bobby -

Is just being bobby.

Now back to the topic... existance of god

If bobby will allow.

And Clyde, just being Clyde.

Should we vote on who's the one with less of a clue of the real world? :-D

Cheers.

bobby -

Is just being bobby.

Now back to the topic... existance of god

If bobby will allow.

You were the one that accused me (and others) of refusing to answer "Inconvenient Questions", presumably there were pertinent to the topic at hand. Why not restate them to help things get back on track?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Marxist, Nazi, Progressives, are all the same.

These self righteous BGH (Better - Greatest - Humans) types have no moral superiority over the similar self-righteous religious believers.

They all have, and if allowed, always will, inflict human slaughter and enslavement upon humanity. A the religious have done.

Yes. I do understand the BGH religious. As I understand the non-religious BGH people. Both do believe in their superiority.

bobby...

You are not one of them. Are you?

Is there anyone, through his or her entire life, that has not at least temporarily thought of himself or herself as above another?

Is it possible that this is just a natural human failing?

If so, should we worry about everyone we meet or should we be vigilant for the signs from those where that belief is not just temporary?

In other words, do we need to insist everyone is able to provide proof that they're a card carrying member of the "not a member of those bad groups" group?

I could provide examples of people posting here that, while they make some strong statements, they really do seem to have thought things through quite a bit and yet basically get called a monster:

(A) Because of something else said elsewhere, even if on the current topic, there's agreeement.
(B) Because of disagreement on the current topic, even if there's been at least some agreement elsewhere.
(C) Because the "I'm not a member of those bad groups" card has not been presented.

Anyway, Clyde.

I know you are quite good at it, but why not perhaps make a distinction between God and some fanatical religion which may be around?

You know I am having my own thread here and it is supposed to be about science quite often or most of the time.

Definitely a definition of God is impossible to give, because not everyone is believing in his existence.

Still we happen to be living in a material world where science is supposed to be about things related to our world rather than those immaterial things which are impossible to define.

Our knowledge about both elementary particles as well as objects belonging to space is as a result of scientific achievements which have been obtained in the past as well as theoretical and logical assumptions related to certain things which are not readily proven.

Because of that, do you think that the possible existence of God could be explained by means of a philosophical context or approach?

If not so, are we perhaps seeking the possible existence of God by means of applying science on the subject which is related to God?

In fact, right now looking up Theology in the Wikipedia. I have not done so earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

In my opinion, regardless of whether or not you happen to be a believer or something else, a difference or distinction should be made between the God being depicted in the Bible and some other phenomena which might be related to either the paranormal or the spiritual.

The creation of the universe may not necessarily be having a divine origin or reason, but God's first Commandment is that you should have no other Gods than me.

For now the reason behind the creation of the universe may not be readily explained regardless of whether or not we are supposed to believe in God or some other divine force behind such a possible existence.

Therefore we are left with using the scientific method in order to be able to understand certain things, regardless of whether or not God should in fact be existing.

In the end, the possible existence of God may be only be explained by means of using the subject of theology on the subject, but we already know that scientists are not supposed to believe in the subject of religion.

I know you are quite good at it ...

You are.

Definitely a definition of God is impossible to give, because not everyone is believing in his existence.

Really?
In Euclidean geometry, an equilateral triangle is defined as a triangle with all equal sides. (As a consequence, all angles are all 60 degrees.)
I propose it is highly probable that all attempts to ever construct an equilateral triangle have failed, not because of the method (which can be proven to produce a perfect result if followed perfectly) because of human inaccuracies and inaccuracies in the straightedges and compasses used.
If all attempts to produce an equilateral triangle have, in truth, produced a-not-so-equilateral triangle, then the definition is of something that does not (yet) exist.
Yet that thing can still be most certainly be visualized and talked about.
Nonetheless, people wonder, what the h311 are you talking about and whether you really contribute anything to a discussion.

Therefore we are left with using the scientific method in order to be able to understand certain things, regardless of whether or not God should in fact be existing.

I see. So, not only do we get to decide on the existence, but we also get to decide on whether something should or should not exist. I say it doesn't exist, but feel it should, thus, I will make it so.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Anyway, Sarge.

I was replying to Clyde's post here.

Could you please edit your post slightly before finishing.

I think my post was a quite good one and therefore deserves a better response.

You make some very good points in your post, mp.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Thanks, Julie.

I was still able to edit my post slightly.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=78077&postid=1737303

Should be Message 1737303 by janneseti here.

This makes me able to notice the fact that the way the subject of theology is supposed to be applied also makes for the way people are supposed to believe or not believe.

We should therefore assume that the Church as well as the possible notion of belief you might be having should be related with being anything from possible sins carried out and the possible forgiveness you may be able to receive from carrying out certain acts, through or by means of the possible notion of both God and the Devil you might have.

Religion and theology are subjects which are supposed to be carried out by the Church. The subject of belief vs. non-belief has nothing to do with the way we should be thinking about the way science is supposed to be carried out.

Science is once again about proof and validity. Whether or not you may "believe" that a given thing is true at times, apparently only being able to prove a certain thing also makes the validity of a certain or given fact the same.

You do not have to be a believer in order to be a good scientist. Therefore it becomes just that easy to be able to prove (or maybe the opposite way around) that a certain thing is for real or not.

