Evolutionary Proof of God

[Kleophon]

Upon reading many of the threads in this forum and others, I must ask a very delicate question. Given that evolution is a scientific theory (one not concerning religion), what evolutionary proof is there of God?

If you accept the theory of evolution, then you accept that our actions as animals of this planet have an evolutionary advantage at some point that allowed the action to continue for survival purposes. But, of what purpose is the belief of God? Why did humans begin the philosophical thought processes of Spiritualism?

[Epsilon=One]

...what evolutionary proof is there of God?You must first define what you mean by "God." See: Proof of God (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=150).

If you accept the theory of evolution, then you accept that our actions as animals of this planet have an evolutionary advantage at some point that allowed the action to continue for survival purposes.Yes. But, Darwinism does not adequately address the problem of species creation. It is much more complex; and, ultimately associated with viruses that are Cosmic travelers.

...of what purpose is the belief of God? Why did humans begin the philosophical thought processes of Spiritualism?For the same reasons that today we seek scientific truths.

It is not the "belief of God," "philosophic thought," or "Spiritualism" that is evil. It is religion that is evil. Religion is a human invention, a tool, to manipulate others, often for the benefit of the manipulators to the disservice of those manipulated. I define religion as manipulation; those organizations that are entirely service oriented are not included in my definition of religion.

See: My Creed (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=90) and www.epsilon-1.com (http://www.epsilon-1.com) .

[Kleophon]

Yes, but there has to be some purpose of adaptation for the existence of divine beings. I completely agree with you that religion is of no good for human life, but somehow, in some time, there must have been a reason for the creation of divine powers. I was not clear in my definition of God, as you said, I meant an overarching theme of divine powers. Is there a reason through evolution that divine powers were thought of?

My hypothesis is this: religion in general was created to fill in gaps in knowledge. The places that science and reason cannot explain, divine powers took over and filled the holes in humans' knowledge. Therefore, as science progresses, developing religions slowly start to decline in power (unless they, of course, take action) throughout society. We can see it today as well, less and less people believe in a religion because science is increasing at such a rapid rate. There has to be some correlation between the whole tract of religion and the progress of science and I believe that line between the two that constantly shifts provides the answer for an evolutionary process of the human creation of divine powers.

[Epsilon=One]

Yes, but there has to be some purpose of adaptation for the existence of divine beings.Considering the usual definition of "divine," I cannot imagine such a thing as a "divine" being.

...somehow, in some time, there must have been a reason for the creation of divine powers.Nor, can I understand what a "divine" power might be.

Is there a reason through evolution that divine powers were thought of?Yes. Control and manipulation.

My hypothesis is this: religion in general was created to fill in gaps in knowledge.More likely, "religion in general was created to" control people. Gods were created "to fill in gaps in knowledge."

The places that science and reason cannot explain, divine powers took over and filled the holes in humans' knowledge. Therefore, as science progresses, developing religions slowly start to decline in power (unless they, of course, take action) throughout society. We can see it today as well, less and less people believe in a religion because science is increasing at such a rapid rate. There has to be some correlation between the whole tract of religion and the progress of science and I believe that line between the two that constantly shifts provides the answer for an evolutionary process of the human creation of divine powers.Nothing seems to indicate that faith is receding. Just the opposite. Technology seems to be exacerbating the powers of secular and religious faith.

Eerily strange how you can put "human creation" and "divine powers" within two letters of one another.

[Vulcan Princess]

Humans are weird. While you all seem to bring up valid points that wholeheartedly find logical and possibly agreeable, I would like to suggest, that maybe the only evolutionary proof of God is in the people itself.

Throughout time, things have gotten more and more complex, survival more and more important, because the world is getting more and more dangerous, I mean, we went from killing our food each day to eating fast food that is genetically engineered to last longer because our planet is slowly melting

Perhaps it is postive faith in some benevolent higher power that gives some people the fuel needed to go about their business---you know some Ultimate Good having control over the world.

The world can be negative and scary for some people.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Upon reading many of the threads in this forum and others, I must ask a very delicate question. Given that evolution is a scientific theory (one not concerning religion), what evolutionary proof is there of God?

If you accept the theory of evolution, then you accept that our actions as animals of this planet have an evolutionary advantage at some point that allowed the action to continue for survival purposes. But, of what purpose is the belief of God? Why did humans begin the philosophical thought processes of Spiritualism?© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Well we have several Distinct advantages of over the rest of the Animals, our collective ability to talk hence our Collective and amassed Human Knowledge bank (Library) that permits us to Outperform ALL of the rest of the animals and Gives us Supremacy (Dominion) over the Earth....and we can lie.

BTW The rest of the Animals/lifeforms Never Experience a Lie.

We can Continue from there, if you would like....... :cool:

[Kleophon]

Well we have several Distinct advantages of over the rest of the Animals, our collective ability to talk hence our Collective and amassed Human Knowledge bank (Library) that permits us to Outperform ALL of the rest of the animals and Gives us Supremacy (Dominion) over the Earth....and we can lie.

BTW The rest of the Animals/lifeforms Never Experience a Lie.


Are you saying that religion is a lie? I agree with you that we can lie, but are you also answering my original question?

[Epsilon=One]

Perhaps it is postive faith in some benevolent higher power that gives some people the fuel needed to go about their business---you know some Ultimate Good having control over the world.

The world can be negative and scary for some people.Interesting how you juxtapose "Ultimate Good having control..." and "The world can be negative and scary..."

"Negative and scary" would seem to argue that if an "Ultimate Good" existed that it wasn't performing very well.

I would argue that faith, as a requirement for day-to-day survival, should be minimized as much as possible, because many understand faith, if only subconsciously, to be a belief in the "unlikely" and superstitious. Thus, few are self deluded and many are even more confused by their environment than they would be without the various impressed myths.

My contention is that: the less faith required, the more happiness.

[Kleophon]

My contention is that: the less faith required, the more happiness.

Well put. I agree with you. However, I'm interested to know what you define as "faith"? Is it the belief in a supernatural, or the values we live our lives by, or something different? Because, if its those values that are defined by a "faith", then is it really worth having less of? I don't think that's what you mean, but you may be implying that...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Are you saying that religion is a lie? Given that religion(s) attempts to teach self-discipline, NO, clearly Not.

I agree with you that we can lie, but are you also answering my original question? (I) do NOT find that Evolutionary theory Removes a 'Creator' from the Picture, it actually Helps to Prove an Operational 'Truth' over time, But 'Truth' is Metaphysical, And as our ability to lie proves, so are we....

So where is it that people get lost in that?

Age is the learning curve ajudicator, as in (I) was once Young(er) and Didn't understand Aaaaaaaaaallllllllll of that .....either, leastways "as (I) can recall it!" ...but my education in it had started, and (I) had 'Known' (Read) of Some/quite a bit of it.

"Metaphysical" &/or "Spiritual" are they the Same thing to you?

[Vulcan Princess]

The world is Paradox. Men of this planet clearly need both faith and fact, supernatural and science, logic and intuition to live on this planet. The world is negative and scary so that we will look to the Ultimate Good controlling the planet, It won't be able to do good unless we give it permission to by tapping into faith. We do have free will. This isn't some Divine Dictatorship, unless a person chooses it to be. Everything is choice.

Ya'll proclaim that the less faith used the happier you are? How are you defining happy?

As the odds of the universe continually being in you favor by way of luck or chance, which is the original definition of the word happy?

Or do you mean always never having to worry about things like clothes, food, money and being 'successful' not feeling like there is this giganto void in your life and something is missing?

The world is paradox, the key is finding the peace of it, the harmony, understanding how the contradiction makes sense without sounding hypocritical.

