All Forums | General Discussion

How does God keep track of 7.3 billion people?

...

Participants:

Search

Posts: 228

melossinglet

Banned

Joined: Jan, 2013

Posts: 15769

Posted: Apr. 7, 2015 - 6:40 AM ET #151

Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

Yes. Some of mine may have autocorrected wrong. And on phone and not taking time to proofread. But good grief. Yours is not to save time. It is almost too hard to do it the way you do it. I mean is misspelling something like that really saving time? Unless....

I'm not sure that it works the way you want it to on a few levels. But if you are sincere you can do plenty of good research with it. And if you are honest, will admit there are some good points. The fellow has touched on some of them. With exactness and so forth of universe. As Paulkinghorn (I promise you that spelling is incorrect) (But the guy at Oxford) has said. The preciseness is so exact. That it would be like aiming at the far end of the universe and hitting a target bullseye. It is just amazing. That is what had changed a lot of the scientists views on this. Others will point out the earth and life itself. Many points are made with other scientific things as well. But the guy's point is surely you cannot use this as proof of nonexistence. Sure it is your choice. But as Russell (maybe) and others have said: there wasn't enough evidence. Always this is countered with Paul and the example of the earth and creatures itself as being self-evident. This is the point people make when they use the people that have never even heard of the bible, in the middle of the rain forest, that reach the same conclusion. It is for sure a faith thing more than an evidence thing. You are correct about that. And you are correct that it is not for everyone. But if you seriously study up on it and read some of the intellectuals it will at least give you some things to think about. Not having proof is not the key. Always to be completely dismissive of either side is fine if you just want to say nah nah nah nah. But if you are sincere in studying both sides it is explained in depth from a lot of angles. Philosophically, scientifically, existentially, and so on and so forth. A solid reason for one person may not even be enough for another because they will never concede any points along the way, no matter what. Several have addressed this as well. Just as scientists will strive for empiricalness. Then when they cannot achieve it they will use presuppositions. Then when those are knocked out from the foundation. Where do you go from there.

There are many, many places to really ask the questions you are asking online that will give you a starting point to this. Because you are not going to get a guy to say he knows because of this particular fact. You have to use univocal, equivocal, and analogical ways of speaking in the discussion. Or else you flounder around.

okay then,thats all i need to know...as much as i thought.all he,or anyone,needs to say is "i have no sound factual reasoning or evidence to believe in a god watsoever"...thats the only question that was posed here...so if thats the answer then end of discussion.

as i said,philosophies,perspectives and wonderments at the majestic brilliance and awesomeness of the universe and the lifeforms it contains are all other topics for another place.....i know that stuff becomes intertwined in the discussion for people that have no "actual" reason for their crazy adherence to insane beliefs.but im just breaking it down to that one simple query in here...and the answer,if rostos was man enuff to give it,is always the same,entirely predictable...."no,i have neither seen nor heard anything real to suggest the existence of a god or ultimate creator"

0

Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

Yes. Some of mine may have autocorrected wrong. And on phone and not taking time to proofread. But good grief. Yours is not to save time. It is almost too hard to do it the way you do it. I mean is misspelling something like that really saving time? Unless....

I'm not sure that it works the way you want it to on a few levels. But if you are sincere you can do plenty of good research with it. And if you are honest, will admit there are some good points. The fellow has touched on some of them. With exactness and so forth of universe. As Paulkinghorn (I promise you that spelling is incorrect) (But the guy at Oxford) has said. The preciseness is so exact. That it would be like aiming at the far end of the universe and hitting a target bullseye. It is just amazing. That is what had changed a lot of the scientists views on this. Others will point out the earth and life itself. Many points are made with other scientific things as well. But the guy's point is surely you cannot use this as proof of nonexistence. Sure it is your choice. But as Russell (maybe) and others have said: there wasn't enough evidence. Always this is countered with Paul and the example of the earth and creatures itself as being self-evident. This is the point people make when they use the people that have never even heard of the bible, in the middle of the rain forest, that reach the same conclusion. It is for sure a faith thing more than an evidence thing. You are correct about that. And you are correct that it is not for everyone. But if you seriously study up on it and read some of the intellectuals it will at least give you some things to think about. Not having proof is not the key. Always to be completely dismissive of either side is fine if you just want to say nah nah nah nah. But if you are sincere in studying both sides it is explained in depth from a lot of angles. Philosophically, scientifically, existentially, and so on and so forth. A solid reason for one person may not even be enough for another because they will never concede any points along the way, no matter what. Several have addressed this as well. Just as scientists will strive for empiricalness. Then when they cannot achieve it they will use presuppositions. Then when those are knocked out from the foundation. Where do you go from there.

