logical conclusion of atheistic evolution - it is self defeating

[Quark E]

All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.

Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.

He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.

What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

Nada.

They are identical.

[Sara Brum]

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

I could be polite and call this science fiction since you tossed in those
uber kewl sciency terms "planck's energy" [sic] and "big bang event", though
as it stands it's more wild speculation than anything else. Perhaps you
could take a creative writing course, do some serious research, flesh it out
a little and get it published?

Or not.

In any event, the concept has been explored before by some very talented
writers, for example, Isaac Asimov in his 1956 short story "The Last
Question." It's not the exact scenario you've posited, but the parallel is
there.

[Michael]

Post by Sara Brum

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

I could be polite and call this science fiction since you tossed in those
uber kewl sciency terms "planck's energy" [sic] and "big bang event", though
as it stands it's more wild speculation than anything else.  Perhaps you
could take a creative writing course, do some serious research, flesh it out
a little and get it published?
Or not.
In any event, the concept has been explored before by some very talented
writers, for example, Isaac Asimov in his 1956 short story "The Last
Question."  It's not the exact scenario you've posited, but the parallel is
there.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So since atheistic evolution leads to a god, it is self defeating.

[Tim DeLaney]

Post by Sara Brum

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

I could be polite and call this science fiction since you tossed in those
uber kewl sciency terms "planck's energy" [sic] and "big bang event", though
as it stands it's more wild speculation than anything else.  Perhaps you
could take a creative writing course, do some serious research, flesh it out
a little and get it published?
Or not.
In any event, the concept has been explored before by some very talented
writers, for example, Isaac Asimov in his 1956 short story "The Last
Question."  It's not the exact scenario you've posited, but the parallel is
there.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So, I am not the only one who was reminded
of this famous science fiction short story.
(Written, BTW, by one of our era's most
intelligent and prominent atheists.)

Completely off this particular topic, there are
three other titles I remember in particular: "The
Cold Equations", "All You Zombies" and "I Have
No Mouth, But I must Scream". Sara, do you
have any others that you find memorable?

Tim

[Harry F. Leopold]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:21:38 -0500, Tim DeLaney wrote
(in article

Post by Tim DeLaney

Post by Sara Brum

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

I could be polite and call this science fiction since you tossed in those
uber kewl sciency terms "planck's energy" [sic] and "big bang event", though
as it stands it's more wild speculation than anything else.  Perhaps you
could take a creative writing course, do some serious research, flesh it out
a little and get it published?
Or not.
In any event, the concept has been explored before by some very talented
writers, for example, Isaac Asimov in his 1956 short story "The Last
Question."  It's not the exact scenario you've posited, but the parallel is
there.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So, I am not the only one who was reminded
of this famous science fiction short story.
(Written, BTW, by one of our era's most
intelligent and prominent atheists.)
Completely off this particular topic, there are
three other titles I remember in particular: "The
Cold Equations",

Chris Anvil was one great, enjoyable writer.

Post by Tim DeLaney
"All You Zombies"

This was Heinlein, wasn't it?

Post by Tim DeLaney
and "I Have
No Mouth, But I must Scream". Sara, do you
have any others that you find memorable?
Tim

[MarkA]

Post by Harry F. Leopold
(in article

Post by Tim DeLaney

Post by Sara Brum

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

I could be polite and call this science fiction since you tossed in those
uber kewl sciency terms "planck's energy" [sic] and "big bang event", though
as it stands it's more wild speculation than anything else.  Perhaps you
could take a creative writing course, do some serious research, flesh it out
a little and get it published?
Or not.
In any event, the concept has been explored before by some very talented
writers, for example, Isaac Asimov in his 1956 short story "The Last
Question."  It's not the exact scenario you've posited, but the parallel is
there.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So, I am not the only one who was reminded
of this famous science fiction short story.
(Written, BTW, by one of our era's most
intelligent and prominent atheists.)
Completely off this particular topic, there are
three other titles I remember in particular: "The
Cold Equations",

Chris Anvil was one great, enjoyable writer.

Post by Tim DeLaney
"All You Zombies"

This was Heinlein, wasn't it?

Post by Tim DeLaney
and "I Have
No Mouth, But I must Scream". Sara, do you
have any others that you find memorable?
Tim

No recognition for Harlan Ellison? Shame on you. May you be trapped in
the bowels of a gigantic, sadistic super-computer for eternity.

[Harry F. Leopold]

Post by MarkA

Post by Harry F. Leopold
(in article

Post by Tim DeLaney

Post by Sara Brum

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

I could be polite and call this science fiction since you tossed in those
uber kewl sciency terms "planck's energy" [sic] and "big bang event", though
as it stands it's more wild speculation than anything else.  Perhaps you
could take a creative writing course, do some serious research, flesh it out
a little and get it published?
Or not.
In any event, the concept has been explored before by some very talented
writers, for example, Isaac Asimov in his 1956 short story "The Last
Question."  It's not the exact scenario you've posited, but the parallel is
there.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So, I am not the only one who was reminded
of this famous science fiction short story.
(Written, BTW, by one of our era's most
intelligent and prominent atheists.)
Completely off this particular topic, there are
three other titles I remember in particular: "The
Cold Equations",

Chris Anvil was one great, enjoyable writer.

