Changes

::''Bolly, '''please''' learn the conventions of colons to seperate text. (I'm tired of adding your colons.) I put instructions on your discussion page some days ago.''

::''Bolly, '''please''' learn the conventions of colons to seperate text. (I'm tired of adding your colons.) I put instructions on your discussion page some days ago.''

Here's the part of the concept you're having a very difficult time wrapping your head around: "We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer." I agree with you completely.  But we can agree that SOMETHING is the answer.  Once we agree that something is the answer then we can begin to examine by deduction the properties of that something.  It doesn't matter whether we call it God, Luck, Fate, No-alternative. The word we choose to describe that concept doesn't change the concept.

There's a part of the concept you're having a very difficult time wrapping your head around. You wrote:  

 

::''We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer.''  

 

You don't know it but your making an argument of semantics not a argument of logic. It doesn't matter whether you call it Luck, God, or some as yet uknown catalyst, in the end all rational humans agree that SOMETHING is the answer.  Once we agree that there answer then we can begin to examine by deduction the properties of that something.  People tend to get hung up on words because it connects them to some childhood they are rebelling against or a childhood that they are attempting to validate.

 

Whether we call it God, Luck, Fate, No-alternative, the concept descriptor doesn't change the concept. In other to explain to others, I prefer to find use words which make sense to them, rather than fighting them about things that don't matter. Here's another way to look at it: 

Do you remember the concept of ''i'', the imaginary number from mathematics?  Conservapedia doesn't have an article about ''i'' yet, but you can read one from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number | here]. The idea behind ''i'' is that some concepts are not fully understood but still can be examined in an objective manner. According to some Wikipedia editor,  

Do you remember the concept of ''i'', the imaginary number from mathematics?  Conservapedia doesn't have an article about ''i'' yet, but you can read one from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number | here]. The idea behind ''i'' is that some concepts are not fully understood but still can be examined in an objective manner. According to some Wikipedia editor,  

:"''Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie, where the term was meant to be derogatory.''"  

:"''Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie, where the term was meant to be derogatory.''"  

Thus, I can understand why you are resistant to this concept. But if mathemeticians can do it, so can you. Forget about "God", the word touches a fear-based deep in your psyche. The previous debater wanted to call it Luck.  How about for your benefit we call it ''g'', an as-yet unknown causation of the laws of physics and the origins of the universe as God. We might one learn all the properties of ''g'' but right now we don't know the properties of ''g''.

Thus, I can understand why you are resistant to this concept. But if mathemeticians can do it, so can you.  

 

Forget about "God", the word touches a fear deep in your psyche. The previous debater wanted to call it ''Luck''.  How about for your benefit we call it ''g'', an as-yet unknown causation of the laws of physics and the origins of the universe as God. I agree we might one day learn all the properties of ''g'' but right now we don't know the properties of ''g''.

Your proposition is we haven't discovered the imaginary catalyst yet, and therefore ''g'' doesn't exist.  It's my opinion that it's silly to think that ''g'' doesn't exist just because we can't understand how ''g'' exists. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The atheistic proposition is we haven't discovered the imaginary catalyst yet, and therefore ''g'' doesn't exist.  The deistic proposition is that it's silly to think that ''g'' doesn't exist just because we can't understand or define ''g''. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)