There are many, many places to really ask the questions you are asking online that will give you a starting point to this. Because you are not going to get a guy to say he knows because of this particular fact. You have to use univocal, equivocal, and analogical ways of speaking in the discussion. Or else you flounder around.

okay then,thats all i need to know...as much as i thought.all he,or anyone,needs to say is "i have no sound factual reasoning or evidence to believe in a god watsoever"...thats the only question that was posed here...so if thats the answer then end of discussion.

as i said,philosophies,perspectives and wonderments at the majestic brilliance and awesomeness of the universe and the lifeforms it contains are all other topics for another place.....i know that stuff becomes intertwined in the discussion for people that have no "actual" reason for their crazy adherence to insane beliefs.but im just breaking it down to that one simple query in here...and the answer,if rostos was man enuff to give it,is always the same,entirely predictable...."no,i have neither seen nor heard anything real to suggest the existence of a god or ultimate creator"

melossinglet

Banned

Joined: Jan, 2013

Posts: 15769

Posted: Apr. 7, 2015 - 7:03 AM ET #152

Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

Yes. Some of mine may have autocorrected wrong. And on phone and not taking time to proofread. But good grief. Yours is not to save time. It is almost too hard to do it the way you do it. I mean is misspelling something like that really saving time? Unless....

I'm not sure that it works the way you want it to on a few levels. But if you are sincere you can do plenty of good research with it. And if you are honest, will admit there are some good points. The fellow has touched on some of them. With exactness and so forth of universe. As Paulkinghorn (I promise you that spelling is incorrect) (But the guy at Oxford) has said. The preciseness is so exact. That it would be like aiming at the far end of the universe and hitting a target bullseye. It is just amazing. That is what had changed a lot of the scientists views on this. Others will point out the earth and life itself. Many points are made with other scientific things as well. But the guy's point is surely you cannot use this as proof of nonexistence. Sure it is your choice. But as Russell (maybe) and others have said: there wasn't enough evidence. Always this is countered with Paul and the example of the earth and creatures itself as being self-evident. This is the point people make when they use the people that have never even heard of the bible, in the middle of the rain forest, that reach the same conclusion. It is for sure a faith thing more than an evidence thing. You are correct about that. And you are correct that it is not for everyone. But if you seriously study up on it and read some of the intellectuals it will at least give you some things to think about. Not having proof is not the key. Always to be completely dismissive of either side is fine if you just want to say nah nah nah nah. But if you are sincere in studying both sides it is explained in depth from a lot of angles. Philosophically, scientifically, existentially, and so on and so forth. A solid reason for one person may not even be enough for another because they will never concede any points along the way, no matter what. Several have addressed this as well. Just as scientists will strive for empiricalness. Then when they cannot achieve it they will use presuppositions. Then when those are knocked out from the foundation. Where do you go from there.

There are many, many places to really ask the questions you are asking online that will give you a starting point to this. Because you are not going to get a guy to say he knows because of this particular fact. You have to use univocal, equivocal, and analogical ways of speaking in the discussion. Or else you flounder around.

you'll probably find that every single mis-spelling i make is leaving out a letter/s,which i hav become accustomed to doing for a long while now...so yes it certainly saves me a boat-load of time wen writing long diatribes in response to people incapable of answering a simple question.....i am a retarded one finger typer so it takes long enuff as it is...and if you can understand it then really wats da problem??...you do realise that things can be spelt phonetically and without gaps between everything and still be understood,rite??

your point about the exact precision of events to create the universe and life are understood...its fu.king amazing and inexplicable and blows my mind just as it shud everyone elses....and you are misunderstanding me wen suggesting i am using anything as evidence of non-existence.i am not trying to prove ANYTHING...the whole point rite from the very beginning of this debate was that the burden of proof is on the guy thats inexplicably believing in the most insane notion that cud ever be put forth.im not trying to prove anything,i CANT..i just accept that shiit is mind-blowing and awesome and timeless and too big for me to understand currently(who knows,sumthing may happen to change that but i doubt it)....but wat i dont do is go off and make up a wild and fancy fairy-tale about an invisible friend in the sky to justify things in my own head and make sense of them.and if i did i wud sure as hell understand that my "theory" wud juice under a little intense scrutiny from others.

ive never heard of people away from all technology and past teachings coming to the conclusion that there is an ultimate creator...without being taught or influenced in any way at all??thats a new one on me cos as we know the over-whelming majority of religious folk are well and truly brain-washed and conditioned into it from an early age...they must be,theres no other way to convince a human brain of such absurdity unless it is at that impressionable,sponge-like stage that accepts everything given to it by elders/protectors...it surprises me to hear that.can you show me this article/book??

see,a big problem here is im quite sure i know exactly why religions exist,how they came about and wat type of people are responsible.....and whilst i dont have full,unequivocal evidence of it either,wen i look at wat has been done and achieved in the name of religions in all their many various forms and guises it makes the picture pretty crystal clear,at least to me anyway.......i mean,just check how much wealth,power,influence has shifted hands and lives been lost in the name of this hoax/con-job.still going on to this very day,all "in the name of the lord"

.. ...shud tell you all ya need to know.....but anyhow that is also a topic for another day or thread.