Post by Tim DeLaney
"All You Zombies"

This was Heinlein, wasn't it?

Post by Tim DeLaney
and "I Have
No Mouth, But I must Scream". Sara, do you
have any others that you find memorable?
Tim

No recognition for Harlan Ellison? Shame on you. May you be trapped in
the bowels of a gigantic, sadistic super-computer for eternity.

You mean I am not already? Ellison is alright, but not really my cup of
coffee, some of his stuff is ok, but ...

[Cloud Hobbit]

Ever read a short story "Martian Oddysey?"

Or "The Man Who Sold The Moon?"

[Andy W]

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

Indeed. Both are completely fictitious.

[Smiler.]

Quark E wrote:

There are more theists who know evolution is true than atheists.
Even the Pope and the Catholic church accept it as true.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

<snip crazies>

[Quark E]

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

[Smiler.]

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

[TT]

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

If it's constantly improving, no need to create a god then....it's
the people that need the most improvement(and no resources to handle it
otherwise) that need a mythology started ...

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.
Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

[Quark E]

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

   If it's constantly improving, no need to create a god then....

Because that race would *gasp* become deity.
Atheism is thus dead.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

   If it's constantly improving, no need to create a god then....

Because that race would *gasp* become deity.
Atheism is thus dead.

You've just verified that the end result of religion is
atheism...way to go!!!

[Quark E]

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

   If it's constantly improving, no need to create a god then....

Because that race would *gasp* become deity.
Atheism is thus dead.

  You've just verified that the end result of religion is
atheism...way to go!!!

No, the end result of atheism leads to there being a deity.
Ergo, atheism is thus dead.
Are you totally braindead?

[Jimbo]

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

   If it's constantly improving, no need to create a god then....

Because that race would *gasp* become deity.
Atheism is thus dead.

  You've just verified that the end result of religion is
atheism...way to go!!!

No, the end result of atheism leads to there being a deity.

Using objective evidence, prove that a deity exists.

[The Chief Instigator]

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

? ?If it's constantly improving, no need to create a god then....

Because that race would *gasp* become deity.
Atheism is thus dead.

? You've just verified that the end result of religion is
atheism...way to go!!!

No, the end result of atheism leads to there being a deity. Ergo, atheism
is thus dead. Are you totally braindead?

You certainly can honestly answer to that description, as you've incessantly
repeated.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

   If it's constantly improving, no need to create a god then....

Because that race would *gasp* become deity.
Atheism is thus dead.

  You've just verified that the end result of religion is
atheism...way to go!!!

No, the end result of atheism leads to there being a deity.
Ergo, atheism is thus dead.
Are you totally braindead?

No..braindead requires belief in a deity...ergo...your a dipshit! Hah

[Quark E]

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

[Smiler.]

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

[Quark E]

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity.
If something extends to infinity, there is no first or
last item.

[Jimbo]

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity.

If it is like the rest of your "explanations", it's bullshit.

[The Chief Instigator]

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity. If something extends to
infinity, there is no first or last item.

Your malicious attitude is obviously infinite.

[Smiler.]

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity.
If something extends to infinity, there is no first or
last item.

So it's turtles all the way down, then.
Shit, you are stupid, aren't you.

[Smiler.]

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity.
If something extends to infinity, there is no first or
last item.

So it's turtles all the way down, then.
Shit, you are stupid, aren't you.

[Quark E]

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity.
If something extends to infinity, there is no first or
last item.

So it's turtles all the way down, then.

No GODs up and down.
Funny how you still haven't leanred what infinity means.
Ever going to get out of elementary school?

[Olrik]

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity.
If something extends to infinity, there is no first or
last item.

So it's turtles all the way down, then.

No GODs up and down.
Funny how you still haven't leanred what infinity means.
Ever going to get out of elementary school?

lol

[Quark E]

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Smiler.

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

 From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

 From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity.
If something extends to infinity, there is no first or
last item.

So it's turtles all the way down, then.

No GODs up and down.
Funny how you still haven't leanred what infinity means.
Ever going to get out of elementary school?

lol- Hide quoted text -

Just because you dont comprehend it mortal, doesnt mean
it aint so. It is so, welcome to reality.

[Jimbo]

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Smiler.

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

 From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

 From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity.
If something extends to infinity, there is no first or
last item.

So it's turtles all the way down, then.

No GODs up and down.
Funny how you still haven't leanred what infinity means.
Ever going to get out of elementary school?

lol- Hide quoted text -

Just because you dont comprehend it mortal, doesnt mean
it aint so. It is so, welcome to reality.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You wouldn't know reality if it came up and slapped your face.

[Smiler.]

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

From GOD who created them.

Where did this supposed god come from?

From his father.

Where did this supposed father come from?
Infinite regression, anyone?

You must have missed my explanation of infinity.
If something extends to infinity, there is no first or
last item.

So it's turtles all the way down, then.

No GODs

Congratulations, that's the first correct thing you've posted.

