It is a shame they choose not to keep their knees together, or use birth control.

One thread Timelord used a definition of life.

Based on his "Objectivist" definition of life, a fetus is human life and entitled to all rights you and I are then, making abortion murder.

You cannot really have the argument both ways.

What we might term our mystical position matters little; not at all to me. But there are many religions who have many gods, which is my reason for saying that the post ought have used "religious" rather than Christian. so, enuf of this

Express your view in a Christian context within an Objectivist framework, then get back to me.

Maybe not. Perhaps the discussion will go on forever.

As I posted elsewhere, there is one thing for absolute certainty.

Eventually one of us will be PROVEN right, and one of will be very surprised by the answer.

Some 3,000 years ago Egyptian scientists figured out not only was the world a sphere (not round), but estimated the size quite closely. You seem to have an antagonism against science, which I find consistent with your other statements. Am I correct in this?

Now about your creator god, that is interesting. Now all you have to do is define what it is and adduce some proof of its existence and I will happily change my mind.

It is a human being from conception.

I would argue that if you are a strong believer in a supernatural being, you might be receive more support from the Austrian School of Economics (i.e. Hayek, Mises) or Conservatism (i.e. Republicanism).

Not sure if this was addressed yet, but according to Leonard Peikoff:
Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.

For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.

Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .

“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”

Ge: 1:14 - 18.

Because God our Creator placed them there, created the laws and rules of physics and yes gravity to hold them in their positions.

Isaiah 40:22 refers to the "Circle of the Earth"

Isaiah btw was written in the 8th century BCE.referring to the earth being round. So about 2,200 years BEFORE science those all powerful most brilliant people "discovered" this fact, it was written in the Bible. Hrm...

Sciense however...
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithaba...

“When Columbus lived, people thought that the earth was flat. They believed the Atlantic Ocean to be filled with monsters large enough to devour their ships, and with fearful waterfalls over which their frail vessels would plunge to destruction. Columbus had to fight these foolish beliefs in order to get men to sail with him. He felt sure the earth was round.”
–Emma Miler Bolenius, American Schoolbook Author, 1919


Answering your query is NOT proselytizing either.

Move it to private.

Variety of stuff. Teaching, flying, law, business.

Show me in the Bible, the book that if you read it explains why things happen, why the earth goes around the sun.

My implication is they do not just totally "dismiss" the idea of Intelligent Design or God, but accept the possibility of such a concept.

As far as Steven Hawking, He has flip flopped a couple times, so he was for it before he was against it.

While that may be partly true, non-existence still cannot be proven. It is a logical impossibility.

What quality? What Force?

Capacity for metabolism? Reaction to Stimuli?

By using ambiguity for not "define" something.

2a is kinda of the closest I would think, but now your getting into what defines "YOU" which are very ambiguous terms. Many inanimate objects react to stimuli, are they alive? Dead tissue can react to stimuli.

These are negative "proofs", which you all say is no proof.

(Life itself cannot be "defined") Why do you insist on making these outrageous claims that are so very simple to disprove?

1
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2
a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual

You offered 24 quotes from scientists and you strongly imply that they made these remarks to support the idea that god exists.

I hope all two dozen of them are not as purposefully dishonest as #15, from Steven Hawking. Professor Hawking is an outspoken atheist. You have committed the grievous sin that you accused another writer of committing. You took his quote out of context.

" I must say you have committed so many fallacies in your statements immediately above that it is not possible to name them all here in this thread, let alone try to explain them."

Please try. You do me a tremendous disservice by not attempting it. I am also more than willing to move this to a private thread if that is more amenable to you.

We understand Gravity "so well?" Really? Then where is your nobel prize in science?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”

Apparently Science cannot get a REAL measurement of what is believed to be a "constant" of Gravity either.

So you were saying proven a long time ago?

On arguing religion with woodlema I am reminded of this aphorism: Do not teach a pig to dance; it annoys the pig and wastes your time.

"Using the scientific method, we do not propose a theory and then ask everyone to prove us wrong."

You're sort of wrong on that one. A very important part of supporting a theory involves trying to prove that it's wrong. Each failed attempt increases our confidence in the theory.

Retired from what? Just curious ...

I am an engineer, btw.

"God much like Gravity and Wind is not proven"

Gravity and Wind were "proven" a long, long time ago. We now understand gravity so well that we can predict the path of celestial bodies in our galactic neighborhood. We can use our knowledge of gravity to help detect planets in other solar systems. We can use knowledge of it to show that a distant star is actually a binary star even though the telescope can't see the fact.

We can't touch the wind? It's only because we do touch it that we know it's there. The air pushing against your body, as sensed by your nerves, is wind.

Most people have not seen their own brains. I have seen an MRI of mine so that's direct evidence that it's there. But your argument is basically flawed. We don't need to see something with our eyes, via the visible light spectrum, or touch it with our skin to know it's there. I don't need faith to believe in x-rays or quarks because there is irrefutable scientific evidence.

There is no measurement you can make or scientific instrument you can build that will provide any evidence at all that god exists.

Hi SJ,

My interpretation of the question is "would Christians be welcome in the [literary] Gulch" (as described in the book). My understanding is that admission to the Gulch (unless you crash land there) is limited to those willing to take the oath.

The purpose of this "virtual" or online Gulch is somewhat different, and a way to discuss concepts and learn more about Objectivism. Therefore, the membership requirements are much less restrictive, and no, don't require the taking of an oath. :-)

I will accept any intelligible definition.