Actually, my logic was this:

A implies B

Not A

Therefore, (B or not B )

I was trying to say "not B" is possible; I was not asserting that "not B" is the only logical conclusion.

Hence I used the wording "god does not need a cause" rather than "god does not have a cause."

English can be a pretty tricky language .

Not necessarily, but it's implied by most Christian beliefs. I was assuming it.

I would disagree with people who make such allegations.

. . . anyways, enough for tonight I suppose. I'm going to bed.

Lulapilgrim posts:

God is the Supreme Being who alone exists of Himself and is Infinite in all His perfections. God had no beginnning...He always was, He is and He always will be. God created the universe and all that is in it out of nothing, by His word. According to Genesis, God spoke and matter was created.

No, because you said that maybe global warming isn't even real.  Actually, you keep switching between "Of course global warming is real, but it's not man-made" and "Maybe global warming's not even happening".

I don't think you're intellectually inferior, I just think you're wrong.  If anything, I don't think it's your intelligence that is stopping you from looking into the facts, it's more that you don't want to have to admit that you might be mistaken or that the Republicans are lying to you, and you're willing to avoid reading any information from any real sources so that you don't have to think about it.  This is understandable - I don't like to admit that I'm wrong, or that the Democrats are lying to me, but both happen, more often than I'd like.  Still, in this case, it would have to be the entire accredited scientific community of the world that is lying, and I just don't find that likely, especially since the evidence they've presented is much more factual than anything on conspiracy websites.

But that isn't the truth.  The scientific community, as a whole, completely supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming.  EVERY legitimate scientific body.  Every one.  That's a lot.  INIDIVIDUAL scientists claim that they don't, but these people are a tiny minority (less than 1%), not climatologists, do not publish legitimate research, and refuse to have their "data" reviewed by neutral parties.  Most of them are also well-known Republican shills who have been caught trying to publish false data for their employer's benefit many times in the past.

What?  You think I'm ignoring you?  I answered every question you had, posted multiple links for you, and even did the research on all of your sources.  I've read everything you've mentioned so far.  I'm certainly not ignoring the right-wing side of the issue; I know it very well.  YOU seem to be the one ignoring the issue, since you apparently didn't read any of the things I posted that refute you, you still don't admit that global warming is real despite everyone (INCLUDING all the right-wing conspiracy sites these days) admit that global warming is at least real.  The conspiracy sites still say it's not man-made, but even they have switched over to saying it's real.

I'd say we should just agree to disagree about that.  Kyoto is a political issue, and at least makes sense to disagree over.  But like I said, you need to be able to separate Kyoto (a political treaty composed by politicians), and global warming (a factual thing, which has been proven by a vast community of scientisits from all over the political spectrum - Republicans, Democrats, and people from all the different nations of the world, with their own politics and beliefs).

Well, the greatest polluter per head is the U.S., not China.  You even said you knew that yourself earlier: China just edged out the U.S. in total pollution, but their population is so much larger that they have a much lower pollution per capita ratio.  So if you want something that only hurts China but helps the U.S., you should reword it.

And the reason the global warming community wouldn't want to hear the part about punishing countries with the highest poverty rates is because all of those countries hardly release any carbon emissions at all - most of them do not have factories or power plants.  I don't really see what punishing them is going to do... their lives are pretty shitty already.

Have I shouted any slogans in this entire thread?  I'm pretty sure I mostly pointed out the scientific facts of the situation and posted links.  I don't think I said anything about terrible ignorance, but I could be wrong.  And no, I don't own a car.

Sheer nonsense and an outright lie. Please provide such proof. As a person of science myself I know this is simply not true and was written by someone who knows nothing at all about science. Are you an idiot or a liar? Do tell.

The basis of science is "I don't know". To claim "proof" that a something such as God doesn't exist would require an amazing amount of "proof".

All you did was ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominen, and poisoning the well.  By the way, those aren't compliments those are fallacies.

Those supercomputers that are being used are doing the worst case situation.  I probably should remind you of what Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, said about the credibility of those generated computer models.  I could easily say that a few of your organizations are liberial think-tanks, but I won't because that DOESN'T DISCREDIT SOMEONE'S CLAIM 100% of the time.  NASA climate data has had several errors/mistakes a la 1934 was the hottest year in U.S.

I'll supply more peer-reviewed journals as well since you have a love feitish for them.  Don't get me wrong I enjoy reading them but they are not infalliable.  As you stated with an ad hominen about Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, if what you typed is true, his article did get published in a peer-reviewed journal (Energy and Environment), so you have a conundrum here.  Also, there have been investigations/lawsuits to several peer-review for being overly bias so just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean its infallable. 

Your comment about someone not getting something published the first time is highly illogical.  Obviously, you've never sent something in to a journal.  Research doesn't always get in on the first try.  Even though you don't know who the author (s)(this is pertaining to the whole review process that a papers goes through. After being reviewed by peers the editor has the final say) are usually you've read enough of the materials from (in that field) that journal that you can tell who the authors are (we each have our own writing styles) or just use a little detective work, so with that tidbit of knowledge one does have the opportunity to be biased or some people have a very competitive nature which they'll disregard the research.  In Academia, most professors/researches have to have so many articles published in X amount of time and on top of that some universities want you to have it published in some of the more 'prestigous' journals.

