The truth of your first statement hinges on your definition of "proper" survival. — S

I think that proper would mean to most people a healthy life, not just healthy enough, and it should be obvious from the context in which I used it.

And your following question appeals to a highly controversial notion about how we were "supposed" to be "by nature". — S

If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet where do you think they would get them? — Sir2u

If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet[, then] where do you think [that that] would get them? — S

Firstly I do not like people changing what I say to suit their way of thinking. Especial when they are people who love to point out others mistakes while making their own. Second, it does not appeal to anything at all the way I wrote it. It is just a simple question that I wanted an answer to. Based on the few vegans and vegetarians that I personally know I have learned that they do take regular store bought supplements, because there are no "none animal" sources available for those vitamins and minerals. Does Taking pills to be health instead of eating a bit of meat sound normal to you?

However, it isn't a simple necessity for us to eat 300gm of meat everyday. Nor is it necessary for us to do so in order to live a healthy enough lifestyle. — S

As I stated earlier, it is not about the meat but about the contents of the meat.

It would only be "necessary" for someone, if, for example, they're a health freak with a fixation on achieving the ideal healthy lifestyle, and they're stuck on the notion that achieving that requires eating 300gm of meat everyday. But even then, that's not strictly necessary. Maybe instead, what's necessary for them is counseling. — S

This kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral. Why would you want to call someone a freak because they want to live their life properly. And what great authority do you process to decide just what is necessary and what is not? Could we see your qualifications on nutritional counseling please?

These kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral, not eating in excess. — S

So you think that it is OK for people to sit around doing nothing but overeating and getting fat?

We eat meat so we should eat meat? — TheMadFool

I don't know anyone that eats only meat. But personally I eat meat because I enjoy it. If that is immoral then I am screwed and will not go to heaven for my sins.

I guess we can say that as of now it's necessary for us to eat meat; therefore, without a choice eating meat shouldn't be a moral issue. — TheMadFool

There you go, you are getting the idea now.

What about the future, for example if we can develop synthetic meat? This provides a more ethical option and at that point in time we should stop killing animals for meat. — TheMadFool

The stopped using horses when cars became cheaper, the stopped burning coal and wood then other methods became cheaper, they stopped making clothes at home when the shops sold them cheaper so I guess that the same principle would apply.

Another thing is the proportion of meat that should be in our diets. According to dietary recommendations meat should be, say, x% of our daily diet. Are we following these dietary recommendations or is our consumption in excess. If it is the latter then eating meat in excess would be immoral because we would be exceeding our daily meat recommendations. Right? — TheMadFool

It is not about the amount of meat we eat but the contents of the meat that we need and the body's ability to absorb them. Anything in excess is usually immoral, but who is going to figure out what each person needs. I had a girl friend a long time ago that would eat a whole giant pizza almost every day as a snack, usually late at night. She never put on any extra weight because she burned so much energy at work and in sports. Her twin brother would look at a slice once a week and get fatter.
Now those fat slobs that sit around and do nothing but eat would probably still get fat on a vegetarian diet and still be immoral.

Also, civilization began with cultivation of wheat, rice, barley, etc. (all plants) and not with livestock (animal) farming. — TheMadFool

Not all civilizations began with farming. Many of the early cultures had animals domesticated before settling down to planting. But plant crops also gave the early civilizations extra food for the breeding of animals.

Are we evolving into vegans? — TheMadFool

Anything is possible, but I serious doubt that after hundreds of thousands evolving into homo sapiens that we will see the results in a matter of 10 or 20 thousand years that civilizations have been growing their own food.

Eating animals in unethical because, as Nils Loc said it's not necessary to eat meat. How do herbivores survive if meat is essential? — TheMadFool

No has been able to prove that you can survive properly as a vegan. If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet where do you think they would get them? Sure nowadays you can pop into a store and pick some up, but there were none available as humans developed. They got their complete set of minerals, vitamins, and fats from what ever they could find and eat.

I guess we just don't care. — TheMadFool

If you want to show how much you care, start campaigning for better methods of breeding and butchering the animal we eat. Stop telling people they are immoral because they kill animal, most of them don't, they just enjoy eating them.

