What is Tim Duncan's religion?

[Blake]

Ok, just maybe I have a little, but it's hard not to with all the non-sense being spewed out.

Well, at least you read it and tried to understand it. I don't think it's something you get on the 1st shot w/out seeking guidance from others that "supposedly" understand it. Do you feel you have a relationship with God? If you did, maybe that's a good place to focus on.

No, I feel I have no relationship with God. I tried really hard to talk to him, but just couldn't get him to talk back.

Do you feel it's possible for a primitive person with no access to the Bible to find salvation?

[all_heart]

No, I feel I have no relationship with God. I tried really hard to talk to him, but just couldn't get him to talk back.

Do you feel it's possible for a primitive person with no access to the Bible to find salvation?

You mean like ancient cultures with no people to tell them about God etc..?

[silverblk mystix]

If you are truly enlightened, then you could show us all the path to get there.

It would be awesome. :tu

All anyone can show you is another theory...another concept....

Reality must be experienced on your own...you have to take your own medicine...no one can take it for you.

Has it ever struck you that , language-for example, is only a way to cut-up reality and try to explain it?

...and different languages cut-up reality differently?

So, when one tries to explain or describe reality to someone else...something is always lost. So even if some enlightened person tried to "enlighten" you...it would never be close to what reality is. You would never experience what he or she did...you would only have a clue...and your concepts,conditioning and programming would all get in the way of you understanding the message or meaning of the reality that was described to you.

Speaking of god, love, joy, awakening, peace or whatever name you want to call it ...is pretty much a losing game...because no one really knows what these things are.

You can speak of the opposites though....you can discuss fear, illusions, wrong notions of happiness etc...

[all_heart]

Speaking of god, love, joy, awakening, peace or whatever name you want to call it ...is pretty much a losing game...because no one really knows what these things are.

You can speak of the opposites though....you can discuss fear, illusions, wrong notions of happiness etc...

Only to those who've never experienced God, love, joy etc... but even then you can try to explain it. There is always a chance that somebody might be able to understand it. Some of these things could also be drug induced.. if you could only ask Jimi Hendrix.. :lol

[Blake]

You mean like ancient cultures with no people to tell them about God etc..?

I mean like some of the 100+ uncontacted primitive tribes that exist today.

[Blake]

All anyone can show you is another theory...another concept....

Reality must be experienced on your own...you have to take your own medicine...no one can take it for you.

Has it ever struck you that , language-for example, is only a way to cut-up reality and try to explain it?

...and different languages cut-up reality differently?

So, when one tries to explain or describe reality to someone else...something is always lost. So even if some enlightened person tried to "enlighten" you...it would never be close to what reality is. You would never experience what he or she did...you would only have a clue...and your concepts,conditioning and programming would all get in the way of you understanding the message or meaning of the reality that was described to you.

Speaking of god, love, joy, awakening, peace or whatever name you want to call it ...is pretty much a losing game...because no one really knows what these things are.

You can speak of the opposites though....you can discuss fear, illusions, wrong notions of happiness etc...

Are you truly enlightened?

[all_heart]

I mean like some of the 100+ uncontacted primitive tribes that exist today.

Great question. It would certainly seem unfair for them not to receive salvation considering they didn't even have a chance to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior before they died. Perhaps they will be judged by another set of criteria, such as their actions and the contents of their character.

[pgardn]

We actually don't know all we need to know about time in order to state where it comes from. It isn't a human construct as we can observe the past, present, and future around the universe simultaneously. Review that spacetime article I posted in this contribution.

BL

I see nothing in the article or your example that refutes that time is NOT a human construct.

Maybe we have diff. definitions of what time is. Reread my succinct definition. It may not be broad enough, but this is what it comes down to for me based on the latest series of events including those that have taken place in this discussion. Which includes reading the article and your example.

[DMC]

Seriously?!

I think tmtcsc (and I) knows dam well what he believes and how he derives it. There is no need to keep pestering for more explanation. Faith and Beliefs is just something that others can't, won't or wish not to understand.
Ever heard of epistemology? No, it's not when they cut your taint. Go check it out.

[all_heart]

Ever heard of epistemology? No, it's not when they cut your taint. Go check it out.

Ehh... it sounds like a fluff humanities class taught by a grad student.. :lol

[Chase_the_Bass]

Yikes, five pages of this? Do you people have lives?

:lol

[Blue-Lightning]

Elsa, you walked into the plausibility realm all on your own.

There is nothing that is completely certain, but we do accept certainty when we pass certain mathematical threshholds. I'm sorry if you do not operate that way.


That your belief isn't religious doesn't automatically make it scientific nor true.
You don't get to define science or the scientific method. However, when you chose that path, you subjected yourself to it.

Just out of curiosity, what credentials do you have? What is your education level? I feel that you aren't knowledgable enough to understand what I've been writing or comprehend it at a level that allows you to judge its merits. Perhaps that is the problem. I've asked you repeatedly to copy and paste errors you've referenced, provide alternatives, etc, but you seem unable to do so.


You still don't know if the 1st law of thermodynamics applies to the big bang. You never did.

Yes. There is no reason that the first law of thermodynamics would not apply to the big bang. There is no reason at all. Do you have any reason?

In the micro and pico seconds after the big bang, it's difficult to say what's going on in physics because of the level of heat, radiation, velocity, and proximity of energy. But at that point, the energy already exists.


You already admitted, mutiple times, you're guessing (already quoted). And you did it all on your own

There have been non-essential points on which I have conjectured, and I've noted when I've done so. As to the main points (first law of thermodynamics, impossibility of an infinite past), I have not conjectured, and you have never copy and pasted a time in which I have. On non-essential points, it is true that I am not omniscient, as no other person is, and thus do extend a guess when I'm not attempting to prove that point.


I think it's funny how you want to pick and choose when laws should be respected and when they can be dismissed.

Copy and paste when you feel I have done that.


Why couldn't it be? What if it was some sort of a "fraternal" twin type of universe, created by the same process or mechanism at nearly the same time. Or what if something is "feeding" the "parent" process resulting in very similar universes?

Do you think it's possible that a universe could evolve over several trillion years, where laws that were in effect in the beginning could have also evolved and are now quite different?

Some things are possible but improbable. So while we can't say for sure what is outside of our universe, we can say that the laws of our universe have stayed constant since the beginning - we can do this because we can view the past via light from distant places, and we can do so through red shift that shows a constant perpetuity of quantum-level phenomenon.


I see nothing in the article or your example that refutes that time is NOT a human construct.

Maybe we have diff. definitions of what time is. Reread my succinct definition. It may not be broad enough, but this is what it comes down to for me based on the latest series of events including those that have taken place in this discussion. Which includes reading the article and your example.

Your succinct definition is not sufficient. Both time and space are interwoven, interacting with one another. Time is the fourth dimension of our universe. It is not a human construct as it existed before humans, and will exist after humans if we cease to exist.

BL

BL

[Blake]

Matter and energy that exists in another universe (if they exist there) would not be subject to the laws within this universe.


Matter and energy can't be timeless because they are connected with the spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


Time cannot be infinite in the reverse as it would prevent anyone from arriving at the present point. Other universes / entities may or may not be governed by a similar system, and if not, could in fact be timeless.


The idea that phenomenon become laws once we claim them to be laws, and are not simply laws we finally began to grasp is the arrogant part.


If you can prove with absolute knowledge that the universe cannot self-generate (done), and it cannot exist infinitely in the past (done), then you are left with one option.


The reason we can know it followed certain brief laws is that it followed a pattern or movement (expansion). Patterns mean there are physical laws guiding actions... if it had been completely random you wouldn't see a universe expanding evenly in all directions as we see now.


However, as I said, it followed a structured pattern and that means laws.


If you take away laws (including the ones we don't understand), then you would either see completely random action (didn't happen) or a cosmic error (didn't happen).


You understand that there are laws we will invent in the future, and laws that we would hypothesize if we had the ability to test them. Whether we are aware of the governances or not, we know their were natural processes that occurred in a logical manner.


As for the lawlessness, it's unlikely it was lawless, but it was most likely under different laws since it was under tremendously different constraints.


Poke a hole in the argument then. What evidence is there that all matter in the universe self-generated against the laws of thermodynamics?


Another yawn. You postulated that if a creator did exist that he would be transferring energies from somewhere else in order to create our universe, and thus break the first law of thermodynamics.


And the comment about energy transfers is jibberish... it isn't science, it's just pretend knowledge.


The answer to that question is that the creator must be outside our universe in order to be outside the first law of thermodynamics. Now since time is a part of our universe, we can't be sure that it exists outside of it, and if it does what it's like. So, there may not be a "past" for the creator to have. Then again their may be.


The first law of thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means the universe cannot be self-generated.
......Therefore, since the universe cannot be self-generated, and since it can't have existed forever, that leaves us with one option. The universe was created by an outside source. What do we call something that creates? We call it a creator. Now whether the creator is YHWH or made of pasta is up to your own faith to decide (or lack thereof)... but the fact that it exists(ed) is undeniable.

Have fun,

BL


The universe can't exist without some kind of creator (first law of thermodyanics, mathematical impossibility of an infinite past while in the present).....

Saying that a god can't or doesn't exist is mathematical ignorance.

Have fun,

BL


Some things are possible but improbable. So while we can't say for sure what is outside of our universe, we can say that the laws of our universe have stayed constant since the beginning

a big bang of failure, imo.

[pgardn]

Your succinct definition is not sufficient. Both time and space are interwoven, interacting with one another. Time is the fourth dimension of our universe. It is not a human construct as it existed before humans, and will exist after humans if we cease to exist.

BL

BL

Space is also a human construct. If nothing exists, there is no space, it has no meaning. Speaking of objects outside of our universe has no meaning. A human construct is an idea. Space and time are ideas. We invented them. Whether we are here to witness them is irrelevant.

Also you do not understand simultaneity. Go back to basic physics and think about inertial frames of reference and the speed of light. I have a feeling you are just kinda tossing stuff around now.

[Blue-Lightning]

Well, Blake finally quoted me in places he thinks I've been contradictory, so let's take a look at each one:


Matter and energy that exists in another universe (if they exist there) would not be subject to the laws within this universe.

Everything that is within our universe is subject to the laws we observe in this same universe. We don't know what exists outside of our universe, or how it works. The rules outside of the universe might be similar to our rules, they might not be, but they wouldn't be subject to the same rules.


Matter and energy can't be timeless because they are connected with the spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Within our universe (the only place we know matter and energy exist), this is true.


Time cannot be infinite in the reverse as it would prevent anyone from arriving at the present point. Other universes / entities may or may not be governed by a similar system, and if not, could in fact be timeless.

Our universe has time, and it cannot go infinitely in the reverse. Other universes may or may not have time. Thus they could be timeless, whereas our's cannot.


The idea that phenomenon become laws once we claim them to be laws, and are not simply laws we finally began to grasp is the arrogant part.

This is succinct and self-explanatory.


If you can prove with absolute knowledge that the universe cannot self-generate (done), and it cannot exist infinitely in the past (done), then you are left with one option.

This is true unless someone can provide another option (nobody has of yet).


The reason we can know it followed certain brief laws is that it followed a pattern or movement (expansion). Patterns mean there are physical laws guiding actions... if it had been completely random you wouldn't see a universe expanding evenly in all directions as we see now.

This is also true, succinct, and self-explanatory.


However, as I said, it followed a structured pattern and that means laws.

Same.


If you take away laws (including the ones we don't understand), then you would either see completely random action (didn't happen) or a cosmic error (didn't happen).

Still true.


You understand that there are laws we will invent in the future, and laws that we would hypothesize if we had the ability to test them. Whether we are aware of the governances or not, we know their were natural processes that occurred in a logical manner.

Yes - there are laws which we currently describe, laws which we will describe, and laws which we may never be able to describe. They still exist, even if we have yet to conceptualize them. As an example, gravity existed before there was an official law of gravity on the books.


As for the lawlessness, it's unlikely it was lawless, but it was most likely under different laws since it was under tremendously different constraints.

Yes - it is beyond unlikely that the universe suddenly broke down into completely random actions during the seconds after the big bang.


Poke a hole in the argument then. What evidence is there that all matter in the universe self-generated against the laws of thermodynamics?

I'm still waiting for that.


Another yawn. You postulated that if a creator did exist that he would be transferring energies from somewhere else in order to create our universe, and thus break the first law of thermodynamics.

It was postulated, it was an incorrect postulation, I did show why.


And the comment about energy transfers is jibberish... it isn't science, it's just pretend knowledge.

Yes. This was in reference to the idea that energy, matter, space, and time can somehow transmogrify into one another. They are distinctly different, though energy is the source for atomic differentiation.


The answer to that question is that the creator must be outside our universe in order to be outside the first law of thermodynamics. Now since time is a part of our universe, we can't be sure that it exists outside of it, and if it does what it's like. So, there may not be a "past" for the creator to have. Then again their may be.

This is true. Laws that exist in our universe do not necessarily exist outside of it. Any entity outside of our universe may not follow patterns such as what we see in our universe.


The first law of thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means the universe cannot be self-generated.
......Therefore, since the universe cannot be self-generated, and since it can't have existed forever, that leaves us with one option. The universe was created by an outside source. What do we call something that creates? We call it a creator. Now whether the creator is YHWH or made of pasta is up to your own faith to decide (or lack thereof)... but the fact that it exists(ed) is undeniable.

That's beautiful logic.


The universe can't exist without some kind of creator (first law of thermodyanics, mathematical impossibility of an infinite past while in the present).....

Saying that a god can't or doesn't exist is mathematical ignorance.

Again true - the universe was created by something. By definition, something that creates is a creator.


Some things are possible but improbable. So while we can't say for sure what is outside of our universe, we can say that the laws of our universe have stayed constant since the beginning

This is true.


a big bang of failure, imo.

When you say things like this without articulating why, it makes it appear you are unable to either understand information or communicate your understanding.


Space is also a human construct. If nothing exists, there is no space, it has no meaning. Speaking of objects outside of our universe has no meaning. A human construct is an idea. Space and time are ideas. We invented them. Whether we are here to witness them is irrelevant.

This may be your philosophical position, but it isn't science. Space is available distance between two objects. Time is the flowing series of cause and effect. They existed before us, they exist after us, we therefore did not invent them. Whatever ancestors existed before us recognized them - even my cat recognizes the flow of cause and effect, as do any other sentinent beings. Thus, it is not a human construct. This is the kind of statement which deserves to be ridiculed if it is presented at a collegiate level, after the presenter is shown to be wrong.


Also you do not understand simultaneity. Go back to basic physics and think about inertial frames of reference and the speed of light. I have a feeling you are just kinda tossing stuff around now.

Simultaneity is actually one of the reasons we see future, present, and past all at the same time. It's the underpinning of the theory of relativity - I understand it quite well. I've been discussing it in part at different times in this thread, though I've not had the need until now to speak about it specifically. It should also be noted that all humans actually witness the past and never the present as the brain takes time to process the present, meaning humans experience what actually happened microseconds later... and the brain actually makes adjustments to trick us into thinking we are right on time.

So no, I'm not just tossing stuff around. I'm volleying with ease.

Have fun,

BL

[ElNono]

Post #558 in this thread...


Frankly, I already know the answer: you don't know. Let's see how long it takes you to get there.

215 posts later....


There is nothing that is completely certain

































:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

ElNono: 1
Elsa: 0



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_u0TzYbBhw8I/S73okT4zQ8I/AAAAAAAAAEA/ZQWacqN3WVs/s400/round-turd-big.jpg

You can put that nice round juicy turd on twitter right next to your faux-intellectual can of whoop ass...

:lol "intellectual"
:lol "mathematical thresholds" on the inflaton
:lol googling to find arXiv
:lol Elsa asking for qualifications

[ElNono]

More coming! :lmao

[Blake]

When you say things like this without articulating why, it makes it appear you are unable to either understand information or communicate your understanding.

Or I think there's nothing left to say except that you have been a failure in this thread.

[Ross Parrot]

I remember in an interview with Pop, he said he read 'God Is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. I wonder how Dave feels about that.

[pgardn]

Simultaneity is actually one of the reasons we see future, present, and past all at the same time. It's the underpinning of the theory of relativity - I understand it quite well. I've been discussing it in part at different times in this thread, though I've not had the need until now to speak about it specifically. It should also be noted that all humans actually witness the past and never the present as the brain takes time to process the present, meaning humans experience what actually happened microseconds later... and the brain actually makes adjustments to trick us into thinking we are right on time.

So no, I'm not just tossing stuff around. I'm volleying with ease.

Have fun,

BL

Of course it takes "time" to process information. It is no trick, we clearly understand and thoroughly realize this is happening. We have even done some measurements of diff types of biological reaction times.

This has absolutely no relevance to what I have stated. Time and space are human constructs and the idea of simultaneity is a consequence that leads to some very wrong assumptions. This is very basic relativity. Again, do you understand how inertial frames of reference and the speed of light make the idea of simultaneity useless in understanding phenomena, for example, that occur at very great distances?

[will_spurs]

How come I didn't a reply to my post kicking BL's ass about "finite time" ? :lol

[Blue-Lightning]

Of course it takes "time" to process information. It is no trick, we clearly understand and thoroughly realize this is happening. We have even done some measurements of diff types of biological reaction times.

This has absolutely no relevance to what I have stated. Time and space are human constructs and the idea of simultaneity is a consequence that leads to some very wrong assumptions. This is very basic relativity. Again, do you understand how inertial frames of reference and the speed of light make the idea of simultaneity useless in understanding phenomena, for example, that occur at very great distances?

I do understand that, and the tomfoolery of the brain was simply an anecdote. I've been discussing the differences in time throughout the thread (see also: simultaneity). Go back through and review all the times I discussed the issue.

As for will_spurs, feel free to quote your post and I'll be happy to respond to it (if I haven't already).

BL

[tmtcsc]

I remember in an interview with Pop, he said he read 'God Is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. I wonder how Dave feels about that.

Pop goes against the grain when it comes to politics and being retired military. He's borderline liberal and I wouldn't put it past him to be atheist.

However ! And its a BIG however, I watch Bill Maher's show even though its caustic and I bought The God Delusion to see where the opposing views are coming from.

Nothing I've read or listened to or watched online would change my belief in God as the creator of our existence. I cannot be persuaded against my beliefs. The HOW regarding the science behind the beginnings of the Universe and the mysteries being uncovered are fascinating.

I am very pro-science and even believe in Evolution. I just happen to believe that our origins are a direct result of God.

[silverblk mystix]

Pop goes against the grain when it comes to politics and being retired military. He's borderline liberal and I wouldn't put it past him to be atheist.

However ! And its a BIG however, I watch Bill Maher's show even though its caustic and I bought The God Delusion to see where the opposing views are coming from.

Nothing I've read or listened to or watched online would change my belief in God as the creator of our existence. I cannot be persuaded against my beliefs. The HOW regarding the science behind the beginnings of the Universe and the mysteries being uncovered are fascinating.

I am very pro-science and even believe in Evolution. I just happen to believe that our origins are a direct result of God.

I cannot be persuaded against my beliefs...

Pretty much says it all right there...

Truth cannot be sighted once you have made a conclusion...once you concluded that your beliefs were facts (instead of just beliefs)...then you stopped seeing.

Truth is to see...

[tmtcsc]

I cannot be persuaded against my beliefs...

Pretty much says it all right there...


Yes, it does.



Truth cannot be sighted once you have made a conclusion...once you concluded that your beliefs were facts (instead of just beliefs)...then you stopped seeing.

Truth is to see...

Unless the conclusion is accepted as truth. Science is incapable of making the case for or against the existence of God. That's a FACT. Philosophy is nothing more than mental gymnastics that leave more questions than answers. It's fun for a while and then the bigger Premise gets lost in all the side discussions. If a God is perfect and always right than he is incapable of making imperfect beings...blah blah blah.

[Brazil]

is this thread becoming the new fake landing on the moon thread ?

[tmtcsc]

is this thread becoming the new fake landing on the moon thread ?

What is this moon you speak of ?

[Amarelooms]

Great question. It would certainly seem unfair for them not to receive salvation considering they didn't even have a chance to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior before they died. Perhaps they will be judged by another set of criteria, such as their actions and the contents of their character.

Lol what a dummy you are....only reason you believe in your friend Jesus is cause you were born into it moron. If you were born in Iraq you'd be Muslim. Like I said before....no doubt Jesus hates your mentality and people like you.

God Bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

:elephant

[DMC]

They are. Matter and energy that exists in another universe (if they exist there) would not be subject to the laws within this universe.

This is called "amazing familiarity". Basically you are pretending to know something you cannot possibly know. A second universe could be under the same laws as this one, but the concept of a second universe itself is pointless, never mind the double standard for the laws of physics which you seem to deploy or ignore at your leisure.