Juxtapostion is my position.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) Ya'll proclaim that the less faith used the happier you are? How are you defining happy? (SNP) Q1) Not me Q2) A sense of Contentment, Inner Sense of mild Excitement without danger/fear, Elation is a higher form of Simple happiness, serene Contentment a less emotively intense (ergo 'Lower') yet a longer pleasurable sensation of Simple happiness, a Profound sensation of Elation when Faith is Validated in/by time .....and, Simply "waking up in the morning" to find another 'day of Life' awaiting ...me....

Whats Down with Y'all that?

[Kleophon]

The world is Paradox. Men of this planet clearly need both faith and fact, supernatural and science, logic and intuition to live on this planet.


I do not quite agree with that, but I'll accept it for now.

We do have free will.

Well, if I accept you first remark to be true, then you've stated a contradiction. Faith means making sure you live your life in a certain way with certain values, etc., correct? Therefore, if followed, faith means giving up some free choice, therefore we don't have total free will. Facts do not restrict human free will at all. Supernatural belief once again means giving up some of science (which obviously does not restrict human free will either) to believe in the other worldly and proclaiming a faith in something we do not have any assurance to be true, thereby restricting part of our free will. Logic and intuition are practically definitions of free will, so 2 out of your 6 points lead to contradictions.

This isn't some Divine Dictatorship, unless a person chooses it to be.

I'll accept your statements up above if you mean this statement to be out of free will. If so, then "free will" may also mean giving up free will, which is not logical, so I guess in the end we are back to where we started.

Juxtapostion is my position.

Juxtaposition means comparing two unlike things. I cannot accept that happiness or peace or even honor will result from accepting and comparing two unlike things like anger and peace. There are portions of ideas that cannot coincide and if you live your life trying to make them coincide, it could be worse.

My philosophy is to follow roads to happiness, to find an inner peace and to know oneself. If you live with one goal in mind, happiness, however you want to find it, then I believe your life will be fulfilled without the supernatural or faith.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(both links are Wikipedia.org)

So lets see, the word Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) has its' closest synonym as the word "Trust" as in: (I) trust (Have faith in) you that when you said you would be there "tomorrow" you will be.

The word Belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief) With the explanation that, (From that site)
(SNIP) "Belief is usually defined as a conviction to the truth of a proposition without its verification...." (SNoP) Hence we can see that there exists Many a person who think themselves 'Believers' yet really are NOT as they only believe in what is Proven to them!

As for 'free will' clearly everyone has it, Prove that? easy ....just tell a Lie! (everyone can)

Given that 'free will' is (roughly) "The act of choosing" well, we have total free will as we can choose from whatever we want ...but the caveate is added, just because you choose something, does NOT mean that you can have it, will have it, or even that it is Possible to have....soooooew, ......

[Vulcan Princess]

Faith is trusting something you hope to be true, something uncertain to be true, to be fact, not "making sure you live your life in a certain way with certain values"--that is religion.

Religion and faith are different things, religion is sorta like a system, a discipline in which one employs faith. Even those who claim not to have a religion do have one and do employ faith in something because faith is a trust in the unknown that what you hope or dread will happen, if you have faith that something you dread will happen then that is worry.

Having faith doesn't mean you are giving up free choice, you can choose to stop trusting at any time,

Two unlike things, that are juxtaposing go together like anger and peace because they are like two opposite extremes like, north and south, it is a sort of balancing effect so to speak

We wouldn't know peace if there was no war, that kind of thing.

you say that your philosophy is to follow the road to happiness with out faith or the supernatural and just find the things that make you happy? Is that like Hedonistic or what?

[Epsilon=One]

Faith is trusting something you hope to be true, something uncertain to be true, to be fact, not "making sure you live your life in a certain way with certain values"--that is religion.You are correct in all the concepts that you mention that are other than "faith." Faith is a word like “love” that is greatly overused.

However, even you give more connotations to "faith" than I like. When I speak of religious or secular faith I am referring to faith as a belief in something that cannot be proved with the principles of IPSO (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/IPSO).

you say that your philosophy is to follow the road to happiness with out faith or the supernatural and just find the things that make you happy? Is that like Hedonistic or what?Doubt is directly proportional to faith. Happiness (different from happy or pleasure) is inversely proportional to doubt. Therefore, the less faith, the more happiness.

This has absolutely nothing to do with hedonism.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

you say that your philosophy is to follow the road to happiness with out faith or the supernatural and just find the things that make you happy? Is that like Hedonistic or what?Sorry to intrude but that philosophy is more like blind, and doomed to eventual certain failure.

(From personal experience)

[Epsilon=One]

Sorry to intrude but that philosophy is more like blind, and doomed to eventual certain failure.

(From personal experience)How is your personal experience relevant to advising others regarding a "blind, and doomed to eventual certain failure" philosophy?

I am interested in your philosophical logic regarding what constitutes "happiness."

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

How is your personal experience relevant to advising others regarding a "blind, and doomed to eventual certain failure" philosophy?
I am interested in your philosophical logic regarding what constitutes "happiness."In the/a same/similar manner that yours is...

[Vulcan Princess]

Everything you said, Epsilon leads back to my main premise that the world is paradoxical.

All things fit together harmoniously so that they make sense.

[Epsilon=One]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

In the/a same/similar manner that yours is...Are you saying that you believe faith in the Standard Models is causing a debilitating doubt that ennervates happiness.

Because that is my "manner" and strong position.

And, please stop editing my comments when you quote me without so stating. The practice is dishonest and reflects as such on your character.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Are you saying that you believe faith in the Standard Models is causing a debilitating doubt that ennervates happiness. (I) see you are still trying to MISLEAD everyone..... with your dodging, what? question? is that a question, or a statement?

Because that is my "manner" and strong position.So you admit to a debilitating doubt, no wonder....

And, please stop editing my comments when you quote me without so stating. The practice is dishonest and reflects as such on your character.Once again .....FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVISE!! as you are the only one PROVEN to be doing that!

[Epsilon=One]

Are you saying that you believe faith in the Standard Models is causing a debilitating doubt that ennervates happiness.
(I) see you are still trying to MISLEAD everyone..... with your dodging, what? question? is that a question, or a statement?The comment is clear. Take it as you wish. It's your continual, juvenile "dodging" that is wasting everyone’s time. Do you disagree with the statement or not? Are you capable of a straight answer? You're wasting time with your deceptions that are pointless; but, they require an answer to set the record straight.
Because that is my "manner" and strong position.
So you admit to a debilitating doubt, no wonder....One more fine example of your dishonesty. You have turned the statement around with your comment and quoted out of context. Is there no limit to your deception. I admitted to nothing. Below is the entire text from which you have changed the meaning.

Are you saying that you believe faith in the Standard Models is causing a debilitating doubt that ennervates happiness.

Because that is my "manner" and strong position.You are more than aware that I ridicule the fact that the Standard Models are irreconcilable with one another and with observation. What is your position concerning the Standard Models? Let's get back to physics.

I have asked you over and over to pick any of my original, alternative concepts in Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PT) and debate whatever you cannot accept. Otherwise, I must conclude that you fully agree with Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PT).
Quote:
And, please stop editing my comments when you quote me without so stating. The practice is dishonest and reflects as such on your character.Once again .....FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVISE!! as you are the only one PROVEN to be doing that!Please cite an example. I know of none.

And, you have done as much, in this post, as I have documented above.

Why do you continue with your deceptive drivel? It makes it appear that you are unable to debate any of the original mathematics and physics that I have proposed? What is wrong with some debate on substantive topics?

Do you accept the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) or the revised Fibonacci sequence (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/rFs)? How about Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI)? Or, Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/RHC)? Or, pick one of my neologisms that you think I improperly link to.