Then what do you think is the best way to address this? It is the most important point; but, I'm at a loss as to how to implement or even devise it. — Wallows

This is supposed to be done at an early age, the best place to start would be preschool. There are several pilot projects being tested around the world. I seem to remember reading about one in, I think, Sweden. where they had lots of outdoor activities, even trees to climb, and the kids were allowed to develop their problem solving and social skills while they played. They are challenged to get things done and they develop their motor skills while learning to count, identify shapes and identify things in their environment.
They learn by themselves what they are good at and what they need help with. They also seem to get an idea of how they learn best the different activities, either being shown or finding out for themselves, by listening to instructions before or as they do the activities, by imitating someone else doing it or watching several others to see which is best for them. They get an opportunity to interact with others to accomplish the tasks and by doing so they learn that not all of them are equally adept at everything.

This would be the best way for kids to start primary school, but the methodology would have to continue. Throughout grades 1 to 12 most kids sit at a desk and do the exact same thing everyone else in the class is doing, most kids just follow the instructions from the teacher and the ones that do try to do things differently are often considered as disruptive elements.

What do you mean? I don't understand what you mean by most universities would close down? — Wallows

The governments in a lot of countries seem to think that doing to college/university is a necessity. Lots of parents want their kids to go to one. But how many people actually use the education they get? If I remember correctly in the UK about half of the graduates do not practice their profession. What do you think would happen if the schools turned out kids that were intelligent enough to figure ways to earn money without a degree? What would happen if the kids actually figured out that after a few years of suffering in college they would end up working in a burger joint anyway?

They educational system now turns out to many people that are not suited to the profession they picked and most of the time it is not their fault.

Education, unfortunately, is rarely at the students.
It is usually about preparing enough people to make sure that society continues to run and if possible improve. It is about preparing people to run the businesses and keep the economy rolling. It is also about sorting out the people that will get the C.E.O jobs from those that will go to work in Walmart stores.

Bitter Crank's view is somewhat idealistic, but definitely how things should be. If Bitter Crank's first proposition was done properly everyone would find their way through life much easier.
If the second was done then most of the universities would have to close down. Have you checked out how many people never practice their profession?
The third proposal should actually be #4, would make sure that the right people were doing the right job, because that is what they were supposed to do.
The forth which should be #3 would make sure that his natural skills are developed to serve in the place in society he wants to fill.

Cost could be cut all over the higher education system by making sure that the students that are training for the jobs are really the people that should be training for them.

We do not need to exploit animals for our survival. — chatterbears

Can you prove this statement? I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how, considering the human bodies needs, it would be possible to survive without them.

Human beings are, by evolution or creation, omnivorous. That does not just mean that theycaneat most kinds of foods but that they need to eat different types of food.

You sir2u should look into Deism. — hks

Been there, done that, still not interested.

And I do know a little about the internet so I don't need you to tell me that I

can google it — hks

Wiki has a great explanation. — hks

I am wordless, that place is not on any intelligent person's list of places to find accurate information about anything.

Sometimes it is necessary to hide things from your children actually. — hks

Hiding "things" from your children is not the same as hiding yourself.

God must have a good reason for hiding from us. — hks

That is what most men that are taken to court for child maintenance say, "I had a good reason not to look after my kids".

We should therefore trust in God and not blame or prejudge Him/Her/Them for what He/She/They do/does. — hks

You would not trust your own father after he abandons you, so why would you even think about trusting something you have never even met?

The created-things are like their Creator. — hks

No we are not, we do not always hide from our children.

Why do we like beautiful things? — Purple Pond

We consider things beautiful because we like them, not that we like them because they are beautiful. They please us in some way, we like them, we call them beautiful. :smile:

A place I worked at used the 13 month calendar, six months work then two vacation twice a year. They used to close the whole factory down for maintenance for the two weeks. Good system.

Are facts necessarily about things? What if things are defined by the facts about them? — BlueBanana

That was my question earlier. What came first, the facts or the objects?

This. Fact's exist relative to an observer. It's a fact. — Posty McPostface

So, no observer no facts, therefore nothing exists unless it is observed. I like that. :up:

A picture describes how to make an object? What? Where did you get this from? What do you think objects are? — Sam26

Sorry, I got that a bit mixed up. Retry:

So if the picture basically describes the make up of an object, then would it have existed before the object? Is it necessary for the object to exist before the picture is created?