With that said here you go some more journals:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/?p=730c2f15f6a74e579386e4a91b32f300&pi=0&hl=u

They found that global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years and “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7233/abs/nature07770.html

Here the evidence supports a scenario in which thresholds of meltwater from Northern ice sheets are periodically passed and the large dilution of the high latitude waters dilutes the salty surface waters of the Atlantic conveyer circulation, effectively and rapidly switching it off for a period. The high Northern latitudes cool abruptly while the reduced transfer of heat to the high Northern latitudes results in warming of the Southern oceans. In other words this is not a global warming phenomenon but is a massive and rapid change in the heat distribution of the Earth. The hemispheres respond in antiphase with a see-saw redistribution of heat due to large and rapid changes in ocean currents.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

"“According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex." One can be lead to postulate that the same thing is happening on mars.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030207.shtml

The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4048902

"Recent results have indicated strong correlations between climate parameters and solar activity. Upper troposphere and stratosphere temperatures have been found to vary in phase with the 10- to 12-year solar activity cycle. On a longer time scale, the global temperature, particularly the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature, has been found to be nearly perfectly correlated with the long-term variation of solar activity."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007P&SS...55..158R

This article was a fantastically interesting read because they used tree rings and they believe that the impact is from sollar activity and there's a cycle! Yet another articles says the earth's climate goes in a cycle!

You brought up mars here's neptune for you (we are not causing the situation on mars with what you stated about mars again  shows that its has to do with the sun/solar system) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

"If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment."  The fact with mars leads me to believe that it has something to do with the solar system.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961JGR....66..273S

This one found that there was a correlation of carbon-14 and sunspots. " Change in carbon-14 activity during these periods was inverse to change in solar activity in 22 of 24 instances (P.001)."  I'm not sure if you've  done any research/submitted an article you want a p to be that small that's an EXCELLENT finding.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AdSpR..20..913F

A good read once again!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

Dr. Spencer was a former NASA scientist.  "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent,At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade."

Here is another article by Dr. Spencer, except this one isn't peer-reviewed (wah wah waa) http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/ "Three IPCC climate models, recent NASA Aqua satellite data, and a simple 3-layer climate model are used together to demonstrate that the IPCC climate models are far too sensitive, resulting in their prediction of too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions" He actually gives his email address at the bottom if you want to challenge him.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml

The rate of world sea level rise was greater during the first half of the 20th Century than during the second half.  I thought the glaciers were melting at a exceptionally high rate? Wait hmmmm what's going on? Oh its a political ploy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5818/1529

Speaking of how Greenland and Artic are melting so fast let's take a look at that.  Here they did and they  found that "the ice mass imbalance currently contributes about 0.35 mm/year to world average sea-level rise (a rate of about 1.4 inches per century)."  1.4 inches a century!!  Better roll them there pants up the flood is coming!!

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007EO180001.shtml

"The link between the frequency of tropical cyclones [hurricanes] and anthropogenic global warming has become an emerging focus. However, an analysis of the data shows that improved monitoring in recent years is responsible for most, if not all, of the observed trend in increasing frequency of tropical cyclones"  They're saying that its due to the increased monitoring of hurricanes!  SO IT IS MANMADE!

I could go on... I would greatly appreciate it if you stop espousing "EVERY legitimate scientific body.  Every one.  That's a lot.  INIDIVIDUAL scientists claim that they don't, but these people are a tiny minority (less than 1%)" unless you're going to back that up with a fact. Because all it does is make you look like a lepton.  Less than 1%.  Now if p<.001 is true then that would be an outstanding amazling correlation.  I've posted articles upon articles at first and all you did was adhominim them.  Then you stated you only wanted peer-reviewed (which I did give you some) and how I wasn't backing up what I said.  And Its just a right-wing nut jobs of the republician party.  Most of those people that I gave you teach at Ivy league schools and having gone to an Ivy League schools the right-wingers that teach there are few and far-between. This of course is not an exhaustive study done on my part.

I am basically through with this palaver.

It could simply be that "God" does nto exist.

All we are left with are a series of known and unknown things.

Considering the vastness of our universe I would say that with all mankind has accomplished we are not even at a mere .01% of acquiring all the knowledge we can.

As the Op has stated; Over the course of our history science has replced the need for gods or god. I don't believe it is possible for a single race (human or other) to know the full 100% of things to know in the universe. Therefore there will always be a god, regardless of his actual existence or inexistence.

cheers

EDIT: I do not wish to offend anyone with the following statement, this is afterall what people consider a touchy subject (and thsi is somewhat the point of my next argument). I believe that a fully atheist society with no concept or willingness to consider god or gods, would have an easier time acquiring further knowledge. Practising a religion has never brought about scientific advancements.

Or it could simply be that "God" does exist. Thus the debate, as we have no way to actually prove that God does or does not exist. As I stated earlier, the basis of science is the phrase "I don't know" and anyone who claims pure knowledge one way or the other is a liar.

