, are you?) like evolution being a theory, the LESS energy I will spend because it's like trying to convince someone that the sky is blue and they aren't having it.

But if you're sure evolution is just a theory, then I urge you to grab on to something that's fastened to the ground and hold on REAL tight, because you're about to fly off the earth and into space.  You see, Gravity is just a theory, too.

Have a nice night.

By the way, is there another theory going that should be in school?  Not...not Intelligent Design?  Yes, by all means teach that, too, along with my personal favorite - ah well heck, you can read the letter for yourself.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Nothing actually banged - so the theory goes.  It was a sudden expansion of space.  If you imagine a balloon it helps.  As you blow up a balloon, no matter is added to the balloon, but area is added as the surface stretches.

Data suggests that the universe began as a singularity - an infinitely dense pinpoint.  That always gave me pause, because at the "heart" of a black hole is a singularity.  Maybe our original singularity was caused by a black hole in a nearby universe :)

I believe it was Stephen Hawking that proved that black holes "evaporate."  I sort of understood how when I read about it, but I couldn't regurgitate it now.

It's interesting to think of it, though. A black hole results in a universe some where/when else.  Then in that universe, more black holes are born as massive stars collapse - which creates a universe some where/when else.  In other words, universes procreates.

This is all just my conjecture, of course. And hard to see in the mind's eye.  I'll try to describe what I see...hmmm...

If you hold a piece of paper up in front of you so you are looking straight at the edge, the left side represents our universe, and the right side represents some where/when else.  Now imagine little bubbles on the left side.  That is matter in our universe.  One HUGE bubble, a massive star, collapses SO hard that gravity inverts on itself and causes the sudden expansion of a bubble on the other side.  That's a simple way to look at it.  If true, the paper actually has an infinite number of sides, but starting with just two makes it easier to imagine.

It's mind boggling stuff, but very, very cool.

To date, the only religious teachings I've ever discovered about creation that kinda-sorta fit in with modern scientific thought is the creation story of the Kabbala, or Q'abala, or however it's in vogue to spell it these days.

Ain.

Ain Soph.

Ain Soph Aur.

Let there be light!

What's interesting is there wasn't any light until an enormous (don't remember the number, I think it was about a billion) amount of years after the big bang.  Everything was dark because the first star hadn't been born yet.  I have theories regarding religious dogma that puts light in the first second of creation, though.  Not that I support the dogma, but I can rationalize that one.

In a singularity, there is no space and so there is no time. Time requires some area to exist, because all time really is is a relative measure of change.  If you have a box with one particle in it that is stationary in space and not spinning or oscillating itself, there is no time inside the box.  Once the particle begins to move, time can be measured.

And obviously, light is very closely related to time, because the record of those changes travel to the observer via light.  Were we able to travel faster than light, which we can't, we would actually be traveling back in time.  Backwards along the record of the changes that light transmits to us, the observers.

So my rationalization for "Let there be light" is that it was actually supposed to be "Let there be time" or "Let there be a situation by which changes can occur"

"If you have a box with one particle in it that is stationary in space and not spinning or oscillating itself, there is no time inside the box. "

And what happens if you put a cat in that box?

And yes, I understand that time travel, according to the laws of physics that we currently understand, would be perfectly possible if we could only come up with the technology to move that fast.

But here comes that stretchy, membrane-y place where the laws of physics as we currently understand them break down and can no longer be relied upon as absolutes.  That a single particle can be everyplace and no place...simultaneously, because without another bit of matter to reference it to, time does not exist.

I can grasp the concept, but just barely.  Remember my wedding poem, which contains the line "But if there is a moment, love, that stands outside of time....."

And always remember, my dear Ock, that the only true definition of magick is this:  The ability to create change, according to one's will, using methods not currently understood by science.

Walks off, singing "Lets do the time warp againnnnn!"

Time to bust out them mittens!

Hope you're diggin the book :)

Yup, but I can already see where it's going.

Remember me saying (long ago) that sometimes I envy the mentally retarded because they always seem so happy?

Perhaps ignorance is bliss after all.