If the first then facts are independent of the mind. If the second, it would seem that the world needs us to exist.

Are you leading us to believe in idealism? — Posty McPostface

No, I'm not leading in any direction. But if one had to explain where the picture came from, creationism would be an easy answer I think. That sucks.

In my mind, Wittgenstein was not professing mind-independent facts. — Posty McPostface

I am going to look for the audio book I got and listen to it. It might shake up my memory.

I'm not sure, I suppose that one can have facts that are mind-dependent. I wouldn't assert that facts are mind-independent. — Posty McPostface

In who's mind? Would it not go back to the brain in the vat creating its surroundings if facts are mind-dependent. Or actual physical objects appearing as you obtain the facts about them.

Atomic facts are reflections of elementary propositions. Atomic facts can combine to form facts of any complexity, and as such, describe the world. So yes the whole of the world would be included. — Sam26

So if the picture is basically describes how to make an object, then the the picture must have existed before the object. So where did the picture come from?

Ever the optimist. :rofl:

Are you talking about Wittgensteinian objects, i.e., the objects of the Tractatus? You seem to be talking about objects like apples, trees, persons, etc. Your question may still be valid, but I'm trying to get clear on what you mean by objects. — Sam26

Wittgenstein said, if I remember correctly from so long ago something about the world being described properly only when it is described down to its atomic components. So surely the whole of the world would be included. But I have not read him for a long time so I might be wrong.

Both, I think. — Posty McPostface

But would there not be need of a set of facts in order to make something? Or is it possible for things to just appear?

It would seem that you have to have the facts, or the possibility of those facts in order to create the picture. — Sam26

You can't have the picture unless there is something to picture, so the picture isn't first. — Sam26

So objects are independent of their properties but the properties are dependent on the objects.

The world isn't made up of things. The world is made up of a particular arrangement of things. Things don't tell us anything. So facts are the arrangement of things in a particular way. The world is the world because things are the way they are in a particular way — Sam26

So which came first, the picture or the thing that is made up in the arrangement described in the picture?

You cannot make friends, you cannot have friends. The nearest you can make is a robot, the nearest you can have is a slave. — unenlightened

Would that include sex robots and willing slaves? :wink:

I struggle with making friends. — Posty McPostface

I don't.
I got used to not having friends since I was young. We moved around a lot so I never got to know anyone really well. I have come to be friends of a sort with work mates in the different places I have worked but when I moved on the relationships more or less ended.
I spend most of my time working. If not at school then on school work at home. Then I have my projects, building my house, fixing the car, cutting the grass, looking after the animals(cats and dogs only at the moment). But I enjoy doing these things, I get pleasure from them when I see another project done.
I do a lot of reading, listening now that my eyes are not too good any more. Not just university stuff but different types of novels and stories. It gives you something to think about and to talk about.

I hear people talking about the best buddies from school 30 years ago, they see at least a couple of times every year and I think "What the fuck for?". I don't even speak the same language as the people I left in England forty something years ago. I hear them on the radio and on television shows and I wonder what the hell they are talking about. It is not that I don't speak English any more, it is just that they talk about some many things I don't know about.

I don't know what it is like where you live, but even here in the murder capital of the world you can still meet and talk to people by going to the shopping centers or even supermarkets. Go to the movies if there still exist where you live, if you go several times you will probably start running into the same people and have a chance to talk with them.

I need a much-needed change in surroundings. — Posty McPostface

If you can find your way here, you could work teaching English and live in a relatively cheap place with lots of pretty girls. You can back track along the immigrant caravan trail to get here. Maybe Trump would even pay you to come if you promised to bring some of those people back here with you.

Maybe I need a girlfriend; but, I'm way too Platonic to entertain one. — Posty McPostface

Maybe you don't need a girl friend, but having a girl for a friend can be nice without being a burden.

There is no universal rule to making friends or better friends, it is just a get out there and do it kind of thing. You have to know people to become their friend.