For most people who are supposed to believe in God, this may be as a result of personal experiences as well, including possible emotions. I do not think this subject should be discussed any further, however.

It should be noted that I had some difficulty finding the correct words here.

You make some very good points in your post, mp.

Then please translate, Julie.

BTW ... banished: ID 10223287.

... but why not perhaps make a distinction between God and some fanatical religion which may be around?

Other than this, how is your post a response to something Clyde's said?

You know I am having my own thread here and it is supposed to be about science quite often or most of the time.

Looking back as far as October 5 in Politics and as far back as August 3 in Science (non-SETI), I cannot find a thread about science originally authored by musicplayer. To which thread were you referring, please?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Oh, am I supposed to contribute to this project in any way.

Astronomy is supposed to be a science. Astrobiology and other related fields are supposed to be the same as well.

Astrology is not supposed to be a science, however. The same goes for Tarot cards.

Those people who happen to be either atheists, or possibly agnostics, may not find the subject of this thread being of any importance or relevance.

Should I perhaps be asking whether or not Mark Sattler is able to be doing anything valid for the sake of science?

At least he is not afraid of telling about his possible opinions when it comes to at least a couple of things, including the subject of being able to believe.

Despite that, or maybe something else instead, his credit here, as well as the same when it comes to a couple of others as well should better make us able to tell whether or not we are the only intelligent civilization present in the Milky Way.

For possibly the sake of entertainment, the possible notion about extraterrestrials being either Little Gray Men, aliens, or whatever else currently is part of our society.

Neither equations, elementary particles, neutron stars or possible a couple of bad words at times may be able to give a full explanation for a phenomenon which is assumed to be a real one, namely the UFO phenomenon.

Right now we may think that observations of such objects may be an indication of the presence of other intelligences in space, or the Milky Way, to be more exact.

To astronomers, space is both empty space as well as certain objects being creations of nature, including stars, planets, galaxies and also gas and dust, which possibly are the ingredients of life.

In order to explain the properties of such objects, we are assuming that our knowledge or understanding of mathematical principles, or equations, may be able to solve all problems that may be at hand.

Therefore, our way of understanding nature is by means of the physical laws we are able to learn about or know being present in nature and taking for granted when first being understood.

Did Albert Einstein ever consider or reflect about generally accepted laws about gravity and motion when formulating his Special Law of Relativity in 1905?

Rather than publishing possible equations being related to the subject of time, we only are mostly aware of the equation E=mc2, which in my opinion is not telling anything about the subject of time at all.

One way of possibly being able to detect an intelligent signal coming from space is by means of assuming that there may be other civilizations which have reached our own capabilities when it comes to doing the same.

If another civilization should have become much more sophisticated, it is more likely that certain kinds of information or communication may be happening in different ways than only transmitting a signal through space.

For now we are left to speculate about the contents of an intelligent signal, or the properties such a signal could be having.

Most people are supposed to believe that an intelligent signal may be detected by the results being returned by the processed tasks, while there may possibly be other people who may be having the opinion that an intelligent signal might not be detected because it does not contain the numerical values which are needed for such a signal to be regarded as being intelligent.

Is a possible series of gaussians, if it ever should be detected, supposed to constitute a possible intelligent signal, or should we perhaps be looking for something else instead?

Not necessarily UFO's, but rather we should keep with the subject related to possible intelligent signals coming from other intelligent civilizations in space.

The Milky Way is comprising more than 100 billion stars. Our closest neighbor in space, Alpha Centauri, is some 4,3 light years away.

This knowledge, among a couple of other things makes me still going when doing this and a couple of other things.

See you tomorrow.

At least he is not afraid of telling about his possible opinions when it comes to at least a couple of things, including the subject of being able to believe.

Yes, Mark does do that and he is free to do so.
Which opinions of yours were you supposed to be sharing?

Should correct myself.

Apparently I pasted the link following "in response to" when making a reference to an earlier posting.

Rather it should be the first link that should be used here.

Sorry about that mistake.

Should correct myself.

Apparently I pasted the link following "in response to" when making a reference to an earlier posting.

Rather it should be the first link that should be used here.

Sorry about that mistake.

Geoff Tate used to be an amazing singer.
Via his spirit. I transcended to a belief in the spirit of Darwin which may or may not have Platonically existed.
Alas, Geoff no longer retains his awesomeness. At a rate greater than c. amidst lack of practice, alleged smoking and arrogance, he no longer soars across the octaves.
Is it because of this that my faith in Einstein shattered?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Sarge

Please believe me. I an not being snide or sarcastic. But I do not understand this post.

"Geoff Tate used to be an amazing singer.
Via his spirit. I transcended to a belief in the spirit of Darwin which may or may not have Platonically existed.
Alas, Geoff no longer retains his awesomeness. At a rate greater than c. amidst lack of practice, alleged smoking and arrogance, he no longer soars across the octaves.
Is it because of this that my faith in Einstein shattered".

I have never heard of Geoff Tate. Are the Darwin and Einstein to whom you refer the historical persons with whom I am familiar or do they refer to characters in what I have heard spoken of as "rock bands/,music"

Sincerely
David Nelson

---

Dave Nelson