I asked you to provide an alternative option when I said there is only one. You didn't though you say there are options. Seems like a pretty good argument if you don't have a response.
If the universe isn't timeless, and if it cannot self create (forget "self created", that's absurd), then you have to accept there's another option other than "creator" as the "creator" answer puts you back to timeless, as the creator must either be self created or timeless, yet there's no evidence to suggest either.

First though:

1. Define "universe", what comprises it?

2. Define "creator"

3. Define "time"

A creator doesn't necessarily mean the universe isn't timeless since perhaps time itself did not exist prior to the first event. Any talk of "before that God did this..." is more amazing familiarity as you have no way of knowing this and it's just a convenient way around the point that time itself is not infinite.

So, the other option is that you don't have all the variables. You just have this rudimentary concept of time as linear and infinite, and an inkling of an expanding universe that you think was created because you fallaciously put time before the 1st event and your ego (speaking of infinity) won't allow you to back away from that.


That's not true. My present may not be your present. People on a plane experience time at a slower rate than people standing still. This is especially true when we increase speeds for objects. I'm sorry you aren't as knowledgable about time as I am.
Now you are appealing to false authority (yourself).

You might be surprised at just how much I do know about the quantum world.


You might say I stick with the facts.
No, I would instead say your use of logical fallacies is factual and you've stuck with that. It's in keeping with the best traditions of biblical scholars.


I already have, but you are too unintelligent to understand. The universe cannot have an infinite past - it's a simple truth, provable (and proven), which you have not been able to counter. You don't accept it, but you have only your own emotional attachment to blame. There is no means by which the universe can be self-generated, yet you'll believe it because it makes what you want to be true... be true. It's faith-based.
The term "infinite" itself is misunderstood by science plebes such as yourself. You again draw this imaginary line through space until you just stop imaging it but you stipulate that it continues "forever" without knowing what that means. Then you dress that up with some fancy hack website jargon and some "way too many lonely nights" epiphanies and you lay it out there like it's ready for peer review.

What science does is called research and prove those who practice it to be wrong most of the time. Learning is the process of gradually discovering your ignorance. That's where you would be if theology didn't clog your way. There are some exceptions to the "wrong most of the time" ideas, and those are what you are trying to use as your crutch. Problem is you cannot have infinite time ( again, your concept of infinite is straight line that goes on forever in both directions, no regard to dimension or events or relativity, that the temporal mind can traverse as if it's a railway to observe reality in a remote viewer fashion) unless you also have infinite events. Time only exists between events. In order to have infinite events, you must have a universe that's always existed in which those events take place.

You are basically using the same concept except you are pushing it back to the numinous god of the gaps. Say you aren't, it's a lie. You are. You're hybridizing science to theology and that's been the downfall of many theologians and apologists much more capable than you.


Now me, on the other hand, I'm okay with the idea there's no god. I'm okay with the idea that we're chance. I'm also okay with the opposite. But I know this universe was created by something - intelligent or not - and I've shown why that's necessary.
You know nothing of the sort. You are saying you have "knowledge of" but you cannot explain what it is you have knowledge of. Instead, you offer some nebulous creator hypothesis disguised as science that cannot make it past the 1st premise.


Again, not true. Objects moving at faster speeds will experience time at a slower rate. And that's only the start. I'm sorry you don't understand time as well as you need for this conversation.
Where is the reference? If you are moving away from the Earth at light speed and I am moving away from the Earth at light speed, and we are on parallel paths, are our time's synchronized? What if you are at a vector compared to me? Now you are not only moving away from the Earth, but you are moving away from me as well.

You sorely fail to grasp special relativity.


The even distribution of red shift throughout the universe in relation to the center (location of the bb) shows us that the initil burst followed an evenly distributed expansion. I say 99% because it could have occurred by tiny little elves sprinking dust to curate it. Mathematically, we can never prove a negative, thus 99%.
You just offered a negative (never prove). Do you really want to go that route?

I can prove a universal negative. No square circles exist anywhere in the universe. Why? Because it's a contradiction in terms. We know what circles are, since we've defined them, and we know what squares are, since we've also defined those. We can therefore say with absolute certainly that none exist.

You likely haven't been everywhere in the universe to know the red shift has an even distribution. You are accepting that in faith because you read it somewhere. I doubt you actually grasp the concept of the red shift to begin with. Stop reading hack science websites and go back to a real school.


My ass probably has more cognitive ability than some posters here. I wouldn't want to insult my gut flora by lowering them under some people on these forums ;-)
Your ass should have the ability to accept just about anything as far as you keep your head up it.

[gospursgojas]

Is this thread a sticky?

[Blue-Lightning]

This is called "amazing familiarity". Basically you are pretending to know something you cannot possibly know. A second universe could be under the same laws as this one, but the concept of a second universe itself is pointless, never mind the double standard for the laws of physics which you seem to deploy or ignore at your leisure.

What it's called is quoting out of context. Yes, if you take that one statement, it would seem to be "amazing familiarity", but that's only because I was answering a direct statement, not discussing what another universe might be like. When you look for my actual thoughts on the topic instead of trying to play "gotcha," you find that I am definitely not utilizing "amazing familiarity." For example, I said:

Everything that is within our universe is subject to the laws we observe in this same universe. We don't know what exists outside of our universe, or how it works. The rules outside of the universe might be similar to our rules, they might not be, but they wouldn't be subject to the same rules.


If the universe isn't timeless, and if it cannot self create (forget "self created", that's absurd), then you have to accept there's another option other than "creator" as the "creator" answer puts you back to timeless, as the creator must either be self created or timeless, yet there's no evidence to suggest either.

Wow, talk about needless assumptions. Why must the creator be timeless? Why must the creator be self-created? I don't see that either of those are necessary, nor have I ever said they are. So since you've asserted this idea, why do you think a creator must be these things? What else must a creator be?


1. Define "universe", what comprises it?

The totality of all space, matter, energy, and phenomenon we observe in the cosmos.


2. Define "creator"

The concept, identity, phenomenon, or other form of outside sorce which generated the known universe into being.


3. Define "time"

The linear, yet unconstant, flow of cause and effect, moving from past to present to future, which is theorized to be connected with space and matter, but which is also not yet understood completely in its cause(s).


A creator doesn't necessarily mean the universe isn't timeless since perhaps time itself did not exist prior to the first event. Any talk of "before that God did this..." is more amazing familiarity as you have no way of knowing this and it's just a convenient way around the point that time itself is not infinite.

If time itself did not exist prior to the first event, then the first event can't take place (an action requires time in order for movement to occur). Thus, without time, time can't even come into existence, as coming into existence requires time.

Also, you are bringing the idea that "God" created the universe into the conversation, not me. I have never made that assertion. Is this your belief? If it is not, why are you bringing in the idea, and which "God" exactly is it that you are wanting to discredit?


So, the other option is that you don't have all the variables. You just have this rudimentary concept of time as linear and infinite, and an inkling of an expanding universe that you think was created because you fallaciously put time before the 1st event and your ego (speaking of infinity) won't allow you to back away from that.

I have changed my beliefs many times as I have acquired new and more accurate knowledge. If you could verify your beliefs, I would quicklky adopt them. However, so far you aren't even at my level, and that makes it unlikely you will do so. As an example, you're still trying to beat the "God argument," when that's not even the argument I'm making. When you can't even identify the argument based on my statements, it leads me to believe you're not at the intellectual level needed.

You'd probably do well against high school / college creationists. I'm not sure that's saying much though, and I'm not convinced you'd do well against the intellectual minority in those groups.

Buy, hey, maybe you'll step it up and impress me. =) I'm pulling for ya'


Now you are appealing to false authority (yourself).

You might be surprised at just how much I do know about the quantum world.

Everybody has access to nearly all human knowledge now using the internet. Therefore knowing about the quantum world isn't all that impressive... so do most people if they take the time to look it up. It's being able to creatively and conceptually work with those ideas in ways that realistically work tha show a depth of knowledge.


No, I would instead say your use of logical fallacies is factual and you've stuck with that. It's in keeping with the best traditions of biblical scholars.

Can you show a logical fallacy I've used?

You do know I'm not a biblical scholar, right? Well... at least it's not a profession of mine. You'd probably make yourself much wiser if you looked up some of my comments to All_Heart about the bible - it'll save some egg on your face later.


The term "infinite" itself is misunderstood by science plebes such as yourself. You again draw this imaginary line through space until you just stop imaging it but you stipulate that it continues "forever" without knowing what that means. Then you dress that up with some fancy hack website jargon and some "way too many lonely nights" epiphanies and you lay it out there like it's ready for peer review.

First, you try to insult, but let's have some fun with it. Since I am a lowly "science plebe", can you give us your credentials / profession that give you some level of knoweldge in the fields of physics, quantum physics, or cosmology? Can you provide a twitter account or some other form of internet reference?

Here's the actual definition of "infinite":

Mathematics
5(a). Not finite

Of course, finite means measurable / numerable. Thus, "infinite" means it is not measurable / numerable. It is beyond numeration.

When I say that time cannot be infinite in the past, I say so because that would mean there would be more moments in time than can be measured. That's impossible because there's no number we can't express through exponentials, and there's no possible the universe could transverse an inexpressable number of moments (infinite) to reach the present moment.

What specifically is wrong with that statement? And no labels, please. You tend to label without providing reasons - so without labeling the paragraph, can you articulate the pros and cons of it (i.e. evaluate / critique).


What science does is called research and prove those who practice it to be wrong most of the time. Learning is the process of gradually discovering your ignorance. That's where you would be if theology didn't clog your way. There are some exceptions to the "wrong most of the time" ideas, and those are what you are trying to use as your crutch. Problem is you cannot have infinite time ( again, your concept of infinite is straight line that goes on forever in both directions, no regard to dimension or events or relativity, that the temporal mind can traverse as if it's a railway to observe reality in a remote viewer fashion) unless you also have infinite events. Time only exists between events. In order to have infinite events, you must have a universe that's always existed in which those events take place.

Can I take a moment to laugh at you? I mean, seriously, I'm going to laugh at you, and here's why:

You say theology is clouding my mind. Yet there is not one single time when I have brought theology into this discussion, nor do I have ANY desire to. If you can copy and paste one single time I have discussed theology in this thread, please do so and I'll stop laughing. Otherwise, you're really showing yourself not able to hold your own in this discussion.

Also, let me show you another reason, that I know you're a pretender. Others may not know it, but it's pretty obvious to someone who studies qubits for fun.

Evidence you are a pretender
You say time only exists between events, but that is stupid. Here's why: Electrons are in perpetual motion around atomic nuclei (unless the little guys escaped, and then they're still in perpetual motion). They never stop. And they kinda make up all matter in the universe... so that all matter is always in perpetual motion, unless you get into the black hole stuff, and we can only theorize what happens to electrons in that situation. So there are no real "events" with empty "time" in between... the entire universe is driving by subatomic particles in constant motion.

You're a pretender, chief. But the anonymity of the internet seems to foster that for a while, doesn't it? =)


You are basically using the same concept except you are pushing it back to the numinous god of the gaps. Say you aren't, it's a lie. You are. You're hybridizing science to theology and that's been the downfall of many theologians and apologists much more capable than you.

Quote one time I have said a god created the universe or used theology. Otherwise you're an idiot who can't even figure out what he's arguing against.

This is called "crash and burn". Learn from it.


Where is the reference? If you are moving away from the Earth at light speed and I am moving away from the Earth at light speed, and we are on parallel paths, are our time's synchronized? What if you are at a vector compared to me? Now you are not only moving away from the Earth, but you are moving away from me as well.

You sorely fail to grasp special relativity.

The reference given in my example would be the world clock. Because I was using an example that can be tested, you just utterly fail:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

I agree with you about the simultaneity, but I just find it funny when you try to correct me (especially when we've tested it and it's proven).


You just offered a negative (never prove). Do you really want to go that route?

I do when I reach mathematical improbability.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory


I can prove a universal negative. No square circles exist anywhere in the universe. Why? Because it's a contradiction in terms. We know what circles are, since we've defined them, and we know what squares are, since we've also defined those. We can therefore say with absolute certainly that none exist.

You didn't prove a negative, you cited a contradiction. No square circles exist because they're contradictory terms. 1+1 never equals 3 because 2 is always the identifier for the result. Prove the universe doesn't sit on the back of a flannel ostrich and I'll be impressed.


You likely haven't been everywhere in the universe to know the red shift has an even distribution. You are accepting that in faith because you read it somewhere. I doubt you actually grasp the concept of the red shift to begin with. Stop reading hack science websites and go back to a real school.

The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continually increasing with time[2]. The first suggestion for accelerating universe from observed data happened in 1992, by Paál et. al.[3] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[4][5] since around redshift of z~0.5 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

We see this universally, not just in comparison to one galaxy or another, one star to the other, etc. It's a universal constant. We observe it through telescopic observation, not by galactic travel.


Your ass should have the ability to accept just about anything as far as you keep your head up it.

It hurts to be so wrong on so many things, doesn't it?

You'll find that the more we get into this discussion, the harder it's going to be for you to pretend. Hang in there... it's entertaining me =)

BL

[Blake]

You still have yet to prove a creator.

You just don't know it.

[Blue-Lightning]

You still have yet to prove a creator.

You just don't know it.

Your level of description, explanation, and discourse are reflective of your prior contributions.

BL

[Blake]

Your level of description, explanation, and discourse are reflective of your prior contributions.

BL

You were exposed as a fraud many thread pages ago.

Of course, if what you say is true and a creator is accepted scientific fact, then it should be no effort at all for you to source a text book or a peer reviewed work and redeem yourself.

[DMC]

What it's called is quoting out of context. Yes, if you take that one statement, it would seem to be "amazing familiarity", but that's only because I was answering a direct statement, not discussing what another universe might be like. When you look for my actual thoughts on the topic instead of trying to play "gotcha," you find that I am definitely not utilizing "amazing familiarity." For example, I said:

Everything that is within our universe is subject to the laws we observe in this same universe. We don't know what exists outside of our universe, or how it works. The rules outside of the universe might be similar to our rules, they might not be, but they wouldn't be subject to the same rules.

Here you go again making statements that you don't know to be true. You don't know that everything within our universe is subject to the "laws". You have a very loose, personal defintion for "laws" to begin with. There are the laws of physics and then there are the tendencies of nature. That kind of approach seems a bit overconfident. Why make matter-of-fact statements in these instances? I see no need and it's certainly not a scientific approach.


Wow, talk about needless assumptions. Why must the creator be timeless? Why must the creator be self-created? I don't see that either of those are necessary, nor have I ever said they are. So since you've asserted this idea, why do you think a creator must be these things? What else must a creator be?
If the universe must be either one or the other, then so must the creator. Changing the name of the object doesn't give it a different standard. Basically, you are saying all that exists must have existed always, self created or had a creator. I am saying "a creator must have always existed, self created or had a creator". What's the difference? If a creator exists, it's part of the "all that exists" in your first argument. The universe is all that exists.


The totality of all space, matter, energy, and phenomenon we observe in the cosmos.
So then if we could observe a creator, the creator is then part of the universe, ergo must meet the criteria you stipulated for the universe itself.


The concept, identity, phenomenon, or other form of outside sorce which generated the known universe into being.
Outside of what? What exists outside of "the totality of space, matter, energy and phenomenon we observe in the cosmos"?


The linear, yet unconstant, flow of cause and effect, moving from past to present to future, which is theorized to be connected with space and matter, but which is also not yet understood completely in its cause(s).
Flow of cause and effect?

Does this not work for you?

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

This is important, I will reference your definitions later on.


If time itself did not exist prior to the first event, then the first event can't take place (an action requires time in order for movement to occur). Thus, without time, time can't even come into existence, as coming into existence requires time.
More amazing familiarity. How can you know that "coming into existence" requires time?

Illustrate how time can exist without events.

This is also important, as it illustrated how you have contradicted yourself. You say time is not infinite yet time could not exist without time already having existed. More on this later.


Also, you are bringing the idea that "God" created the universe into the conversation, not me. I have never made that assertion. Is this your belief? If it is not, why are you bringing in the idea, and which "God" exactly is it that you are wanting to discredit?
Here you are playing the name game again. This "creator without a name" is analogous to anything you wish to assert as the creator. Were it simply a force, then we could, for all intents and purposes, stick with “the universe self-created”.


I have changed my beliefs many times as I have acquired new and more accurate knowledge. If you could verify your beliefs, I would quicklky adopt them. However, so far you aren't even at my level, and that makes it unlikely you will do so. As an example, you're still trying to beat the "God argument," when that's not even the argument I'm making. When you can't even identify the argument based on my statements, it leads me to believe you're not at the intellectual level needed.
I don’t seek out beliefs to adopt. I simply look at the information available and accept it for that. You seem driven to blurt out an answer before you’ve heard the question. Why must you feel you know the answer since you obviously don’t have the information you need to even know the question?


You'd probably do well against high school / college creationists. I'm not sure that's saying much though, and I'm not convinced you'd do well against the intellectual minority in those groups.
Every creationist I’ve ever seen enter into a formal debate with an atheist gets a mudhole stomped in them. They don’t admit it, they word wrangle and flounder and use every logical fallacy in the book to cast doubt and win the audience (normally theists as well). Had any theists actually won a formal debate against a savvy atheist, I would know. If you know of one, please share it.


Buy, hey, maybe you'll step it up and impress me. =) I'm pulling for ya'
More typical theist chest thumping. Next you are going to pray for me.


Everybody has access to nearly all human knowledge now using the internet. Therefore knowing about the quantum world isn't all that impressive... so do most people if they take the time to look it up. It's being able to creatively and conceptually work with those ideas in ways that realistically work tha show a depth of knowledge.
Nearly all human knowledge?
The first thing they teach you in a real school is that you should not use the internet for research.


Can you show a logical fallacy I've used?
I’ve showed several.

Amazing familiarity
Ad hominem
Appeal to false authority
Non sequitur
The list goes on.


You do know I'm not a biblical scholar, right? Well... at least it's not a profession of mine. You'd probably make yourself much wiser if you looked up some of my comments to All_Heart about the bible - it'll save some egg on your face later.
You are not a scientist, especially with the way you throw around matter-of-fact statements so loosely. More likely you are a 1st or 2nd year student. That type takes a class and thinks no one else knows the information being presented.




First, you try to insult, but let's have some fun with it. Since I am a lowly "science plebe", can you give us your credentials / profession that give you some level of knoweldge in the fields of physics, quantum physics, or cosmology? Can you provide a twitter account or some other form of internet reference?
Advanced engineering degree in particle physics, 20 years working with particle accelerators, tandetrons, linacs, quantitative mass spectrometry, ultra high vacuum physics, lasers and optics expert among other things. My job is as a consultant to universities and state run facilities across the US.

You?

Also, I don't do social networking. Professional networking is different, but you're in no position to demand my credentials and you will just have to accept the charity I have offered. The last thing you are getting from me is some notoriety that you debated with such and such.


Here's the actual definition of "infinite":

Mathematics
5(a). Not finite

Of course, finite means measurable / numerable. Thus, "infinite" means it is not measurable / numerable. It is beyond numeration.
So is love infinite?


When I say that time cannot be infinite in the past, I say so because that would mean there would be more moments in time than can be measured. That's impossible because there's no number we can't express through exponentials, and there's no possible the universe could transverse an inexpressable number of moments (infinite) to reach the present moment.
What specifically is wrong with that statement? And no labels, please. You tend to label without providing reasons - so without labeling the paragraph, can you articulate the pros and cons of it (i.e. evaluate / critique).
If time cannot be infinite, then it had a beginning. If time had a beginning, how did that occur? You said earlier that the 1st event couldn’t have occurred without time, so how did time begin? Wouldn’t the beginning of time be an event? How did that happen without time as, once again you said, even time cannot begin without time.
You’ve painted yourself into an epistemological corner here.
You are confusing the measurement (time) with the measured (interval between events).




Can I take a moment to laugh at you? I mean, seriously, I'm going to laugh at you, and here's why:

You say theology is clouding my mind. Yet there is not one single time when I have brought theology into this discussion, nor do I have ANY desire to. If you can copy and paste one single time I have discussed theology in this thread, please do so and I'll stop laughing. Otherwise, you're really showing yourself not able to hold your own in this discussion.
Laugh at Varros. He’s the one who distinguished theology as having 3 branches, one of those being philosophical rational discourse of the gods and of cosmology. Though a creator need not be labeled a god, for all intents and purposes it certainly would qualify.
You don’t have to mention theology for your argument to be pinned as a theological one. You are proposing a creator. That’s a theological argument. In fact, your reasons, as misguided and short sighted as they are, are cookie cutter theist arguments. I am eagerly awaiting Pascal’s wager.