Online life makes things very linear and straightforward. A definite shift in consciousness when engaging in online activities is unconsciously processed. — Posty McPostface

Life is a line between birth and death, I don't think you are helping yourself by making it linear and straight forward. Take side trips into the unknown.
Go to an AA meeting.
Sign up for tutoring where kids are struggling to keep up with school.
Get a job washing dishes in the crappiest restaurant in town.
Go help out at an old folks home.

Then go find a nice garden or park to sit in and think about how crappy other peoples lives can be.
You have a good brain, I am not sure but I don't seem to remember anything about you having any physical impediments.
I see no reason why you should not make the decision to change things and then find a way to do it.

Excuse me for going on so much and if I have said anything that might offend you I am sorry. I could not think of any jokes to cheer you up.

I'm done trying to explain what essentially every beginning science student learns within the first two weeks of class. Carry on with your misconception of science. Just realize that people who actually know science do not agree with you. — LD Saunders

Yeah, OK, whatever. I have had enough of trying to clear you highly bigoted, extremely narrow minded and under educated view of the world. You go ahead and believe whatever you want. Just realize this, that whatever is in those classes and textbooks is the result of science having done its job already. The job of science is to explain the world we live in, and the rest of the universe. Science is the method used to find out how and why events happen. And whether you want to believe it or not there are scientist that have tried to discover what ghosts really are. There are scientists that investigate UFOs. There are scientist that have studied life after death and previous lives of people. There are scientist that study the possibility of multiple universe that just like ghosts have no way to be detected, YET.

What is in every book that you keep talking about is history, things that have be proven to be true(in most cases at least). What is not in those books is the research that they are doing to find knew information that might appear in next year's edition. Fifty years ago high school kids did not study genetics, they did not learn how people went to the moon and a whole bunch of other stuff that is a part of today's curriculum.
A hundred years ago most scientists would have laughed if you had told them that an atom is not the smallest particle. And many would have had you locked up if you had told them that there are ways to cure certain types of insanity.

Books are about history, things that have already happened. They are written after the scientist have discovered a method to investigate things. Have you read in any of these books that you have read so many of about the eleventh planet in the solar system, of course not because even even though the scientist are sort of sure it is there they cannot prove it.

Have you ever read about a pill that that with one dose can cure several sexually transmitted diseases? NO, but that is a fact. Why is it not in one of these books?

Not a single science department at any major western university would agree with your claims you've stated here. — LD Saunders

Pathetic. Are you really trying to make people believe that you have checked every one of the major universities? Did you try looking at some of the small ones? You have made this statement so many times now it appears that it is the only thing you know how to say. I even started to think that someone had set up a bot for a while, but they are usually better at arguing their point of view.

I even gave you a link to one that does study things that some would call supernatural. There are several others that, if you would open your mind, you can find quite easily on the internet.

And if you want to have people take you seriously then learn to use the QUOTE function so that they know you have written to them. Not everyone bothers to go and look for replies.

Not according to the coordinate space between Banno and the cup. Or even panpsychism, — Posty McPostface

That would be the subject of another discussion, but I think that most of us have heard enough about Banno's red cup for this lifetime. No offense meant there Banno.

I heard the next big thing in science is string theory. So, it might strings all the way down. — Posty McPostface

Or tie itself in knots.

It is not a mere matter of classification, but the discovery that 'thinginess' as in having a definite size, shape, position, — unenlightened

Like Banno's red mug(or was it a cup). It had a definite size, shape, color but not position. He sometimes left in the kitchen sometimes on the porch. Because it had those characteristics it was Banno's red cup, but the characteristics themselves do not make the mug. There has to be an object to describe.

these are emergent properties, not fundamental ones. — unenlightened

I am not sure about this, I would say that it was fundamental for that cup(mug) to have those specific properties or it would not be Banno's red cup. And if he did not have a mug there would be no properties of it.

I would say it is an attempt to come to terms with modern physics; substance dissolves under the microscope into fields, probabilities, relations. Things are made of atoms, but atoms are not things.
Process and relation are the new 'substances', and so 'atomism' becomes a theory of human understanding (logic) rather than a claim about the world. — unenlightened

This changes what is being talked about from the world itself to human understanding of it.

The statement should not say,

"The world is the totality of fact not things."

but,

"Our understanding of the world is the totality of the facts we have about it, not the things themselves."

