Does God Suffer From Vanity?

Free Thinker · Dec 15, 2006

Quote from traderNik:

Is this a joke? Do you not see the evidence of the flying unicorns all around you? Do you seriously think that life on earth just spontaneously appeared? Do you think it's a result of random ignorant chance?
More...

i warn all unbelievers you are taking a grave chance if you do not believe in unigod based on the unibible:
universe 1:1
"If you believe, and uniGod exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and uniGod exists, you lose everything."

Alternatively :

"It makes more sense to believe in uniGod than to not believe. If you believe, and uniGod exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do not believe, and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way. "

Thunderdog · Dec 15, 2006

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Do you know anyone who says flying unicorns are the source of biological life?

...I oppose the teaching of both ID and non ID, but if non ID must be taught, then I think it only fair that ID also be taught.
More...

So all that is required for it to become a valid theory is for someone to say it? OK, consider it said, for the sake of argument: I believe that flying unicorns are the source of biological life. Since you cannot disprove my theory, then by your standard I suppose it should be taught alongside evolution in science classes.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Dec 15, 2006

Good luck presenting your ideas to your local school board...

I hope that you don't mind if I make note of your comments and present them in the chat room, most folks there will get a hearty laugh when I present them with your belief system...

Quote from Thunderdog:

So all that is required for it to become a valid theory is for someone to say it? OK, consider it said, for the sake of argument: I believe that flying unicorns are the source of biological life. Since you cannot disprove my theory, then by your standard I suppose it should be taught alongside evolution in science classes.
More...

james_bond_3rd · Dec 15, 2006

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Was an imagination of gamma rays, before direct evidence of gamma rays a false imagination?
More...

It was a real imagination (yes, if it was indeed imagined) but it was false science.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Dec 15, 2006

Gamma rays were true long before science declared it so...so it is clear that truth is not a function of science necessarily, nor scientists opinions, nor the declarations of science...

Thanks for pointing out how wrong science can, and has been...

Fine by me if people wish to believe in an unreliable instrument though...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

It was a real imagination (yes, if it was indeed imagined) but it was false science.
More...

james_bond_3rd · Dec 15, 2006

Quote from Ivanovich:
I. There are approximately two billion children (persons under 18) in the world. However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist religions, this reduces the workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million (according to the Population Reference Bureau). At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per house hold, that comes to 108 million homes, presuming that there is at least one good child in each.

II. Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 967.7 visits per second.

This is to say that for each Christian household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him, get back up the chimney, jump into the sleigh and get on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false, but will accept for the purposes of our calculations), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting bathroom stops or breaks. This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second -- 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second, and a conventional Reindeer can run (at best) 15 miles per hour.

III. The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized Lego set (two pounds), the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself (who is reported to be overweight). On land, a conventional Reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that the "flying" Reindeer could pull ten times the normal amount, the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them -- Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the monarch).

IV. 600,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second crates enormous air resistance -- this would heat up the Reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of Reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the Reindeer behind them and creating deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire Reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip. Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accelerating from a dead stop to 650 m.p.s. in .001 seconds, would be subjected to forces of 17,500 g's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo.

V. Therefore, if Santa did exist, he's dead now.

More...

There are a few flaws in this analysis.

1. It assumes that there is only one Santa. Typical prejudice of a monotheism culture

2. It assumes that Santa and his reindeers are made of materials from the earth. This contradicts the fact that no reindeer from earth can fly.

3. It assumes that physical laws (ie reality) apply to Santa.

james_bond_3rd · Dec 15, 2006

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Gamma rays were true long before science declared it so...so it is clear that truth is not a function of science necessarily, nor scientists opinions, nor the declarations of science...

Thanks for pointing out how wrong science can, and has been...

Fine by me if people wish to believe in an unreliable instrument though...
More...

Every time you mention science in your post, you make a fool of yourself.

This post in fact started out correct. Indeed, truth is not a function of science, nor scientists opinions. But by the time you get to the "declaration" part, you are confusing science with God. Science is not a person or a God so he/she/it cannot declare anything.

Scientific progress is made when scientists find out how wrong science has been.

You don't want to "believe in an unreliable instrument," then go ahead and jump off a cliff and show us science is wrong about gravity.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Dec 15, 2006

I don't confuse science with God, that seems to be your department...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Every time you mention science in your post, you make a fool of yourself.

This post in fact started out correct. Indeed, truth is not a function of science, nor scientists opinions. But by the time you get to the "declaration" part, you are confusing science with God. Science is not a person or a God so he/she/it cannot declare anything.

Scientific progress is made when scientists find out how wrong science has been.

You don't want to "believe in an unreliable instrument," then go ahead and jump off a cliff and show us science is wrong about gravity.
More...

volente_00 · Dec 15, 2006

Quote from vhehn:

backbone of the atheist argument for non existence of GOD is the lack of evidence.
More...

The argument from ignorance, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

Neither side can win this argument.

volente_00 · Dec 15, 2006

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

American Heritage Dictionary
faith (fāth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

It seems that in the context of our discussion, #2 is the most appropriate. Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. So it is certainly irrational.

Or you can tell the dictionary publisher to remove #2 from their list.
More...

Does atheism not fit into # 6 on your list ?