Also, let me show you another reason, that I know you're a pretender. Others may not know it, but it's pretty obvious to someone who studies qubits for fun.

Evidence you are a pretender
You say time only exists between events, but that is stupid. Here's why: Electrons are in perpetual motion around atomic nuclei (unless the little guys escaped, and then they're still in perpetual motion). They never stop. And they kinda make up all matter in the universe... so that all matter is always in perpetual motion, unless you get into the black hole stuff, and we can only theorize what happens to electrons in that situation. So there are no real "events" with empty "time" in between... the entire universe is driving by subatomic particles in constant motion.
You: “this is a fact, unless you get into the area I am not familiar with, then all bets are off so don’t go there”

:lmao electron perpetual motion

Anyone who considers an electron to be a particle and not in a wave-like state is not someone I want to discuss QED with.

You have a layman’s + Google understanding of it to begin with. I see no profit in debating your misconceptions on the matter (pun).

Go do some homework and get back to me when you no longer see an atom as this:

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/images/atom.jpg

The planetary model is long outdated unless you are in gradeschool.

Imagine the electron as a "diffuse entity that occupies the entire orbital".

If you did that, you wouldn't propose such elementarily stupid strawmen.



You're a pretender, chief. But the anonymity of the internet seems to foster that for a while, doesn't it? =)
As long as my employer doesn’t find out, I’m golden.


Quote one time I have said a god created the universe or used theology. Otherwise you're an idiot who can't even figure out what he's arguing against.
See above. You cannot sneak out the back door on this.


This is called "crash and burn". Learn from it.
It's not the first time I've seen a theist cloaked in dollar store science attempt to get over. Your subsequent crash was predicted.


The reference given in my example would be the world clock. Because I was using an example that can be tested, you just utterly fail:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

:lmao You still not understanding relativity


I agree with you about the simultaneity, but I just find it funny when you try to correct me (especially when we've tested it and it's proven).
Right. I’ve read enough of your blithering stupidity to conclude you are a hack.


I do when I reach mathematical improbability.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory
While you are out scouring the interwebs for your learnings, check out General Relativity and how it points towards an infinite universe (thus no beginning required). You can even link to it and claim that was your stance all along.



You didn't prove a negative, you cited a contradiction. No square circles exist because they're contradictory terms. 1+1 never equals 3 because 2 is always the identifier for the result. Prove the universe doesn't sit on the back of a flannel ostrich and I'll be impressed.
The logical contradiction proved the negative I proposed. That which cannot exist cannot exist anywhere.
That’s the same as saying “that which cannot exist doesn’t exist anywhere” which is a universal negative.



The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continually increasing with time[2]. The first suggestion for accelerating universe from observed data happened in 1992, by Paál et. al.[3] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[4][5] since around redshift of z~0.5 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
We see this universally, not just in comparison to one galaxy or another, one star to the other, etc. It's a universal constant. We observe it through telescopic observation, not by galactic travel.
Wiki-links strikes again!


It hurts to be so wrong on so many things, doesn't it?
No. I’ve spent a good portion of my life being wrong about this or that. I don’t have much of an ego in when it comes to science. Theists are normally hurt when they are challenged however. As I said, learning is the gradual unveiling of your ignorance. You're going through that now, maybe later you will realize it.


You'll find that the more we get into this discussion, the harder it's going to be for you to pretend. Hang in there... it's entertaining me =)
I’m hanging in. Jousting your strawmen isn't hard. What would be difficult is if you actually had a point. I would be forced to re-examine 30 years of education though I welcome that.

Oh, and your name is up there on the left of the screen and on every quote of you. Since you get most of your material from Google or Wiki, you should sign “WP or G” or just don’t sign at all, it’s the calling card of the ignorant and cocky. This isn’t a peer reviewed site tbh.

I still say you're a troll. Get bored?

[Blue-Lightning]

Here you go again making statements that you don't know to be true. You don't know that everything within our universe is subject to the "laws". You have a very loose, personal defintion for "laws" to begin with. There are the laws of physics and then there are the tendencies of nature. That kind of approach seems a bit overconfident. Why make matter-of-fact statements in these instances? I see no need and it's certainly not a scientific approach.

The last time you argued with me about "laws," I gave you the exact definition of the term in scientific context. It was exactly the way I had been using the term.

The universe operates in an ordered, patterned, logical system of phenomenon. Things which were once explained through magic, the supernatural, or randomness are now explained through mathematics. This will continue unabated.


If the universe must be either one or the other, then so must the creator. Changing the name of the object doesn't give it a different standard. Basically, you are saying all that exists must have existed always, self created or had a creator. I am saying "a creator must have always existed, self created or had a creator". What's the difference? If a creator exists, it's part of the "all that exists" in your first argument. The universe is all that exists.

The universe is all that exists in the cosmos. That is an important part of what I said, which you conveniently ignored. That which caused our universe is outside of our universe by virtue of having existed prior to generate it in the first place. Our universe has time, matter, energy, etc. None of those is guaranteed to exist outside of this, and certainly not in the same way. Thus, it is not guaranteed that the creator of the universe is timeless, though it is possible.


So then if we could observe a creator, the creator is then part of the universe, ergo must meet the criteria you stipulated for the universe itself.

You need to learn what the word cosmos means, or stop ignoring it in sentences... one or the other.


Outside of what? What exists outside of "the totality of space, matter, energy and phenomenon we observe in the cosmos"?

We don't know, though string theory and other multiverse theories propose there are good reasons to believe things do.


Flow of cause and effect?

Does this not work for you?

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

In English, the word "time" can refer to many things, some specific, and some used in casual language. So, no, your definition is terrible considering it is the general definition of time, and considering there was the definition of time in the field of physics (what we've been discussing) farther down on dictionary.com. It is this:

2) Physics: See space-time
A quantity measuring duration, usually with reference to a periodic process such as the rotation of the earth or the vibration of electromagnetic radiation emitted from certain atoms. In classical mechanics, time is absolute in the sense that the time of an event is independent of the observer. According to the theory of relativity it depends on the observer's frame of reference. Time is considered as a fourth coordinate required, along with three spatial coordinates, to specify an event.

In the future, if you're going to "teach" me about definitions, please at least find the right one.


More amazing familiarity. How can you know that "coming into existence" requires time?

Illustrate how time can exist without events.

This is also important, as it illustrated how you have contradicted yourself. You say time is not infinite yet time could not exist without time already having existed. More on this later.

Time would exist without events if electrons were in rotation. No "events" would have to occur in that situation, yet time would still exist allowing for the movement of sub-atomic particles. Because quantum mechanics do not function in a way that we could call their positioning "events," you could have time without events occurring, though cause and effect would be active.


Here you are playing the name game again. This "creator without a name" is analogous to anything you wish to assert as the creator. Were it simply a force, then we could, for all intents and purposes, stick with “the universe self-created”.

No. A "force" (whatever the hell that is - apparently we're now in Star Wars la la land) outside of the universe would not be a part of the universe, thus the universe was created by something else, thus the thing that created it is the creator.


I don’t seek out beliefs to adopt. I simply look at the information available and accept it for that. You seem driven to blurt out an answer before you’ve heard the question. Why must you feel you know the answer since you obviously don’t have the information you need to even know the question?

I'm sure this passes as deep somewhere. I'm just not sure where.


Every creationist I’ve ever seen enter into a formal debate with an atheist gets a mudhole stomped in them. They don’t admit it, they word wrangle and flounder and use every logical fallacy in the book to cast doubt and win the audience (normally theists as well). Had any theists actually won a formal debate against a savvy atheist, I would know. If you know of one, please share it.

Young Earth creationists are usually annihilated (unless they go the Omphalos route, but then they can still be dismissed when biblical contradictions show up), the Old Earth ones usually fair better, and atheists are easily defeated by anybody who understands what I've been posting. Agnostics and theists usually do pretty well if they know their stuff.


More typical theist chest thumping. Next you are going to pray for me.

And who should I pray to?


Nearly all human knowledge?
The first thing they teach you in a real school is that you should not use the internet for research.

A kid in Africa with the internet today has access to more knowledge today than the president of the United States had fifteen years ago. Dispute it so I can show the stats and mock you a bit.

Also, studies have shown Wikipedia is more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica. Get with the times.


I’ve showed several.

Amazing familiarity
Ad hominem
Appeal to false authority
Non sequitur
The list goes on.

Claiming I've used it, and showing I've used it are two different things, numbnuts.

Damn... ad hominem.


You are not a scientist, especially with the way you throw around matter-of-fact statements so loosely. More likely you are a 1st or 2nd year student. That type takes a class and thinks no one else knows the information being presented.

Says the guy who can't even use the right definition on dictionary.com.

Huff puff, huff puff...


Advanced engineering degree in particle physics, 20 years working with particle accelerators, tandetrons, linacs, quantitative mass spectrometry, ultra high vacuum physics, lasers and optics expert among other things. My job is as a consultant to universities and state run facilities across the US.

Nice to meet you, I'm Barrack Obama.

Or at least I was until I linked to my actual information. But, I don't blame you for not wanting to expose who you are.


You?

I already gave my Twitter account. Feel free to check it out.


Also, I don't do social networking. Professional networking is different, but you're in no position to demand my credentials and you will just have to accept the charity I have offered. The last thing you are getting from me is some notoriety that you debated with such and such.

Linkedin will work.


So is love infinite?

Did you seriously ask me this question in a physics discussion?????

Define love and where it's coming from and I'll tell you if it's infinite or not.


If time cannot be infinite, then it had a beginning. If time had a beginning, how did that occur? You said earlier that the 1st event couldn’t have occurred without time, so how did time begin? Wouldn’t the beginning of time be an event? How did that happen without time as, once again you said, even time cannot begin without time.
You’ve painted yourself into an epistemological corner here.
You are confusing the measurement (time) with the measured (interval between events).

There are several ways to explain it, though I really am not interested in speculative theory that can't be proven (shocking to you, I know). So, I'll give a brief idea and then move forward from that.

What if our universe was generated from a separate universe, so that our universe was created under the phenomenon of another entity, then operated under similar phenomon, but now self-contained once it was separated?

It's far-fetched, it can't be proven, but again, you're asking me how the universe came into being, and the only thing I can really say is that it was created. I can imagine how, but I'm no longer in science when I take it into that place.


Laugh at Varros. He’s the one who distinguished theology as having 3 branches, one of those being philosophical rational discourse of the gods and of cosmology. Though a creator need not be labeled a god, for all intents and purposes it certainly would qualify.

I doubt an older, non-sentient universe which generated this one would be considered a "god" by anybody.


You don’t have to mention theology for your argument to be pinned as a theological one. You are proposing a creator. That’s a theological argument. In fact, your reasons, as misguided and short sighted as they are, are cookie cutter theist arguments. I am eagerly awaiting Pascal’s wager.

You're cute when you assume the creator must be a god or a sentient being.


:laughing: electron perpetual motion

This is going to be fun.


Anyone who considers an electron to be a particle and not in a wave-like state is not someone I want to discuss QED with.

Although De Broglie showed electrons react as a wave in certain situations, it is a basic tennant of physics that electrons are elementary, sub-atomic particles. If I contradicted that statement in any place, feel free to copy and paste where I did so. It should be easy to find. Otherwise, quit pretending.


Imagine the electron as a "diffuse entity that occupies the entire orbital".

If you did that, you wouldn't propose such elementarily stupid strawmen.

My statement that electrons are in perpetual motion is true, you have not disproven it, you did not attempt to, and the fact that they are in perpetual motion shows your explanation of time as "space between events" is ridiculous.

What shit-hole community colleges to do you advise exactly?

^ Ad hominem, but moderately funny and not replacing the actual argument.


:laughing: You still not understanding relativity

You do realize your question was how we can measure the difference in times, and I did show how we do that when there is an absolute reference point, right?

Do you typically just laugh instead of accurately analyzing information? That might explain you advising the IHOP waitress on particles and calling it a job ;-)


Right. I’ve read enough of your blithering stupidity to conclude you are a hack.

If this is the best you can do against a hack, you're really in the wrong profession ;-)


While you are out scouring the interwebs for your learnings, check out General Relativity and how it points towards an infinite universe (thus no beginning required). You can even link to it and claim that was your stance all along.

I'll comment on this in a completely different post. I was going to let you figure it out on your own since I thought you were intelligent enough to do so. You're not, so I'm going to have to embarrass you. See the next post.


The logical contradiction proved the negative I proposed. That which cannot exist cannot exist anywhere.
That’s the same as saying “that which cannot exist doesn’t exist anywhere” which is a universal negative.

False. Proving a contradictory concept is not proving a negative. As I said, prove the universe doesn't sit on the back of a flannel ostrich and I'll be impressed. Telling me there is no bluish orange doesn't tell me a new color is non-existent.


Wiki-links strikes again!

Still partying like it's 1999?


No. I’ve spent a good portion of my life being wrong about this or that. I don’t have much of an ego in when it comes to science. Theists are normally hurt when they are challenged however. As I said, learning is the gradual unveiling of your ignorance. You're going through that now, maybe later you will realize it.

Well, let me see if I can help you understand how you're doing.

- You tried to correct me about the definition of "laws of physics." I then posted the actual definition, and it turns out you were wrong and I was right.

- You tried to correct me about time. You used the wrong definition, and I had to correct you again.

- You tried to correct me about electrons. Once again, I'm right, I have at least a hundred scholarly references to back me up if needed, and I'll correct you.

- I'm about to show you how we know the universe does not have an infinite past (as you say) in a way that should embarass you.

- In a physics / cosmology discussion, you asked me if "love" is infinite. Maybe the wiccans were impressed...

- You showed you didn't know the universal expansion is equally distributed. I had to show you, and you just attacked Wikipedia instead of actually being able to evaluate the position.

- You have repeatedly shown you don't understand the definition of "universe," which indicates you really aren't versed in any reputable multiverse theories.

- You assumed my positions come from the bible, despite the fact I don't see the bible as authoritative.

Amazing for a guy who posts credentials that should have him on the Science Channel.


I’m hanging in. Jousting your strawmen isn't hard. What would be difficult is if you actually had a point. I would be forced to re-examine 30 years of education though I welcome that.

Can you copy and paste the strawmen?


Oh, and your name is up there on the left of the screen and on every quote of you. Since you get most of your material from Google or Wiki, you should sign “WP or G” or just don’t sign at all, it’s the calling card of the ignorant and cocky. This isn’t a peer reviewed site tbh.

I haven't had to study up on anything yet in this discussion... which is sad actually, considering I have had to do that in the past. This discussion hasn't pushed me though. Having said that, I do ocassionally reference what I say so that there is some level of authority in what I say. I'm sorry that you are against accessing human knowledge through Google or Wikipedia... I'm sure you'd do fine in an Amish community.

BL



[quote]

[Blake]

atheists are easily defeated by anybody who understands what I've been posting.

Rofl

[all_heart]

Lol what a dummy you are....only reason you believe in your friend Jesus is cause you were born into it moron. If you were born in Iraq you'd be Muslim. Like I said before....no doubt Jesus hates your mentality and people like you.

God Bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o



If you were born with any decency and common sense you wouldn't be such a vulgar prick, but you probably get off to that. You must be so miserable in your life to be this way, I actually feel sorry for you. George Carlin is a funny guy, but it's still ONE mans' opinion - big deal. Are you so easily influenced by entertainers and the media? - Pathetic. What do you believe? You capitalize "God". Why?

BTW, yea I probably would be Muslim if I was born in the ME.. so what? Thank God I wasn't. If you were born in France, guess what language you would speak? Your point?

[Blue-Lightning]

While you are out scouring the interwebs for your learnings, check out General Relativity and how it points towards an infinite universe (thus no beginning required). You can even link to it and claim that was your stance all along.

I felt this was deserving of it's own post.

DMC, the physicist consultant to various universities, says the universe is more likely infinite in that it has no beginning. Yet the truth is we've known it has a beginning for a very long time. We know that it likely is 13.5 gigayears old, and we know that time ceases to exist if the universe is condensed to the size of the "pre-bang". So we are very sure the universe has a beginning.

In fact, we've known this for a very long time. Let's say that time is infinite in the past, and the universe is infinitely old. In that case, all the light from all the stars would have had time to reach us. Thus, the night sky would be lit up brighter than the sun, and we would all be burned into oblivion. It's called Olber's paradox, and we've known about it for at least the past hundred years. It is considered the absolute disproof of both an infinite and eternal universe.

Knowing this, I've been debating the entire time holding it back, hoping others would catch on without me having to say "it's already been a given fact for the past hundred years and here's why". However, it doesn't appear our correspondents have been smart enough to figure it out on their own.

Let go of emotional attachments to your own beliefs. Search for what is true, accept what isn't, and have fun while you're doing it.

BL

By the way, someone is going to say that because the universe isn't static, and is expanding, Olber's paradox doesn't prove anything. They'd be right if the universe was expanding at the speed of light, but it isn't, and thus light would eventually catch up to every object in the universe from every star if it were infinitely old. They will actually, probably argue that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting, but we'll see... either way, I'm just waiting for them to screw up again ;-)

[Blue-Lightning]

If you were born with any decency and common sense you wouldn't be such a vulgar prick, but you probably get off to that. You must be so miserable in your life to be this way, I actually feel sorry for you. George Carlin is a funny guy, but it's still ONE mans' opinion - big deal. Are you so easily influenced by entertainers and the media? - Pathetic. What do you believe? You capitalize "God". Why?

BTW, yea I probably would be Muslim if I was born in the ME.. so what? Thank God I wasn't. If you were born in France, guess what language you would speak? Your point?

I've taken up for you at times, but this is really terrible stuff. You're basically saying you believe something because you believed it as a child. That's pathetic.

BL

[underdawg]

I've taken up for you at times, but this is really terrible stuff. You're basically saying you believe something because you believed it as a child. That's pathetic.

BL

Not a good argument in my opinion - there are Christians in Muslim countries and they often are persecuted or killed for their beliefs (see Nigeria).

The fastest growing country for Christian converts is China right now, so I don't believe this argument is very strong.

-wasn't going to post again, but I changed my mind.

[DMC]

I felt this was deserving of it's own post.

DMC, the physicist consultant to various universities, says the universe is more likely infinite in that it has no beginning. Yet the truth is we've known it has a beginning for a very long time. We know that it likely is 13.5 gigayears old, and we know that time ceases to exist if the universe is condensed to the size of the "pre-bang". So we are very sure the universe has a beginning.

In fact, we've known this for a very long time. Let's say that time is infinite in the past, and the universe is infinitely old. In that case, all the light from all the stars would have had time to reach us. Thus, the night sky would be lit up brighter than the sun, and we would all be burned into oblivion. It's called Olber's paradox, and we've known about it for at least the past hundred years. It is considered the absolute disproof of both an infinite and eternal universe.

Knowing this, I've been debating the entire time holding it back, hoping others would catch on without me having to say "it's already been a given fact for the past hundred years and here's why". However, it doesn't appear our correspondents have been smart enough to figure it out on their own.

Let go of emotional attachments to your own beliefs. Search for what is true, accept what isn't, and have fun while you're doing it.

BL

By the way, someone is going to say that because the universe isn't static, and is expanding, Olber's paradox doesn't prove anything. They'd be right if the universe was expanding at the speed of light, but it isn't, and thus light would eventually catch up to every object in the universe from every star if it were infinitely old. They will actually, probably argue that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting, but we'll see... either way, I'm just waiting for them to screw up again ;-)

:lmao

[all_heart]

I've taken up for you at times, but this is really terrible stuff. You're basically saying you believe something because you believed it as a child. That's pathetic.

BL

Hello!?! Not at all, I was taught about God/Jesus as a child and still learn and read about Jesus as an adult and firmly believe Jesus is the Truth.

Why must everything be spelled out on here... THINK!!

[all_heart]

Not a good argument in my opinion - there are Christians in Muslim countries and they often are persecuted or killed for their beliefs (see Nigeria).

The fastest growing country for Christian converts is China right now, so I don't believe this argument is very strong.


Anybody care to guess why this is the case?

[DMC]

I felt this was deserving of it's own post.

DMC, the physicist consultant to various universities, says the universe is more likely infinite in that it has no beginning. Yet the truth is we've known it has a beginning for a very long time. We know that it likely is 13.5 gigayears old, and we know that time ceases to exist if the universe is condensed to the size of the "pre-bang". So we are very sure the universe has a beginning.

In fact, we've known this for a very long time. Let's say that time is infinite in the past, and the universe is infinitely old. In that case, all the light from all the stars would have had time to reach us. Thus, the night sky would be lit up brighter than the sun, and we would all be burned into oblivion. It's called Olber's paradox, and we've known about it for at least the past hundred years. It is considered the absolute disproof of both an infinite and eternal universe.

