What context is this quote given in, not only within the whole speech but within the larger context of Jefferson's life progress, other writings, actions, etc? What is he really saying, is this really an anti-religious quote or is it out of context?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
do YOU realize you have written thousands of words and never said anything? do YOU realize you only derail, distract, avoid, hijack and attack instead of actually participate in a dialogue?Quote from Free Thinker:
do you realize you have written thousands of words on this thread and have never said anything. we are waiting for your evidence that the bible is god inspired.
so really, you have nothing but BS to offer that all scripture is myth? i'm waiting...
LOL. To be scientific is to be objective. To claim there is nothing supernatural in this world is to ignore evidence, to be biased. Whatever. You just state things like you are God and then you call yourself anti-religion? You've just invented your own and it's far scarier.Quote from Free Thinker:
huh. no they dont. did you just add another lie to your resume? few if any credible scientist believes in anything supernatural. there may be a few crackpots cretionists who call themselves scientists who beleive that but mainstream scientists? no way.
Quote from jem:
read this become less ignorant. note i changed the post above... to this post. You need to deal with science not philosophy when it comes to fine tunings.
http://www.dontow.com/2010/01/revie...bers-the-deep-forces-that-shape-the-universe/
Here is a review of Martin Rees book, just six numbers.
Martin Rees was cited by your boy Dawkins in the video.
Rees is Martin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, FRS (born 23 June 1942 in York[1]) is a British cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995 and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge since 2004. He was President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010.
---
note... you are now debating philosophy... I am providing you science.
here we are following jem back to his ultimate destination. god of the gaps. it is amusing to listen to creationists claim that the universe is too complicated to have happend by natural process yet they will readily believe that an invisible guy in the sky did it all by magic.
conversations with him always go like this:
creationist jem: it looks too complicated and there had to be a first cause. it had to be designed by ......biblegod.
skeptic: if there had to be a first cause who created god?
creationist jem: god didnt need a first cause.
skeptic: if god didnt need a first cause why does the universe?
creationist jem: because god designed it.
skeptic: ok how did god do it?
creationist jem: the bible says god spoke and everything appeared:
skeptic: isnt that like magic? what did god say? abra kadbra?
creationist jem: god doesnt use majic.
skeptic: then how did he do it?
creationist jem: he is god. he just did it.
God of the Gaps From Theopedia.com.
God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.
Before the scientific revolution of the last four centuries, such arguments were commonplace and widely accepted, presumably because the âgapsâ were large and showing no signs of shrinking. A lightning bolt crashes down, the peasants working in the field cross themselves and say âwell, we donât understand that, so it must be God.â
God of the Gaps in theology and apologetics
Theologians and religious scientists have used God of the Gaps arguments at least since the thirteenth century, revising them in response to developments in science.
Thomas Aquinas argued that because there is order and predictability in inanimate objects, which clearly cannot create order for themselves, there must be an intelligent being ordering them:
We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. [4]
Isaac Newton, a deist, developed equations that explained much of the order in inanimate objects, which challenged Aquinasâs God of the Gaps arguments. In response, Newton turned to the variety that he saw in creation, as evidence for a creator:
We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind ****physical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [5]
William Paley, writing more than a century after Newton, argued that the complexity and obvious design of Godâs creation, and in particular of living things, was irrefutable evidence for Godâs existence:
In crossing a heath, suppose I ⦠found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place;⦠This mechanism being observed⦠the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a makerâ¦.who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. [6]
Not many years after Paley, Darwin offered an explanation that undermined Paleyâs âargument from design.â Many of those who had based their faith on Paleyâs arguments found their faith severely challenged. It was in this context that Drummond wrote âThe Ascent of Manâ as quoted above.
you made the claim that you had indisputable evidence that the bible was god inspired. we are waithing. i think you are fos and just made it up.Quote from traderwann:
do YOU realize you have written thousands of words and never said anything? do YOU realize you only derail, distract, avoid, hijack and attack instead of actually participate in a dialogue?
so really, you have nothing but BS to offer that all scripture is myth? i'm waiting...
do you realize that i asked you if you were sincere, you then said asking that is "babbling" and now you babble on about hypocrisy? it's incredible, you are either doing it on purpose or showing everyone what a tortured existence you live under...Quote from Free Thinker:
do you realize you have written thousands of words on this thread and have never said anything. we are waiting for your evidence that the bible is god inspired.