A good subject would be does the Proof of One (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PoO) refute Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem?

Please respond with other than drivel; I know you are capable.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Please cite an example. I know of none. Did it yesterday in this Thread (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=938&page=3) post #28

As for reading you well, you told me sometime back that you could easily be refuted by a World Class Theoretical Physicist, then told me That that would not be (is not) Me, so why would (I) bother, and aside from that, why would (I) make such efforts as to help you when you accept absolutely nothing that anyone else says, unless it is something that you already say ...means: YOU LEARN NOTHING from anyone else

...'truth' is you do, but you will never admit to that.

You suffer the "Perfect Man" syndrome never admits to any mistakes that others see, only the ones he (rarely) sees, and everyone else is just wrong.

Aside from that (I) tire of Your 'ludicrous Nature' & repetitive Verbal (Typed) assault(s) & accusation of 'Deciept-deception(s) and lie(s)', when that is, Simply YOU! ....and YOUR outright lies!

GO away!

[Kleophon]

You suffer the "Perfect Man" syndrome never admits to any mistakes that others see, only the ones he (rarely) sees, and everyone else is just wrong.

Aside from that (I) tire of Your 'ludicrous Nature' & repetitive Verbal (Typed) assault(s) & accusation of 'Deciept-deception(s) and lie(s)', when that is, Simply YOU! ....and YOUR outright lies!

GO away!

Perhaps it is you that suffers from the "Perfect Man" syndrome. I believe Epsilon=One has taken back arguments and has admitted to being incorrect occasionally.

[Epsilon=One]

Did it yesterday in this Thread (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=938&page=3) post #28Your deceit and deception, apparently, knows no limit. There is no misquoting you in said post or its reference.

A quote that might be misconstrued, must be so noted; this I do; you never so indicate.

If you have a misquote, post it, verbatim. So that it can be seen by everyone. I have not misquoted you. Your saying so does not make it so. If you were honest you would post the misquote so everyone could judge for themselves.

Your statement herein, and below, continues as further direct examples of your dishonesty.

As for reading you well, you told me sometime back that you could easily be refuted by a World Class Theoretical Physicist, then told me That that would not be (is not) Me, so why would (I) bother...Again an example of your dishonesty. You are paraphrasing out of context and implying a meaning that never existed. Your technique of debate is deplorable.

If my arguments were so easily refuted, I am amazed that you never bother exposing the errors with my original mathematical concepts or alternative cocepts concerning the Standard Models; rather than continual weaseling on the issue.

Of course, it is difficult to be deceptive concerning mathematics, which would leave you without your usual methods of debate. I continually ask you for questions concerning my work rather than my person. Why are you so mute?

If you don't understand my work, let me know precisely where you are confused (Maybe I'll be able to clarify.); if you agree with my work, let me know; if you don't agree, let the world know why in mathematical terms (Maybe you'll be correct).

If you can't do any of the above, I must assume your only purpose in posting is to be destructive and obstruct the well being of others.

...and aside from that, why would (I) make such efforts as to help you when you accept absolutely nothing that anyone else says, unless it is something that you already say ...means: YOU LEARN NOTHING from anyone else

...'truth' is you do, but you will never admit to that.Most all that I know, I have learned from others. And, I have so acknowledged. Most all of my original work is just stitching together the work of others such that alternative, hopefully, more logical conclusions can be ascertained. No one, in over fifty years, has accused me of not crediting them concerning original concepts of mathematics and physics.

You suffer the "Perfect Man" syndrome never admits to any mistakes that others see, only the ones he (rarely) sees, and everyone else is just wrong.When it comes to mathematics and physics, I continually critique my work and others looking for mistakes that I have made. That is why I ask for questions. I'm not such a fool that when an error is found that I don't say, "Thank you!"; and, correct it. Few want to continuously be a fool.

Why don't you show your wisdom and help correct any of my errors in mathematics and physics' concepts rather than your continuing with, often moot, deceptive drivel?

Aside from that (I) tire of Your 'ludicrous Nature' & repetitive Verbal (Typed) assault(s) & accusation of 'Deciept-deception(s) and lie(s)', when that is, Simply YOU! ....and YOUR outright lies!

GO away!I want nothing more than to be rid of the time I waste defending against your off-topic, deceptive posts.

Just imagine the constructive time we could be spending debating if there is an Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC); and what its significance is? Or, what is fundamental, intrinsic time (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Time)? Or, is Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI) the cause of accelerating, galactic recession?

Can you just once directly answer a mathematical or physics question with nothing more than mathematics and physics?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Perhaps it is you that suffers from the "Perfect Man" syndrome. I believe Epsilon=One has taken back arguments and has admitted to being incorrect occasionally.
And you haven't read enough of me to have seen the "Ooooops" and the Edit's and are only here to support your friend, whom you clearly seem to miss his attack on me, and make no mention of it.

Error, EP1?? When?? where?? Once or twice? just to cover his tracks??

Caught him RED HANDED at Dropping a question mark from a Quotation of Me, and his Answer...(Paraphrased) I forgive myself and it is O-b-v-i-o-u-s-!-!

His answer... this Thread (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=832&page=3) Post #28 & BTW you might just want to read ALL of what transpired, maybe then you too will get to Know him...

Note that I placed 3 dots before and after your words to indicate that it was a snippet of your words and the reader might want to check the original. Such is the approved procedure when there is any possibility of quoting out of context.

SO what the (deleted) else are you doing her?? Bothering Me?? FOR WHAT??

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Your deceit and deception, apparently, knows no limit. There is no misquoting you in said post or its reference.
A quote that might be misconstrued, must be so noted; this I do; you never so indicate.
If you have a misquote, post it, verbatim. So that it can be seen by everyone. I have not misquoted you. Your saying so does not make it so. If you were honest you would post the misquote so everyone could judge for themselves.
Your statement herein, and below, continues as further direct examples of your dishonesty.
Again an example of your dishonesty. You are paraphrasing out of context and implying a meaning that never existed. Your technique of debate is deplorable.
If my arguments were so easily refuted, I am amazed that you never bother exposing the errors with my original mathematical concepts or alternative cocepts concerning the Standard Models; rather than continual weaseling on the issue.
Of course, it is difficult to be deceptive concerning mathematics, which would leave you without your usual methods of debate. I continually ask you for questions concerning my work rather than my person. Why are you so mute?
If you don't understand my work, let me know precisely where you are confused (Maybe I'll be able to clarify.); if you agree with my work, let me know; if you don't agree, let the world know why in mathematical terms (Maybe you'll be correct).
If you can't do any of the above, I must assume your only purpose in posting is to be destructive and obstruct the well being of others.
Most all that I know, I have learned from others. And, I have so acknowledged. Most all of my original work is just stitching together the work of others such that alternative, hopefully, more logical conclusions can be ascertained. No one, in over fifty years, has accused me of not crediting them concerning original concepts of mathematics and physics.
When it comes to mathematics and physics, I continually critique my work and others looking for mistakes that I have made. That is why I ask for questions. I'm not such a fool that when an error is found that I don't say, "Thank you!"; and, correct it. Few want to continuously be a fool.
Why don't you show your wisdom and help correct any of my errors in mathematics and physics' concepts rather than your continuing with, often moot, deceptive drivel?
{EDIT INSERT}
this section removed for flagrant Self promotion past the tolerable limitations of any sane/sensible Man
{/EDIT INSERT}
I want nothing more than to be rid of the time I waste defending against your off-topic, deceptive posts.
Can you just once directly answer a mathematical or physics question with nothing more than mathematics and physics?

Content relavent to this thread = 0

Ergo responce = 0

Go Away! and take your fiend! with you! Sland/terer!!