Knowing this, I've been debating the entire time holding it back, hoping others would catch on without me having to say "it's already been a given fact for the past hundred years and here's why". However, it doesn't appear our correspondents have been smart enough to figure it out on their own.

Let go of emotional attachments to your own beliefs. Search for what is true, accept what isn't, and have fun while you're doing it.

BL

By the way, someone is going to say that because the universe isn't static, and is expanding, Olber's paradox doesn't prove anything. They'd be right if the universe was expanding at the speed of light, but it isn't, and thus light would eventually catch up to every object in the universe from every star if it were infinitely old. They will actually, probably argue that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting, but we'll see... either way, I'm just waiting for them to screw up again ;-)

Since I realize I'm dealing with a troll here, this will be my last post on the subject, but check it out:

The strawmen:

I did not call myself a physicist.
I did not say I support the infinite universe aspect, just mentioned that GR does.

In the long winded response to my previous post, BL used almost every fallacy in the book, from "studies have shown" which is anonymous authority, to strawmen like those above to shifting the burden of proof like "prove electrons don't have perpetual motion".

I must admit I was mistaken though when I called BL a science plebe earlier, and BL took offense to it. BL is no science plebe. Plebes in science have a basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and don't make the mistake of equivocation between "tendencies" and "laws". They also understand that "cosmos" is the universe, so for a cosmos to exist, a universe exists. They understand that things that can affect the universe are considered part of the nature of that system. They don't allow special pleading to only allow that to get across the gap of understanding.

Ken Ham, on the other hand...

BL the clown is either a troll or a theist trying to get someone agree that there must be a creator, but the only fish he's snared is a starry eyed theist who needs no evidence in order to believe.

:nope

:lmao

[ElNono]

:lmao Elsa bitchslapped back to the kitchen

[DMC]

"Sometimes using the handle "Blue Lightning" when online (a holdover from a time when he worked for 2K Sports in San Rafael California), Frazier has a plethora of pastimes. He enjoys basketball, the San Antonio Spurs, snowboarding, voice over work, and theology/philosophy, among many other things. Frazier currently resides in Cleveland, Tennessee, teaches in northwest Georgia, and directs development of the Lifescape franchise."

He teaches language arts at North Murray High School. Makes sense he's intimidated by physics.

He writes sci-fi novels but he has a degree in biblical studies. It's a perfect shit storm of misunderstood science sprinkled with some creationism to appease the pocketbook. Nothing like a wannabe physicist who's stuck teaching language arts.

[Blue-Lightning]

Not a good argument in my opinion - there are Christians in Muslim countries and they often are persecuted or killed for their beliefs (see Nigeria).

The fastest growing country for Christian converts is China right now, so I don't believe this argument is very strong.

-wasn't going to post again, but I changed my mind.

That's a point against what All_Heart. It basically goes with what I think is a much better concept - looking at as many beliefs as you can, educating yourself, and believing based on knowledge rather than tradition.


Hello!?! Not at all, I was taught about God/Jesus as a child and still learn and read about Jesus as an adult and firmly believe Jesus is the Truth.

Why must everything be spelled out on here... THINK!!

You said you'd be a Muslim if you had been raised a Muslim. You're a Christian because you were raised a Christian. It's very unimpressive.


I did not call myself a physicist.
I did not say I support the infinite universe aspect, just mentioned that GR does.

We both know that you posted that GR does in order to present it as a viable option (it isn't). Now you're backing off.

Does General Relativity allow the universe to be infinitely old, or is that already known to be false? If it is false, why did you throw a false concept out there, knowing it was false?


In the long winded response to my previous post, BL used almost every fallacy in the book, from "studies have shown" which is anonymous authority, to strawmen like those above to shifting the burden of proof like "prove electrons don't have perpetual motion".

You only provide one example of why you feel I played the game unfairly, so feel free to quote the others if they exist. As for electrons:

Now the example you do give is ridiculous, because anybody who has studied atoms at the college level knows that electrons are in perpetual motion. Therefore, I didn't think I had to prove something widely known - I thought you would need to disprove it if that was your position.

But... since I have to show proof of something well-known...

The electrons in orbit around the nuclei of atoms are in effect little perpetual motion machines, at least in one construe of what those words mean, because they are perpetually in motion. -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=154

And since you've shown you don't like the internet for research, check out "Perpetual Motion; Electrons and Atoms in Crystlas" by Alec T Stewart (1965).

How many times can my trollish self be right and you be ridiculously wrong?


I must admit I was mistaken though when I called BL a science plebe earlier, and BL took offense to it. BL is no science plebe. Plebes in science have a basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and don't make the mistake of equivocation between "tendencies" and "laws". They also understand that "cosmos" is the universe, so for a cosmos to exist, a universe exists. They understand that things that can affect the universe are considered part of the nature of that system. They don't allow special pleading to only allow that to get across the gap of understanding.

I think that after some point of you being shown incorrect over, and over, and over, and over... you have to stop thinking your superior. So, please, this time, save me the time and just educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse


Ken Ham, on the other hand...

... is severely incorrect on a vast number of items, warping scientific observations to fit biblical views he holds. I would say he was dishonest, if I didn't believe he has such faith that he probably believes the fabrications he produces.


BL the clown is either a troll or a theist trying to get someone agree that there must be a creator, but the only fish he's snared is a starry eyed theist who needs no evidence in order to believe.

In the post you ignored, I listed all the things you've been demonstrably wrong about, and they were pretty blatant. Can you show one thing I've been wrong about? One thing? I've defended everything you've shown. You haven't.

Here's the list in case you missed it:

- You tried to correct me about the definition of "laws of physics." I then posted the actual definition, and it turns out you were wrong and I was right.

- You tried to correct me about time. You used the wrong definition, and I had to correct you again.

- You tried to correct me about electrons. Once again, I'm right, I have at least a hundred scholarly references to back me up if needed, and I'll correct you.

- I'm about to show you how we know the universe does not have an infinite past (as you say) in a way that should embarass you.

- In a physics / cosmology discussion, you asked me if "love" is infinite. Maybe the wiccans were impressed...

- You showed you didn't know the universal expansion is equally distributed. I had to show you, and you just attacked Wikipedia instead of actually being able to evaluate the position.

- You have repeatedly shown you don't understand the definition of "universe," which indicates you really aren't versed in any reputable multiverse theories.

- You assumed my positions come from the bible, despite the fact I don't see the bible as authoritative.

BL

[Blue-Lightning]

He teaches language arts at North Murray High School. Makes sense he's intimidated by physics.

He writes sci-fi novels but he has a degree in biblical studies. It's a perfect shit storm of misunderstood science sprinkled with some creationism to appease the pocketbook. Nothing like a wannabe physicist who's stuck teaching language arts.

You're dense, but let me see if I can get through to you.

I don't believe in creationism.

How's that?

Oh, and I'm also an app developer, and worked for four years as a 3D animator. It's fun to teach foreign language =) I started to tell you my connections with quantum computing, but then concluded better since that would be putting information on the web that shouldn't be made public. No need to give away information for an online pissing match ;-)

BL

[Blake]

I don't believe in creationism.

How's that?


No, you just believe the universe has a creator.

the difference is huge!

[Blue-Lightning]

No, you just believe the universe has a creator.

the difference is huge!

By that logic, I'm also a creationist becuase I believe a non-sentient sperm and egg created you. And by that logic, you're a creationist as well.

BL

[Blake]

By that logic, I'm also a creationist becuase I believe a non-sentient sperm and egg created you. And by that logic, you're a creationist as well.

BL

By what logic? I was simply reminding you that you believe the universe has a creator.

Either you are full of shit or you are playing a terrible game of semantics.

[all_heart]

You said you'd be a Muslim if you had been raised a Muslim. You're a Christian because you were raised a Christian. It's very unimpressive.
BL

Why in the world would that need to be impressive in the first place?! Just who is it supposed to impress and for what reason? What's your point?

What's unimpressive is the use of Olbers' paradox to support the idea of a finite universe. It makes a bad assumption on there being an infinite number of stars for one and two assumes that a star MUST be at the end of every sight line from Earth. Even IF there was a star at the end of every sight line from Earth doesn't mean that star's light is capable of reaching Earth in a significant measurable form. If I shine a flash light across the Gulf of Mexico to Florida, nobody in Florida is going to see that light, even if the Earth was flat. It wouldn't even illuminate an area past a mile.

[underdawg]

That's a point against what All_Heart. It basically goes with what I think is a much better concept - looking at as many beliefs as you can, educating yourself, and believing based on knowledge rather than tradition.

BL

Oh I wasn't attacking you, but the argument that people believe in their religion because that's their environment - converts (regardless of religion) prove that to be untrue.

[Blue-Lightning]

Why in the world would that need to be impressive in the first place?! Just who is it supposed to impress and for what reason? What's your point?

Well, I would think it's unimpressive to those you might want to influence.


What's unimpressive is the use of Olbers' paradox to support the idea of a finite universe. It makes a bad assumption on there being an infinite number of stars for one and two assumes that a star MUST be at the end of every sight line from Earth.

There are an estimated 9 sextillion stars in the universe - more then enough to fill every sight line if enough time had passed for all of them to reach us visibly.


Even IF there was a star at the end of every sight line from Earth doesn't mean that star's light is capable of reaching Earth in a significant measurable form. If I shine a flash light across the Gulf of Mexico to Florida, nobody in Florida is going to see that light, even if the Earth was flat. It wouldn't even illuminate an area past a mile.

The reason they wouldn't see it is because of the size of the light in comparison to the size of their view. However, 9 sextillion stars would indeed fill every milimeter of our view, even as tiny as they would be (actually, they would more than fill it).

Good point though =)

P.s. if you turn on the lights of your house on a mountain, people will see it from much, much farther than a mile away. And that's just a few flashlight-equivalent lights ;-)


By what logic? I was simply reminding you that you believe the universe has a creator.

Either you are full of shit or you are playing a terrible game of semantics.

I do believe the universe has a creator, in the same way that I believe a tree has a creator (germination), and the sun has a creator (massive gravity). It's a bit of a semantics game, but not really since a god is possible. It's just that I don't try to make that case.

BL

BL

[all_heart]

Oh I wasn't attacking you, but the argument that people believe in their religion because that's their environment - converts (regardless of religion) prove that to be untrue.

That happens quite a bit. Either way a belief is a belief, so long as it's your choice and believe it to be true. There is nothing wrong with being taught a religion as a child and sticking to that faith as an adult, so long as that person believes it to be true. Very common obviously.

[Blake]

Oh I wasn't attacking you, but the argument that people believe in their religion because that's their environment - converts (regardless of religion) prove that to be untrue.

In a shrinking world, no doubt that's not true, but historically speaking, it's very clear that geography plays a rather significant part in religious beliefs.

Not many Southern Baptists living in Canada, tbh.

[Blake]

I do believe the universe has a creator, in the same way that I believe a tree has a creator (germination), and the sun has a creator (massive gravity). It's a bit of a semantics game, but not really since a god is possible. It's just that I don't try to make that case.

BL

BL

So germination is a creator.

Lousy semantics game....figured as much.

[Blue-Lightning]

So germination is a creator.

Lousy semantics game....figured as much.

Well, what name do you want to call the unknown thing that created the universe??? I just go with the noun form of the verb "to create." Since I know what created a tree and a zygote, I can give them names. What do you want me to call the unknown creative source of the universe?

BL

[all_heart]

Well, I would think it's unimpressive to those you might want to influence.



There are an estimated 9 sextillion stars in the universe - more then enough to fill every sight line if enough time had passed for all of them to reach us visibly.



The reason they wouldn't see it is because of the size of the light in comparison to the size of their view. However, 9 sextillion stars would indeed fill every milimeter of our view, even as tiny as they would be (actually, they would more than fill it).

Good point though =)

P.s. if you turn on the lights of your house on a mountain, people will see it from much, much farther than a mile away. And that's just a few flashlight-equivalent lights ;-)



I do believe the universe has a creator, in the same way that I believe a tree has a creator (germination), and the sun has a creator (massive gravity). It's a bit of a semantics game, but not really since a god is possible. It's just that I don't try to make that case.

BL

BL

Can't say I'm in a position to influence anybody but myself and family.
The arrival of one's faith doesn't need to impress, however the actions of somebody based on their faith can be impressive, although impressing should not be their motivation.

So if the Earth is destroyed by falling skies, then Olbers paradox is true and it's game over.

The Miami Heat is going to jinx the Earth with their "White Out" BS! :depressed :rolleyes

[all_heart]

Well, what name do you want to call the unknown thing that created the universe??? I just go with the noun form of the verb "to create." Since I know what created a tree and a zygote, I can give them names. What do you want me to call the unknown creative source of the universe?

BL

One group would call it science.
A second group would call it a miracle.
And a third group would call it a combination of both.

[underdawg]

In a shrinking world, no doubt that's not true, but historically speaking, it's very clear that geography plays a rather significant part in religious beliefs.

Not many Southern Baptists living in Canada, tbh.

Actually, Chuck Swindoll has a pretty good following in Canada and I think Jack Graham does too.

I understand your point, but with the technology available today I believe that anyone truly seeking the answers given in the Bible can find them. There are many translations, but the ability to reference the original Greek or Hebrew is easily available and should be used as often as possible. I also believe that the Bible should trump any traditions of whatever Christian denomination there is out there.

[Amarelooms]

If you were born with any decency and common sense you wouldn't be such a vulgar prick, but you probably get off to that. You must be so miserable in your life to be this way, I actually feel sorry for you. George Carlin is a funny guy, but it's still ONE mans' opinion - big deal. Are you so easily influenced by entertainers and the media? - Pathetic. What do you believe? You capitalize "God". Why?

BTW, yea I probably would be Muslim if I was born in the ME.. so what? Thank God I wasn't. If you were born in France, guess what language you would speak? Your point?

Whole point dummy is that if there is a God he surely knows most people keep the religion they are born in....you didn't choose to believe in Jesus...you were brainwashed into it. So your Jesus is no greater than Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, etc

Jesus died for our sins right? What about the time before Jesus...those people not matter to God?

Most of what you believe is bullshit son....look past the none sense you've been feed and see the light....maybe there is a God but he sure as fuck doesn't care if your call yourself Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha'i or whatever.

God bless sons

:elephant

[Blake]

Actually, Chuck Swindoll has a pretty good following in Canada and I think Jack Graham does too.

I understand your point, but with the technology available today I believe that anyone truly seeking the answers given in the Bible can find them. There are many translations, but the ability to reference the original Greek or Hebrew is easily available and should be used as often as possible. I also believe that the Bible should trump any traditions of whatever Christian denomination there is out there.

Damn shame people 20+ years didn't have that kind of easy access and are now in hell.

[all_heart]

Whole point dummy is that if there is a God he surely knows most people keep the religion they are born in....you didn't choose to believe in Jesus...you were brainwashed into it. So your Jesus is no greater than Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, etc

Jesus died for our sins right? What about the time before Jesus...those people not matter to God?

Most of what you believe is bullshit son....look past the none sense you've been feed and see the light....maybe there is a God but he sure as fuck doesn't care if your call yourself Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha'i or whatever.

God bless sons



It seems all you do is wrongfully assume just about everything and talk out your ass. It's obvious your anti-religion so your opinion is biased resulting in insults and mockery. Did you bother to read the bible and listen to pastors or clergy and try to understand the message or did you just listen to people like George Carlin and let them decide for you? I feel I've explained myself well enough but you on the other hand just spew out crap like this. Very poor argument. Be man enough to say "I choose not to be a believer" and move on instead of bashing anybody who is not like you. There's nothing cool or smart about that.

[all_heart]

Damn shame people 20+ years didn't have that kind of easy access and are now in hell.

Why? Were these people mean a-holes? What are they guilty of?

[Blake]

Why? Were these people mean a-holes? What are they guilty of?

They were guilty of not having access to the literal Bible translations that we have today.

Fwiw, Christian faith generally accepts that there will be some mean a-holes in heaven (and some nice people in hell).

[all_heart]

They were guilty of not having access to the literal Bible translations that we have today.

Fwiw, Christian faith generally accepts that there will be some mean a-holes in heaven (and some nice people in hell).

Please explain your 2nd comment.

[disciple]

And Tim couldn't argue against God by denying miracles. He has clearly witnessed them -- both for him and against him.

And ... he couldn't argue against God by denying some sort of teleology or "design" in the universe, for, as it says, on the 6th day God created the Spurs. And he saw that they were perfect. How can the existence of basketball perfection happen in a non-teleological universe?


Ummmm, did God create anything that He called 'perfect'? I think he referred to his creations as 'good'. So, with that in mind, the Spurs are good. LOL

[all_heart]

It is a good day in Spurs land!! :)

[disciple]

I take it you are a Calvinist, then, and your parents are Arminian. Those devils!

Or is it that they prefer the old hymns, and you like contemporary stuff. Those old farts!

Big differences indeed. :bking

Agreed

"What reward do you get if you love only those who love you? Why, even the tax-collectors do that! And if you are friendly only to your friends, are you doing anything out of the ordinary?"

[Blake]

Please explain your 2nd comment.

Explain how?

I think what I stated seems clear enough

[all_heart]

Explain how?

I think what I stated seems clear enough


Actually it doesn't at all. But whatever, you probably can't do a good enough job anyways.

[Blake]

Actually it doesn't at all. But whatever, you probably can't do a good enough job anyways.

Sorry you haven't studied up on your faith to grasp such a simple concept.

:(

[disciple]

He seems smart enough to be an atheist.


Fascinating.

I have done much study on both sides of this argument. It does appear that the more intelligent person will side with atheism rather than religiosity due to their more cerebral reasoning of the topic. To be atheist you need to be able to state reasonable facts illustrating the lack of proof of a God. To be religious you must rely on faith.

Usually, once the discussion reaches the point of disproving God by the lack of any factual evidence it ends. In my opinion it ends there because of the true core of the persons desire. Whether there is a willingness to be accountable to any absoluteness.

I have always taken it a step past the 'God' proof finality.

In the simplest of reasoning alone, if the Atheist is correct what has the Christian lost? Nothing. If the Christian is right what has the Atheist lost? Everything. Logic alone seems clear to the conclusion unless there is more than simple reasoning involved.

[all_heart]

Sorry you haven't studied up on your faith to grasp such a simple concept.

:(

I get the whole non-Christian going to hell thing, BUT that is not for us to decide or judge.

So tell me about the mean people who make it to heaven?

[tmtcsc]

Ok all you atheists. We just got SJAck back for Dick Jefferson ! There's all the proof you need that God exists. :lol

[Blake]

I get the whole non-Christian going to hell thing, BUT that is not for us to decide or judge.

So tell me about the mean people who make it to heaven?

There's at least one proven thief in heaven.

you claim to know more about the Bible than me, how do you not know this?

[Blake]

In the simplest of reasoning alone, if the Atheist is correct what has the Christian lost? Nothing. If the Christian is right what has the Atheist lost? Everything. Logic alone seems clear to the conclusion unless there is more than simple reasoning involved.

Christians lose time and money to the church if they are wrong.

Political Christians also fuck up the happiness of others that don't want Bible law to be American law.

[underdawg]

Damn shame people 20+ years didn't have that kind of easy access and are now in hell.

speculate if you wish, but only God knows the hearts and destiny of men

[underdawg]

Christians lose time and money to the church if they are wrong.

Political Christians also fuck up the happiness of others that don't want Bible law to be American law.

I doubt many Christians would ever regret helping others regardless of the outcome.

As far as Christians messing up the happiness of others - there are always exceptions and that could be said of most any groups - religous or not. But, I'd say most Americans are pretty happy that we have our constitution and bill of rights. Over 75% of the men that signed the declaration of independence were self proclaimed Christians.

As I stated earlier, 7 of the top 10 charities in the US are Christian based. I believe that the good they do outweighs any of the "bad" laws passed by "Christian" politicians.

[Amarelooms]

They were guilty of not having access to the literal Bible translations that we have today.

Fwiw, Christian faith generally accepts that there will be some mean a-holes in heaven (and some nice people in hell).

There is no heaven or hell dummy....lol

:elephant

[Blake]

speculate if you wish, but only God knows the hearts and destiny of men

So you believe in pre destination.

...which would make God a huge ass hole for creating a person he knows is going to hell.

[Blake]

I doubt many Christians would ever regret helping others regardless of the outcome.

As far as Christians messing up the happiness of others - there are always exceptions and that could be said of most any groups - religous or not. But, I'd say most Americans are pretty happy that we have our constitution and bill of rights. Over 75% of the men that signed the declaration of independence were self proclaimed Christians.

As I stated earlier, 7 of the top 10 charities in the US are Christian based. I believe that the good they do outweighs any of the "bad" laws passed by "Christian" politicians.

