On 7/19/12 12:08 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:11 pm, Wayne B wrote:


There are certainly plenty of unexplained phenomena, any of which
could be supernatural until proven otherwise. Have you ever taken a
close look at the implications of quantum physics? Nowhere else is
the supernatural so closely intertwined with science.


I'm glad you brought up the idea of 'quantum physics' Wayne.

Though I never was one of scientific academia, I've never discounted
the vitality of any kind of scientific knowledge, or how it can
coincide with 'divine faith. '

In fact, and though I'm no way a physicist - the more I learn about
science, and especially about quantum mechanics and astrophysics, the
more convinced I am that God's hand is at work in all these miraculous
laws which tend to govern the universe.



I suppose it is easier to pin it on the supernatural than to continue to
work to find the real answers.

On 7/19/2012 6:48 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/19/12 12:08 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:11 pm, Wayne B wrote:


There are certainly plenty of unexplained phenomena, any of which
could be supernatural until proven otherwise. Have you ever taken a
close look at the implications of quantum physics? Nowhere else is
the supernatural so closely intertwined with science.


I'm glad you brought up the idea of 'quantum physics' Wayne.

Though I never was one of scientific academia, I've never discounted
the vitality of any kind of scientific knowledge, or how it can
coincide with 'divine faith. '

In fact, and though I'm no way a physicist - the more I learn about
science, and especially about quantum mechanics and astrophysics, the
more convinced I am that God's hand is at work in all these miraculous
laws which tend to govern the universe.



I suppose it is easier to pin it on the supernatural than to continue to
work to find the real answers.

"My tentative conclusions will change if better evidence warrants."
Thumper 7-18-12

On 7/19/2012 3:13 AM, thumper wrote:
On 7/18/2012 5:56 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/18/2012 1:27 AM, thumper wrote:

My tentative conclusions will change if better evidence warrants. You
offer nothing.

I offer nothing to you.... Because you don't want it, you just want to
sit here and feel superior in your ignorance.... So be it..

I'll have to assume that's an admission you have only wishful thinking.
I'm sorry it hurts your feelings. It's an interesting subject.


Assume whatever is expedient...

On Jul 19, 5:48*am, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/19/12 12:08 AM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 10:11 pm, Wayne B wrote:

There are certainly plenty of unexplained phenomena, any of which
could be supernatural until proven otherwise. *Have you ever taken a
close look at the implications of quantum physics? *Nowhere else is
the supernatural so closely intertwined with science.

I'm glad you brought up the idea of 'quantum physics' Wayne.

Though I never was one of scientific academia, *I've never discounted
the vitality of any kind of scientific knowledge, or how it can
coincide with 'divine faith. '

* In fact, and though I'm no way a physicist - *the more I learn about
science, and especially about quantum mechanics and astrophysics, the
more convinced I am that God's hand is at work in all these miraculous
laws which tend to govern the universe.

I suppose it is easier to pin it on the supernatural than to continue to
work to find the real answers.

Maybe that is your supposition, Harry. But it's not mine.

On 7/18/2012 5:30 AM, Eisboch wrote:

If "Faith" isn't serious evidence of something, what are you
complaining about?
For those who have embraced it, it is the most significant cause of
millions upon
millions of other people's lifestyles, views on controversial issues and
even
why we are all here in the first place. "Faith" has an enormous affect
on how
people think and act world wide . If that isn't serious evidence of
something,
I don't know what is.

For those of us that lack it, we may not understand it. Doesn't mean it
doesn't
exist. I tend not to ridicule or attempt to destroy in others
something that I don't
have or understand. You tend to demonstrate otherwise.

Excuse my butting in on your comment to Harry.

The preponderance of faith is evidence that many yearn for larger
meaning to existence, a desire for the community, and reassurance of
immortality that religion can offer. I have no problem with that. I
find it's offerings lacking in substance but that's a personal conclusion.

The fact that many have sincere faith in a supernatural creator is *not*
evidence that they are correct about unknowable aspects or existence of
the objects of their faith. This is obvious and I'm surprised at the
confusion or deliberate equivocation on that point.

I find the subject mildly interesting and think polite debate is
healthy. It helps formulate thought and I personally have received
insight from others questioning my beliefs. As far as I know I've not
ridiculed others. (well maybe JustWait but he seems to enjoy playing
victim) If faith is so fragile as to be undermined by honest questions
and debate then I fail to see the loss.

"thumper" wrote in message ...

On 7/18/2012 5:30 AM, Eisboch wrote:

If "Faith" isn't serious evidence of something, what are you
complaining about?
For those who have embraced it, it is the most significant cause of
millions upon
millions of other people's lifestyles, views on controversial issues
and
even
why we are all here in the first place. "Faith" has an enormous
affect
on how
people think and act world wide . If that isn't serious evidence
of
something,
I don't know what is.

For those of us that lack it, we may not understand it. Doesn't
mean it
doesn't
exist. I tend not to ridicule or attempt to destroy in others
something that I don't
have or understand. You tend to demonstrate otherwise.

Excuse my butting in on your comment to Harry.

