What could be considered evidence of a God?

General discussions
Mr Kequc
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:03 am
Location: Dublin
Contact:

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by Mr Kequc » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:59 am

Ter wrote: Why. Iinformation that would have been utterly useless to an ancient society no less. But I guess it doesn't matter if your children are dying as long as you know how far away the sun is. So my question is, if this information is contained in the pyramids (rather than people interpeting things that way later), is so why not something useful at the time, a vaccine perhaps, irrigation instruction to help a desert society feed itself, so on, so forth....
You're getting to quickly to the part where we try and figure out why in the world anybody would believe what he said. What apparently we need to do is disprove every single thing that is ever said by anyone on a recurring basis. For instance, here we are playing with numbers.

It would in fact be impressive to find out that the Egyptians during the time that they started building the Great Pyramid had somehow divined the distance of the Earth to the Sun. But how is someone going to demonstrate that it's true?

For some reason I take it that demonstration of evidence, or otherwise flat out not lying about this kind of information may be pretty hard for someone who believes in god to do. I think they may believe in god so fully that they just immediately believe a lot of the stuff that backs up the claim. There is no need to research information that backs up your claim, you see, if you already know that your claim is correct.


According to my extensive research on the subject spanning many many minutes, as an example. The height of the pyramid is 480.6 feet.

The distance to the sun cycles between 147,098,074 km and 152,097,701 km averaging at 149,597,887.5 km. Interestingly, astronomers call the average distance to the sun 1 astronomical unit (or AU). What is interesting about that is that I have 1 dresser in the room that I sleep in, exactly the same number as how many AU's there are to the sun!

If you multiply the height of the Great Pyramid by a billion you get 480,600,000,000 feet or 146,486,880 km. A difference off the average distance to the sun of 3,111,007.5 km. It is significant. It is one of several pyramids all of which have different heights and the number 1 billion comes from out of nowhere.

Here is a fairly good quote from something called Foucault's Pendulum, chapter 48.
He threw open the shutters dramatically and pointed. At the corner of the narrow street and the broad avenue, stood a little wooden kiosk, where, presumably, lottery tickets were sold.

"Gentlemen," he said, "I invite you to go and measure that kiosk. You will see that the length of the counter is one hundred and forty-nine centimeters -- in other words, one hundred-billionth of the distance between the earth and the sun. The height at the rear, one hundred and seventy-six centimeters, divided by the width of the window, fifty-six centimeters, is 3.14. The height at the front is nineteen decimeters, equal, in other words, to the number of years of the Greek lunar cycle. The sum of the heights of the two front corners and the two rear corners is one hundred and ninety times two plus one hundred seventy-six times two, which equals seven hundred and thirty-two, the date of the victory at Poitiers. The thickness of the counter is 3.10 centimeters, and the width of the cornice of the window is 8.8 centimeters. Replacing the numbers before the decimals by the corresponding letters of the alphabet, we obtain C for ten and H for eight, or C10H8, which is the formula for naphthalene."

"Fantastic," I said. "You did all these measurements?"

"No," Aglie said. "They were done on another kiosk, by a certain Jean-Pierre Adam. But I would assume that all lottery kiosks have more or less the same dimensions. With numbers you can do anything you like. Suppose I have the sacred number 9 and I want to get the number 1314, date of the execution of Jacques de Molay -- a date dear to anyone who, like me, professes devotion to the Templar tradition of knighthood. What do I do? Multiply nine by one hundred and forty six, the fateful day of the destruction of Carthage. How did I arrive at this? I divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by two, by three, et cetera, until I found a satisfying date. I could also have divided thirteen hundred and fourteen by 6.28, the double of 3.14, and I would have got two hundred and nine. That is the year in which Attalus I, king of Pergamon, joined the anti-Macedonian League. You see?"
nozzferrahhtoo
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by nozzferrahhtoo » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:07 pm