I'm thinking more specifically of gay marriage issues among other things

[underdawg]

So you believe in pre destination.

...which would make God a huge ass hole for creating a person he knows is going to hell.

I believe in the pre-destination of Jesus Christ in that the plan was that Christ would atone for man's sins all along.

Man still has free will regardless of God knowing whether a person would choose God or not. God does not force man to choose him as he will not force man to spend eternity with him as well.

[DMC]

Fascinating.

I have done much study on both sides of this argument. It does appear that the more intelligent person will side with atheism rather than religiosity due to their more cerebral reasoning of the topic. To be atheist you need to be able to state reasonable facts illustrating the lack of proof of a God. To be religious you must rely on faith.

Usually, once the discussion reaches the point of disproving God by the lack of any factual evidence it ends. In my opinion it ends there because of the true core of the persons desire. Whether there is a willingness to be accountable to any absoluteness.

I have always taken it a step past the 'God' proof finality.

In the simplest of reasoning alone, if the Atheist is correct what has the Christian lost? Nothing. If the Christian is right what has the Atheist lost? Everything. Logic alone seems clear to the conclusion unless there is more than simple reasoning involved.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Pascal's Wager.

Welcome, I knew you would be here sooner or later.

Belief cannot be held or denied based on the benefits of the belief. It's induced, compelled, not decided upon.

If you can decide to believe something and make it so, you are delusional.

Also, atheist isn't a proper noun, so it's not capitalized. Yes it matters because theists love to capitalize it and say it's a religion.

[all_heart]

There's at least one proven thief in heaven.

you claim to know more about the Bible than me, how do you not know this?

If you know this then you should already know the man became a true Believer in Christ while on the cross next to him.

I don't know the Bible backwards and forwards, but even then I can recognize your weak arguments. Life isn't simple, religion can seem complicated.. I get that, but don't give up and throw what Faith you might have had all away.

[Blue-Lightning]

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Pascal's Wager.

Welcome, I knew you would be here sooner or later.

Belief cannot be held or denied based on the benefits of the belief. It's induced, compelled, not decided upon.

If you can decide to believe something and make it so, you are delusional.

Also, atheist isn't a proper noun, so it's not capitalized. Yes it matters because theists love to capitalize it and say it's a religion.

Waited 'til I was gone so it looked safe to come out again? lol

Let me know when you're ready to reconcile being wrong about:

- You tried to correct me about the definition of "laws of physics." I then posted the actual definition, and it turns out you were wrong and I was right.

- You tried to correct me about time. You used the wrong definition, and I had to correct you again.

- You tried to correct me about electrons. Once again, I'm right, I have at least a hundred scholarly references to back me up if needed, and I corrected you with multiple references.

- I showed you how we know the universe does not have an infinite past (as you say) through Olber's paradox. Before that, you contended it could.

- In a physics / cosmology discussion, you asked me if "love" is infinite. Maybe the wiccans were impressed...

- You showed you didn't know the universal expansion is equally distributed. I had to show you, and you just attacked Wikipedia instead of actually being able to evaluate the position.

- You have repeatedly shown you don't understand the definition of "universe," which indicates you really aren't versed in any reputable multiverse theories.

- You assumed my positions come from the bible, despite the fact I don't see the bible as authoritative.


I have done much study on both sides of this argument. It does appear that the more intelligent person will side with atheism rather than religiosity due to their more cerebral reasoning of the topic. To be atheist you need to be able to state reasonable facts illustrating the lack of proof of a God. To be religious you must rely on faith.

For someone who has "done much study," you don't seem at the front of the line on the subject. Atheism is a belief system, just as all other belief systems except agnosticism. It believes in something which cannot be proven, just as Muslims believe in a god which cannot be proven, just as Christians, and just as reincarnation cannot be proven for those who adopt that belief. Atheism is not science.

And by the way - all reasoning takes place in the cerebral cortex, after information assimilation in the hypothalamus. So you might want to stop using the phrase "more cerebral reasoning" as it makes you sound like a moron.


There is no heaven or hell dummy....lol

I don't know... my life's pretty heavenly, and I'd imagine the Sudanese would disagree about there not being a hell.

;-)

BL

[Blake]

There is no heaven or hell dummy....lol

:elephant

Reading comprehension failure, dumbfuck

:elephant :elephant

[Blake]

I believe in the pre-destination of Jesus Christ in that the plan was that Christ would atone for man's sins all along.

Man still has free will regardless of God knowing whether a person would choose God or not. God does not force man to choose him as he will not force man to spend eternity with him as well.

We know there will be souls in hell, therefore God knows there will be souls in hell.....yet he created these souls any way.

It would be one thing if the end result for non-believers is simply to not exist any more after death.......but Bible God wants to keep the non-believer's soul "alive", burning and tormenting that soul forever.

That's not love. That's sick and twisted.

Bible God is a fucked up ass hole.

[Blake]

If you know this then you should already know the man became a true Believer in Christ while on the cross next to him.

So he's suddenly no longer a mean ass hole? :lol

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but in Bible heaven, there will be murderers, thieves, rapists, and child molesters.

:tu


I don't know the Bible backwards and forwards, but even then I can recognize your weak arguments. Life isn't simple, religion can seem complicated.. I get that, but don't give up and throw what Faith you might have had all away.

You barely know the Bible at all. My guess is you just go on what you hear from preachers.

Only a fool would invest much time, energy and/or money in something without doing the necessary research on it.

[all_heart]

So he's suddenly no longer a mean ass hole? :lol

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but in Bible heaven, there will be murderers, thieves, rapists, and child molesters.

:tu



You barely know the Bible at all. My guess is you just go on what you hear from preachers.

Only a fool would invest much time, energy and/or money in something without doing the necessary research on it.

If so then that means they will have been forgiven, so that's good enough for me.

Only a fool would keep presenting weak arguments.

[all_heart]

We know there will be souls in hell, therefore God knows there will be souls in hell.....yet he created these souls any way.

It would be one thing if the end result for non-believers is simply to not exist any more after death.......but Bible God wants to keep the non-believer's soul "alive", burning and tormenting that soul forever.

That's not love. That's sick and twisted.

Bible God is a fucked up ass hole.

So does that scare you? Sounds like something the devil would say, you've seen The Devils Advocate? Good movie.

Like I said before.. Life isn't simple, religion can seem complicated.. I get that, but don't give up and throw what Faith you might have had all away.

[Blake]

If so then that means they will have been forgiven, so that's good enough for me.

Only a fool would keep presenting weak arguments.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply explaining the crazy logic of your belief system to you.

I think you're nuts for being ok with possibly living next door to a guy like Charles Manson for eternity, but feel free.

[all_heart]

Well that's the problem, you are trying to understand the concept of Faith with logic... you can't - that's why they call it Faith.

I don't believe people live next door to each other in heaven :) I'm not even sure how the concept of prior life on Earth works out in Heaven, I just hope to recognize my family and friends.

[Blake]

So does that scare you? Sounds like something the devil would say, you've seen The Devils Advocate? Good movie.

Like I said before.. Life isn't simple, religion can seem complicated.. I get that, but don't give up and throw what Faith you might have had all away.

If it were true it would scare me and piss me off at the same time that God is a hypocritical ass hole.

It's not really complicated. God says that if you don't want to be his friend that he will fuck you up.

Great guy. :tu

[Blake]

Well that's the problem, you are trying to understand the concept of Faith with logic... you can't - that's why they call it Faith.

I don't believe people live next door to each other in heaven :) I'm not even sure how the concept of prior life on Earth works out in Heaven, I just hope to recognize my family and friends.

So you are admitting God is illogical.

Great logic in believing in something illogical. :tu

[all_heart]

So you are admitting God is illogical.

Great logic in believing in something illogical. :tu

Not at all. You never seem to get the point. You really have problems understanding the concept of Faith.

[tmtcsc]

We know there will be souls in hell, therefore God knows there will be souls in hell.....yet he created these souls any way.

It would be one thing if the end result for non-believers is simply to not exist any more after death.......but Bible God wants to keep the non-believer's soul "alive", burning and tormenting that soul forever.

That's not love. That's sick and twisted.

Bible God is a fucked up ass hole.

Blake, its clear you have a very limited and narrow understanding of Purgatory, Heaven, Hell and what the Bible teaches of the afterlife.

You also don't seem to grasp the idea of man being created with Free Will and being autonomous. We all have the ability to choose our own paths.

In the end, even non-believers will have a chance to save their souls. The apostle Thomas (Doubting Thomas) had an issue with belief and was forgiven.

The apostle Peter denied knowing Jesus 3 times to save his own ass before Christ was crucified. Jesus told him he was going to do it too. Not only was he forgiven, Jesus made Peter the foundation of the Church.

So no, Bible God is not some ass hole that wants to see people burn in hell. He is a forgiving God.

You should consider taking a class on Christian and Jewish scripture classes. You will understand why God seems to be vindictive and vengeful in one instance but all-forgiving in others. There's a very good reason for it.
It all has to do with the audience.

People are all motivated by different things. Some respond to threats and the fear of being sent to Hell while others are motivated by the rewards of Heaven. The disciples knew this and used stories that would reach their audience accordingly.

It's kind of like politics. Do you think Obama would go to Texas and talk about how he is going to help the auto industry ? No more than he would go to Detroit and talk about immigration and border issues.

[all_heart]

Well said ^, thank you tmtcsc.

[Blake]

Not at all. You never seem to get the point. You really have problems understanding the concept of Faith.

You just basically said faith in Bible God is not logical.

I agree.

[Agloco]

You also don't seem to grasp the idea of man being created with Free Will and being autonomous. We all have the ability to choose our own paths.

In the end, even non-believers will have a chance to save their souls. The apostle Thomas (Doubting Thomas) had an issue with belief and was forgiven.



First you say we are free to choose our own paths. Next you state that there really isn't a choice after all.

So what is it?

[Proxy]

People are all motivated by different things. Some respond to threats and the fear of being sent to Hell while others are motivated by the rewards of Heaven. The disciples knew this and used stories that would reach their audience accordingly.


Atheists like myself and Blake are good people without the incentive of reward or consequence of punishment. We aren't making the decision to do the right thing because some man in the clouds is playing Santa.

Stop posting on this thread. Let it die. How many times do you and heart have to get spanked by logic? You're obviously too close minded to even research the other side of the argument... or maybe them maths and science lectures be too hard to understand for you two to follow.

[Blake]

So no, Bible God is not some ass hole that wants to see people burn in hell. He is a forgiving God.

Why did God create Hell?


You should consider taking a class on Christian and Jewish scripture classes. You will understand why God seems to be vindictive and vengeful in one instance but all-forgiving in others. There's a very good reason for it.
It all has to do with the audience.

lol audience

Why did he allow children to be killed by bears because they called a prophet "baldy"?


People are all motivated by different things. Some respond to threats and the fear of being sent to Hell while others are motivated by the rewards of Heaven. The disciples knew this and used stories that would reach their audience accordingly.

The concept of a fiery, eternal damnation is an awesome motivational tool preachers use to put butts in the pews and money in the plate.

[Agloco]

I ran over Schrodinger's cat today. I am not sure if it died.

:toast

:lol


Begin counting from an infinitely negative number and when you reach zero, let me know.

Define two things for me: Infinity, and number. Now tell me if you can use both together as you did above.

Once you define any negative number, however "infinitely" large, it becomes determinate. One can eventually reach zero from any determined quantity.



It doesn't have to be zero; it can be any number. So, tell me how one can reach zero then. According to your infinite regress problem, reaching a plotted point would be impossible, right?


It is much simpler than that. It means you can never cross the threshold of your door, because you can only move half the distance before you reach the next half and so on, therefore according to the infinite regress of the camel's nose and my beard, you are stuck in time with your temples, your massage parlors.

Its a matter of basic motion tbh. Assuming a constant velocity, this apparent paradox is quite simple to unravel. Sure the distance interval may be infinitely halved, so too is the time interval needed to reach each one.

Thus, time approaches zero in the infinite regress limit. We lack the ability to perceive such short intervals.

[Agloco]

Not at all. You never seem to get the point. You really have problems understanding the concept of Faith.


So you are admitting God is illogical.

Great logic in believing in something illogical. :tu

Blake nailed it tbh.

I personally feel that believing in something without proof is illogical.

If you don't feel the same, more power to you. :toast

[Fernando TD21]

Blake nailed it tbh.

I personally feel that believing in something without proof is illogical.

If you don't feel the same, more power to you. :toast
If there is proof you don't have to believe in it, you would know it. Again, it would be science not faith.

You may believe that god doesn't exist, but without proof you can't say with 100% of certainty that that is true. That would be illogical.

[all_heart]

You just basically said faith in Bible God is not logical.

I agree.

It's obviously not logical for those that need physical proof, proof that you can see. I don't need that type of proof to have my Faith, I don't care what your or anybody else says about that in the least bit. You still don't understand because you refuse to, somehow you find it offensive and it shows. tmtcsc NAILED it perfectly in his post above, but instead you and others like proxy are so quick to come in and shit all over it. What's the matter, do the words he posted bother you so much, you scared of something? Are you scared that he could be right? Are you scared how your life may change if you accept the Truth? If you are so confident in your own beliefs, you don't need trash others.

The science "talk" of this whole thread is completely beyond what matters in what I state above ^. Interesting read sure, but at the end of the day it's all theory and conjecture. It stimulates some brain cells but does nothing for the soul.

[tmtcsc]

First you say we are free to choose our own paths. Next you state that there really isn't a choice after all.

So what is it?

It's two different things. You have a choice of whether to believe or not. Right ? No one is pointing a gun at your head.

You and the other atheists in here have made up your mind that you don't believe in God. Going by the vitriol that's been spewed about for the faithful and God, I'm pretty sure the atheists posting in this thread aren't changing their minds. So be it. YOUR CHOICE.

When you pass on to the after-life and realize you are wrong, I believe you will have a chance to see the error of your ways and accept or deny God's love at that point. If even then you don't want any part of God, you'll have your way.

[Blue-Lightning]

Define two things for me: Infinity, and number. Now tell me if you can use both together as you did above.

That was the point, genius.


Once you define any negative number, however "infinitely" large, it becomes determinate. One can eventually reach zero from any determined quantity.

Congrats on understanding what I was saying. If the past if infinitely old, you can't get to the present. If it is finite (numerably) old, you can.

BL

[underdawg]

Why did God create Hell?



lol audience

Why did he allow children to be killed by bears because they called a prophet "baldy"?



The concept of a fiery, eternal damnation is an awesome motivational tool preachers use to put butts in the pews and money in the plate.

With no clear explanation in the Bible, but by looking at the Bible as a whole - I'd say that God chose not to destroy the souls of his creation and why would he then force those people to spend eternity with him? That would go against free will.

Personally, I believe that the use of fire in describing hell is used as a metaphor. Hell is also described as darkness and if there is fire, how would there be darkness? I also believe the purpose of this language is not meant to be a threat, but a warning to those that choose not to believe that an eternity apart from God will be very miserable (gnashing of teeth, etc.) You can argue that just being wiped out from existence is better than eternal punishment, but some will argue back that having an existence is better than none - no matter what the circumstance.

As far as the bears and the 42 children - any judgement that's shown in the Bible can probably be second guessed depending on your opinion. Even though this isn't an example of God making a direct judgement on his people, but it was God allowing one of his prophets to make that judgement and giving him the power to do so.

I believe God was more severe in his punishments in the Old Testament because he was more obvious to his people at that time through direct communication with them through his prophets. Rebellion was tolerated for the most part, but there are a few examples where the rebellion was dealt with for the purpose of saving others in the long run.

I don't know the mind of God obviously, but in order to believe in a righteous God and an all knowing God, I'm inclined to believe that a God that can create the universe and that knows our thoughts is also able to make judgements there are overall better for the good of humanity.

[gospursgojas]

Obviously Tim believes in God as he prayed for the return Jax.

[tmtcsc]

Atheists like myself and Blake are good people without the incentive of reward or consequence of punishment. We aren't making the decision to do the right thing because some man in the clouds is playing Santa.

Stop posting on this thread. Let it die. How many times do you and heart have to get spanked by logic? You're obviously too close minded to even research the other side of the argument... or maybe them maths and science lectures be too hard to understand for you two to follow.

Proxy, you really are an ass. And no, you are not good people. You're a prick. You insult and mock people for their belief in God. Not that being in the minority means you are wrong, but Atheists represent only about 3 % of the people on the planet. Good for you smart guy.

You seem to maintain this false assertion that those who believe in God are stupid, uneducated and lacking common sense. That somehow believing in God is akin to believing in tooth fairies, wizards, gods of greek mythology, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. That's a bunch of BS and highly insulting.

You're the one who needs to give up on this thread. You have utterly failed.
Applying your limited knowledge of science, philosophy and logic to this discussion is worthless. You have no grasp of spirituality.

You've failed to state your case in a bunch of related topics such as the existence of God, the place for organized religion/dogma in the modern world, the origins of the universe, etc. and your weak ass efforts are boring and tiresome.

Give me some formulas for human spirit or happiness. Can math prove they exist ? Are you going to delve in to biology, philosophy or physics to come up with your answer for kindness ?

Is it logical to sacrifice your life to save someone else? For you, No. In your case, it means your existence would be over. Your ability to pro-create and further advance your understanding is over. It goes against logic. Does that make it unbelievable or wrong to do it? Does that mean it doesn't happen.

You can't explain love to someone who's never felt it, just like you can't explain God to someone who is unwilling to believe or listen.

You're a black hole. May Zeus bless you and keep you safe from the Boogie man. May you a role a 10 for charisma the next time you play Dungeons and Dragons and finally May the Force be with you.

[Blake]

You may believe that god doesn't exist, but without proof you can't say with 100% of certainty that that is true. That would be illogical.

Nobody can currently be 100% certain about how the universe came to be, but I am 100% certain the God of the Bible is a bullshit legend.

[Blake]

It's obviously not logical for those that need physical proof, proof that you can see. I don't need that type of proof to have my Faith, I don't care what your or anybody else says about that in the least bit. You still don't understand because you refuse to, somehow you find it offensive and it shows. tmtcsc NAILED it perfectly in his post above, but instead you and others like proxy are so quick to come in and shit all over it. What's the matter, do the words he posted bother you so much, you scared of something? Are you scared that he could be right? Are you scared how your life may change if you accept the Truth? If you are so confident in your own beliefs, you don't need trash others.

The science "talk" of this whole thread is completely beyond what matters in what I state above ^. Interesting read sure, but at the end of the day it's all theory and conjecture. It stimulates some brain cells but does nothing for the soul.

lol

I haven't trashed anyone in particular. Sorry my personal views cause your butt to hurt. :(

[Blake]

With no clear explanation in the Bible, but by looking at the Bible as a whole - I'd say that God chose not to destroy the souls of his creation and why would he then force those people to spend eternity with him? That would go against free will.

He created man to begin with without asking permission, ftr.

The next step in your logic is to conclude there is no free will in heaven.

[Blake]

Proxy, you really are an ass. And no, you are not good people. You're a prick. You insult and mock people for their belief in God.

You're a black hole. May Zeus bless you and keep you safe from the Boogie man. May you a role a 10 for charisma the next time you play Dungeons and Dragons and finally May the Force be with you.

What Jesus would want you to post :tu

[all_heart]

lol

I haven't trashed anyone in particular. Sorry my personal views cause your butt to hurt. :(

That's quite laughable...

[all_heart]

He created man to begin with without asking permission, ftr.

The next step in your logic is to conclude there is no free will in heaven.

Your first comment is asinine and worse. You should be embarrassed.

Actually there probably is free will in heaven, remember the whole Lucifer thing?! There is probably a whole more to that story than we know TBH.

[DMC]

:toast

:lol



Define two things for me: Infinity, and number. Now tell me if you can use both together as you did above.

Once you define any negative number, however "infinitely" large, it becomes determinate. One can eventually reach zero from any determined quantity.






Its a matter of basic motion tbh. Assuming a constant velocity, this apparent paradox is quite simple to unravel. Sure the distance interval may be infinitely halved, so too is the time interval needed to reach each one.

Thus, time approaches zero in the infinite regress limit. We lack the ability to perceive such short intervals.
Yeah I know, I was just throwing all the "going to come up in this thread" things into one statement.

[Blake]

That's quite laughable...

Agreed. Message board butthurt usually is.

[DMC]

Blake nailed it tbh.

I personally feel that believing in something without proof is illogical.

If you don't feel the same, more power to you. :toast
I don't think it's illogical if you believe something you cannot prove, but if you believe something that has not been proven to you, you are delusional, not illogical. If you're delusional, it's logical that you would believe something without evidence.

