Missouri Passes Right-to-Pray Amendment

Aug 21, 2012 | Posted by: Hedonist | Full story: abcnews.go.com

Reiterating a protected right under the U.S. Constitution, on Tuesday Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution reiterating individuals' right to pray publicly and in schools.

Comments
21 - 40 of 148 Comments Last updated Aug 29, 2012

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

guest wrote:
Therefore, according to science, a supernatural force was necessary to act upon the body of matter and energy causing the big bang.
No. That's according to you.
guest wrote:
Now, if we want to look at it logically as well, there is a maxim of logic that dictates "ex nihilo nihil fit" which means out of nothing, nothing comes.
That's not a maxim of logic. That's a philosophical position from Parmenides, one contradicted by quantum physics:

"Something from nothing is a quantum possibility"
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/scien...

guest wrote:
IOW, things don't simply pop into existence from nothing, rather they are brought into existence by something.
IOW, things do simply pop into existence from nothing. Sorry, but your science is as weak as your logic.
guest wrote:
So, unless one “throws logic and reasoning out the window” as most atheists errantly claim theists do, he will come to the inescapable conclusion that a supernatural force or being exists.
If you don't mind, I think that I'll throw your "logic and reasoning out the window," and go with the scientists and real logicians, OK? They don't have an agenda other than to discover how the world works.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Aug 23, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I had missed that bit of "gotcha".
So I went ahead and gave this news tidbit it's own headline --
" http://www.topix.com/religion/atheism/2012/08... ;
Great! Networking is da bomb.
Spacealien

Wylie, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

guest wrote:
To madscot and skeptic, here's the scientific and logical proof of the existence of a supernatural force or being:
I often hear the lame charge by atheists that theists throw logic and reasoning out the window, but it simply doesn’t wash. There exists sound scientific and logical proof that a supernatural force or being does exist.
The question really boils down this: Either the universe itself has always existed (is itself eternal), or it was brought into existence by a supernatural power or being.
My position is that science and logic unequivocally prove the latter.
The consensus of science, based on cosmology and astrophysics, is that the universe is not itself eternal, did indeed have a beginning, and that all matter and energy at one time existed at one point. Then, there was a big bang that propelled it all into motion. And according to astronomers, it's all still moving today.
Newton's law of motion states that bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. If the entirety of the universe's matter and energy existed at one point, any outside force would be outside of all matter and energy in the universe. Something outside all matter and energy in the universe is by definition supernatural. Therefore, according to science, a supernatural force was necessary to act upon the body of matter and energy causing the big bang.
Now, if we want to look at it logically as well, there is a maxim of logic that dictates "ex nihilo nihil fit" which means out of nothing, nothing comes. IOW, things don't simply pop into existence from nothing, rather they are brought into existence by something. Therefore, if the universe did indeed have a beginning as science demands, then there is a logical necessity for a supernatural force or being (a something) to bring it into existence.
So, unless one “throws logic and reasoning out the window” as most atheists errantly claim theists do, he will come to the inescapable conclusion that a supernatural force or being exists.
Indeed, but the "supernatural force" has nothing to do with an obese, buck-toothed, Jewish god named Yahweh who rapes virgins with Himself in order to sacrifice Himself to Himself. Now that is silly and worthy of much mirth and mockery.

No, Little One, the ALIENS generated all life forms. You too can leave your ignorance and name the "supernatural force"...Become a RAELIAN and climb aboard our spaceship...We shall dress you up in a helmet, Nike sneakers and a cape...Here is a message from the INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS...