Jerry wrote:
nozzferrahhtoo wrote:To rephrase what I said to make it easier for you:
This is a good example of why I'm reluctant to go into depth with you. You represent yourself as a troll, an arrogant snob not worth the effort.
Making things easier for someone is a common thing to do, and very useful. If you choose to get offended where none was intended or present then so be it. More likely however you can not answer my questions and you have latched on to this to avoid admitting that. In fact, going over both this thread and the other one you have posted frequently on... calling people a troll and running away is something you engage in with a worrying degree of frequency. If you think a single person, other than possibly yourself, is fooled by this level of copping out, then so be it. Suffice to say however: We aren't.

Again however: You either can show your workings, evidence and arguments to back up your claim about the pyramids... or you can not. Telling us you think you have some experience in architecture is a) unverifiable b) irrlevant and c) not answering the question.

Again:

1) What exact information, knowledge or data (IKD) are you talking about that was required to build the pyramids.
2) What arguments, evidence, data or reasons have you to support the claim that they could not have been built without that IKD.
3) What arguments, evidence, data, or reasons have you to support the claim that they did not have that IKD at the time.
4) How have you established that the explanation for your claims in 1, 2 and 3 above are not just retrospective pattern seeking, such as a possible example which I gave above where someone sees a figure, then goes looking for that figure elsewhere in the massive number of figures we have in the world.

The 4 questions are simple, direct, and should you actually have the answers... easy to deal with. Avoiding them with some cop out claim about trolling serves nothing. In fact if anyone is trolling it is you as going on to a forum, soap boxing one or two points, and then running away from every request for you to back up those points... is simply troll 101 stuff. The average troll soap boxing a point will latch on to anything, literally anything, to allow them to write a reply without actually dealing with anything IN what they are replying to.
Beebub
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by Beebub » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:40 pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:The 4 questions are simple, direct, and should you actually have the answers... easy to deal with. Avoiding them with some cop out claim about trolling serves nothing.
I did try to warn you...
Beebub wrote:While dissenting voices are always welcome, you'll eventually become exasperated with Jerry. He rarely answers a question directly misdirecting the discussion and argument as he goes along. In short, I think you're wasting your time.
Oh, and of course Jerry called me a troll for doing so:
Jerry wrote:Ahh more trolling.
:roll:
Ter
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:55 pm

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by Ter » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:57 pm

Mr Kequc wrote:You're getting to quickly to the part where we try and figure out why in the world anybody would believe what he said. What apparently we need to do is disprove every single thing that is ever said by anyone on a recurring basis. For instance, here we are playing with numbers.
@Mc Keque... Ya, you might have a point, it's just that I've found that disproving claims one by one is pointless unless someone is willing to honestly ask themselves why they were willing to accept those claims in the first place. That's how I lost my faith BTW.
Ter
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:55 pm

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by Ter » Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:57 pm

Jerry wrote:According to the supreme court of the united states, atheism is a religion, thereby afforded constitutional protection.

I don't care that you don't like it. Atheism is a philosophical outlook, you're opinion doesn't change that.
I don't care what the US supreme court sayes, I care that rather than honestly ask any of the quite numerous atheists here you are willing to accept whatever fits your preconcieved ideas of what an atheist is.
I'm happy to try to answer any honest question, your comment here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3875&p=46194#p46194
Jerry wrote:Well to me the existence of God is a premise assumed, not a conclusion supported, but to each his own I suppose.
Was a refreshing change but as various threads have progressed it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe your interested in anything we have to say.
Mr Kequc
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:03 am
Location: Dublin
Contact:

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by Mr Kequc » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:28 pm

Ter wrote:@Mc Keque... Ya, you might have a point, it's just that I've found that disproving claims one by one is pointless unless someone is willing to honestly ask themselves why they were willing to accept those claims in the first place. That's how I lost my faith BTW.
GEEZ we're never going to get Jerry condemned to hell at this rate. If you keep exposing our tricks all willy nilly.