Also, BL is a language arts teacher with a degree in bible studies who writes paperback science fiction books. If you try to discuss physics with him, you will get bombarded with high school level understanding of science, websites and Wiki references and lots of intellectual whoopass.

[Proxy]

Proxy, you really are an ass. And no, you are not good people. You're a prick. You insult and mock people for their belief in God. Not that being in the minority means you are wrong, but Atheists represent only about 3 % of the people on the planet. Good for you smart guy.

You seem to maintain this false assertion that those who believe in God are stupid, uneducated and lacking common sense. That somehow believing in God is akin to believing in tooth fairies, wizards, gods of greek mythology, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. That's a bunch of BS and highly insulting.

You're the one who needs to give up on this thread. You have utterly failed.
Applying your limited knowledge of science, philosophy and logic to this discussion is worthless. You have no grasp of spirituality.

You've failed to state your case in a bunch of related topics such as the existence of God, the place for organized religion/dogma in the modern world, the origins of the universe, etc. and your weak ass efforts are boring and tiresome.

Give me some formulas for human spirit or happiness. Can math prove they exist ? Are you going to delve in to biology, philosophy or physics to come up with your answer for kindness ?

Is it logical to sacrifice your life to save someone else? For you, No. In your case, it means your existence would be over. Your ability to pro-create and further advance your understanding is over. It goes against logic. Does that make it unbelievable or wrong to do it? Does that mean it doesn't happen.

You can't explain love to someone who's never felt it, just like you can't explain God to someone who is unwilling to believe or listen.

You're a black hole. May Zeus bless you and keep you safe from the Boogie man. May you a role a 10 for charisma the next time you play Dungeons and Dragons and finally May the Force be with you.

I have, "a limited understanding of knowledge of science, philosophy and logic"... sure, I won't disagree with you there.

Grasp of spirituality? Well, I'm a strong believer in the majority of what Buddhism teaches. (Unfortunately, I have a hard time keeping a Buddhist mentality with people on this board) If you were to read up on teachings by the Dalai Lama, you would notice that Buddhism and Atheism don't contradict... and I'll tell you that reincarnation is not what you think it is before you jump to some reason to try and prove otherwise.

Another part of this 'spirituality' you speak of... is understanding human psychology. Understand the limited knowledge we have of how our brain works... understanding why you feel a certain way. Happiness, sadness... just because I understand how and why they work, doesn't make them any less real to me than they do as mysterious workings of some inner soul to you.


What I assume of Christians is that they are scared of truth. They display this behavior with their lack of wanting to understand. Because they lack the will to understand, their general psyche is that of contentment with this world; I am not. They usually respond with anger and stubbornness to read what is in front of them, and this thread is a great example.

Then again, I understand that giving in to superstition is a part of your evolutionary path that protects you from feeling worthless. Feeling worthless without God isn't something easy to grasp and get over... but a person makes his own purpose. Not some omnipotent deity. Saying God is responsible for so much in this universe is just a sign of immaturity in not taking responsibility and control of your own life.


Let me say, you are assuming a SHITload about me. Sacrificing myself for someone else? Just as hard of a decision for me as it would be for you. It actually can stand a test of logic... but to you, I'm a robot. Couldn't be further from the truth.

PS - I've most of my life believing in God... so I wouldn't exaclty say I'm unwilling to listen or believe. I gave dogma it's chance. Why don't you humor me and do the same in opposite fashion?

[Fernando TD21]

Nobody can currently be 100% certain about how the universe came to be, but I am 100% certain the God of the Bible is a bullshit legend.
I don't believe in "god of the bible" either, but that god is just one of the possibilities. And I think that people who believes in "god of the bible" aren't exactly logical so it's pretty stupid to try to use logic to convince them that they're wrong.

[Fernando TD21]

I don't think it's illogical if you believe something you cannot prove, but if you believe something that has not been proven to you, you are delusional, not illogical. If you're delusional, it's logical that you would believe something without evidence.

I would say that a delusional person is someone who believes in something that is unlikely to be true or that has been proven not to be true. Believing in something that has no evidence supporting it or against it, doesn't make a person delusional.

[all_heart]

I have, "a limited understanding of knowledge of science, philosophy and logic"... sure, I won't disagree with you there.

Grasp of spirituality? Well, I'm a strong believer in the majority of what Buddhism teaches. (Unfortunately, I have a hard time keeping a Buddhist mentality with people on this board) If you were to read up on teachings by the Dalai Lama, you would notice that Buddhism and Atheism don't contradict... and I'll tell you that reincarnation is not what you think it is before you jump to some reason to try and prove otherwise.

Another part of this 'spirituality' you speak of... is understanding human psychology. Understand the limited knowledge we have of how our brain works... understanding why you feel a certain way. Happiness, sadness... just because I understand how and why they work, doesn't make them any less real to me than they do as mysterious workings of some inner soul to you.


What I assume of Christians is that they are scared of truth. They display this behavior with their lack of wanting to understand. Because they lack the will to understand, their general psyche is that of contentment with this world; I am not. They usually respond with anger and stubbornness to read what is in front of them, and this thread is a great example.

Then again, I understand that giving in to superstition is a part of your evolutionary path that protects you from feeling worthless. Feeling worthless without God isn't something easy to grasp and get over... but a person makes his own purpose. Not some omnipotent deity. Saying God is responsible for so much in this universe is just a sign of immaturity in not taking responsibility and control of your own life.


Let me say, you are assuming a SHITload about me. Sacrificing myself for someone else? Just as hard of a decision for me as it would be for you. It actually can stand a test of logic... but to you, I'm a robot. Couldn't be further from the truth.

PS - I've most of my life believing in God... so I wouldn't exaclty say I'm unwilling to listen or believe. I gave dogma it's chance. Why don't you humor me and do the same in opposite fashion?

Sorry you lost your Faith but to think we should all take your lead is pretty stupid. You don't like people assuming things about you? You are pretty much doing the same, saying Christians don't do this or that and saying we are actually scared of what YOU believe is the truth?! C'mon man give us a break! People in general aren't perfect but that doesn't mean you lose confidence in the core values of religion and what it stands for. I'm not trying to change what your own personal beliefs are. I'm just trying to get you and others like you to stop insulting people who believe in a religion. That's what bigots do. Again, sorry religion failed you. There's a lot of info here, I've read some of it, you may find it interesting too if you care to read it.
http://www.godandscience.org/

[all_heart]

Nobody can currently be 100% certain about how the universe came to be, but I am 100% certain the God of the Bible is a bullshit legend.

Congrats, you just contradicted yourself in one sentence.

[Proxy]

Sorry you lost your Faith but to think we should all take your lead is pretty stupid. You don't like people assuming things about you? You are pretty much doing the same, saying Christians don't do this or that and saying we are actually scared of what YOU believe is the truth?! C'mon man give us a break! People in general aren't perfect but that doesn't mean you lose confidence in the core values of religion and what it stands for. I'm not trying to change what your own personal beliefs are. I'm just trying to get you and others like you to stop insulting people who believe in a religion. That's what bigots do. Again, sorry religion failed you. There's a lot of info here, I've read some of it, you may find it interesting too if you care to read it.
http://www.godandscience.org/

I find it insulting that religious views dictate the direction of the national and state government of United States of America among other countries. I find it insulting that a history of racism, anti-feminism, and homophobic views stem from western religion. I find it insulting that people think religion holds more weight in laying down laws and influencing social opinion on abortion, birth control, and sex in general... when that is something entirely within the scientific jurisdiction. I find it insulting that a huge number of priests have sodomized many innocent children, only to have the Vatican defend them. I find it insulting that children are killed, mutilated, and mentally defaced in the name of ignorance by religious beliefs over common sense. I find it insulting that people are willing to murder by terrorism, war, and genocide in the name of their religious affiliation or personal psychotic approval from their god.

[pgardn]

It's two different things. You have a choice of whether to believe or not. Right ? No one is pointing a gun at your head.

You and the other atheists in here have made up your mind that you don't believe in God. Going by the vitriol that's been spewed about for the faithful and God, I'm pretty sure the atheists posting in this thread aren't changing their minds. So be it. YOUR CHOICE.

When you pass on to the after-life and realize you are wrong, I believe you will have a chance to see the error of your ways and accept or deny God's love at that point. If even then you don't want any part of God, you'll have your way.

If you had just stopped before the bolded. Damn.

When you state the bolded, then you leave yourself open to questioning about how you came to this conclusion/judgement. "Do you have a phone line to the big-fella" etc... This is where people of faith get themselves in deep do-do. You make these judgements based on your belief, with is faith based, and then people delve into where your faith arises. And then they twist you like a pretzel. Faith does not happen out of nowhere.

Then you attempt to scramble out of the mud using logic. Its a losing game. God should have exempted us from reason, it would have been so easy. But no we dont want it easy, we want you to go against reason, make a choice, and have faith, which is also based on a type of reason, which is based on upbringing and or the bible for most on the board who choose to argue in this manner.

Darn it...

[all_heart]

I find it insulting that religious views dictate the direction of the national and state government of United States of America among other countries. I find it insulting that a history of racism, anti-feminism, and homophobic views stem from western religion. I find it insulting that people think religion holds more weight in laying down laws and influencing social opinion on abortion, birth control, and sex in general... when that is something entirely within the scientific jurisdiction. I find it insulting that a huge number of priests have sodomized many innocent children, only to have the Vatican defend them. I find it insulting that children are killed, mutilated, and mentally defaced in the name of ignorance by religious beliefs over common sense. I find it insulting that people are willing to murder by terrorism, war, and genocide in the name of their religious affiliation or personal psychotic approval from their god.

I agree. I hope all of what you said is history one day. Policy and actions should stem from common sense, goodwill, accountability and a common code of ethics. Most religions say they have a foundation of peace, well it's time to show it. But unfortunately that's way too easy to say and difficult to do. There should be a separation of church and state that still allows freedom of expression so long as it doesn't trample on the freedom of others and is respectful to all. Westboro church protesting at funerals.... not cool.

[Blake]

Congrats, you just contradicted yourself in one sentence.

I don't know how it started but I can reasonably and logically rule out Bible God and the flying spaghetti monster.

You just further confirmed that your reading comprehension skills suck. Congrats.

[Blake]

I find it insulting that religious views dictate the direction of the national and state government of United States of America among other countries. I find it insulting that a history of racism, anti-feminism, and homophobic views stem from western religion. I find it insulting that people think religion holds more weight in laying down laws and influencing social opinion on abortion, birth control, and sex in general...

^

[Blake]

Your first comment is asinine and worse. You should be embarrassed.

Actually there probably is free will in heaven, remember the whole Lucifer thing?! There is probably a whole more to that story than we know TBH.

So you are saying it's possible to get kicked out of heaven once you get there?

That would contradict God's promise of eternal life to mankind through Jesus.

[pgardn]

Cool thing about religion. You can take the pieces of it you like, mold it to fit your notions, and call it THE WORD. One can just make up their own rules about getting to heaven, what heaven is, staying in heaven, how to come to know God; what God wants, what God thinks, what God wants for you, what God wants for others, how many Gods there are (the trinity thing, or is that now passe...) And if your are John Hagee, you can make huge bucks on it by saving people that are guilty about making too much money. Apparently the wealth is not transferable, it comes with a fee.

"I dont know..." its a hard admission to make. So instead, make stuff up.

[DMC]

I would say that a delusional person is someone who believes in something that is unlikely to be true or that has been proven not to be true. Believing in something that has no evidence supporting it or against it, doesn't make a person delusional.
In logic, there's also inductive reasoning which I believe many theists rely on. That's why I say it's not illogical. Some reasoning, however, meets the criteria for being delusional, especially when the believer sees events around them as being personal signs.

[all_heart]

So you are saying it's possible to get kicked out of heaven once you get there?

That would contradict God's promise of eternal life to mankind through Jesus.

Apparently that's the way it worked for Lucifer, he was God's #1 angel, full of beauty but it all got to his head and he wanted to be like God.

It may not work like that for us.. that's to be continued...

Reading comprehension? Sorry dude you take lowest honors, this was proven last week.

[DMC]

Apparently that's the way it worked for Lucifer, he was God's #1 angel, full of beauty but it all got to his head and he wanted to be like God.

It may not work like that for us.. that's to be continued...

Reading comprehension? Sorry dude you take lowest honors, this was proven last week.
33% of the angels agreed and left. Doesn't sound like paradise to me.

[Blake]

Apparently that's the way it worked for Lucifer, he was God's #1 angel, full of beauty but it all got to his head and he wanted to be like God.

It may not work like that for us.. that's to be continued...

If it doesn't work like that for you, you lack free will.

If God kicks you out because you exercise your free will, then God broke his promise.


Reading comprehension? Sorry dude you take lowest honors, this was proven last week.

lol proven

Keep the faith

[DMC]

Dear Lord baby Jesus, lyin' there in your ghost manger, just lookin' at your Baby Einstein developmental videos, learnin' 'bout shapes and colors. I would like to thank you for bringin' me and my mama together, and also that my kids no longer sound like retarded gang-bangers.

[underdawg]

If it doesn't work like that for you, you lack free will.

If God kicks you out because you exercise your free will, then God broke his promise.



lol proven

Keep the faith

there's no evidence from the Bible to suggest that there isn't free will in God's kingdom. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that there's no sin or temptation so the idea of rebelling against God would seem improbable. I'm going to guess that if someone wanted to leave they certainly would be accommodated, but that would be the person's fault not God's.

[underdawg]

Dear Lord baby Jesus, lyin' there in your ghost manger, just lookin' at your Baby Einstein developmental videos, learnin' 'bout shapes and colors. I would like to thank you for bringin' me and my mama together, and also that my kids no longer sound like retarded gang-bangers.

what's that from?

[underdawg]

33% of the angels agreed and left. Doesn't sound like paradise to me.

they didn't voluntarily leave - they were banished for their rebellion

[all_heart]

what's that from?

Talladega Nights

[all_heart]

If it doesn't work like that for you, you lack free will.

If God kicks you out because you exercise your free will, then God broke his promise.


I don't think God wants a relationship with robots, so there is a good chance freewill exists in heaven as well.

[DMC]

they didn't voluntarily leave - they were banished for their rebellion
thus "agreed and left".

Who would rebel against a perfect entity in a perfect setting? Angels, that's who. Fucking angels.

[DMC]

I don't think God wants a relationship with robots, so there is a good chance freewill exists in heaven as well.

Christian: No one knows the mind of God

Christian: I think God wants...

Seriously, do you sit around and imagine conclusions to movies that have ended already, wondering what happened after the credits rolled, like it's still going on in some dimension somewhere? Do you ever wonder what Tom Sawyer's kids looked like?

It's fiction. Why are you trying to move the story along further than it's written? Your imagination on it is absolutely useless, it means nothing.

[pgardn]

Christian: No one knows the mind of God

Christian: I think God wants...



Contradictions are allowed by God...

I think.

[pgardn]

Talladega Nights

In severely altered form.

But heck, poetic license runs rampant on this thread.

[Blake]

there's no evidence from the Bible to suggest that there isn't free will in God's kingdom. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that there's no sin or temptation so the idea of rebelling against God would seem improbable. I'm going to guess that if someone wanted to leave they certainly would be accommodated, but that would be the person's fault not God's.

So many paradoxes and/or contradictions to choose from here...
I'll go with this one:

Does Lucifer lack free will? After all, his path has been chosen for him...

If not, how stupid do you have to be to think you could overthrow an omnipotent/omniscient being? Satan's not some cunning deceiver.....he's a fucking idiot.

[Blake]

I don't think God wants a relationship with robots, so there is a good chance freewill exists in heaven as well.

You can't see the problem.

Shocking.

[Blake]

thus "agreed and left".

Who would rebel against a perfect entity in a perfect setting? Angels, that's who. Fucking angels.

Genius angels

[pgardn]

So many paradoxes and/or contradictions to choose from here...
I'll go with this one:

Does Lucifer lack free will? After all, his path has been chosen for him...

If not, how stupid do you have to be to think you could overthrow an omnipotent/omniscient being? Satan's not some cunning deceiver.....he's a fucking idiot.

You are probably going to get something about pure evil.

The problem is you are thinking like a human and not like a God. And because you are thinking like a human, Satan is a [blanking] idiot.

For God's sake, get into God's head man, get to know him. And then you too can make grand statements via informed law by your creator. I think thats how its supposed to work. Think, but not too hard. Reason, but not too much. Just let it flow, but not in a torrent. Relax, but be on your toes.

[all_heart]

Christian: No one knows the mind of God

Christian: I think God wants...

Seriously, do you sit around and imagine conclusions to movies that have ended already, wondering what happened after the credits rolled, like it's still going on in some dimension somewhere? Do you ever wonder what Tom Sawyer's kids looked like?

It's fiction. Why are you trying to move the story along further than it's written? Your imagination on it is absolutely useless, it means nothing.

No, no, no.. We Christians (anybody for that matter) don't have all the answers to weird scenarios like the ones mentioned here. We can't answer to what all God has done or has planned. BUT we seem to agree on what kind of life Gods wants us to live. So from that we can guess on some of these other things, but it doesn't change the message. It's no different than relying on past experience do deal with a problem.

I find it hard to believe that you get all worked up over a forum post. It's all my opinion jackass. Don't you get that? Do you really think I know all the answers? Of course not and either do you. Quit trying to find faults over somebody elses opinion, it's stupid. Your opinion vs. my opinion = nada. You can't prove a single thing, the same way I can't. Most of the world believes in form of religion or another, so deal with it.

[underdawg]

So many paradoxes and/or contradictions to choose from here...
I'll go with this one:

Does Lucifer lack free will? After all, his path has been chosen for him...

If not, how stupid do you have to be to think you could overthrow an omnipotent/omniscient being? Satan's not some cunning deceiver.....he's a fucking idiot.

Lucifer obviously had free will to rebel against God - not sure where you're going here?

It wasn't Lucifer's stupidity - it was his vanity. Man has proven to vain throughout most of humanity regardless of their intelligence.

[underdawg]

thus "agreed and left".

Who would rebel against a perfect entity in a perfect setting? Angels, that's who. Fucking angels.

no - they were cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:9)

[underdawg]

lot of folks here are pretty high on themselves and as you make fun of someone's beliefs, you might take a second to examine your own bigotry.

Here's a thought - you have no answers, but you're full of verbal attacks. I feel sorry for you.

[all_heart]

So many paradoxes and/or contradictions to choose from here...
I'll go with this one:

Does Lucifer lack free will? After all, his path has been chosen for him...

If not, how stupid do you have to be to think you could overthrow an omnipotent/omniscient being? Satan's not some cunning deceiver.....he's a fucking idiot.

What difference does it make to you, you don't believe in God or Satan right?

[SpursRock20]

Guys, we aren't getting anywhere lol. People hardly change their minds on non-important topics over the internet, let alone religion and how it works.

[johnnymoore]

Did the original post ever get answered?

[all_heart]

Guys, we aren't getting anywhere lol. People hardly change their minds on non-important topics over the internet, let alone religion and how it works.

Yes, I know. But it's hard to resist answering or replying to a lot of people that talk a lot of BS.:lol

[SpursRock20]

Did the original post ever get answered?

Yes, well kinda. There is a lil' documentary vid on Duncan after the '05 championship and he mentions God.

[Proxy]

lot of folks here are pretty high on themselves and as you make fun of someone's beliefs, you might take a second to examine your own bigotry.

Here's a thought - you have no answers, but you're full of verbal attacks. I feel sorry for you.

You're wrong to use bigotry against the people posting here. You're only using that term because you can't see the real problem at hand and can only resort to mud slinging without any facts to back up your claim. 'Bigot' is a strong word... use it wisely. You unfortunately did not in your post.

It is religion that pushes it's views on how things should be upon everyone else and it is Atheists arguing for the separation of church and state. Atheists want everything to be treated equally. This country favors Christians to a majority, and you would be falling for right wing propaganda to argue otherwise. To stunt science class in public schools, change laws on abortion and birth control, cut funding to stem cell research and space exploration... with all due respect, you are not seeing the big picture. You are blinded by your own insecurities. Christians need to stop playing the victim card. You are the huge majority. Stop getting butthurt when an intellectual argues for equality based on what is known fact to your faith in the unproven.

[underdawg]

You're wrong to use bigotry against the people posting here. You're only using that term because you can't see the real problem at hand and can only resort to mud slinging without any facts to back up your claim. 'Bigot' is a strong word... use it wisely. You unfortunately did not in your post.