People can claim belief one way or the other and be honest in their belief, but the moment they claim to "know" there is or isn't they move from being honest to being a liar.

Personally, I believe the universe was created by a force outside of our physical plane of existence, but which we have little ability to understand, and all religions strive to understand and fail miserably, I belive they all have a little bit right but all are wrong for the most part. Many call this "God" or "a God", or whatever.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if it was, in the end, that it was the Hare Knrishnas that had it right?

So the reason YOU BELIEVE is because you believe in one principle and are ignorant of other possibilities?

"Religion is a smart man’s admission that he cannot know everything. Religious fundamentalism is a stupid man’s admission that he thinks he knows enough." -- Moshe Wilkinson

There is a reason why this question is classic and there is a reason why during most debates that question is not used.

This question is a classic straw man agrument. First, let's look at the premise of the question for there is a fallacy there.  While it is true that G-D can do anything that is consistent with HIS nature, it is absurd to suggest that he can do everything.  WHAT!  If can't do everything then HE's no longer G-D!  Just hold on a second.  G-D can't lie (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Titus  1:1-2); HE cannot be tempted (James 1:13); and HE cannot cease to exist (Psalm 102:25-27)

Furthermore, just as it is impossible to make a one-sided triangle/a square circle, so it is impossible to make a rock too heavy to be moved.  What an all-powerful G-D can create he can obviously move (and destroy).  G-D can do everything that is logically possible.

If you're going to throw a question out like that then tell me what purple taste/smells like? It does not show that G-D has a limit to HIS power which means HE does not possess infinite power.  What this does mean is whatever HE created is under HIS juirisdiction under HIS control, it can never have equality.

To your first sentence: Just because something is true one way DOES NOT MEAN the inverse has to be true (it is a logical fallacy).  I won't answer the question that you directed to lula BUT I will say that it is not translationally accurate when kill is used for it should be murder.  There is a difference between killing and murdering.

English is a functional language.  What I mean by this is that people only use between 4,000 to 8,000 words and on average they only know about 6,000 words.  Now, that is out of a total of over 900,000 words so about a million words and as you can see we use a very small percentage ( actually .9% yes it is smaller than 1%).  When translating from one language to another language meanings can get lost (yet at times a word may take on a very water down meaning of another word ex. Shalom is used as a greeting/Hi which is its very water down meaning of that word which means made whole, peace, completeness, ect ect and in english we don't use a word that encompasses the complete meaning of shalom YET it does mean Hi/Goodbye). 

When you translate a language to English (especially ancient languages) it gets very messy because again English is a functional language.

A better question would be what is truth? Something isn't true (Christianity for example) because it works (pragmatism); it is not true because it feels right (subjectivism); it is not true because it is "my truth" (relativism). As Solzhenitsyn stated "One word of truth outweighs the entire world." Truth is very important to find.  Furthermore, truth corresponds to reality.  As such, truth does not yield to the size and strength of the latest lobby group.  Nor is truth merely a matter of preference or opinion.  Rather truth is true even if everyone denies it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone affirms it.

Truth is an aspect of the nature of G-D himself

Somebody put a while back that Mormons are Protestants and not Catholic.

Actually Mormons ARE NOT Protestants.  I would NOT group Mormons with Catholic nor would I group them with Protestants.  I would be very hesitant to put Mormons into even the same category as Christianity.  For they have beliefs which are not alined with Christianity.

People_Party,

You have brought forward an _excellent_ response to the old creating a rock heavier than He can move meme. Two other answers from theology are that G-d can indeed create such a stone (and can also lie) but that binary (or any) logic does not apply to the Creator, and that the rock too heave to be moved is free will, an aspect of humanity G-d created and now cannot influence directly.

I agree with your statements about English and translations. Shalom is not just "peace", it is instead a state of completeness. Leshalem, lehashlim come to mind...

As for Mormons, they are obviously Christians, as they believe in Jesus "Christ" being the Messiah. What they are not is part of today's usual Christianity. Mormons are non-Trinitarians, and nominal Christianity is Trinitarian. They are not Protestants or Catholics (or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox) because their church is a re-founded church, not a split from the existing one church.

(Of course some Protestant Churches are also re-founded churches but are based on the concepts of the Protestant Churches that used to be Catholic.)

First, its not 'nitpicking'.  If you look at websters it shows there is a difference between murdering and killing. 

Your statement here is true. Yet so have Communist, Buddhist, Hindis, Athetist, Greek/Romans (both of those were polytheistic), Nazis, Vikings, ect ect ect. 

Also just because the parts do something does not mean it represents the whole (and doesn't mean its not true)

As for your claim of circular reasoning.  I'm not sure what place you are referring to.  I will say this: If I wanted to prove that the President of the United States lives in the White House.  How would I go about that?  I could go on websites, history books, ect ect to show that the President lives in the White House. 

Now, it would be easier if I just went to the source.  The source being the White House and knocked on the door.  Now, the President will come and say that he lives here.

No, I meant "academic" as in "of no practical relevance". I was being sarcastic but the point is the same.