Post by Quark E
up and down.
Funny how you still haven't leanred what infinity means.

I know exactly what infinty means, do you?

Post by Quark E
Ever going to get out of elementary school?

Ever get into one?

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

There are more theists who know evolution is true than atheists. Even
the Pope and the Catholic church accept it as true.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

It's what theists eventually evolve into? :)

[Smiler.]

Post by Kelsey Bjarnason

There are more theists who know evolution is true than atheists. Even
the Pope and the Catholic church accept it as true.

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Where did this sentient race come from?

It's what theists eventually evolve into? :)

I wish they'd hurry up.

[ScienceWins]

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

You have a rather pethetic idea of what a deity is.

---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm

[Quark E]

Post by ScienceWins

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

You have a rather pethetic idea of what a deity is.

Why is GOD considered GOD?
Because of the things he does.
In fact one could define GOD as being who does certain things.
So if a being does the things that are considered GODlike, that being
is
god, because that is the very defition of what GOD is, a being that
does those very things.

[Quark E]

Post by Quark E

Post by ScienceWins

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

You have a rather pethetic idea of what a deity is.

Why is GOD considered GOD?
Because of the things he does.
In fact one could define GOD as being who does certain things.
So if a being does the things that are considered GODlike, that being
is
god, because that is the very defition of what GOD is, a being that
does those very things.

See jesus showed us who god is:

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvmat6.htm

Our Father which art in heaven

What is he saying here?
Father.
Daddy.

Our daddy who art in heaven.

heaven?

Sky


Sky daddy.

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvjoh20.htm

20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to
my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my
Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

[Sulfate]

Post by Quark E

Post by ScienceWins

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

You have a rather pethetic idea of what a deity is.

Why is GOD considered GOD?
Because of the things he does.
In fact one could define GOD as being who does certain things.
So if a being does the things that are considered GODlike, that being
is
god, because that is the very defition of what GOD is, a being that
does those very things.

The modern definition of "god" requires omnipotence and omniscience.
An element of the supernatural, as it were. Your strange definition
would leave the door open to all sorts of possible deity-like beings,
and would certainly be considered heretical by most organized
religions. If you want to worship science fiction, I suppose that's
your own business. You'll be in a ridiculously small minority, but
hey, whatever makes you happy.

Then again, you seem to be both stupid *and* crazy, so feel free to
disregard everything I've written.

[Quark E]

Post by Sulfate

Post by Quark E

Post by ScienceWins

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

You have a rather pethetic idea of what a deity is.

Why is GOD considered GOD?
Because of the things he does.
In fact one could define GOD as being who does certain things.
So if a being does the things that are considered GODlike, that being
is
god, because that is the very defition of what GOD is, a being that
does those very things.

The modern definition of "god" requires omnipotence and omniscience.

Well lets look at omniscience.
Knowing all things.
GOD has access before him of past present and future.
If he wants to look at something,at any time he can.
So he has access to all knowledge.

Post by Sulfate
An element of the supernatural, as it were.  Your strange definition
would leave the door open to all sorts of possible deity-like beings,
and would certainly be considered heretical by most organized
religions.

You mean the GOD of the bible would be considered
heretical by the orthodox religions who believe in a pagan
philosophical god.

[Richo]

Post by Sulfate

Post by Quark E

Post by ScienceWins

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

You have a rather pethetic idea of what a deity is.

Why is GOD considered GOD?
Because of the things he does.
In fact one could define GOD as being who does certain things.
So if a being does the things that are considered GODlike, that being
is
god, because that is the very defition of what GOD is, a being that
does those very things.

The modern definition of "god" requires omnipotence and omniscience.

No, thats a specific god called "God".
In any case why is a modern definition of God preferred over an
ancient definition of God?
I would argue that an ancient definition would be preferable.
The idea of god is a very ancient one and so an ancient definition
would seem the most appropriate.
In any case the definition of god is
"A supernatural being worshiped as having power over nature and human
destiny - to be approached/contacted/influenced through devotion,
prayer and ritual."

The actual "powers" assigned to the various gods are limited only by
human imagination.
God is omnipotent and Thor has a magic hammer - its all just
irrelevant detail.

Post by Sulfate
An element of the supernatural, as it were.  Your strange definition
would leave the door open to all sorts of possible deity-like beings,
and would certainly be considered heretical by most organized
religions.

True - but humans can and do make just about anything a deity.

What we have to decide is : Is this wise? Is it sane?

I say "no".

Mark.

[Kilmir]

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?

Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance (ie. you would need another universe
bigger then this one to contain the knowledge of every particle, and
then you need another bigger one for everything in that universe, ad
infinitum).

Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.

[Quark E]

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

[Kilmir]

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience. This sounds
more like a movie idea then a well thought out hypothesis.

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but you'll be
stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a possibility,
but there will never be a way to actually prove it I think.

[Quark E]

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but you'll be
stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a possibility,
but there will never be a way to actually prove it I think.-

GOD says that is how it is.

[Inertial]

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

[Michael]

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.

[Jimbo]

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.

Since he doesn't, and can't, it isn't.