http://www.rael.org/

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It happened to Louisianans. They passed a bill authorizing the issuing of school vouchers for failing high school students who wanted to go to religious schools. Then the Muslims showed up asking for their checks, and the poop hit the blades:
From "Louisiana Lawmakers Object To Funding Islamic School Under New Voucher Program" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/loui... :
"Stakes escalated last week when, to the frustration of some lawmakers, the Islamic School of Greater New Orleans applied for federal funds under the voucher program. Republican state Rep. Kenneth Havard objected to the Islamic School's request for 38 government-paid student vouchers, saying he opposed any bill that "will fund Islamic teaching," the Associated Press reports."
Who could have seen it coming? Certainly not this person:
“I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools,” Hodges told the Livingston Parish News. "I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,” Hodges added. The newspaper reported that she “mistakenly assumed that ‘religious’ meant ‘Christian.’”
http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/lo...
Of course, this is the desired result - shunting tax dollars to the church, including those of taxpayers who object to the church:
"The New Living Word School, which is run by a church,...[may] also get $2.7 million in taxpayer money, and students who attend the school will be transported there by public school buses."
http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sc...
Obviously, we have a duty to resist this church, and to work to shrink its social and political influence.
From the Huffington Post article: "The New Living Word School near Ruston, for example, is a church-run school that had been approved for $2.7 million of taxpayer money under the Minimum Foundations Program. The New Living Word School was granted permission to take 315 school vouchers -- the largest number for any school -- even though it has no library, and students reportedly spend most of their day watching Biblically-themed DVDs."

This approach guarantees lower academic standards than even the worst of Louisiana's public schools, which tend to be ranked about on a par with Alabama and West Virginia with only Mississippi ranked below those three as can be seen in another Huff article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/stat...

Think the legislatures are products of the same failing education system?
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
1. You presuppose it was or had to be an intelligent force.
2. You presuppose it had to be your particular intelligent force.
3. You presuppose that none of this can happen without an outside force.
I did not propose that the supernatural force or being was either intelligent or particular. Your claim that I did is false.