every single piece of information that is perceived by your senses has to be twisted and turned and manipulated so it fits your pre-conceived worldview, this takes a LOT of energy! it becomes constant work ... it is much more scientific and much more objective to change your worldview to fit the objective reality
do you want clear logical proof that SCIENCE is NOT anti-religion? this is clear to anyone who can be objective, and fit their worldview with the objective reality ... i bet it will drive you nuts, why? for the reasons i just mentioned, the not-well-understood yet nonetheless still unarguable psychological process that i describe above, it is information that violates your worldview, it is not allowed, you have trained yourself to argue it, deny it and avoid it rather than INVESTIGATE OBJECTIVELY, it serves no beneficial purpose to you nor anyone else, there is zero benefit all around but you insist on it, it's intellectually sado-masochistic on some levels
i hope this helps... but i doubt it, i may as well be talking to an automated bot and it's not that hasn't crossed my mind
Quote from traderwann:
do you realize that i asked you if you were sincere, you then said asking that is "babbling" and now you babble on about hypocrisy? it's incredible, you are either doing it on purpose or showing everyone what a tortured existence you live under...
every single piece of information that is perceived by your senses has to be twisted and turned and manipulated so it fits your pre-conceived worldview, this takes a LOT of energy! it becomes constant work ... it is much more scientific and much more objective to change your worldview to fit the objective reality
do you want clear logical proof that SCIENCE is NOT anti-religion? this is clear to anyone who can be objective, and fit their worldview with the objective reality ... i bet it will drive you nuts, why? for the reasons i just mentioned, the not-well-understood yet nonetheless still unarguable psychological process that i describe above, it is information that violates your worldview, it is not allowed, you have trained yourself to argue it, deny it and avoid it rather than INVESTIGATE OBJECTIVELY, it serves no beneficial purpose to you nor anyone else, there is zero benefit all around but you insist on it, it's intellectually sado-masochistic on some levels
i hope this helps... but i doubt it, i may as well be talking to an automated bot and it's not that hasn't crossed my mind
wtf. another babbling rant. you are dangerously close to getting put on ignore for idiocy. i expect a minimal level of logical thinking ability in order to waste my time on you.
Quote from Free Thinker:
here we are following jem back to his ultimate destination. god of the gaps. it is amusing to listen to creationists claim that the universe is too complicated to have happend by natural process yet they will readily believe that an invisible guy in the sky did it all by magic.
conversations with him always go like this:
creationist jem: it looks too complicated and there had to be a first cause. it had to be designed by ......biblegod.
skeptic: if there had to be a first cause who created god?
creationist jem: god didnt need a first cause.
skeptic: if god didnt need a first cause why does the universe?
creationist jem: because god designed it.
skeptic: ok how did god do it?
creationist jem: the bible says god spoke and everything appeared:
skeptic: isnt that like magic? what did god say? abra kadbra?
creationist jem: god doesnt use majic.
skeptic: then how did he do it?
creationist jem: he is god. he just did it.
God of the Gaps From Theopedia.com.
God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.
Before the scientific revolution of the last four centuries, such arguments were commonplace and widely accepted, presumably because the âgapsâ were large and showing no signs of shrinking. A lightning bolt crashes down, the peasants working in the field cross themselves and say âwell, we donât understand that, so it must be God.â
God of the Gaps in theology and apologetics
Theologians and religious scientists have used God of the Gaps arguments at least since the thirteenth century, revising them in response to developments in science.
Thomas Aquinas argued that because there is order and predictability in inanimate objects, which clearly cannot create order for themselves, there must be an intelligent being ordering them:
We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. [4]
Isaac Newton, a deist, developed equations that explained much of the order in inanimate objects, which challenged Aquinasâs God of the Gaps arguments. In response, Newton turned to the variety that he saw in creation, as evidence for a creator:
We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind ****physical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [5]
William Paley, writing more than a century after Newton, argued that the complexity and obvious design of Godâs creation, and in particular of living things, was irrefutable evidence for Godâs existence:
In crossing a heath, suppose I ⦠found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place;⦠This mechanism being observed⦠the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a makerâ¦.who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. [6]
Not many years after Paley, Darwin offered an explanation that undermined Paleyâs âargument from design.â Many of those who had based their faith on Paleyâs arguments found their faith severely challenged. It was in this context that Drummond wrote âThe Ascent of Manâ as quoted above.
You are arguing with scientists not me dipshit. You completely lie.
Most of the Scientists I have quoted are non Christian. Many are atheists. All of them are aware of the difference between philosophy and science.
The most recent quote I gave you was a review of the book by Martin Rees - the reviewer is a physicist.
Rees is a famous astrophysicist and chair holder from one of Englands most prestigious universities.
This is a synopsis review of one of the six numbers...
"We now discuss the main contents of Martin Reesâ book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. The main thesis of this book is that the evolution (both physical and biological) of our universe is remarkably sensitive to the values of six numbers. If any of their values was âuntuned,â there would be no stars and life as we know it in our current universe.
We will now discuss these six numbers, and the next section will discuss several interpretations based on the conclusions of this section.
N = Relative strength of electrical force over gravitational force (e.g., electrical force between 2 protons/gravitational force between 2 protons) = (approximately) 1036, i.e., the gravitational force is extremely weak compared with the electrical force.