[Epsilon=One]

Perhaps it is you that suffers from the "Perfect Man" syndrome. I believe Epsilon=One has taken back arguments and has admitted to being incorrect occasionally.And you haven't read enough of me to have seen the "Ooooops" and the Edit's and are only here to support your friend…I have never commented on your “"Ooooops" and the Edit's” mangled syntax, histrionics, misspelling, etc.; I have primarily been upset only with your deception. As usual you make presumption that you have no knowledge of, which is quite deceiving. I know of no reason to believe that I am Kleophon’s friend or vice versa. Please stop speaking for others when you know not what you speak of.

…his attack on me, and make no mention of it.Your referring to my attacks on you is false. I suspect you are otherwise a kindly gentlemen. I would hope so. I have occasionally said as much. It is your deception, not your person, that I refute.

Caught him RED HANDED at Dropping a question mark from a Quotation of Me, and his Answer...(Paraphrased) I forgive myself and it is O-b-v-i-o-u-s-!-!The paraphrase is a deliberate lie by you, which I hereby refute to set the record straight.

The gist of your entire comment is also a lie. As your own quotation below indicates.

You again have selected to deceive; changed the format without advising the reader. And, you haven’t quoted that I indicated it was a snippet of what was directly above. And the reason it was an “indicated” snippet was to save you the embarrassment of not repeating your imperiousness. In no way, as you do without so indicating, did my snippet change the context of your meaning. You find this one instance, in which you are badly mistaken as you have shown below, while you transgress with unmitigated deception often many times, in most of your posts. This one is just another fine example.

His answer... this Thread Post #28 & BTW you might just want to read ALL of what transpired, maybe then you too will get to Know him...I certainly hope that everyone will want to read all that transpired. I will gladly so rest my case on public opinion.

Originally Posted by EP1Note that I placed 3 dots before and after your words to indicate that it was a snippet of your words and the reader might want to check the original. Such is the approved procedure when there is any possibility of quoting out of context.Is there anything here that you disagree with? I would say that this and my snippet vindicates my case. Now if you would just stop changing my quotes with your undisclosed bold text we can let the issue rest. I don’t wish to look like a hooligan with unnecessary formatting.

SO what the (deleted) else are you doing her?? Bothering Me?? FOR WHAT??Fine comment; I’m sure the only reason that anyone bothers to bother you is to set the record correctly. Let me count the ways that your off-topic meandering, deception, and nitpicking without a forum point being made is bothersome.

Please let’s have some physics and mathematics . . . even, philosophy.

The topic of this thread is the “Evolutionary Proof of God.” I believe that the beauty of god can be known through physics and mathematics. Do you agree? See: Proof of God (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PoG)

[Epsilon=One]

Go Away!...Again, with the quote you are replying to with "Go Away!...", you have flagrantly edited a quotation from one of my posts without so noting (your practice seems to put me on your level of formatting).

When you stop these practices, I will gladly stop replying.

That would seem to be an easy way to make me "Go Away!..."

Try it. Maybe you'll catch me in a falsehood.

Back to the thread topic. Do you have any disagreement with "Proof of God" (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PoG)?

How long can you continue to dodge questions relevant to this forum?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

This is a Notation.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

How long can you continue to dodge questions relevant to this forum? cause....tic ....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Your deceit and deception, apparently, knows no limit. There is no misquoting you in said post or its reference.
CRAP and you did it in this posting (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=207
) (My Number #9 truncated BY you in your #10 post
and pointed out by me in Post # 11 next page) too, same thing TRUNCATION of what was originally typed by the typing Author....Me!

A quote that might be misconstrued, must be so noted; this I do; you never so indicate. that is the problem with you! you swallow you own lies!

If you have a misquote, post it, verbatim. So that it can be seen by everyone. I have not misquoted you. Your saying so does not make it so. If you were honest you would post the misquote so everyone could judge for themselves. ...And Again....

Again an example of your dishonesty. You are paraphrasing out of context and implying a meaning that never existed. Your technique of debate is deplorable. ...and again, cause you said this...

(SNIP) I can assure you that no academic, world-class, theoretical physicist would dare debate, in an open forum, the opposite of my stated positions.

I can easily be refuted by your providing such an opponent. (SNIP)

in this thread (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=207) (post # 8) so your doing little else then 'accuse of lieing' when it is clear who is the persistent and self descriptive ....liar.

If my arguments were so easily refuted, I am amazed that you never bother exposing the errors with my original mathematical concepts or alternative cocepts concerning the Standard Models; rather than continual weaseling on the issue.no more symmetry

Of course, it is difficult to be deceptive concerning mathematics, which would leave you without your usual methods of debate. I continually ask you for questions concerning my work rather than my person. Why are you so mute?no Symmetry

If you don't understand my work, let me know precisely where you are confused (Maybe I'll be able to clarify.); if you agree with my work, let me know; if you don't agree, let the world know why in mathematical terms (Maybe you'll be correct). No symmetry

If you can't do any of the above, I must assume your only purpose in posting is to be destructive and obstruct the well being of others. you describe yourself very well....

Most all that I know, I have learned from others. And, I have so acknowledged. Most all of my original work is just stitching together the work of others such that alternative, hopefully, more logical conclusions can be ascertained. No one, in over fifty years, has accused me of not crediting them concerning original concepts of mathematics and physics. How could they? most of them don't know your alive, or who the heck you actually are....!!

When it comes to mathematics and physics, I continually critique my work and others looking for mistakes that I have made. That is why I ask for questions. I'm not such a fool that when an error is found that I don't say, "Thank you!"; and, correct it. Few want to continuously be a fool.Now you include physics, Why? you were a trained mathematician, not a trained Physicist .....aside from that, (I) have clearly deomstrated your erroneous ways more then once and you slough it off as if it was my stupidity.....thats one of many reasons "Why"

Why don't you show your wisdom and help correct any of my errors in mathematics and physics' concepts rather than your continuing with, often moot, deceptive drivel? You, describing yourself.

I want nothing more than to be rid of the time I waste defending against your off-topic, deceptive posts.Anyone looking simply at the SIZE/Length of your responces respective of what you are responding to, can figure out who is the waste of time.....

Just imagine the constructive time we could be spending debating if there is an Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC); and what its significance is? Or, what is fundamental, intrinsic time (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Time)? Or, is Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI) the cause of accelerating, galactic recession?Just imagine the waste of time trying to get you to accept that it is all there simply to give you something to do.


Can you just once directly answer a mathematical or physics question with nothing more than mathematics and physics?

Ha hahahahahhhhahhahhahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. ....more then (I) want to type out so...ROTFLMAO ...............

You not even that good a liar, after all, (I) figured it out, so how long do you think it will take anyone else to know?

[Epsilon=One]

Your deceit and deception, apparently, knows no limit. There is no misquoting you in said post or its reference.CRAP and you did it in this posting (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=207%3cbr%20/%3e) (My Number #9 truncated BY you in your #10 post and pointed out by me in Post # 11 next page) too, same thing TRUNCATION of what was originally typed by the typing Author....Me!I checked. You are wrong!!! (And very dishonest) Anyone can see that I clearly indicated to the reader that the post was truncated.

A quote that might be misconstrued, must be so noted; this I do; you never so indicate.that is the problem with you! you swallow you own lies!Why don’t you specifically list one?

Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see that you do with all your quotes herein and above.

If you have a misquote, post it, verbatim. So that it can be seen by everyone. I have not misquoted you. Your saying so does not make it so. If you were honest you would post the misquote so everyone could judge for themselves....And Again....Does this inanity mean you have no examples?

Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see that you do with all your quotes herein and above.