We always come back to the same point, is the world real or is it a simulation we live in?

To accept that the world is real then one must have objects before one can obtain facts about them.

I am not sure about atoms not being things them selves, if you can smash and dismantle something it must be a thing. To say that they are not things because they are the basic blocks to build things with is akin to saying bricks are not things because they are just the basic parts of a house.

Ask Trump.

The world is the totality of fact not things.
What doe this mean to you? — Posty McPostface

What are the facts about?
I can only see one answer.

That is absolutely FALSE. Science does not even waste time investigating supernatural claims. — LD Saunders

I never said it did, I said that science can and does investigate anything that there is a possible scientific explanation for.

If someone tells you that there is an angel in the room, a scientist is not going to do something like shine a flashlight in the room to see if an angel shows up, because the concept of an angel is that it is a non-material, supernatural being, and science, as a matter of course, as a matter of definition, only examines things that are material. — LD Saunders

Unexplained technology is the equivalent of magic. Unexplained happens are the equivalent of supernatural. All that is needed is an explanation, which is the job of the scientists.

If someone had said to the non scientific minded people of the Enlightenment that horseless changes and metal birds would one day move people around the earth they would have been burnt at the stake. The scientific minded would have said that it is possible that one day it will happen.

If enough people told a scientist that they had seen a ghost, he would not run out to find evidence of ghosts but would would investigate the cause of the peoples statements. Did the people actually see something? Was it a case of mass obfuscation of natural happenings?
Scientist are interested in finding an explanation for things that happen and whether you like the idea or not scientist do study the supernatural for the purpose of making it natural.

Science still does not have any idea about how much they DO NOT know about this world let alone the universe. So do not expect to see everything about the universe in the college text books you keep mentioning.

So I now ask you to answer a question, how do you know that there is not a material god in the universe?
If you can answer this question and learn to use the quote function then we might be able to continue discussing some aspects of this topic. If not, sorry but I have no time for closed mind people that think they know everything just because they went to college. I also have been there and done that.

Science could never discover the existence of some supernatural being, so to the extent someone claims God is a supernatural being, science cannot discover the existence of such a being before religion, because, as a matter of course, science refrains from all supernatural claims. — LD Saunders

Yes you are right that science does not make claims about the supernatural. Because once the have been investigated they turn out to be perfectly, predictably natural happenings.
But there is no rule against them investigating anything they feel is worthy of investigation, and believe that science has investigated some really weird things.

Dogs bark a lot at night.
Science discovered that dogs can hear things that other animals and people cannot hear, like another dog barking a mile, away and bark because of that.
The religious people blamed demons and evil spirits for making their dogs bark at night.

One or the other is right I suppose.
Or is it possible that there are demons that dogs can hear and they make them bark at night and scientist have just not gotten around to investigating all of the possibilities and proving that demons and evil spirits do exist?

Did you check out the link I posted? Here it is again in case you missed it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/

the concept of a God – one that is on par with the greatest conceivable being – usually refers to that being as worthy of worship. — Francesco di Piertro

If there was such a god, everyone would give unconditional obedience and devotion to it. Humans are by nature worshippers of things that are above what is considered normal, natural or beyond their realms of existence. Exceptional beauty, great athletes, great artists of all kinds, even Kartrashians backside are worshipped by many.

If such a god said do not kill, steal, lie, cheat on the missus, who would have the courage or desire to go against its wishes? No one, all would willing give up their free will and moral autonomy to live the good life under its guidance. Why not, there would be nothing to lose and lots to gain by doing so.
Unconditional obedience to such a God would not requireabandonment of one’s moral autonomy, but no one would want to invoke the privilege of moral autonomy because they would be living in paradise.

In real life everyone goes against its wishes at some time or other. Most people also think they know what is best for them better than anyone else(god included) does.

If an advance civilization came to visit us tomorrow and gave us all of the knowledge we needed to save our planet and build a future that is easy, healthy, and eliminates all kinds of barriers in mankind and asked nothing in return except that we use the knowledge for well being, what do you think would happen?
Would we be able to follow their simple directive? Could we eliminate discrimination and biases? Or would we still want to "do what ever we wanted"?