[Michael]

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.

Either GOD reveals himself or he remains unknown.

Man by his wisdom can never fathom GOD.

In the millenium the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the
LORD as
the waters cover the sea ...

[Inertial]

Post by Michael

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.

Either GOD reveals himself or he remains unknown.

Or doesn't exist. And if it does exist, it clearly does nothing, or there
would be evidence of it doing things
.

[Slim]

Post by Michael

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.

Either GOD reveals himself or he remains unknown.

Or doesn't exist.  And if it does exist, it clearly does nothing, or there
would be evidence of it doing things
.

Like raising michael jackson from the dead ...

[Inertial]

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.

Revealing how .. in your mind? Can't tell the difference between that and
delusion. One needs something physical and logical.

[Slim]

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.

Revealing how .. in your mind?  Can't tell the difference between that and
delusion.  

GOD revealed these truths in our religion.
It is not against the law to have religious freedom.
Believing in religion in our country is not illegal nor
does it make one delusional legally or otherwise.

Put that in your dexer pipe, stick it in your ear, and smoke it.

[Inertial]

Post by Slim

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.
Revealing how .. in your mind? Can't tell the difference between that and
delusion.

GOD revealed these truths in our religion.

Blah blah .. same old theist nonsense that all such rellgions claim

Post by Slim
It is not against the law to have religious freedom.

Who said it was?

Post by Slim
Believing in religion in our country is not illegal nor

Who said it was?

Post by Slim
does it make one delusional legally or otherwise.

Yes. . it does

Post by Slim
Put that in your dexer pipe, stick it in your ear, and smoke it.

So .. that s your proof .. its true because you believe it is true .. and
that's it . BAHAHAHA. You're delusional.

[Slim]

Post by Inertial

Post by Slim

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.
Revealing how .. in your mind?  Can't tell the difference between that and
delusion.

GOD revealed these truths in our religion.

Blah blah .. same old theist nonsense that all such rellgions claim

Post by Slim
It is not against the law to have religious freedom.

Who said it was?

Post by Slim
Believing in religion in our country is not illegal nor

Who said it was?

Post by Slim
does it make one delusional legally or otherwise.

Yes. . it does

Okay you are claiming that in the united states which guarantees
religious freedom
that if you actually believe your religion that you are legally
delusional.
Do you want to start a precedent in the united states that you can
have religious freddom but
if you do you are legally crazy for so doing?

[Inertial]

Post by Slim
Okay you are claiming that in the united states which guarantees
religious freedom

I didn't mention the unites states. I made no claims about what freedoms
its citizens may or may not have.

Post by Slim
that if you actually believe your religion that you are legally
delusional.

You are delusional if you believe in a god when there is no evidence that
such a god exists .. yes. If that is part of believing in your religion ..
yes.

Whether such delusions satisfy some legal requirement for 'delusional' in
some particular country I do not know.

Post by Slim
Do you want to start a precedent in the united states that you can
have religious freddom but
if you do you are legally crazy for so doing?

If your religion has a god for which there is no evidence, then you are
'crazy' (as you put it). Whether that is satisfies the legal requirements
for insanity in some particular country I do not know.

[Quark E]

Post by Inertial

Post by Slim
Okay you are claiming that in the united states which guarantees
religious freedom

I didn't mention the unites states. I made no claims about what freedoms
its citizens may or may not have.

So your argument has nothing to do with me.

Post by Inertial

Post by Slim
that if you actually believe your religion that you are legally
delusional.

You are delusional if you believe in a god when there is no evidence that
such a god exists .. yes. If that is part of believing in your religion ..
yes.
Whether such delusions satisfy some legal requirement for 'delusional' in
some particular country I do not know.

Post by Slim
Do you want to start a precedent in the united states that you can
have religious freddom but
if you do you are legally crazy for so doing?

If your religion has a god for which there is no evidence, then you are
'crazy' (as you put it).

But there is evidence.

[The Chief Instigator]

Post by Quark E

Post by Inertial

Post by Slim
Okay you are claiming that in the united states which guarantees
religious freedom

I didn't mention the unites states. I made no claims about what freedoms
its citizens may or may not have.

So your argument has nothing to do with me.

Post by Inertial

Post by Slim
that if you actually believe your religion that you are legally
delusional.

You are delusional if you believe in a god when there is no evidence that
such a god exists .. yes. If that is part of believing in your religion ..
yes.
Whether such delusions satisfy some legal requirement for 'delusional' in
some particular country I do not know.

Post by Slim
Do you want to start a precedent in the united states that you can
have religious freddom but
if you do you are legally crazy for so doing?

If your religion has a god for which there is no evidence, then you are
'crazy' (as you put it).

But there is evidence.

So you say...so get off your ass and prove it, for once.

[Jimbo]

Post by Slim

Post by Inertial

Post by Slim

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.
Revealing how .. in your mind?  Can't tell the difference between that and
delusion.

GOD revealed these truths in our religion.

Blah blah .. same old theist nonsense that all such rellgions claim

Post by Slim
It is not against the law to have religious freedom.

Who said it was?