Again an example of your dishonesty. You are paraphrasing out of context and implying a meaning that never existed. Your technique of debate is deplorable....and again, cause you said this... Does this inane response indicate agreement or disagreement?
Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see with all your quotes herein and above.

(SNIP) I can assure you that no academic, world-class, theoretical physicist would dare debate, in an open forum, the opposite of my stated positions.

I can easily be refuted by your providing such an opponent. (SNIP)in this thread ([http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=207) (post # 8) so your doing little else then 'accuse of lieing' when it is clear who is the persistent and self descriptive ....liar.I do agree. It is abundantly “clear”!

If you cannot read/comprehend what I said, I’ll try to restate. To refute me, you must provide an “academic, world-class, theoretical physicist” who will debate the issues with me. If you are unable, then your argument is greatly weakened.

Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see that you do with all your quotes herein and above.

[I]If my arguments were so easily refuted, I am amazed that you never bother exposing the errors with my original mathematical concepts or alternative concepts concerning the Standard Models; rather than continual weaseling on the issue.no more symmetryWhat does this mean? Did you delete something by mistake?

Of course, it is difficult to be deceptive concerning mathematics, which would leave you without your usual methods of debate. I continually ask you for questions concerning my work rather than my person. Why are you so mute?no SymmetryWhat does this mean? Did you delete something by mistake?

If you don't understand my work, let me know precisely where you are confused (Maybe I'll be able to clarify.); if you agree with my work, let me know; if you don't agree, let the world know why in mathematical terms (Maybe you'll be correct).
No SymmetryWhat does this mean? Did you delete something by mistake?

If you can't do any of the above, I must assume your only purpose in posting is to be destructive and obstruct the well being of others.you describe yourself very well....I’ll let the record speak for itself.

Most all that I know, I have learned from others. And, I have so acknowledged. Most all of my original work is just stitching together the work of others such that alternative, hopefully, more logical conclusions can be ascertained. No one, in over fifty years, has accused me of not crediting them concerning original concepts of mathematics and physics.How could they? most of them don't know your alive, or who the heck you actually are....!!This is not true. I stay in contact with as many as I can. Especially when I credit them in my manuscripts and websites. What I do is open and easily accessed on thousands of pages in the search engines. I have been on the “www” for over thirteen years. Beside digital, I have a five drawer, horizontal, heavy duty file cabinet full of correspondence with notable persons. Most all my poetry is dedicated.

When it comes to mathematics and physics, I continually critique my work and others looking for mistakes that I have made. That is why I ask for questions. I'm not such a fool that when an error is found that I don't say, "Thank you!"; and, correct it. Few want to continuously be a fool.Now you include physics, Why? you were a trained mathematician, not a trained Physicist .....aside from that, (I) have clearly deomstrated your erroneous ways more then once and you slough it off as if it was my stupidity.....thats one of many reasons "Why"I include physics because I think I can add to the body of knowledge until proven otherwise by academia. I am not a trained, or accredited, mathematician. Look at my work; find a conceptual error; state it; then we can debate . . . and, then, you may have a modicum of credibility.

Why don't you show your wisdom and help correct any of my errors in mathematics and physics' concepts rather than your continuing with, often moot, deceptive drivel?You, describing yourself.You certainly are entitled to an opinion; however, there are many around the world that indicate otherwise. However, my interest is not with either side.

My interest is with those that have no idea what current physics, cosmology, theology, and philosophy is about.

I want nothing more than to be rid of the time I waste defending against your off-topic, deceptive posts.Anyone looking simply at the SIZE/Length of your responces respective of what you are responding to, can figure out who is the waste of time.....That is a consideration; however, rather than persons complaining online as you, there are many that write for additional information.

I try to limit my words to: 1.) presenting alternative concepts; 2.) questioning the logic of others to see if there are truths to be mined or errors to be corrected; and, 3.) defending against malicious distortions.

Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see that you do with all your quotes herein and above.

Just imagine the constructive time we could be spending debating if there is an Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC); and what its significance is? Or, what is fundamental, intrinsic time (http://CQthus.com/PT/Time)? Or, is Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI) the cause of accelerating, galactic recession?Just imagine the waste of time trying to get you to accept that it is all there simply to give you something to do.Wow!! This is an intellectual response concerning some of the potentially most astounding concepts that can alter behavior? Do you have any idea as to what the ramifications could be concerning the concepts of an Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC); fundamental, intrinsic time (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Time); and, Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI).

Just think, the possibility that Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP) can be united. Certainly, more important than the unification of the “forces.”

Can you just once directly answer a mathematical or physics question with nothing more than mathematics and physics?Ha hahahahahhhhahhahhahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. ....more then (I) want to type out…In that case, why are you on this forum?; what is your purpose?; your goal?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I checked. You are wrong!!! (And very dishonest) Anyone can see that I clearly indicated to the reader that the post was truncated.
Why don’t you specifically list one?
Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see that you do with all your quotes herein and above.
Does this inanity mean you have no examples?
Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see that you do with all your quotes herein and above.
Does this inane response indicate agreement or disagreement?
Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see with all your quotes herein and above.
I do agree. It is abundantly “clear”!
If you cannot read/comprehend what I said, I’ll try to restate. To refute me, you must provide an “academic, world-class, theoretical physicist” who will debate the issues with me. If you are unable, then your argument is greatly weakened.
Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see that you do with all your quotes herein and above.
What does this mean? Did you delete something by mistake?
What does this mean? Did you delete something by mistake?
What does this mean? Did you delete something by mistake?
I’ll let the record speak for itself.
This is not true. I stay in contact with as many as I can. Especially when I credit them in my manuscripts and websites. What I do is open and easily accessed on thousands of pages in the search engines. I have been on the “www” for over thirteen years. Beside digital, I have a five drawer, horizontal, heavy duty file cabinet full of correspondence with notable persons. Most all my poetry is dedicated.
I include physics because I think I can add to the body of knowledge until proven otherwise by academia. I am not a trained, or accredited, mathematician. Look at my work; find a conceptual error; state it; then we can debate . . . and, then, you may have a modicum of credibility.
You certainly are entitled to an opinion; however, there are many around the world that indicate otherwise. However, my interest is not with either side.
My interest is with those that have no idea what current physics, cosmology, theology, and philosophy is about.
That is a consideration; however, rather than persons complaining online as you, there are many that write for additional information.
I try to limit my words to: 1.) presenting alternative concepts; 2.) questioning the logic of others to see if there are truths to be mined or errors to be corrected; and, 3.) defending against malicious distortions.
Please don’t edit my quotes without notice as anyone can see that you do with all your quotes herein and above.
Wow!! This is an intellectual response concerning some of the potentially most astounding concepts that can alter behavior? Do you have any idea as to what the ramifications could be concerning the concepts of an Elliptical Constant; fundamental, intrinsic time and, Cosmic Inertia
Just think, the possibility that Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP) can be united. Certainly, more important than the unification of the “forces.”
In that case, why are you on this forum?; what is your purpose?; your goal?My Arguement will be weakened if (I) don't provide for YOU a "World Class Theoretician"??? :eek:

Do you really eat this (****) for breakfast? :eek:

(I) don't. :cool:

Good thing (I) didn't step in it either..... :p

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(SNIP) In that case, why are you on this forum?; what is your purpose?; your goal? (SNoP)Respective of you ...it has changed .....from 'Scientific' Discourse ....to Entertainment (comedy :D )


P.S. (****) = (Poop)!

[Epsilon=One]

My Arguement (sic.) will be weakened if (I) don't provide for YOU a "World Class Theoretician"??? :eek:Yes, that was the gist. I'm glad to know that you now better understand the comment that I made rather than your prior misinterpretation.

Please don't continue editing my posts that you quote. The practice often changes not only the meaning, but also the ambiance. After a time the Viewer loses interest in reading your quotations, because they are too time consuming to check; then, little that you write can be trusted.