It is religion that pushes it's views on how things should be upon everyone else and it is Atheists arguing for the separation of church and state. Atheists want everything to be treated equally. This country favors Christians to a majority, and you would be falling for right wing propaganda to argue otherwise. To stunt science class in public schools, change laws on abortion and birth control, cut funding to stem cell research and space exploration... with all due respect, you are not seeing the big picture. You are blinded by your own insecurities. Christians need to stop playing the victim card. You are the huge majority. Stop getting butthurt when an intellectual argues for equality based on what is known fact to your faith in the unproven.


big·ot·ry
   [big-uh-tree] Show IPA

noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

I'm not upset at the verbal attacks - like I said I pity people that want to cry out about the wrongs of a religion and then go ahead and attack someone's beliefs. If you can't see the hypocrisy, oh well. If you don't like the legislation that's been passed, go campaign and vote but that doesn't give you the right to use your bigotry to attack someone for their beliefs.

[all_heart]

Proxy, not all atheists are intellectuals and vice versa.

What do you think the law should be on abortion?

If atheists want everything to be treated equally then they should start treating everybody equally. Guys like Bill Maher don't help their cause when they ridicule people of faith. It's offensive and just makes people not want to listen to them. Salesmen don't insult their customers while they are trying to close the deal do they?

Can you provide an example of how this country favors Christians?

[Blake]

No, no, no.. We Christians (anybody for that matter) don't have all the answers ...

I find it hard to believe that you get all worked up over a forum post. It's all my opinion jackass.

I find it common for "you" christians to get worked up and start name calling in threads like these.

It's how Jesus would debate :tu

[all_heart]

I find it common for "you" christians to get worked up and start name calling in threads like these.

It's how Jesus would debate :tu

Ooops, I was tired last night. We are all human and have emotions. I'm not the only one that does name calling... remember terms like delusional, illogical, etc...

BTW I'm not Jesus.

[pgardn]

Lucifer obviously had free will to rebel against God - not sure where you're going here?

It wasn't Lucifer's stupidity - it was his vanity. Man has proven to vain throughout most of humanity regardless of their intelligence.

Vain because we think we know it all? How are we vain, we think we are pretty?

Please do explain. Because I feel pretty damn stupid when it comes to thinking like a God.

[Blue-Lightning]

Also, BL is a language arts teacher with a degree in bible studies who writes paperback science fiction books. If you try to discuss physics with him, you will get bombarded with high school level understanding of science, websites and Wiki references and lots of intellectual whoopass.

Yes, I am a language arts teacher with an additional degree in biblical studies, who is also an author and app developer for for iOS / Android. I also have been a 3D animator for four years, worked for 2K Sports on their NBA 2K series for six years, and work on quantum computing concepts with a large corporation.

And yes, I did in fact destroy you, and referenced said destruction using the internet. If my examples had been so poor, surely you could have done better. Accept that you are an imbecile, who is now "butthurt," as you and your buddies like to say, and walk away. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to reconcile these:

- You tried to correct me about the definition of "laws of physics." I then posted the actual definition, and it turns out you were wrong and I was right.

- You tried to correct me about time. You used the wrong definition, and I had to correct you again.

- You tried to correct me about electrons. Once again, I'm right, I have at least a hundred scholarly references to back me up if needed, and I corrected you with multiple references.

- I showed you how we know the universe does not have an infinite past (as you say) through Olber's paradox. Before that, you contended it could.

- In a physics / cosmology discussion, you asked me if "love" is infinite. Maybe the wiccans were impressed...

- You showed you didn't know that the universal expansion is equally distributed. I had to show you, and you just attacked Wikipedia instead of actually being able to evaluate the position.

- You have repeatedly shown you don't understand the definition of "universe," which indicates you really aren't versed in any reputable multiverse theories.

- You assumed my positions come from the bible, despite the fact I don't see the bible as authoritative.

BL

[tmtcsc]

I find it common for "you" christians to get worked up and start name calling in threads like these.

It's how Jesus would debate :tu

:lol Blake's looking for pacifists to kick. Nice. Most Christians who have spent time in this thread trading barbs with disrespectful atheists can easily be dropped to your level.

Way to look for nice people to bully. You're special. :tu

[Blake]

:lol Blake's looking for pacifists to kick. Nice. Most Christians who have spent time in this thread trading barbs with disrespectful atheists can easily be dropped to your level.

Way to look for nice people to bully. You're special. :tu

Rofl.

I haven't dropped down to the christian pacifists' in this thread level.

Poor persecuted christians...:(

[DMC]

no - they were cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:9)

You miss the point. To side against God, heaven must not be that great to begin with. Who would want to spend eternity in a place where power struggles are happening? Might as well stay on Earth.

Did God create the angels?

Doesn't the whole thing become really cartoonish after a while, and isn't that why most Christians prefer to remain in a safer zone that's covered by apologetics and thousands of years of edits and misdirection?

[DMC]

Yes, I am a language arts teacher with an additional degree in biblical studies, who is also an author and app developer for for iOS / Android. I also have been a 3D animator for four years, worked for 2K Sports on their NBA 2K series for six years, and work on quantum computing concepts with a large corporation.

And yes, I did in fact destroy you, and referenced said destruction using the internet. If my examples had been so poor, surely you could have done better. Accept that you are an imbecile, who is now "butthurt," as you and your buddies like to say, and walk away. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to reconcile these:

And when I educate you again, what then?

Get ready for a can of intellectual whoopass in

3....


2...


1...


:lmao



- You tried to correct me about the definition of "laws of physics." I then posted the actual definition, and it turns out you were wrong and I was right.
Other than your ambiguous assertion above, you have repeatedly misused the term "law" in "laws of physics" saying that other universes have different laws when in fact we don't know they exist therefore we cannot ascertain they have laws. You use the term as a theist would use it, as "nature of the universe" when in fact the laws of physics are what they are, and your alternate definition is pointless. You cannot redefine words to suit your argument.


- You tried to correct me about time. You used the wrong definition, and I had to correct you again.
Again, you have gone back and forth on the time issue, equating it to a ray, a line and a point. It's not all of these and in fact it's not any of these any more than distance is.

From Wikipedia (your favorite place): Time is a part of the measuring system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement) used to sequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence) events, to compare the durations of events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_%28philosophy%29) and the intervals between them, and to quantify (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification) rates of change such as the motions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28physics%29) of objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body).

This is the first line in the definition. You countered this with the "perpetual movement of the electron which allows this segue to your next misconception:


- You tried to correct me about electrons. Once again, I'm right, I have at least a hundred scholarly references to back me up if needed, and I corrected you with multiple references.
You stated that electrons have perpetual movement, I told you that you are viewing electrons in the wrong way. See below:

Q:
One of my students asked me, "Why does the electron move at all?" I admitted I didn't know and would like to find out for myself and for her. Thanks
- David DeCarli
Cromwell High School, CT, USA

A:
David -

Awesome question! (Give your student my compliments for thinking it up!) Naturally, one would think that because protons are positively charged, and electrons are negatively charged, the two should attract and stick together. The reason that doesn't happen can't even begin to be explained using classical physics. This was one of the key mysteries that were cleared up right away by the invention of quantum mechanics around 1925.

The picture you often see of electrons as small objects circling a nucleus in well defined "orbits" is actually quite wrong. As we now understand it, the electrons aren't really at any one place at any time at all. Instead they exist as a sort of cloud. The cloud can compress to a very small space briefly if you probe it in the right way, but before that it really acts like a spread-out cloud. For example, the electron in a hydrogen atom likes to occupy a spherical volume surrounding the proton. If you think of the proton as the size of a grain of salt, then the electron cloud would have about a ten foot radius. If you probe, you'll probably find the electron somewhere in that region.

end-

However, if, as you claim, electrons have perpetual movement ergo no events, imagine you took a photograph of an atom and later you took another of the same atom. Those two photos capture two different events related to that atom. Time is what exists between those events. I have, for intents in purposes, stopped the electron unless you wish to assert it continues to move in the photo.


- I showed you how we know the universe does not have an infinite past (as you say) through Olber's paradox. Before that, you contended it could.
Olber's paradox doesn't prove anything, and there are several ways around it. If you can use Google you can see that for yourself.

Regardless, again, I did not propose an infinite universe, I said GR supports it. You can extrapolate from there all you like, but that's your strawman, not my assertion.


- In a physics / cosmology discussion, you asked me if "love" is infinite. Maybe the wiccans were impressed...
You defined "infinite" as anything that's immeasurable. Your definition is folly so I made folly of it. Can you measure love? If not, why isn't it infinite?

This same physics/cosmology discussion saw you propose an alternate universe where the creator exists, that impacted this one, but yet you still work from a closed system aspect. It also saw you proclaim this alternate universe has different "laws of physics" as if physicists there have made it so.


- You showed you didn't know that the universal expansion is equally distributed. I had to show you, and you just attacked Wikipedia instead of actually being able to evaluate the position.
No, I showed that you don't. It's a proposition and you consider it fact. Scientists normally will not smugly call a proposition a fact.


- You have repeatedly shown you don't understand the definition of "universe," which indicates you really aren't versed in any reputable multiverse theories.
You differentiate between "cosmos" and "universe" and you talk of a multiverse as if it's a fact, not just a concept used to attempt to get over a gap in understanding.

You defined "universe" as all energy, matter and phenomena that exists.

What else is there?


- You assumed my positions come from the bible, despite the fact I don't see the bible as authoritative.
Your reasoning comes from your background in bible studies, being force fed nonsensical mysticism and fairy tales as if they are facts, and adopting the stance that belief must come before knowledge. With that in tow, you are handicapped already, and your drive for confirmation creates a bias that you cannot deny without lying to me and you. It's typical theist methodology, though you try to disguise it with your loose understanding of science. I think I pegged you quite nicely, and if I am wrong you haven't made any progress exposing it.

I think you're trying to push your hack science sci-fi book to be honest.

All of your science is fiction it seems.

I also find it amusing that a high school language arts teacher attempts to downplay a background in science and physics by saying "community colleges". You teach an unrelated subject at a high school in North Georgia. :lmao

So chew on that and I am sure you will have the same gradient shift in your claims in an attempt to play tank pong with reality.

[all_heart]

You miss the point. To side against God, heaven must not be that great to begin with. Who would want to spend eternity in a place where power struggles are happening? Might as well stay on Earth.

Did God create the angels?

Doesn't the whole thing become really cartoonish after a while, and isn't that why most Christians prefer to remain in a safer zone that's covered by apologetics and thousands of years of edits and misdirection?

What a horrible piss poor response... If you really want answers, Google it, I'm sure you'll get a few hits...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What difference does it make to you, you don't believe in God or Satan right?

there's a reason why he doesn't believe which is logical and then there is your reason to believe which is not.

but you don't have to take it literally so i guess that means you can make up whatever shit you --or those you decide can-- want. the Bible as a choose your own adventure book.

[Dunc n Dave]

Here's an ironic story for you atheists out there:

http://now.msn.com/now/0318-atheists-unbless-highway.aspx

A group of Floridian "free thinkers" converged on a strip of U.S. Route 98 Saturday with mops and a giant vat of "unholy water" to cleanse the thoroughfare of the blessing it received from a Christian group a year ago. The atheist group, "Humanists of Florida" says it scrubbed the road "of the oils of intolerance," claiming that the original roadside annointment by Christian group Polk Under Prayer was an insult to non-Christians and that the highway should be "about welcoming everybody." PUP director Richard Geringswald counters that his group's blessing was merely meant to ward off "evildoers." One tip for the atheists: Complete all spiritual spring cleaning on your checklist before next week's Reason Rally in DC.

[underdawg]

You miss the point. To side against God, heaven must not be that great to begin with. Who would want to spend eternity in a place where power struggles are happening? Might as well stay on Earth.

Did God create the angels?

Doesn't the whole thing become really cartoonish after a while, and isn't that why most Christians prefer to remain in a safer zone that's covered by apologetics and thousands of years of edits and misdirection?

There is no point - Lucifer's happiness had nothing to do with heaven and entirely with his vanity. You're making a point that's not there and and has no evidence behind it to suggest that the angels were unhappy with their surroundings. Their rebellion was strictly based on vanity and power - vanity is a theme that is consistently brought up in the Bible and is at the very root of sin and evil.

Unless you have some specific information, I've never heard of these edits and misdirections that you speak of and to call someone's beliefs cartoonish really is low. I could say Stephen Hawking's belief in aliens is cartoonish, but that doesn't prove him wrong - it only makes me look like I'm less concerned about finding truth and more concerned about insulting a person's beliefs.

2 quick notes -
-Christians are supposed to seek truth as that is what we believe in.
-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science. Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible. Stem cell research that is based on stem cells taken from embryos is a different situation. The fight for the unborn (and situations that can cause future harm to the unborn) is not anti-science.

[DMC]

Here's an ironic story for you atheists out there:

http://now.msn.com/now/0318-atheists-unbless-highway.aspx

A group of Floridian "free thinkers" converged on a strip of U.S. Route 98 Saturday with mops and a giant vat of "unholy water" to cleanse the thoroughfare of the blessing it received from a Christian group a year ago. The atheist group, "Humanists of Florida" says it scrubbed the road "of the oils of intolerance," claiming that the original roadside annointment by Christian group Polk Under Prayer was an insult to non-Christians and that the highway should be "about welcoming everybody." PUP director Richard Geringswald counters that his group's blessing was merely meant to ward off "evildoers." One tip for the atheists: Complete all spiritual spring cleaning on your checklist before next week's Reason Rally in DC.

There are idiots everywhere, nothing ironic about that.

[pgardn]

There is no point - Lucifer's happiness had nothing to do with heaven and entirely with his vanity. You're making a point that's not there and and has no evidence behind it to suggest that the angels were unhappy with their surroundings. Their rebellion was strictly based on vanity and power - vanity is a theme that is consistently brought up in the Bible and is at the very root of sin and evil.

Unless you have some specific information, I've never heard of these edits and misdirections that you speak of and to call someone's beliefs cartoonish really is low. I could say Stephen Hawking's belief in aliens is cartoonish, but that doesn't prove him wrong - it only makes me look like I'm less concerned about finding truth and more concerned about insulting a person's beliefs.

2 quick notes -
-Christians are supposed to seek truth as that is what we believe in.
-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science. Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible. Stem cell research that is based on stem cells taken from embryos is a different situation. The fight for the unborn (and situations that can cause future harm to the unborn) is not anti-science.

When exactly are cells classified as unborn (btw unborn implies human being to me, is this your preferred use)? I have not the foggiest idea when we can call a cell or cells in development a human. It seems that most Christian groups prefer conception.

What exactly is vanity?

Not trying to take sides, just trying to understand arguments. The words used are sometimes ancient and have a very different meaning today. Truthfully, I understand most of the so called atheist better as the vocabulary used is clearer. I have completely stopped with the physics stuff as mr. lightning has just shot wildly into the air.

[DMC]

There is no point - Lucifer's happiness had nothing to do with heaven and entirely with his vanity. You're making a point that's not there and and has no evidence behind it to suggest that the angels were unhappy with their surroundings. Their rebellion was strictly based on vanity and power - vanity is a theme that is consistently brought up in the Bible and is at the very root of sin and evil.

Lucifer was in heaven, in the presence of God. How could he be unhappy at all? Was he created by God to be that vain?


Unless you have some specific information, I've never heard of these edits and misdirections that you speak of and to call someone's beliefs cartoonish really is low. I could say Stephen Hawking's belief in aliens is cartoonish, but that doesn't prove him wrong - it only makes me look like I'm less concerned about finding truth and more concerned about insulting a person's beliefs.
The way theists depict their religion is indeed cartoonish. If God created Lucifer perfect in his ways, how did Lucifer create evil within himself? How did God create something can could create that which did not exist (evil)? Wouldn't it be required that God created Lucifer imperfect before he could be imperfect? Any ability to create something undesirable is imperfection.

Just admit it's a myth, makes more sense that way, otherwise we have to ask about Zeus and Odin.


2 quick notes -
-Christians are supposed to seek truth as that is what we believe in.
You have it backwards though. You have to find it before you can believe it. Belief in and belief of are two different things. Theists get the two confused ergo they believe everything because they feel they must.


-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science. Wow. Ever heard of Ken Ham?

Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible. No true Scotsman would do that, right?

Stem cell research that is based on stem cells taken from embryos is a different situation. The fight for the unborn (and situations that can cause future harm to the unborn) is not anti-science.Christians called it "playing God" and that's just one of the examples.

Science is akin to examining a room, ordering the furniture and pictures, then setting out to place them where they belong.

Religion is akin to moving into a home where there are already nails on the wall and you must make your furniture and photos fit those spaces. You are told you must believe that is how they were meant to be, that it requires faith to understand it. You are told it cannot change, and you find every creative way under the Sun to pass it off as perfection when to everyone else it's an obvious clump of patched excuses and superstitions that have been swept under the rugs by "open minded" theists reluctant to accept new information that clashes with their dogma, and religion digresses even more as science has progressed the understanding of the world.

Science and religion are not compatible. You cannot have an unchangeable outlook and successfully interface that with an evolving one.

[pgardn]

-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science. Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible.

Im guessing fellow Christians means Christians you know. In Texas, there was a concerted attempt by Christians on the board of Education to clearly interject religion into science text books.

This of course has happened in a number of other States in the past. Usually coming under the guise of Intelligent Design, thats the latest fad name. It will reappear yet again with some other name at a later time I should think.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is no point - Lucifer's happiness had nothing to do with heaven and entirely with his vanity. You're making a point that's not there and and has no evidence behind it to suggest that the angels were unhappy with their surroundings. Their rebellion was strictly based on vanity and power - vanity is a theme that is consistently brought up in the Bible and is at the very root of sin and evil.

Unless you have some specific information, I've never heard of these edits and misdirections that you speak of and to call someone's beliefs cartoonish really is low. I could say Stephen Hawking's belief in aliens is cartoonish, but that doesn't prove him wrong - it only makes me look like I'm less concerned about finding truth and more concerned about insulting a person's beliefs.

2 quick notes -
-Christians are supposed to seek truth as that is what we believe in.
-Also, I don't know any fellow Christians that are interested in hindering science. Are there people out there that claim to be Christians and ignorantly attack science - sure but they're not basing their attacks off instructions from the Bible. Stem cell research that is based on stem cells taken from embryos is a different situation. The fight for the unborn (and situations that can cause future harm to the unborn) is not anti-science.

lol at the pantheon of angels as the days of our lives. I'm sure this was well chronicled on E!

i will say it again. you can point most christians to the absurdities in other religions like flying elephants and flying horses but all of their own hokey shit just gets a pass.

You see a lot of that when you see fundamentalists trying to debunk cults. LDS has a lot of whoppers as does JW et al. Getting your own planet, a had count of how many are chosen, hiding spirits in volcanos or Jesus teleporting over to the US while dead is obviously stupid right?

after a certain point there is the reality that people like to make up stories and that instead of some guy really getting born without his mother having sex and then banishing demons into pigs before coming back to life after being asphyxiated on a cross that people like to make up stories. At least hindus and shintos don't have the hardcore exclusionary morality.

most christians nowadays realize that most of the stories on the bible never really happened and they try to hide behind some notion of 'mystery' as they pick and choose which ones to 'believe.' The Old Testament nobody even tries to front for anymore. Whales and hair and bushes et al.

Just makes no sense to me.

[pgardn]

Science and religion are not compatible. You cannot have an unchangeable outlook and successfully interface that with an evolving one.

Personally I would not even use the word compatible.

Both are so very different, very human attempts to understand the world around them. Religion takes on questions that Science cannot even attempt to answer.

One relies on very strict rules that make it useful because it can be predictive. But the questions asked must be limited.

The other requires the supernatural to formulate explanations and is used to answer much more difficult questions that in some cases may not even be be valid questions.

And as you stated, one is supposed to be unchanging (I personally dont think it is) and the other does us no good if models that are predictive dont change as new evidence arises.

[underdawg]

When exactly are cells classified as unborn (btw unborn implies human being to me, is this your preferred use)? I have not the foggiest idea when we can call a cell or cells in development a human. It seems that most Christian groups prefer conception http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
My understanding is that most scientists feel that life begins at conception

What exactly is vanity?
Vanity is pride and arrogance that is driven by the need to satisfy one's own desires. I'm sure you can find a better definition, but that's how I understand it.

[all_heart]

Science is akin to examining a room, ordering the furniture and pictures, then setting out to place them where they belong.

Religion is akin to moving into a home where there are already nails on the wall and you must make your furniture and photos fit those spaces. You are told you must believe that is how they were meant to be, that it requires faith to understand it. You are told it cannot change, and you find every creative way under the Sun to pass it off as perfection when to everyone else it's an obvious clump of patched excuses and superstitions that have been swept under the rugs by "open minded" theists reluctant to accept new information that clashes with their dogma, and religion digresses even more as science has progressed the understanding of the world.

Science and religion are not compatible. You cannot have an unchangeable outlook and successfully interface that with an evolving one.

Creative analogy, but it doesn't quite work that way. Religion is not a puzzle, where things must be a certain way and that's that. That's not the best way to describe religion.