Post by Slim
Believing in religion in our country is not illegal nor

Who said it was?

Post by Slim
does it make one delusional legally or otherwise.

Yes. . it does

Okay you are claiming that in the united states which guarantees
religious freedom
that if you actually believe your religion that you are legally
delusional.
Do you want to start a precedent in the united states that you can
have religious freddom but
if you do you are legally crazy for so doing?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think you're insane, but I don't think has that much to do with the
religion itself, just the insane way you interpret it.

[Syd M.]

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.

You'd be wrong.

PDW

[Jimbo]

Post by Syd M.

Post by Michael

Post by Inertial

Post by Quark E
GOD says that is how it is.

That's not a proof.

I think GOD revealing truth is evidence.

You'd be wrong.
PDW

He missed the entire step he needs to take, namely providing objective
evidence that his imaginary sky daddy exists, and then proving that
his imaginary sky daddy revealed or inspired anything.

[Jimbo]

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but you'll be
stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a possibility,
but there will never be a way to actually prove it I think.-

GOD says that is how it is.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Your nonexistent sky-daddy is not relevant.

[Kilmir]

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

So that hypothetical advanced race can also read minds and reconstruct
thought patterns? Not even to mention that unless said timemachine is
somehow outside the universe it will influence what it observes, or
communicates, therefore nullifying any previously gained knowledge.
Trust me, a timemachine is not even close to practical omniscience.
You simply haven't really thought about what omniscience is supposed
to be capable of.

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but you'll be
stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a possibility,
but there will never be a way to actually prove it I think.-

GOD says that is how it is.

And Russel's Teapot says it's bollocks. Both have just as much
authority and neither constitutes proof, or even evidence for that
matter.

[I AM]

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

So that hypothetical advanced race can also read minds and reconstruct
thought patterns?

Technological advancements like the computer are taken as granted
given for
said advancement.

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but you'll be
stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a possibility,
but there will never be a way to actually prove it I think.-

GOD says that is how it is.

And Russel's Teapot says it's bollocks. Both have just as much
authority and neither constitutes proof, or even evidence for that
matter.-

So according to you someone named russell is on par with god.
And you reject god revealing it as any evidence.
Shame that it actually is evidence.
GOD said so.
You will learn this too.

[Jimbo]

Post by I AM

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

So that hypothetical advanced race can also read minds and reconstruct
thought patterns?

Technological advancements like the computer are taken as granted
given for
said advancement.

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but you'll be
stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a possibility,
but there will never be a way to actually prove it I think.-

GOD says that is how it is.

And Russel's Teapot says it's bollocks. Both have just as much
authority and neither constitutes proof, or even evidence for that
matter.-

So according to you someone named russell is on par with god.
And you reject god revealing it as any evidence.
Shame that it actually is evidence.
GOD said so.

Sorry, but what your imaginary sky daddy does or does not say does not
consitute evidence without first taking the step of proving said
imaginary sky-daddy exists.

[Smiler.]

Post by I AM

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures
he calls his children and gives them potential to be like
himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a
point. But even so, a highly advanced technological race is
still no match to what is commonly referred to as a god. The
whole omniscience stuff is simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

So that hypothetical advanced race can also read minds and
reconstruct thought patterns?

Technological advancements like the computer are taken as granted
given for
said advancement.

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first
or last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product
of sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but
you'll be stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a
possibility, but there will never be a way to actually prove it I
think.-

GOD says that is how it is.

And Russel's Teapot says it's bollocks. Both have just as much
authority and neither constitutes proof, or even evidence for that
matter.-

So according to you someone named russell is on par with god.
And you reject god revealing it as any evidence.
Shame that it actually is evidence.
GOD said so.
You will learn this too.

God saying he exists is on par with leprechauns saying they exist. Both are
circular arguments.
If you keep arguing in ever decreasing circles you'll soon disappear up your
own fundament.

[Kilmir]

Post by I AM

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

So that hypothetical advanced race can also read minds and reconstruct
thought patterns?

Technological advancements like the computer are taken as granted
given for
said advancement.

Computer yes, probably more advanced versions like neuronetwork
computers can be assumed as well.
But some things really stretch the imagination and you need those to
get even remotely close to "practical" omniscience. A timemachine
really doesn't cut it

Post by I AM

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but you'll be
stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a possibility,
but there will never be a way to actually prove it I think.-

GOD says that is how it is.

And Russel's Teapot says it's bollocks. Both have just as much
authority and neither constitutes proof, or even evidence for that
matter.-

So according to you someone named russell is on par with god.
And you reject god revealing it as any evidence.
Shame that it actually is evidence.
GOD said so.
You will learn this too.

I said Russel's Teapot, so not Russel being on par with a god but his
teapot. It comes from Bertrand Russel who tried to show why the burden
of proof is on the believer and not the doubter:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china
teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be
able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the
teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful
telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion
cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of
human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking
nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in
ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled
into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its
existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter
to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the
Inquisitor in an earlier time."


Yes, that teapot is on par with your god. Both are fictional objects
with not a shred of evidence of their existence.
With luck you might learn the truth, but I'm afraid you're too close
minded to see truth for what it is.