[Epsilon=One]

Respective of you ...it has changed .....from 'Scientific' Discourse ....to Entertainment (comedy :D )Thank you. I didn't think that I would ever get a direct response to a question posed to you.

I have nothing against "Entertainment (comedy :D )"; now that you have disclosed your interest as such.

I'm not sure about the opinions of others concerning their time. For myself, if you will just label each of your responses as such, and also, that they may contain deceptive elements, so that they aren't mistaken for serious dialogue; then I won't be so complelled to reply every time there is distortion.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
Thank you. I didn't think that I would ever get a direct response to a question posed to you.
I have nothing against "Entertainment (comedy :D )"; now that you have disclosed your interest as such.
I'm not sure about the opinions of others concerning their time. For myself, if you will just label each of your responses as such, and also, that they may contain deceptive elements, so that they aren't mistaken for serious dialogue; then I won't be so complelled to reply every time there is distortion....respective of YOU >> ONLY ....& your POOOOPING all over everything else ...only!

Given your clear penchant for both; Self-deception and Forwards False accusation(s) WHY? would anyone (With a Brain) want to talk with you?

(I) Don't want to .....anymore.... Get it?

Maybe that is how (I) should quote "you" from now on, as "POOPERS"! or "POOPERS"=0^nth

[Epsilon=One]

...WHY? would anyone (With a Brain) want to talk with you?

(I) Don't want to .....anymore.... Get it?You may do as you wish without any regrets from me.

I certainly don't intend to encourage your wanting to "talk" with me.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You may do as you wish without any regrets from me.I certainly don't intend to encourage your wanting to "talk" with me.You have edited my post! that is Dishonest you know!!!

(walks away .....chuckling :rolleyes: )

[Epsilon=One]

You have edited my post! that is Dishonest you know!!!

(walks away .....chuckling :rolleyes: )I do know that editing posts is dishonest. I am pleased that you agree with such as dishonest.

I can see no example of my editing. If you can show me where I have transgressed, I will set the record straight.

If there is such an example, which I doubt, it is rather trivial compared to your editing of quotes with almost every one that you post.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


I do (NOT) know that (NOT) editing posts is (NOT) dishonest. I am (NOT) pleased that you agree (NOT) with such as (NOT) dishonest. I can (NOT) see no example of my (NOT) editing. (NOT) If you can (NOT) show me where (NOT) I have (NOT) transgressed, I will (NOT) set the record straight. (NOT) If there is (NOT) such an example, (NOT) which I doubt (NOT), it is (NOT) rather trivial compared to your (NOT) editing of quotes with (NOT) almost every one that you (NOT) post.
POOPERS!

g-o a-w-a-y....

[Epsilon=One]

POOPERS!Thanks for fraudulently reposting my comments in a manner such that my concerns can be discerned with some effort. You continue to make my points; and, this time with a bit of levity.

However, your above reply doesn't seem to directly address my concerns. Am I to understand from the above evasive comment that your prior comments were in error and you have no evidence that would show otherwise?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Am I to understand from the above evasive comment that your prior comments were in error and you have no evidence that would show otherwise?
POOPERS!!...

NO!!!!



Thanks for fraudulently reposting my comments in a manner such that my concerns can be discerned with some effort. You continue to make my points; and, this time with a bit of levity. However, your above reply doesn't seem to directly address my concerns. only Followed your (sic) Lead ....ONCE! ....not that you could ever figure something so simple, as that, out.

Ha-ha-ha'ha'ha'ha'haha'ha'ha'ha......

'Make your points?? :eek: :rolleyes: :p

Ha-ha-ha'ha'ha'ha'haha'ha'ha'ha......


G-O A-W-A-Y! :mad:

[Epsilon=One]

POOPERS!!...

NO!!!!



only Followed your (sic) Lead ....ONCE! ....not that you could ever figure something so simple, as that, out.

Ha-ha-ha'ha'ha'ha'haha'ha'ha'ha......

'Make your points?? :eek: :rolleyes: :p

Ha-ha-ha'ha'ha'ha'haha'ha'ha'ha......


G-O A-W-A-Y! :mad:Thanks for continuing with nonsensical comments and to distort and post my quotes in the posts immediately above and elsewhere.

You are continuing to memorialize and make my arguments abundantly clear that your quotations are often changed from the original in tone and context such as to be deceptive.

Getting back to the topic at hand:

Can you add anything to the discussion of an "Evolutionary Proof of God"?

I would think a good starting point would be to define what "God" we are discussing.

I suggest that a definition is: god is that which creates all that exists. Do you want to amplify my definition?; otherwise, without any amplified input, it can stand; then, we can discuss whether there is any evolutionary proof.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

...Thanks... Your welcome...

...continuing with nonsensical comments and to distort...Well, how brave of you to finally admit to your errors!!BRAVO POOPERS

....post my quotes in the posts immediately above and elsewhere. And your point is??

....You are continuing to memorialize and make my arguments abundantly clear.....Well Thank you again POOPERS, (I)'d sorta figured that the 'readers' could see your ArrrRGh-ument-s Kinda Clearly ...too.

..that your quotations are often changed from the original in tone and context...Look He admits to it again, but no second round of Applause cause twice makes the readers think now your only doing it to Show off

....such as to be deceptive.... Yes, but as You seem to have clearly now recognized, you hadn't fooled me ....for Long.

And (I)'ve been here reading you for Longer then all those 'Newbies' ...to this forum...

Getting back to the topic at hand: Yes! Lets!

...Can you add anything to the discussion....(I)Thought (I) already had, but it doesn't matter POOPERS that it sorta flew over your head like that, (I) forgive you... :rolleyes: for having missed it all....

...an "Evolutionary Proof of God"... Yes, evolution is just another part of the proof of God, even the one with the Capital "G" after all, those Christians Knew 'evolution' right back to where it *sentient* *self-aware* *AutonomousMobility* life Started, WITH THE FISH ...sorta...

...I would think a good starting point would be to define what "God" we are discussing.... Thank you for agreeing with me, since there is only one God, (I) say we Pick that one.

I suggest that a definition is: god is that which creates all that exists.But how can it create all that exists if it is a part of what exists? (Yoiks!! :eek: whatta Log-eject Eh POOPERS


.....Do you want to amplify my definition?;.... Are you propositioning me??? cause (I) AM NOT that kinda Guy you know

....otherwise, without any amplified input, it can stand;You dirty minded Old man ...no wonder they call you
POOPERS

then, we can discuss whether there is any evolutionary proof.'Butty' G-O A-W-A-Y

[Epsilon=One]

Thanks for continuing with nonsensical comments and to distort and post my quotes in the posts immediately above and elsewhere....continuing with nonsensical comments and to distort...Well, how brave of you to finally admit to your errors!!BRAVO POOPERSAnyone can easily notice, from your above quote, that either you are unable to read and understand what you are referring to; or, you are deceiving. I'm not sure which is worse.

You are continuing to memorialize and make my arguments abundantly clear that your quotations are often changed from the original in tone and context such as to be deceptive.

And your point is??That you often deceptively use the quotations of others to deceive.

(as quoted from Epsilon=One)
...that your quotations are often changed from the original in tone and context...
Look He admits to it again...You apparently missed or didn't understand the "your" that I placed before "quotations"???

And (I)'ve been here reading you for Longer then all those 'Newbies' ...to this forum...Then I would think that, by now, you would understand the forum rules and have acquired some collegial behavior and decorum.

New and alternative thoughts and concepts are important to any forum. Even though you may have disagreements, all thoughts, concepts, and members should be treated honestly and with respect. Little is gained in advancing your position by using ad hominem argument.