Pay no attention to this "Ter" gentleman. There is absolutely no risk of losing one's faith on the off chance that you begin questioning what the best method is of determining what is true and what is not true. Faith is one of those not make-believe things, it's hardened inside of your "soul" and us Atheists we just suppress it and hate God.

Promise.


Maybe neither of us are doing good here ter.
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by Ygern » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:16 pm

Jerry wrote:
According to the supreme court of the united states, atheism is a religion,
The Supreme Court said nothing of the sort.
It said it was equivalent to - for legal purposes ... i.e. in terms of the First Amendment.

http://www.atheist-community.org/librar ... php?id=742

For non-Americans (and the silly not-a-witch-lady): the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Of course, Ter is essentially correct. It doesn't matter who* claims atheism is religion - it still isn't true.

* True even for values of God, Supreme Courts or Klingons.
Jerry
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:01 am
Location: South Dakota, USA

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by Jerry » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:38 pm

Ygern wrote:Jerry wrote:
According to the supreme court of the united states, atheism is a religion,
The Supreme Court said nothing of the sort.
It said it was equivalent to - for legal purposes ... i.e. in terms of the First Amendment.

http://www.atheist-community.org/librar ... php?id=742

For non-Americans (and the silly not-a-witch-lady): the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Of course, Ter is essentially correct. It doesn't matter who* claims atheism is religion - it still isn't true.

* True even for values of God, Supreme Courts or Klingons.
"Bald" is a hair style, you're going to need to come to terms with that one day.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
~~Thomas Jefferson
Dev
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:10 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by Dev » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:24 pm

Jerry wrote:
"Bald" is a hair style, you're going to need to come to terms with that one day.
I think you've gotten the analogy slightly wrong - besides analogies have limits and finding a problem with an analogy doesn't detract from the original conception. They are simply linguistic tools to make imparting some notion easier. I don't know the source or author of the quip however I'm pretty sure it was "calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair colour". Not "a hair style".

The reason atheism isn't a religion is because it is defined as the lack of belief in a God. This contrasts to theism in which some degree of belief in a God is required. You've made the same mistake that biped highlighted earlier. In this case though you've defined something out of existence. Essentially if atheism is a religion then you've no grounds to argue with us.

The word essentially means not religious and you've taken this to mean religious in order to evade honest argument or genuine ignorance.
Mirthomaniac
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: What could be considered evidence of a God?

Post by Mirthomaniac » Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:19 pm

Jerry wrote:
"Bald" is a hair style, you're going to need to come to terms with that one day.
No, buddy, let me make this really clear: atheism is not, by any current definition, a religion. In fact, let's look at the definitions:

Oxford dictionary definition one:
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods
Obviously atheism doesn't fall in here. If just belief is required then theism does to an extent, but I'd be more on board with definition two:
a particular system of faith and worship
There is zero faith in atheism, and obviously no worship. Atheism is a negation of what we commonly refer to as a religion. If you want to use definition three:
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion
Then you just might have some tenuous connection between the two words. However, this isn't even close to the nonsensical claims of the major world religions. By this definition, Olympic-level athletics is a religion. Art is a religion. Science is a religion. So, by widening the net, you destroy the point that you were hoping to make - that atheism is just another religion among the thousands of others that you reject, and is therefore no better than believing in Xenu, Thor, or indeed Yahweh.

Or perhaps you are using some other definition of religion? Not that you'll reply to this - you have a habit of ignoring things that utterly demolish any semblance of an argument that you postulate, but nonetheless: if you define atheism as a religion, then it is the only religion that is based solely on reason and evidence. If this counts as a religion, then consider me a devotee.

And if you still think that atheism falls into the same boat as Christianity, then you're quite simply wrong. You don't get to define things to suit your own warped view of reality, and if you don't like that, well all I have to say is:

Image
Post Reply