[Quark E]

Post by Kilmir

Post by I AM

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

So that hypothetical advanced race can also read minds and reconstruct
thought patterns?

Technological advancements like the computer are taken as granted
given for
said advancement.

Computer yes, probably more advanced versions like neuronetwork
computers can be assumed as well.
But some things really stretch the imagination and you need those to
get even remotely close to "practical" omniscience. A timemachine
really doesn't cut it

Your heavenly parents mental capacities are far beyond yours.
It would be analogous roughly to compare a 5 year old mental ability
to a PhD.
Couple that with time machine and functional omniscience is easily
attained.

[Smiler.]

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by I AM

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures
he calls his children and gives them potential to be like
himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have
a point. But even so, a highly advanced technological race is
still no match to what is commonly referred to as a god. The
whole omniscience stuff is simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

So that hypothetical advanced race can also read minds and
reconstruct thought patterns?

Technological advancements like the computer are taken as granted
given for
said advancement.

Computer yes, probably more advanced versions like neuronetwork
computers can be assumed as well.
But some things really stretch the imagination and you need those to
get even remotely close to "practical" omniscience. A timemachine
really doesn't cut it

Your heavenly

I'm sure Kilmir will appreciate your compliment but not your desires.

<rest snipped as per Quark's dishonest method>

[The Chief Instigator]

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but you'll be
stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a possibility,
but there will never be a way to actually prove it I think.-

GOD says that is how it is.

Maybe you should quit banging your head against a brick wall, if that's the
only way your god will talk to you.

[Smiler.]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:34:28 -0700 (PDT), Quark E

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he
calls his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a
point. But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still
no match to what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole
omniscience stuff is simply impossible for instance

Functional omniscience simply requires a time machine.

That is some really loose interpretation of omniscience.

Having access to knowledge past present and future.
You can know what you need to know when you need to know it.

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E

Post by Kilmir
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.-

Do you understand how infinity works?
If something extends out infinitiely, you never get to any first or
last item.

Well technically it is a possibility that universes are a product of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in another universe but you'll
be stuck with a chicken-egg problem. Infinite regress is a
possibility, but there will never be a way to actually prove it I
think.-

GOD says that is how it is.

Maybe you should quit banging your head against a brick wall, if
that's the only way your god will talk to you.

I wondered what that hollow sound was.

[Apostate]

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance (ie. you would need another universe
bigger then this one to contain the knowledge of every particle, and
then you need another bigger one for everything in that universe, ad
infinitum).
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.

Beyond this point, there be turtles.
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Being Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
. -- Doc Smartass

[Ben Kaufman]

Post by Apostate

Post by Kilmir

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

You really have no clue how evolution works do you?
Now if you would claim technological advances, you might have a point.
But even so, a highly advanced technological race is still no match to
what is commonly referred to as a god. The whole omniscience stuff is
simply impossible for instance (ie. you would need another universe
bigger then this one to contain the knowledge of every particle, and
then you need another bigger one for everything in that universe, ad
infinitum).
Besides all that, there is always the point where at least 1
creatorgod must have evolved without a creator itself. Otherwise
you're still stuck in infinite regress.

Beyond this point, there be turtles.

[Richo]

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it.
Even then it isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety.
"Godhood" isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural
beings.

Post by Quark E
Nada.
They are identical.

I wouldn't worship them as gods.

Mark

[Quark E]

Post by Richo

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it.
Even then it isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety.
"Godhood" isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural
beings.

From dictionary dot com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

[The Chief Instigator]

Post by Quark E

Post by Richo

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it.
Even then it isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety.
"Godhood" isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen
delusion, which you refuse to attempt.

[Michael]

Post by The Chief Instigator

Post by Quark E

Post by Richo

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it.
Even then it isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety.
"Godhood" isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen

Which has already been done.

Unlike the god of philosophy, which does not exist, and does nothing,
the
true god does things thus proving his existence.

Every time he has done anything, even the slightest smallest thing,
that proves he exists, that he IS.

[The Chief Instigator]

Post by Michael

Post by The Chief Instigator

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it. Even then it isn't
*my* deity - its just someone else's diety. "Godhood" isn't an
intrinsic property of any being - its purely a subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he
calls his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen

Which has already been done.

...which doesn't mean squat to reality.

Post by Michael
Unlike the god of philosophy, which does not exist, and does nothing, the
true god does things thus proving his existence.
Every time he has done anything, even the slightest smallest thing,
that proves he exists, that he IS.

So you say, but you'll have to provide a bit more proof than proclamations.
I haven't needed gods since 1965.

[Quark E]

Post by The Chief Instigator

Post by Michael

Post by The Chief Instigator

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it.  Even then it isn't
*my* deity - its just someone else's diety.  "Godhood" isn't an
intrinsic property of any being - its purely a subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he
calls his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen

Which has already been done.

...which doesn't mean squat to reality.

Post by Michael
Unlike the god of philosophy, which does not exist, and does nothing, the
true god does things thus proving his existence.
Every time he has done anything, even the slightest smallest thing,
that proves he exists, that he IS.