Yes, evolution is just another part of the proof of God, even the one with the Capital "G"...Glad that we agree concerning a proof of god. Can you explain what definition of god you are implying with the uppercase "G"?

Thank you for agreeing with me, since there is only one God, (I) say we Pick that one.I agree that there is only one god. However, many persons have many different gods. If you are to pick one, you must define which one you have selected.

Especially, when you indicate a particular definition with your use of the uppercase.

You mentioned, in other context, Christians. Is it your belief that the Christian god is the only god?

But how can it create all that exists if it is a part of what exists? (Yoiks!! :eek: whatta Log-eject Eh POOPERSI wasn't aware that god exists; only that god is provable.

Is your definition of god: something that exists? If so, what is the manner/nature of this existence? Does it have mass like fermions? Does it move at the speed of light as photons? Is it ephemeral like subatomic particles? Does it have anthropoidal qualities; if so, which ones, et cetera.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

That you often deceptively use the quotations of others to deceive.
You apparently missed or didn't understand the "your" that I placed before "quotations"??? What?? where?? show me proof so that the reader can judge for themselves.

I think that you understand the forum rules and have acquired some collegial behavior and decorum. Thanks!! Maybe (Hopefully) some of it will rub off onto you...

Glad that we agree concerning a proof of god. Me too, its' about time you admitted that you too know what you wrote as a "Proof of God" is Erroneous Illogical Garbage.

I agree that there is only one god. However, many persons have many different gods. If you are to pick one, you must define which one you have selected.Is this Logic?? (I) agree there is only one, but others see more, so pick one.

Especially, when you indicate a particular definition with your use of the uppercase.Already told you cause it is special that way

You mentioned, in other context, Christians. Is it your belief that the Christian god is the only god? The only God is the God that is...

I wasn't aware that god exists; only that god is provable.So you believed/believe in the "non-existent provability" HUH??? What?? ...whewww that's another one of those Log-ejects ...right...

Is your definition of god: something that exists? Didn't we just solve that? you either forget real fast or you juxtapositioned your paragraphs erroneously and illogically


If so, what is the manner/nature of this existence? Does it have mass like fermions? Does it move at the speed of light as photons? Is it ephemeral like subatomic particles?No.

Does it have anthropoidal qualities;Yes.

if so, which ones, et cetera.All of them, and more ....except, God doesn't lie > never/ever < invented the ability to, knows how it is, and can be, used but refrains completely from using/doing it as it is An existent Purity/Perfection of Total 'Truth' ....and, some of that 'truth' is, sometimes you lied...me too....

Cc-kNot-ya POOSPEES

[Epsilon=One]

What?? where?? show me proof so that the reader can judge for themselves.All of your immediate above usuage of quotes are generally dishonest; and, your comments thereof are deceptive.

I will parse and dissect each of them as time allows. The Viewers that doubt any single one as other than deceptive, can so advise. I will first address any issues that a Viewer may have with this comment of mine.

There seems no end to your deceit. What amazes so, is that the evidence of your deceit is there for anyone that wishes to spend time researching. Why anyone would bother or trust anything that you say is beyond me.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(SNIP) There seems no end to your deceit. What amazes so, is that the evidence of your deceit is there for anyone that wishes to spend time researching. Why anyone would bother or trust anything that you say is beyond me. (SNoP)

Finally...
You
recognize
YOURSELF

...in your 'above' statement!

[Epsilon=One]

Finally...
You
recognize
YOURSELF
What kind of inapplicable, bully (I can yell louder than you, so I'm more right) statement is the above?

Thanks for so prominently reposting my prior statement in your last post for those that might have missed it; though I generally loath your dishonest tampering with the format of my statements without noting such practice. I'm sure you didn't really miss that the reference has been proven, over and over and herein, applicable to yourself; as anyone can note in your latest . . . and most all prior posts.

Do you have anything relevant to say regarding the topic; or will you let my premise that god is defined as the source of creation for all that exists; and said source has no anthropic qualiities, which would, naturally, include no religious preference.

I would think you would more enjoy a thoughtful debate than wasting everyone's time with juvenile histrionics and ad hominem temper tantrums.

Though there is certain entertainment value to your show; is there a possibility that you could move it to a more appropriate forum where it might be more appreciated? Or, at least occassionly address a topical question that is posed to you; there are only so many ways to weasel, duck, and avoid before the tactic becomes tiresome. The originality, of "back at you," when there is no logic to such, becomes transparent when overplayed.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(I can yell louder than you, so I'm more right)You are SOOOOO right on there Poops-tars

Thanks for so prominently reposting my prior statement in your last post for those that might have missed it; though I generally loath tampering with the format of my statements I'm sure you didn't really miss that the reference has been proven, over and over and hereinYup! and (I) "got it!!" YOUR A NATURAL BORN DECEIVER

Do I have anything relevant to say regarding the topic; or will you let my premise that god is defined as the source of creation for all that exists Awww Poops-tars you've used MY LINE BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I would think But you forgot how, right??

you would more enjoy a thoughtful debate than me wasting everyone's time with juvenile histrionics and ad hominem temper tantrums. But that is what (I) been trying to tell you!

Though there is certain entertainment value to your show Why thanks Poops-tars (I)'d say you have redeemed yourself ...but then (I) would be the LIAR!

is there a possibility that you could move it to a more appropriate forum where it might be more appreciated?Nah here and there is just fine with me.....

at least I occassionly address a topical question that is posed but there are only so many ways to weasel, duck, and avoid before the tactic becomes tiresome. The originality, of "back at you," when there is no logic to such, becomes transparent when overplayed.Then stop using it.

And ....Go Away!

[Epsilon=One]

[QUOTE=Mr. Robin Parsons]Will you please stop changing the words and context of my statements that you are quoting. The above quotes are fine examples. I suspect the reader can easily spot your smplistic deception.

You want me to "go away." I too, would like that. It's up to your behavior.

Back to topic. Should I expect any response to my topical questions that I've posed?

I see little reason to continue "on-topic" with you as you will not respond. However, should you want to go back on topic, I would wecome any concens that you may have regarding the "proof" or Nature of god.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

GO AWAY!

[chrisforbes]

Upon reading many of the threads in this forum and others, I must ask a very delicate question. Given that evolution is a scientific theory (one not concerning religion), what evolutionary proof is there of God?

If you accept the theory of evolution, then you accept that our actions as animals of this planet have an evolutionary advantage at some point that allowed the action to continue for survival purposes. But, of what purpose is the belief of God? Why did humans begin the philosophical thought processes of Spiritualism?

There is no proof of god and nor will you ever find one. I would go as far to say that through life it would be hard to find the truth of the word of god. As a man that believes more than the common day and as a philosopher I would say that it is very odd that there is a lot of comminality of a belief in a spirit world throughout so many diverse cultures around the world. Being judgmental is human nature, It is a natural self defence mechanism to believe the human spirit goes to a next world.

What I would say is that many years ago people thought the world was flat, many years ago the greeks thought there were many gods not just one. I am just a man living in a county, my county is a country, my country is a continent, my continent is a world, my world is a sloar system, my solar system is a galaxy and the galaxy is a universe, the rest well you do the maths.

[chrisforbes]

[QUOTE=Mr. Robin Parsons]Will you please stop changing the words and context of my statements that you are quoting. The above quotes are fine examples. I suspect the reader can easily spot your smplistic deception.

You want me to "go away." I too, would like that. It's up to your behavior.

Back to topic. Should I expect any response to my topical questions that I've posed?

I see little reason to continue "on-topic" with you as you will not respond. However, should you want to go back on topic, I would wecome any concens that you may have regarding the "proof" or Nature of god.