The preponderance of faith is evidence that many yearn for larger
meaning to existence, a desire for the community, and reassurance of
immortality that religion can offer. I have no problem with that. I
find it's offerings lacking in substance but that's a personal
conclusion.

The fact that many have sincere faith in a supernatural creator is
*not*
evidence that they are correct about unknowable aspects or existence
of
the objects of their faith. This is obvious and I'm surprised at the
confusion or deliberate equivocation on that point.

I find the subject mildly interesting and think polite debate is
healthy. It helps formulate thought and I personally have received
insight from others questioning my beliefs. As far as I know I've not
ridiculed others. (well maybe JustWait but he seems to enjoy playing
victim) If faith is so fragile as to be undermined by honest
questions
and debate then I fail to see the loss.

------------------------------------------------------

My comments were related to the existence of Faith, not of what
those with faith believe in. There's a difference.

On 7/21/12 5:52 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"thumper" wrote in message ...

On 7/18/2012 5:30 AM, Eisboch wrote:

If "Faith" isn't serious evidence of something, what are you
complaining about?
For those who have embraced it, it is the most significant cause of
millions upon
millions of other people's lifestyles, views on controversial issues and
even
why we are all here in the first place. "Faith" has an enormous affect
on how
people think and act world wide . If that isn't serious evidence of
something,
I don't know what is.

For those of us that lack it, we may not understand it. Doesn't mean it
doesn't
exist. I tend not to ridicule or attempt to destroy in others
something that I don't
have or understand. You tend to demonstrate otherwise.

Excuse my butting in on your comment to Harry.

The preponderance of faith is evidence that many yearn for larger
meaning to existence, a desire for the community, and reassurance of
immortality that religion can offer. I have no problem with that. I
find it's offerings lacking in substance but that's a personal conclusion.

The fact that many have sincere faith in a supernatural creator is *not*
evidence that they are correct about unknowable aspects or existence of
the objects of their faith. This is obvious and I'm surprised at the
confusion or deliberate equivocation on that point.

I find the subject mildly interesting and think polite debate is
healthy. It helps formulate thought and I personally have received
insight from others questioning my beliefs. As far as I know I've not
ridiculed others. (well maybe JustWait but he seems to enjoy playing
victim) If faith is so fragile as to be undermined by honest questions
and debate then I fail to see the loss.

------------------------------------------------------

My comments were related to the existence of Faith, not of what
those with faith believe in. There's a difference.


Of course "faith" exists, but that doesn't mean it is based upon proof
or rationality or reality. There are millions of people who have faith
that Santa Claus exists. The "faith" is there, obviously, but there is
no reality attached to it. I suppose it is nice to have a religious
belief in a deity, because millions and millions of people have believed
in deities for tens of thousands of years, and have taken comfort from
those beliefs, whether those deities are pieces of wood, stone, plants,
the sun, or beings that man conjures up in his own image.

On 7/21/2012 6:42 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/21/12 5:52 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"thumper" wrote in message ...

On 7/18/2012 5:30 AM, Eisboch wrote:

If "Faith" isn't serious evidence of something, what are you
complaining about?
For those who have embraced it, it is the most significant cause of
millions upon
millions of other people's lifestyles, views on controversial issues and
even
why we are all here in the first place. "Faith" has an enormous affect
on how
people think and act world wide . If that isn't serious evidence of
something,
I don't know what is.

For those of us that lack it, we may not understand it. Doesn't mean it
doesn't
exist. I tend not to ridicule or attempt to destroy in others
something that I don't
have or understand. You tend to demonstrate otherwise.

Excuse my butting in on your comment to Harry.

The preponderance of faith is evidence that many yearn for larger
meaning to existence, a desire for the community, and reassurance of
immortality that religion can offer. I have no problem with that. I
find it's offerings lacking in substance but that's a personal
conclusion.

The fact that many have sincere faith in a supernatural creator is *not*
evidence that they are correct about unknowable aspects or existence of
the objects of their faith. This is obvious and I'm surprised at the
confusion or deliberate equivocation on that point.

I find the subject mildly interesting and think polite debate is
healthy. It helps formulate thought and I personally have received
insight from others questioning my beliefs. As far as I know I've not
ridiculed others. (well maybe JustWait but he seems to enjoy playing
victim) If faith is so fragile as to be undermined by honest questions
and debate then I fail to see the loss.

------------------------------------------------------

My comments were related to the existence of Faith, not of what
those with faith believe in. There's a difference.


Of course "faith" exists, but that doesn't mean it is based upon proof
or rationality or reality. There are millions of people who have faith
that Santa Claus exists. The "faith" is there, obviously, but there is
no reality attached to it. I suppose it is nice to have a religious
belief in a deity, because millions and millions of people have believed
in deities for tens of thousands of years, and have taken comfort from
those beliefs, whether those deities are pieces of wood, stone, plants,
the sun, or beings that man conjures up in his own image.

Faith is intangible, just like your lobster boat and red barn.

On 7/21/2012 2:52 AM, Eisboch wrote:

My comments were related to the existence of Faith, not of what
those with faith believe in. There's a difference.

There's capitalization...