So you say, but you'll have to provide a bit more proof than proclamations.
I haven't needed gods since 1965.

Why is the government on a witchhunt to find out who is helping me
if he doesnt exist?

Hint: because god exists.

[The Chief Instigator]

Post by Quark E

Post by The Chief Instigator

Post by Michael

Post by The Chief Instigator

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it. ?Even then it isn't
*my* deity - its just someone else's diety. ?"Godhood" isn't an
intrinsic property of any being - its purely a subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he
calls his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen

Which has already been done.

...which doesn't mean squat to reality.

Post by Michael
Unlike the god of philosophy, which does not exist, and does nothing, the
true god does things thus proving his existence.
Every time he has done anything, even the slightest smallest thing,
that proves he exists, that he IS.

So you say, but you'll have to provide a bit more proof than proclamations.
I haven't needed gods since 1965.

Why is the government on a witchhunt to find out who is helping me
if he doesnt exist?
Hint: because god exists.

If you're so certain about it, get on with proving it. (Begin your
tapdance.)

[Smiler.]

Post by Quark E

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:17:51 -0700 (PDT), Quark E

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it. Even then it
isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety. "Godhood"
isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he
calls his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen

Which has already been done.

...which doesn't mean squat to reality.

Post by Michael
Unlike the god of philosophy, which does not exist, and does
nothing, the true god does things thus proving his existence.
Every time he has done anything, even the slightest smallest thing,
that proves he exists, that he IS.

So you say, but you'll have to provide a bit more proof than
proclamations. I haven't needed gods since 1965.

Why is the government on a witchhunt to find out who is helping me
if he doesnt exist?

Your evidence that any government is so concerned with you that it is on a
witchhunt, is what?
Shit! Your ego is really grossly overinflated.

Post by Quark E
Hint: because god exists.

Wooo-wooo.

[Quark E]

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:17:51 -0700 (PDT), Quark E

Post by Quark E

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it. Even then it
isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety. "Godhood"
isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he
calls his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen

Which has already been done.

...which doesn't mean squat to reality.

Post by Michael
Unlike the god of philosophy, which does not exist, and does
nothing, the true god does things thus proving his existence.
Every time he has done anything, even the slightest smallest thing,
that proves he exists, that he IS.

So you say, but you'll have to provide a bit more proof than
proclamations. I haven't needed gods since 1965.

Why is the government on a witchhunt to find out who is helping me
if he doesnt exist?

Your evidence that any government is so concerned with you that it is on a
witchhunt, is what?

If you aren't looking for someone helping me in my lawsuit, then let
me go.

Post by Smiler.

Post by Quark E
Hint: because god exists.

Wooo-wooo.

Your mistake in the withchunt is that you ASSUMED when you found who
was
helping me you could throw out my lawsuit.

Boy did the govt ever screw up.

Turns out it was god and armies of heaven and you cant throw out
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit remains.

Next.

[Hollis Brown]

Post by Quark E
The lawsuit remains.
Next.

Please turn about 30 degrees to your left. Then give us your best
smile!

HB

[Jimbo]

Post by Michael

Post by The Chief Instigator

Post by Quark E

Post by Richo

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it.
Even then it isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety.
"Godhood" isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen

Which has already been done.

Nonsense. Your blind assertion does not provide objective evidence of
your magical sky-daddy, liar michael.

Post by Michael
Unlike the god of philosophy,

All gods are gods of phylsophy

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Michael

Post by The Chief Instigator

Post by Quark E

Post by Richo

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it.
Even then it isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety.
"Godhood" isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen

Which has already been done.
Unlike the god of philosophy, which does not exist, and does nothing,
the
true god does things thus proving his existence.

Such as...?

Post by Michael
Every time he has done anything, even the slightest smallest thing,

Such as...?

Post by Michael
that proves he exists, that he IS.

No, that proves you *think* he "is."

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Smiler.]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Michael

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:17:51 -0700 (PDT), Quark E

Post by Quark E

Post by Richo

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it.
Even then it isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety.
"Godhood" isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he
calls his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

...which has nothing to do with proving the existence of your chosen

Which has already been done.
Unlike the god of philosophy, which does not exist, and does nothing,
the
true god does things thus proving his existence.

Such as...?

Post by Michael
Every time he has done anything, even the slightest smallest thing,

Such as...?

Post by Michael
that proves he exists, that he IS.

No, that proves you *think* he "is."

Thought has no part in it. It's solely his unevidenced belief.

[Richo]

Post by Quark E

Post by Richo

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

No - its not a deity unless someone worships it.
Even then it isn't *my* deity - its just someone else's diety.
"Godhood" isn't an intrinsic property of any being - its purely a
subjective opinion.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?

They would be powerful natural beings - not powerful supernatural
beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a
deity.

Yes. Also characteristic of lesser beings angels, demons, witches and
warlocks, sprite, faries and elves.
And god?

god n. (1) Superhuman being worshiped as having
power over nature and human fortunes, deity
(2) Image, animal, or other object, worshiped as
symbolyzing, being the visible habitation of, or
itself possessing, divine power; an idol.
...
[Concise Oxford Dictionary 1976]

From Webster's:

God \God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got,
G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup,
prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p.
p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf.
{Goodbye}, {Gospel}, {Gossip}.]
1. A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and
to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity;
a deity; an object of worship; an idol.