Epilson there is more to life than theory and maths. I like you as a genius but sometimes you are lethargic

[Mike Dubbeld]

OK, I am not about to get into the above farting contest or read all the preceding stuff. The subject of this thread is Evolutionary Proof of God. Before I talk about this I want to make several things perfectly clear. I do not believe in religions including the bible but I do believe in God. My God fits with Darwinian evolution. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. It is not a choice between science and religion. God is about truth and science is a quest for truth. However science and the mind itself have their limitations but I will not make these explicit at this time. My God has to do with yoga where God is not the comic book character found in the bible book of job where he is making bets with devils and getting angry and all that crap. In fact God does NOTHING WHATSOEVER. It is the universe that is changing. Not God.

God is transcendent to the universe and always existed. Think about this. If God were to 'do' things it would mean God desired something. But if that was true how could God be Omnipotent/all powerful? God depends on the universe for his happiness? Gods happiness is a function of something external? I think not. If God 'did' things, He would have to move from a state of more ignorance to a state of lesser ignorance. (or the converse) But that is absurd if God is Omniscient/all knowing.

If you do not 'see the "Light"' it is not because God does not like you. It is because you moved under a tree..... It is not what God does. It is what we do. As immortal indestructible souls we are of the same Essence. A raindrop is H20. So is the ocean. The distinction between raindrop and ocean dissolves when the raindrop/soul merges with the Ocean/God. That God created man in His own image does not mean God has 2 arms and 2 legs etc. That is man creating God in his own image. Our minds cloud our judgment and we are not our minds.

Problems in these discussions began even with the pre-Socratics. They, like the Church Fathers accepted the mistaken premise that we are our minds and both religion and philosophy became an endless tragicomedy of errors ever since. The mind is a distinct entity from consciousness. Consciousness = the soul + energy. The mind is a huge collection of thought(forms) through which consciousness moves. If I see a tree, I am not a tree. If I think the thought of a tree, I am not the thought of the tree. The tree is one thing, consciousness of it something entirely different. Our language is constructed in such a way so as to lead us to thinking about problems of this nature correctly. We say 'Today I am flying to Hawaii.' Meaning 'Today I am flying my body to Hawaii.' As in we are not our physical body. We say 'I am angry.' Meaning 'I am aware of the emotion called anger.' As in I am not the emotion called anger. We say 'I think that is OK.' Meaning My mind thinks that is OK. Meaning we are not mind/thoughts.

When film passes by a carbon arc light it gives rise to apparent motion on the movie screen. In like fashion when consciousness moves through thoughts we call this movie thinking. Where humanity has gone wrong is in Ass uming we are those thoughts. From the time of birth till death we allow consciousness to roam freely through our thoughts knowing nothing other - as in so does the rest of the people on the planet. And so by peoples agreement we call this reality. But nothing could be further from the truth. First of all we are enslaved to our thoughts. We do not move our awareness through them by our own will. Our consciousness flows through them like water taking the path of least resistance. It takes willpower to do otherwise. (like get up out of bed to go to work in the morning).

How do I know these things? By direct experience of the separation of consciousness from the mind through yogic concentration techniques. If you think you are not a slave to your thoughts, take this opportunity to see if you can stop thinking for 10 minutes out of your life this moment and see how long you can stop thinking without a thought arising. It will likely be less than 10 seconds. It takes great willpower to control consciousness/concentrate.

Alright, bodies evolve in order to survive. In order to acquire greater freedom. More benefit/less work. God 'shines' on the universe and life appears where it is suitable for it to exist. There is nothing special about the Earth. Bacteria have souls. All a human body is is a conglomeration of trillions of cells acting symbiotically for the purpose of survival. Spiritual evolution is a different animal (pun intended) than animal evolution. Souls entangled in bodies becoming disentangled in them is what constitutes spiritual evolution. We evolve through experience/births and deaths. With each experience we evolve just a little more/our spirit becomes a tiny bit more free from its entanglement with matter (the mind and sense organ reality). After enough births and deaths the soul evolves enough to do without the body (Christian heaven). But even that involves (subtle) matter as bodies/a dream body. Freedom or yoga Kaivalya is the freeing oneself from all of nature (mind and senses i.e. 'the universe'.

Through reincarnation we wear out the universe like an adult is no longer amused by childrens toys, we are no longer amused by the toys of the universe (having become kings and queens and famous and everything in between). We lose our desire/attachment to things and conditions of the world. We turn inward for fresh experience and discover we are not our minds/bodies or emotions at all. That is spiritual evolution.

God does not evolve and animal body evolution is a separate affair from spiritual evolution. Because God is present at all times and in all places the universe attempts to mimic this intelligence and that results in life in the universe. (embodiment in the universe). (The universe 'Dances' to the 'Tune' of Shakti/God so to speak). Science is wrong. Consciousness is not an epiphenomena of the brain. Consciousness gives rise to mind (thought'forms')and desires and they cause embodiment of a soul to satisfy those desires. It is a question of cause and effect - nothing 'Divine' about it any more than one could say gravity was 'Divine'. For you science worshipers I can easily demonstrate not only the limits of science but of the mind itself.

Everything is as it 'should' be. In a Perfect state of evolution. That includes what you are doing this very instant. Experiencing and learning in this Cosmic Learning Game.

[chrisforbes]

The world is Paradox. Men of this planet clearly need both faith and fact, supernatural and science, logic and intuition to live on this planet. The world is negative and scary so that we will look to the Ultimate Good controlling the planet, It won't be able to do good unless we give it permission to by tapping into faith. We do have free will. This isn't some Divine Dictatorship, unless a person chooses it to be. Everything is choice.

(Descartes, I think therefore I am)

Ya'll proclaim that the less faith used the happier you are? How are you defining happy?

(the happiest people and the saddest people I have met have faith, it is up to the individual to define)

As the odds of the universe continually being in you favor by way of luck or chance, which is the original definition of the word happy?

(the word happy is an emotional experience)

Or do you mean always never having to worry about things like clothes, food, money and being 'successful' not feeling like there is this giganto void in your life and something is missing?

(Paradox)

The world is paradox, the key is finding the peace of it, the harmony, understanding how the contradiction makes sense without sounding hypocritical.

(My sentiments exactly)

Juxtapostion is my position.

(A juxtaposition is a fluxating position, but in the universe we live in this is the correct way to view the world, but this is only my opinion)

[chrisforbes]

Faith is trusting something you hope to be true, something uncertain to be true, to be fact, not "making sure you live your life in a certain way with certain values"--that is religion.

(there is a clear dividing line between faith and religion, religion was written by men for social, economic and political reasons, faith has a different set of values)

Religion and faith are different things, religion is sorta like a system, a discipline in which one employs faith. Even those who claim not to have a religion do have one and do employ faith in something because faith is a trust in the unknown that what you hope or dread will happen, if you have faith that something you dread will happen then that is worry.

(so you are talking about human morality, if you believe in something after this world and you do bad then it will come back to haunt you. Some people have morals some don't, not all are based on faith)

Having faith doesn't mean you are giving up free choice, you can choose to stop trusting at any time,

(You can have free choice without faith, and faith without free choice, the happy medium is somewhere inbetween)

Two unlike things, that are juxtaposing go together like anger and peace because they are like two opposite extremes like, north and south, it is a sort of balancing effect so to speak

(If the word did not have a North and South pole it would not spin round)

We wouldn't know peace if there was no war, that kind of thing.

(We have peace and we have war there may be no solution as people go through evolution)

you say that your philosophy is to follow the road to happiness with out faith or the supernatural and just find the things that make you happy? Is that like Hedonistic or what?

(Hedonism is something I enjoy but it is not the way forward!!)