It's not me that presupposes an outside force, it's Newtonian physics.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Aug 23, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not propose that the supernatural force or being was either intelligent or particular. Your claim that I did is false.
It's not me that presupposes an outside force, it's Newtonian physics.
No, you are presupposing because physics does not make that presupposition at all.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
False dichotomy. it is quite possible that the universe came into existence without an outside influence.
No, that’s not possible according to ex nihilo, nihil fit. Your claim is a rejection of logic.
There was no point in time where the whole universe was a single point.
The consensus scientific view holds otherwise.
First, Newton's laws are inappropriate for questions concerning the early universe, where relativistic effects are very important. Also, quantum effects need to be considered during the very earliest stages of the expansion.
Hmm….so you don’t like the implications of Newton’s laws, so you just reject them.
Second, it does not necessarily follow that anything outside of the matter and energy of this universe is supernatural.
The very definition of supernatural is something that is outside of all matter and energy in the universe.
You may *think* that is a maxim of logic, but it is not. That is an assumption about the nature of the universe. Furthermore, it is an assumption that is known to be false.
So you openly admit that you reject logic. Interesting.
At all times, there are what is known as quantum fluctuations which spontaneously and randomly bring particle and anti-particle pairs into existence briefly. Thi sis a measured effect.
What evidence exists to prove that those particle pairs are spontaneous and random? There is none. Just because the cause may be unknown doesn’t mean the cause does not exist. In fact, logic demands the existence of a cause.
You also fail in your definition of 'supernatural'.
It’s not my definition, it’s the technical definition of the term. Looks like you’re willing to reject the meaning of terms along with science and logic in order to cling to your atheist view.
Next, you assume there is a single cause for the entire universe…that any 'supernatural' cause has to be an intelligence…that even if there was an intelligence involved, that the creation was an intentional event, as opposed to a fortunate accident.
I made no such assumptions. Your claim that I did is false.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Aug 23, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that’s not possible according to ex nihilo, nihil fit. Your claim is a rejection of logic.
That isn't part of logic. It is part of physics. it is also known to be wrong.
The consensus scientific view holds otherwise.
No, you simply don't understand the scientific consensus view.
Hmm….so you don’t like the implications of Newton’s laws, so you just reject them.
No, they have simply been superseded where quantum or relativistic effects dominate. This is true in the area of cosmology, so you have to use a general relativistic view along with known properties of the quantum world.
The very definition of supernatural is something that is outside of all matter and energy in the universe.
I think that is a poor definition for the reasons I gave before.
So you openly admit that you reject logic. Interesting.
No, I do not reject logic: I fully accept propositional and quantifier logic. However, some things you seem to think are part of logic are not.
What evidence exists to prove that those particle pairs are spontaneous and random? There is none.
Thi sis wrong. We 8do* have evidence that shows quantum events are random and uncaused. Like I said, look up Bell's inequalities some time.
Just because the cause may be unknown doesn’t mean the cause does not exist.
Yes, i am fully aware of this. The significance of Bell's inequalities goes way beyond this because they only assume there is *some* sort of causality and derive inequalities that are violated in the real world (but are consistent with quantum mechanics).
In fact, logic demands the existence of a cause.
No, actually, it does not. Some assumptions that you mistake for logical assumptions do, however. But those assumptions are known to be false.
It’s not my definition, it’s the technical definition of the term. Looks like you’re willing to reject the meaning of terms along with science and logic in order to cling to your atheist view.
So you would consider a multi-verse or a previous contracting universe to be supernatural? Even if they obey the same laws of physics that our universe does? interesting. I think the definition has internal problems.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Aug 23, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not propose that the supernatural force or being was either intelligent or particular. Your claim that I did is false.
It's not me that presupposes an outside force, it's Newtonian physics.
Newtonian physics is known to be wrong in situations involving very high gravitational fields, high velocities, or quantum effects. You might want to learn something about 20th century physics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Aug 23, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not propose that the supernatural force or being was either intelligent or particular. Your claim that I did is false.
It's not me that presupposes an outside force, it's Newtonian physics.
For that matter, in Newtonian physics, time is infinite into the past and the universe is eternal. So you also reject Newtonian physics.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
Lame charge? Your entire world view is based upon a guess motivated by an emotional need for comforting. Your most fundamental premise - the axiom of all of your thought - is that a god named Jesus exists, a wild guess.
I never stated my world view, but rather posted sound scientific and logical proof that a supernatural force or being does indeed exist. Your weak attempt at an ad hominem attack does nothing to address my argument. Stay on point.
The consensus of science is that there is no evidence for a god.
As I’ve proven to you, science and logic demand the existence of a supernatural force or being. If you want to say that’s a god, that’s up to you.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the universe is not eternal. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary
Some may hold that the universe itself is eternal, yet astrophysics and cosmology tell us it’s not. As I said earlier, the consensus scientific view is that the universe had a beginning.
"Circular patterns within the cosmic microwave background suggest that space and time did not come into being at the Big Bang but that our universe in fact continually cycles through a series of "aeons"."
Uh, yeah. I give you indisputable scientific law and foundational maxims of logic and you give me Gnosticism. The universe is not created by aeons.
The issue is very open and unresolved in the scientific community.
It’s only unresolved for those who reject the implications of science and logic because it disproves their atheistic belief.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
No. That's according to you.
No, it’s according the Newton’s First Law which states that bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. It’s okay with me if you want to reject science, but at least be man enough to admit what you are doing.
That's not a maxim of logic.
Yes, it’s pure logic. It’s wholly irrational to believe that something can come from nothing. Again, if you want to deny logic as well as science, go ahead. Just be man enough to admit what you are doing.
"Something from nothing is a quantum possibility" IOW, things do simply pop into existence from nothing. Sorry, but your science is as weak as your logic.
Yes, there are many in the atheist camp, like you, who deny science and logic and cling to fantastical theories based on nothing but speculation rather than admit their atheist views have been soundly disproven.
If you don't mind, I think that I'll throw your "logic and reasoning out the window," and go with the scientists and real logicians, OK?
It’s not “my” logic and reasoning, nor “my” science. And if you truly want to go with the scientists and real logicians, you’ll have to stop rejecting Newton’s First Law as well as ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Of course that will necessitate you laying aside your atheist view. Are you willing to do that?
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
No, you are presupposing because physics does not make that presupposition at all.
If we begin with a body at rest, such as the big bang singularity, and at a later time we observe that body in motion, then we can conclude, based on Newton's First Law, that a force outside of that body was applied to propel it into motion. That's 9th grade science.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
So you would consider a multi-verse or a previous contracting universe to be supernatural?
There is absolutely zero evidence of a multi-verse or previous contracting universe. It's nothing but bare speculation, ideas dreamed up by those who refuse to submit their atheist views to the science and logic that disproves them.