2. The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the
Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.

3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good
an object of supreme regard.

4. Figuratively applied to one who wields great or despotic
power. [R.] --Shak.


Mark.

[Ben Kaufman]

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.

Nope. Deities were myths used to explain things before scientific understanding
took hold.

Post by Quark E
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.

That's a pretty grand assumption. Our line could very well end up in one of the
periodic mass extinctions, or "revert" back to furry little beasts that feed on
insects and live in burrows.

Post by Quark E
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.

It's amazing what you can do on LSD.

Post by Quark E
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

A monkey might think a rock and a hand grenade are identical too.

[t***@gmail.com]

So let ME ask YOU something;
Does that make evoltion devine, or does that make God unimpressive?

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that argument at all myself ...

[Smiler]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that argument at all myself ...

An admission of further law breaking from the convicted criminal Yost.

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that argument
at all myself ...

An admission of further law breaking from the convicted criminal Yost.

plagiarism is not a crime you imbecile, you never borrowed an argument? if that was the case you would be locked up for 20 life sentences or more ...

[Smiler]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that
argument at all myself ...

An admission of further law breaking from the convicted criminal Yost.

plagiarism is not a crime you imbecile, you never borrowed an argument?
if that was the case you would be locked up for 20 life sentences or
more ...

"a book I stole" is an admission of theft, convicted criminal, Yost.

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that
argument at all myself ...

An admission of further law breaking from the convicted criminal Yost.

plagiarism is not a crime you imbecile, you never borrowed an argument?
if that was the case you would be locked up for 20 life sentences or
more ...

"a book I stole" is an admission of theft

No those were part of plagiarism.

[Smiler]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:55:04 AM UTC-5,

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that
argument at all myself ...

An admission of further law breaking from the convicted criminal Yost.

plagiarism is not a crime you imbecile, you never borrowed an argument?
if that was the case you would be locked up for 20 life sentences or
more ...

"a book I stole" is an admission of theft, convicted criminal, Yost.

No those were part of plagiarism.

No. That was a clear admission of theft, convicted criminal, Yost.

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:55:04 AM UTC-5,

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that
argument at all myself ...

An admission of further law breaking from the convicted criminal Yost.

plagiarism is not a crime you imbecile, you never borrowed an argument?
if that was the case you would be locked up for 20 life sentences or
more ...

"a book I stole" is an admission of theft, convicted criminal, Yost.

No those were part of plagiarism.

No. That was a clear admission of theft, convicted criminal, Yost.

I stole an argument from a book I was reading; From a book I was reading I stole an argument; I was reading this book and I borrowed an argument; The argument was from a book (plagiarism);

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:55:04 AM UTC-5,

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that
argument at all myself ...

An admission of further law breaking from the convicted criminal Yost.

plagiarism is not a crime you imbecile, you never borrowed an argument?
if that was the case you would be locked up for 20 life sentences or
more ...

"a book I stole" is an admission of theft, convicted criminal, Yost.

No those were part of plagiarism.

No. That was a clear admission of theft, convicted criminal, Yost.

I stole an argument from a book I was reading; From a book I was reading I stole an argument; I was reading this book and I borrowed an argument; The argument was from a book (plagiarism);

the argument was something I stole; the argument was something (out of a book) I stole;

[hypatiab7]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that argument
at all myself ...

An admission of further law breaking from the convicted criminal Yost.

You said that you stole the book it was in. Don't be a liar, too.

Post by TheRealMccoy
plagiarism is not a crime you imbecile, you never borrowed an argument? if that was the case you would be locked up for 20 life sentences or more ...

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by hypatiab7

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that argument
at all myself ...

An admission of further law breaking from the convicted criminal Yost.

You said that you stole the book it was in. Don't be a liar, too.

I certainly wouldnt want to be like you, damn deceiver ...

Post by hypatiab7

Post by TheRealMccoy
plagiarism is not a crime you imbecile, you never borrowed an argument? if that was the case you would be locked up for 20 life sentences or more ...

[hypatiab7]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by t***@gmail.com
So let ME ask YOU something;

it was something out of a book I stole, i do not believe that argument at all myself ...

You just sid that you don't steal books. You're not a good boy. You're
a thief, convict Yost.

[Africa-Has-No-Boss-But-Jesus]

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly improves
itself, given enough time,
voila, you have a deity.
Picture one of our dscendants 1 billion years from now.
Accesses planck's energy at will and causes a big bang event.
He then puts life on a world and including sentient creatures he calls
his children and gives them potential to be like himself.
What is the difference between that and what people call GOD?
Nada.
They are identical.

They may be identical but they are NOT the same. Evolution is conjecture....

[Davej]

Post by Quark E
All it takes is a sentient race somewhere that constantly
improves itself, given enough time, voila, you have a deity.

Given enough time you have extinction. Just look at current events.