Matter is made up of atoms and molecules which in general are neutral because they are made up of equal numbers of protons (positively charge) and electrons (negatively charge), and some neutrons (neutrally charge). Therefore, even though the electrical force is so much larger than the gravitational force, the aggregate force governing the macroscopic structure of matter is the gravitational force, and not the electrical force. This self gravitational force will pull the matter inward into smaller and smaller spheres. When they get smaller and smaller, its temperature gets hotter and hotter, because temperature is due to the collision of atoms with each other within the matter, and there will be more collisions if the spheres are smaller. When the interior temperature gets hot enough, nuclear fusion reactions can occur as in our sun. These nuclear fusion reactions release energy and therefore outward pressure which can counteract the inward pressure from gravitation. That keeps the matter from continuous collapse and allows stars like our sun to shine from the released energy.
However, If the gravitational force were larger, e.g., a million times larger, i.e., if N=1030, then the matter spheres would collapse much faster into smaller spheres when they reach the temperature which can generate the nuclear fusion reactions and stabilize the matter. Under these circumstances, galaxies would form much more quickly and would be much smaller in size (due to less time for the universe to expand). Instead of the stars being widely dispersed, they would be so densely packed that close encounters would be frequent, thus precluding stable planetary systems, which are a prerequisite for life. Furthermore, when gravity is so strong (relatively speaking), no animals could get much larger than very tiny insects, because gravity would cause any larger living organism to collapse.
We can conclude that instead of having 36 zeros after 1 in the value of N, if there were only 30 zeros after 1, then the universe would be very much different from the current universe, and life as we know it would not be able to exist. Note: On the other hand, if the gravitational force were even weaker, i.e., if N is even larger (having more than 36 zeros after 1), then it would take longer to form galactic structure, and galactic structures would be less densely populated, and larger and perhaps more complex life organisms, different from current life organisms, could exist."
http://www.dontow.com/2010/01/revie...bers-the-deep-forces-that-shape-the-universe/
----------------------
There are five more numbers to read about in the review.
Note I have already given you the info about the cosmological constant. Which was the finding that moved most of the scientists in the world into our universe appears finely tuned camp.
You are an asshole no thinker if you keep trying to say that I am giving you religion. I am giving science.
"We now discuss the main contents of Martin Reesâ book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. The main thesis of this book is that the evolution (both physical and biological) of our universe is remarkably sensitive to the values of six numbers. If any of their values was âuntuned,â there would be no stars and life as we know it in our current universe.
We will now discuss these six numbers, and the next section will discuss several interpretations based on the conclusions of this section.
N = Relative strength of electrical force over gravitational force (e.g., electrical force between 2 protons/gravitational force between 2 protons) = (approximately) 1036, i.e., the gravitational force is extremely weak compared with the electrical force.
Matter is made up of atoms and molecules which in general are neutral because they are made up of equal numbers of protons (positively charge) and electrons (negatively charge), and some neutrons (neutrally charge). Therefore, even though the electrical force is so much larger than the gravitational force, the aggregate force governing the macroscopic structure of matter is the gravitational force, and not the electrical force. This self gravitational force will pull the matter inward into smaller and smaller spheres. When they get smaller and smaller, its temperature gets hotter and hotter, because temperature is due to the collision of atoms with each other within the matter, and there will be more collisions if the spheres are smaller. When the interior temperature gets hot enough, nuclear fusion reactions can occur as in our sun. These nuclear fusion reactions release energy and therefore outward pressure which can counteract the inward pressure from gravitation. That keeps the matter from continuous collapse and allows stars like our sun to shine from the released energy.
However, If the gravitational force were larger, e.g., a million times larger, i.e., if N=1030, then the matter spheres would collapse much faster into smaller spheres when they reach the temperature which can generate the nuclear fusion reactions and stabilize the matter. Under these circumstances, galaxies would form much more quickly and would be much smaller in size (due to less time for the universe to expand). Instead of the stars being widely dispersed, they would be so densely packed that close encounters would be frequent, thus precluding stable planetary systems, which are a prerequisite for life. Furthermore, when gravity is so strong (relatively speaking), no animals could get much larger than very tiny insects, because gravity would cause any larger living organism to collapse.
We can conclude that instead of having 36 zeros after 1 in the value of N, if there were only 30 zeros after 1, then the universe would be very much different from the current universe, and life as we know it would not be able to exist. Note: On the other hand, if the gravitational force were even weaker, i.e., if N is even larger (having more than 36 zeros after 1), then it would take longer to form galactic structure, and galactic structures would be less densely populated, and larger and perhaps more complex life organisms, different from current life organisms, could exist."
http://www.dontow.com/2010/01/revie...bers-the-deep-forces-that-shape-the-universe/
----------------------
There are five more numbers to read about in the review.
Note I have already given you the info about the cosmological constant. Which was the finding that moved most of the scientists in the world into our universe appears finely tuned camp.
You are an asshole no thinker if you keep trying to say that I am giving you religion. I am giving science.