The atheist view necessarily denies known, provable scientific law as well as foundational maxims of logic. It is based on nothing but the blind faith of its adherents.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

polymath257 wrote:
Newtonian physics is known to be wrong...
So you openly admit that you deny known scientific law.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Aug 24, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
If we begin with a body at rest, such as the big bang singularity, and at a later time we observe that body in motion, then we can conclude, based on Newton's First Law, that a force outside of that body was applied to propel it into motion. That's 9th grade science.
If this was the case, what makes you assume that it was intelligent?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
There is absolutely zero evidence of a multi-verse or previous contracting universe. It's nothing but bare speculation, ideas dreamed up by those who refuse to submit their atheist views to the science and logic that disproves them.
So you didn't answer my question. if there *was* a previous contracting universe or a multiverse, would you consider them to be supernatural?

To what extent it is speculation and to what extent it is supported by the evidence is irrelevant to my question: would they be supernatural? To me, they would not be, which shows a problem with your definition.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
So you openly admit that you deny known scientific law.
No. I require the use of the scientific laws that are most supported by the evidence. Newton's 'laws' have been shown by evidence to be wrong in many situations. They have been superseded by Einstein's laws of relativity and by quantum physics. In particular, a discussion of cosmology, especially the early universe, requires general relativity, which repairs some of the deficiencies of Newton's laws.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
If we begin with a body at rest, such as the big bang singularity, and at a later time we observe that body in motion, then we can conclude, based on Newton's First Law, that a force outside of that body was applied to propel it into motion. That's 9th grade science.
There are two basic problems here:

1) The singularity is not an object. It was not something 'at rest'. To say there was a singularity simple says, in this context, that time cannot be extended to before the expansion.

2) The expansion of the universe does not obey Newton's laws: it obeys Einstein's laws.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it’s according the Newton’s First Law which states that bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. It’s okay with me if you want to reject science, but at least be man enough to admit what you are doing.
First of all, there was nothing 'at rest'. Second, Newton's laws do not apply to the very early universe. Third, when the correct laws are used, not conflict with science and a beginning of the universe is found.
Yes, it’s pure logic. It’s wholly irrational to believe that something can come from nothing. Again, if you want to deny logic as well as science, go ahead. Just be man enough to admit what you are doing.
So you do not know what logic is. There are two basic forms: propositional logic, which deals with not, and, or, if..then, and quantifier logic, which deals with universal and existential quantifiers (there exists, or for all). That is the extent of logic.

I fully support the use of logic in studying the real world. For that matter, I also support the use of mathematics, which is not logic, but an extension of logic.

The interesting thing about logic is that it supplies the basic rules of deduction and analysis, but does not help to determine what the basic rules are for the universe. In particular, your claim that 'something cannot come from nothing' is NOT a rule of logic. You will find it in no modern logic book. Instead, it is an *assumption* about how the universe works. So, for that matter, are the properties of time. The good thing is that we can test these assumptions by actual observation. And we find that your ex nihilo assumption is false.
Yes, there are many in the atheist camp, like you, who deny science and logic and cling to fantastical theories based on nothing but speculation rather than admit their atheist views have been soundly disproven.
Perhaps if you weren't working with Aristotelian logic and science, the deficiencies of your arguments would be more apparent to you. Aristotle has been superseded by Newton, who was, in turn superseded by Einstein and Heisenberg.
It’s not “my” logic and reasoning, nor “my” science. And if you truly want to go with the scientists and real logicians, you’ll have to stop rejecting Newton’s First Law as well as ex nihilo, nihil fit.
Funny, I am around real scientists all day and they *never* teach or use 'ex nihilo'. And Newton's laws are shown to be wrong and their replacements are given in upper level undergraduate courses. In graduate classes, the evidence for things *actually* appearing out of nothing is given.
Of course that will necessitate you laying aside your atheist view. Are you willing to do that?
Your lack of understanding of both logic and science is quite apparent.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••