Dear Mister Saunders'

Please learn to use the "QUOTE" function that is incorporated in the forum.

When you select the text that you desire to quote, a little black box should appear on you screen with the letters QUOTE in it. Just click on it and the text will appear like magic in the reply box at the bottom of the page.
If for some reason clicking on the box does not work, try right clicking on it. I have to do that with one of the computers I use.

Regards

Dont feed the Bridge Troll ;) — DingoJones

If someone does not try to feed them, they will die of ignorance(sorry) hunger.

"Going from stupid to well-read, what essential classics would get a person there fastest?"

Start by calling yourself ignorant instead of stupid. That always helps.

Isaac Asimov - The foundation Collection
Daniel C. Dennett - From Bacteria to Bach and Back
Daniel Klein - Every Time I Find the Meaning of Life
Lawrence Krauss - The Greatest Story Ever Told--So Far Why Are We Here

Physicists’ theories and evidence-suppored laws are based on their observations. They don’t have a theory about a physical god, because they don’t have observations about it.
.
Science studies and describes this physical universe and the inter-relations of its constituent parts. Physicists have no observations about a physical god, and therefore no theory about one. How would you like them to study God?
. — Michael Ossipoff

And there you go again, missing the point entirely and continuing to harp on about your assertions that you have never made that science cannot study god.

I’d be glad to give a reason for any assertion that I’ve made to you. — Michael Ossipoff

Which is what I asked for.

Your notion is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far, and is something regarding which physicists have no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is of great interest only to you. — Michael Ossipoff

The "suggested so far" of the statement is the key there.
And no one has any evidence to the contrary either. And it is not of great interest to me. I could not care one way or the other. But you appear to be most sure of what you say.

Compared to a few years ago the knowledge that science has acquired is astounding, but science still knows so little about our own planet that there are new animals, plants, and sicknesses being discovered almost daily.

Science studies black holes, or so they say.
Along with that they study the background radiation that they say is the remains of the BIG BANG.
Science studies germs and microscopic little beasties that are too small to see.
Science studies thought processes through the use of electronic brain scans.
Plants and animals are being genetically engineered.
And a whole load of other things that were unknown and even unimaginably at one time.
This is just the science of today, what will the science of tomorrow be like? What might be "suggested" by the science of the future?

Many people got laughed at and ridiculed because of their ideas. It was not so long ago in the history of mankind that if you talked to people that were not present you could be in for problems, nowadays almost everyone does it.

Science is full of discoveries made by accident but a lot of discoveries have come from small bits of information or ideas about what to look for. Not all of them had been observed before the theory about them appeared.
The "god particle" had never been observed but mathematics said it might be there. So they devised a plan to find it.
Neutrinos are something else that science has spent lots of time trying to detect, but they only have the results of them passing through other mediums to show their existence as they are not in any way visible.

To say that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed is naive. Sometimes theories about something are what leads to an experiment that leads to a discovery. If it were true that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed we would still be living in caves.

But back to the point you missed. The question I asked you was.

How do you know there is not a material god?

It has nothing at all to do with science studying god, it has nothing to do with whether you believe in god and it is certainly not a religious question. It is just a simple question about something you know.

But please don't spend any of your time trying to answer, it would be better spent doing some reading of scientific journals.

And yes, I accept your apology for confusing me with someone else and for the insulting behavior you used.
Oh sorry, forget that last line.

You asked me a question about religion. — Michael Ossipoff

No I did not. I quite simple asked you how you know there is no god in the physical world. That is not a religious question, but an inquiry about your knowledge. You have said several times that scientist do not study things like god because they only study physical things, how do they knew that god is not part of the physical world?

Oh, alright, so you’re saying that you didn’t ask to find out something, but instead were just asking in order to prove that you’re right, as a matter of debate (which you deny later in the posts I’m replying to). — Michael Ossipoff

I am not trying to prove anything, I have made no claims that need to be proven.

Can you understand that not everyone is interested in your debate or inclined to cooperate?
If it weren’t your issue, you wouldn’t complain about my not answering you about it. (…because I don’t regard Theism vs Atheism as a debate-issue) — Michael Ossipoff

So why do you keep answering me if it is not to try to prove that you are right? And it is not my debate, I just gave my opinion and then you jumped all over it try to tell me I am wrong.

Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t. — Michael Ossipoff

So you cannot and no one else can prove anything about god, yet you insist that god cannot be studied by science. Again, how do you know that? I thought that you wanted a discussion, so let's talk about that.

You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief. — Michael Ossipoff

Where did I state my views about the character and nature of reality? Please, if nothing else, answer this question.

You mean your issue about God being physical?
Believe in a physical God if you want to. — Michael Ossipoff

I have no issue with non existing things being physical. It does not make sense that after I tell you (several times) that I do not believe that there is such a thing as a god that you keep on mentioning this.
It is not the god that I am interested in but your absolute certainty and confidence that there is no way that a god can be studied by scientists. How can you be so certain?

What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes. — Michael Ossipoff

I am not promoting any belief, why should I? I ask only that you share the reasons for your beliefs. If that is too much then I am sorry for bother you.

Your nuisance results from your inability to leave it at that. — Michael Ossipoff

I am not a rude person no matter what you think, so I will not stoop to answer.

But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far. — Michael Ossipoff

Even though you are not sure what I mean, I am wrong. That is fantastic.
I do not propose a physical god, I ask you how you know that one does not exist. And there are so many things that go against what is suggested by physics so far, for the simple reason that physics has not gotten very far explaining the universe.

You didn’t call me a name. Your namecalling consisted of calling some unspecified belief of mine “silly nonsense”. Namecalling. — Michael Ossipoff

Actually, if you read the thread properly, I did not. Even though I do agree with Jeremiah when he calls you names.
But lets look at the gentle slurs and put downs you like to throw around shall we.
astounding naiveté
your naïve delusional conceit
a bit irrational
dogmatic bigotry
loud aggressive Atheists
dogmatically-wedded
aggressive-Atheist persuasion
An excusable error. Don’t feel bad.
Dream on.
What he meant (or would have meant if he knew what he was saying) was:

You called dragons fiction, but they have found fossils that quiet easily could have been the base for those ideas.
Some scientist think that all of the wonderful things they discover show the work of god and that by studying them they are learning more about god. Are they wrong?

Here is a crazy idea: Could it be that there is no evidence because it is not real? I think there is a very strong possibility of that. — Jeremiah

I told him that, he did not seem to understand the concept.

But you almost got it right.
.Dream on.
.
What did I just finish saying in my previous reply? I said that if you want religious instruction, then I refer you to a church or a divinity-school.
.
And I’ll repeat, yet again, that my comments on the subject are all over these forums, at various threads. — Michael Ossipoff

.
I think that I made it very clear that I was not looking for religious instruction, having had way to much of that is why I am a non believer. What I asked for if you read it carefully is the proof that you have that god is not part of the physical world. You are insisting that you are right and that I am wrong even though I have not stated the there is a god that is part of the physical world.
It seems as though everyone else has to provide text book evidence but we have to accept your word for it there it is impossible. I have admitted that I do not believe that god is within the physical world or that there is even a god. I also admit that I do not believe there is a god, even though I have no proof of it.
You on the other hand are insistent that even thinking about such things being possible is irrational.
So what do you know that can prove that there is no god in the physical universe?

But, due to your conceited namecalling bigotry, your thoroughgoing sureness that you’re right, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong—Those attributes of yours make nonsense of any notion of a worthwhile conversation with you. Believe what you want.

What name did I call you and where did I do it? Where you by any chance looking at the mirror or reading your own posts when you wrote this.
— Michael Ossipoff

Declare yourself the winner of your debate.You want to search for a God that’s part of this physical universe? Go for it. — Michael Ossipoff

If, from the beginning you had tried to understand what I said instead of inventing your own versions you would know that I have no interest in winning any of your silly competitions. I have stated so in many of my posts here. You are the one that is being competitive and trying to force people to agree with you by making silly childish remarks about their posts.

If you want a worthwhile discussion then you have to put your part into it. Making claims about textbooks and telling others their ideas are absurd will not get you anywhere at all.

If you really think that science can only study the physical world the explain the following.
How can you prove something is of the physical world? Try it with thought if you want or dreams.
Why are scientist studying the possibility of existence of the souls after death?
Why are some scientist religious?