Christians believe in science plenty. We also believe science is something that God has given us as a blueprint to figure things out. I think science is awesome like most people. There is no reason science can't be compatible with religion and vice versa.

Can you give an example of "new information" that clashes with dogma?

[all_heart]

lol at the pantheon of angels as the days of our lives. I'm sure this was well chronicled on E!

i will say it again. you can point most christians to the absurdities in other religions like flying elephants and flying horses but all of their own hokey shit just gets a pass.

You see a lot of that when you see fundamentalists trying to debunk cults. LDS has a lot of whoppers as does JW et al. Getting your own planet, a had count of how many are chosen, hiding spirits in volcanos or Jesus teleporting over to the US while dead is obviously stupid right?

after a certain point there is the reality that people like to make up stories and that instead of some guy really getting born without his mother having sex and then banishing demons into pigs before coming back to life after being asphyxiated on a cross that people like to make up stories. At least hindus and shintos don't have the hardcore exclusionary morality.

most christians nowadays realize that most of the stories on the bible never really happened and they try to hide behind some notion of 'mystery' as they pick and choose which ones to 'believe.' The Old Testament nobody even tries to front for anymore. Whales and hair and bushes et al.

Just makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense to you cause you really don't understand religion and/or Christianity.

[pgardn]

I would say that any scientist who claims that a human life begins at conception is completely overstepping a very important boundary... Making a judgement on when a human life begins.

You can argue that the cell is unique in that 23(mom) + 23(dad) making a completely unique individualgenetically, but is this when a human life begins? That is a huge leap. Huge.

There are many women each year who form zygotes that never divide further and then embroys that do not even attach to the uterine wall or the uterine wall is shed immediately. No one knows the difference, and I have yet to see any outcry about these very natural events.

This is not semantics or nit picking, this is very difficult.

btw, the site referenced is indeed slippery. Life begins at... in large colored font and then references that do not attempt to assert when a Human Life begins.

[underdawg]

Lucifer was in heaven, in the presence of God. How could he be unhappy at all? You keep saying that he was unhappy - please give me evidence from the Bible that shows that. Was he created by God to be that vain? He was created to have free will
The way theists depict their religion is indeed cartoonish. Your opionion and disrepectful at that. If God created Lucifer perfect in his ways, how did Lucifer create evil within himself? God didn't create Lucifer to be perfect. How did God create something can could create that which did not exist (evil)? He gave his creation the ability to perform evil acts - this was necessary for them to have free will and chose to have a relationship with God. Wouldn't it be required that God created Lucifer imperfect before he could be imperfect? No - Lucifer's choice was the imperfection and not how God created him. Any ability to create something undesirable is imperfection.

Just admit it's a myth, makes more sense that way, otherwise we have to ask about Zeus and Odin. Is there any archaeological evidence of Zeus or Odin?
You have it backwards though. You have to find it before you can believe it. Belief in and belief of are two different things. Agreed - Christians believe in Christ because they have found him to be true. Theists get the two confused ergo they believe everything because they feel they must.
Wow. Ever heard of Ken Ham? I don't know Ken Ham - I was speaking of Christians I knew firsthand.
No true Scotsman would do that, right? what?
Christians called it "playing God" and that's just one of the examples.
what Christians call it playing God? the fight against stem cell research deals primarily with preventing an excuse to kill unborn humans.Science is akin to examining a room, ordering the furniture and pictures, then setting out to place them where they belong.

Religion is akin to moving into a home where there are already nails on the wall and you must make your furniture and photos fit those spaces. You are told you must believe that is how they were meant to be, that it requires faith to understand it. You are told it cannot change, and you find every creative way under the Sun to pass it off as perfection when to everyone else it's an obvious clump of patched excuses and superstitions that have been swept under the rugs by "open minded" theists reluctant to accept new information that clashes with their dogma, and religion digresses even more as science has progressed the understanding of the world.
Nice try at simplifying our beliefs, but you are wrong - a Christian believes that we were created with a purpose to have a relationship with our creator, to help humanity and to have a place God's kingdom for eternity. Please explain to me what superstitions have been "swept under rugs" by Christian leaders. Please explain to me how Christianity has digressed as science has progressed. Science and religion are not compatible. I'm glad that there are Christian scientists that don't believe as you do. You cannot have an unchangeable outlook and successfully interface that with an evolving one. That assumes that evolution is a fact that is your opinion and fortunately there are scientists that don't believe the same actually there are scientists that disagree with you: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/-

[all_heart]

I would say that any scientist who claims that a human life begins at conception is completely overstepping a very important boundary... Making a judgement on when a human life begins.

You can argue that the cell is unique in that 23(mom) + 23(dad) making a completely unique individualgenetically, but is this when a human life begins? That is a huge leap. Huge.

There are many women each year who form zygotes that never divide further and then embroys that do not even attach to the uterine wall or the uterine wall is shed immediately. No one knows the difference, and I have yet to see any outcry about these very natural events.

This is not semantics or nit picking, this is very difficult.

Yes, it's very difficult. IMO, human life begins when 2 human cells come together for the purpose of creating a new human life.

[disciple]

Christians lose time and money to the church if they are wrong.

Political Christians also fuck up the happiness of others that don't want Bible law to be American law.

those are all temporal things. Let's focus on true value.

[DMC]

Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.
( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 )

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) (http://kingjbible.com/ezekiel/28.htm)
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Saying Lucifer had free will and he was free to choose evil is painting yourself into a corner, because prior to Lucifer, evil did not exist. How can you chose that which does not exist, and if he had free will, why was he eternally punished for exercising it? A three sided box, you have one exit, is that free will? No.

Cartoonish and theists ignore that and talk more about how nice Jesus was.

As for "helping humanity", you sound like some tweener starry eyed choir boy. Ever read about the Crusades? You might consider checking up on it.

[disciple]

There is no heaven or hell dummy....lol

:elephant

Because we believe something doesn't make it true. You or me.

Whether it is truth determines whether it is true.

Now, we need to determine who decides what is true.

[DMC]

Because we believe something doesn't make it true. You or me.

Whether it is truth determines whether it is true.

Now, we need to determine who decides what is true.

Why? Why can't you decide that for yourself? You've allowed the Council of Nicea to decide the 66 books they included are the written word of God, and you've just adopted it like everyone else in your religion. You haven't decided shit.

[disciple]

If you had just stopped before the bolded. Damn.

When you state the bolded, then you leave yourself open to questioning about how you came to this conclusion/judgement. "Do you have a phone line to the big-fella" etc... This is where people of faith get themselves in deep do-do. You make these judgements based on your belief, with is faith based, and then people delve into where your faith arises. And then they twist you like a pretzel. Faith does not happen out of nowhere.

Then you attempt to scramble out of the mud using logic. Its a losing game. God should have exempted us from reason, it would have been so easy. But no we dont want it easy, we want you to go against reason, make a choice, and have faith, which is also based on a type of reason, which is based on upbringing and or the bible for most on the board who choose to argue in this manner.



Darn it...


Twist away my friend.

[Cow Eye]

mfw spurstalk thinks it's theologian/philosophytalk

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b400/qaesyan/1312615900430.jpg

[DMC]

Personally I would not even use the word compatible.

Both are so very different, very human attempts to understand the world around them. Religion takes on questions that Science cannot even attempt to answer.
Yes, by inventing bullshit stories to appease the mentally lazy. Don't act like religion is the therapist for the down trodden. It's a tool to fleece the fuck out of them.


One relies on very strict rules that make it useful because it can be predictive. But the questions asked must be limited.
Because it's easily exposed for the fraud it is and doubt sets in (good old doubt,the real savior of the world). Imagine saying that in a product presentation "you can ask questions, but they must be limited".


The other requires the supernatural to formulate explanations and is used to answer much more difficult questions that in some cases may not even be be valid questions.
Can you spin this any more than you have? Here's what you just said in every day lingo:

The other requires make believe as an excuse when the answer isn't known, and we don't even know if it can be known.


And as you stated, one is supposed to be unchanging (I personally dont think it is) and the other does us no good if models that are predictive dont change as new evidence arises.Unless the Bible is morphing, it's not changing. You can adopt a neo-theist view all you like, it doesn't bail you out.

Models don't need to change. New models are created. What you call "new evidence" often leads to huge changes in how we see things.

How that Ark hunt going?

[disciple]

Why did God create Hell?



lol audience

Why did he allow children to be killed by bears because they called a prophet "baldy"?



The concept of a fiery, eternal damnation is an awesome motivational tool preachers use to put butts in the pews and money in the plate.


totally agree with the 'fire and brimstone' motivation many preachers use. As far as the other consider that the earth we now live in is nothing like it used to be. Man's decisions have changed it dramatically. We have free will and that free will has changed the world.

[DMC]

actually there are scientists that disagree with you: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/-

The first "scientist" website has the following:

For inspiring/controversial/interesting views from John Piper, go to the Desiring God (http://www.desiringgod.org/) web site.

The 2nd is from "Coventry University"

There are only 4.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution could be patchy, but evolution itself is a fact.

But you might want to check this site out, I cannot speak for it's accuracy:

http://mcb.harvard.edu/biolinks/evolution.html

[underdawg]

Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.
( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 )

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) (http://kingjbible.com/ezekiel/28.htm)
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Lucifer was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him - he wasn't a perfect being but acted perfectly until his rebellion.
Saying Lucifer had free will and he was free to choose evil is painting yourself into a corner, because prior to Lucifer, evil did not exist. How can you chose that which does not exist, and if he had free will, why was he eternally punished for exercising it? A three sided box, you have one exit, is that free will? No.
Not at all - God is incapable of evil but humanity and his angel Lucifer were and are capable of evil.
Cartoonish and theists ignore that and talk more about how nice Jesus was.
Name one of your "theists" that ignore this idea. As for "helping humanity", you sound like some tweener starry eyed choir boy. Ever read about the Crusades? You might consider checking up on it. What about the Crusades - can you please quote the part of the New Testament that was used to carry out this war?

[disciple]

Why? Why can't you decide that for yourself? You've allowed the Council of Nicea to decide the 66 books they included are the written word of God, and you've just adopted it like everyone else in your religion. You haven't decided shit.

Those who must discuss anything with their emotions, which are displayed for all to see through their name calling and accusations, can not rely strictly on what they believe. Why is that? Anyone with the confidence to discuss freely what they believe without the fear of being changed or just looking bad will do so without any display of emotions. This is present in those that get none of their identity from what others think of them.

You know nothing of how, why or what I believe. You accuse me of something you have not asked me about. I will be more than glad to discuss my beliefs with you. PM me.

[underdawg]

actually there are scientists that disagree with you: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/-

The first "scientist" website has the following:

For inspiring/controversial/interesting views from John Piper, go to the Desiring God (http://www.desiringgod.org/) web site.

The 2nd is from "Coventry University"

There are only 4.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution could be patchy, but evolution itself is a fact.

But you might want to check this site out, I cannot speak for it's accuracy:

http://mcb.harvard.edu/biolinks/evolution.html

Don't know what list you're looking at, but the first scientist on that list was from Penn State.

From your link:
Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution.

[underdawg]

Yes, by inventing bullshit stories to appease the mentally lazy. Don't act like religion is the therapist for the down trodden. It's a tool to fleece the fuck out of them.
Because it's easily exposed for the fraud it is and doubt sets in (good old doubt,the real savior of the world). Imagine saying that in a product presentation "you can ask questions, but they must be limited".
Can you spin this any more than you have? Here's what you just said in every day lingo:

The other requires make believe as an excuse when the answer isn't known, and we don't even know if it can be known.
Unless the Bible is morphing, it's not changing. You can adopt a neo-theist view all you like, it doesn't bail you out.

Models don't need to change. New models are created. What you call "new evidence" often leads to huge changes in how we see things.

How that Ark hunt going?

So Christians are lazy minded, gullible suckers - the hate is strong in you young jedi.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It makes no sense to you cause you really don't understand religion and/or Christianity.

maybe not your brand. i was brought up in a very literal fundamentalist home. i understand probably better than you think.

[pgardn]

Twist away my friend.

Turn a blind eye to why you believe what you believe.

Never self examine and, never get in the deep end.

[pgardn]

Yes, by inventing bullshit stories to appease the mentally lazy. Don't act like religion is the therapist for the down trodden. It's a tool to fleece the fuck out of them.

One way to look at it. Clearly it has been used this way. I would say another is to give comfort.


Because it's easily exposed for the fraud it is and doubt sets in (good old doubt,the real savior of the world). Imagine saying that in a product presentation "you can ask questions, but they must be limited".
Can you spin this any more than you have? Here's what you just said in every day lingo:

Science answers questions that can be validated through testing. So you think all human questioning ends here? Are you joking? Is it wrong to take anothers life? Do you think people asking questions of morality have only Science to guide them? get outa town...

The other requires make believe as an excuse when the answer isn't known, and we don't even know if it can be known.
Unless the Bible is morphing, it's not changing. You can adopt a neo-theist view all you like, it doesn't bail you out.

Yes, I wrote the supernatural. Call it what you want.

The bible has already changed dozens and dozens of times. When new stuff is dug up, someone has got to determine how it fits in. And even if the Bible never did change, it is interpreted through lenses of that time period. If you cant see this I cant help you. People of faith might argue this last point, I say your sticking your head in the sand if you dont think current times influence religious thought through the bible.

Models don't need to change. New models are created. What you call "new evidence" often leads to huge changes in how we see things.

Now you are really nit picking. There are plenty of models both in the biological sciences and the physical sciences that have been modified which is the same thing as new models using old models and their underpinnings. Some models were just flat out bad, and brand new models created.

How that Ark hunt going?

Not good at all. I have never been hunting.

I think you were very tired when you read what I wrote. At least I hope so.

[Blake]

Lucifer obviously had free will to rebel against God - not sure where you're going here?

It wasn't Lucifer's stupidity - it was his vanity. Man has proven to vain throughout most of humanity regardless of their intelligence.

Lucifer is a dumb fuck to want hell over heaven. Or as DMC pointed out, heaven must not be that great.

I'm still wondering why a God of love would create a fiery torture chamber for non-believers.

[Blake]

What difference does it make to you, you don't believe in God or Satan right?

Not much, but I like these type of threads though.

What difference does it make to you why I'm posting in this thread?

[Blake]

Yes, I know. But it's hard to resist answering or replying to a lot of people that talk a lot of BS.:lol

Agreed :lol :lol

[Blake]

Can you give an example of "new information" that clashes with dogma?

How old do you believe the Earth is?

[Blake]

those are all temporal things. Let's focus on true value.

Like what?

[Blake]

totally agree with the 'fire and brimstone' motivation many preachers use. As far as the other consider that the earth we now live in is nothing like it used to be. Man's decisions have changed it dramatically. We have free will and that free will has changed the world.

The implication again being that there is no free will in heaven because God is scared our free will will change it dramatically?

[all_heart]

How old do you believe the Earth is?

ALOT older than a few thousand years.

[all_heart]

maybe not your brand. i was brought up in a very literal fundamentalist home. i understand probably better than you think.

You might. Do you believe the Bible should be taken 100% literal - word for word?

[all_heart]

The implication again being that there is no free will in heaven because God is scared our free will will change it dramatically?

There was obviously free will in heaven for Lucifer, he obviously crossed the line. He was a habitual line stepper! :lol

I don't believe God wants a relationship with robots - thus freewill.

[Blake]

You might. Do you believe the Bible should be taken 100% literal - word for word?

Why shouldn't it?

What percent do you feel should be taken literally?

[all_heart]

Why shouldn't it?

What percent do you feel should be taken literally?

Wasn't really asking you, I was asking the fuzzylumpkins, he said he was raised as a literal fundamentalist.

I think you already asked this question and this was covered pages back.

[Blake]

There was obviously free will in heaven for Lucifer, he obviously crossed the line. He was a habitual line stepper! :lol

I don't believe God wants a relationship with robots - thus freewill.

God knew that Lucifer would cross the line, yet created him and hell any way.

Why does God want to torture the beings he creates?

Why did Satan think he had enough juice to overtake God?

[Blake]

Wasn't really asking you, I was asking the fuzzylumpkins, he said he was raised as a literal fundamentalist.

I think you already asked this question and this was covered pages back.

I don't really care who you were asking.

I'm asking you now: what percent do you feel should be taken literally?

[all_heart]

God knew that Lucifer would cross the line, yet created him and hell any way.

Did he? It was Lucifers choice.

Why does God want to torture the beings he creates?
He doesn't.

Why did Satan think he had enough juice to overtake God?
Because he was vain. You've never felt you compete for 1st place before?

[all_heart]

I don't really care who you were asking.

I'm asking you now: what percent do you feel should be taken literally?

Like I said it was covered pages ago. Don't be lazy, read it.

[Blake]

so you gave a percent before?

I don't see it.

[all_heart]

so you gave a percent before?

I don't see it.

No I didn't, but keep reading.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You might. Do you believe the Bible should be taken 100% literal - word for word?

Thatws what I was taught and not what I believe. I don't believe any of it can be taken literally.

i do believe that you guys taking shit like virgin births, universal forgiveness, and resurrection literally but then pick others to be open to interpretation is just selfish intellectual laziness. Its a religion of convenience at that point.

I am not talking about the vague shit either about the asinine nature of the trinity which just reads like shit that people made up as they went along.

If you even have a tiny notion of the sociology of the area around that time you can understand why they would have every motivation in the world to tell those specific lies about the guy that was their leader.

[Blake]

No I didn't, but keep reading.

Of course you didn't. You don't understand how religion/christianity works.

[all_heart]

Thatws what I was taught and not what I believe. I don't believe any of it can be taken literally.

i do believe that you guys taking shit like virgin births, universal forgiveness, and resurrection literally but then pick others to be open to interpretation is just selfish intellectual laziness. Its a religion of convenience at that point.

I am not talking about the vague shit either about the asinine nature of the trinity which just reads like shit that people made up as they went along.

If you even have a tiny notion of the sociology of the area around that time you can understand why they would have every motivation in the world to tell those specific lies about the guy that was their leader.

blah, blah, blah.... So you are not a believer then. That's all you have to say.

[all_heart]

Of course you didn't. You don't understand how religion/christianity works.

Look in the mirror home boy!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

blah, blah, blah....

Like I said intellectualy laziness. i don't fuck around with asinine conversations about the OT. I cut right to the chase.

virgin births, ressurections and universal forgiveness for believers.

You believe in that literally right?

you believe that mary never had sex with joseph out of wedlock and that jesus was not truly a bastard.

you believe that he was dead and that in god resurrecting him somehow that absolves you of all the bad shit you've done?

you take that literally right?

but the part about the whale or the demonic pigs or the reattachment of ears, all thats to be taken figuratively.

itself selfish convenience.

[Blake]

Look in the mirror home boy!

I know how religious jackasses like you work: You want to pick out the good parts and ignore the bad parts.

Then you cry blah blah blah when called out on it.

:tu

[underdawg]

Like I said intellectualy laziness. i don't fuck around with asinine conversations about the OT. I cut right to the chase.

virgin births, ressurections and universal forgiveness for believers.

You believe in that literally right?

you believe that mary never had sex with joseph out of wedlock and that jesus was not truly a bastard.

you believe that he was dead and that in god resurrecting him somehow that absolves you of all the bad shit you've done?

you take that literally right?

but the part about the whale or the demonic pigs or the reattachment of ears, all thats to be taken figuratively.

itself selfish convenience.

Christians believe that Mary was a virgin? - yes
Christians believe that Christ was resurrected? - yes
To not believe in the above statements would basically make believing in Christianity worthless - I Corithians 15:14

Yes on demonic pigs and yes on Christ reattaching an ear, healing the blind, healing the sick, etc.

I never understood how people could question why Christians believed in miracles given that they also believe that God created the universe. Which miracle is greater?

[Blake]

Christians believe that Mary was a virgin? - yes
Christians believe that Christ was resurrected? - yes
To not believe in the above statements would basically make believing in Christianity worthless - I Corithians 15:14

Yes on demonic pigs and yes on Christ reattaching an ear, healing the blind, healing the sick, etc.

I never understood how people could question why Christians believed in miracles given that they also believe that God created the universe. Which miracle is greater?

So you believe the Bible should be taken to be 100% literally true?

[underdawg]

Lucifer is a dumb fuck to want hell over heaven. Or as DMC pointed out, heaven must not be that great.

I'm still wondering why a God of love would create a fiery torture chamber for non-believers.

Sure Lucifer made a bad decision - hindsight is 20/20 and vanity has been responsible for a lot of very evil and stupid actions throughout mankind. That said, there is absolutely no evidence that Lucifer was unhappy with heaven (no matter how many times you state it).

God made hell for Satan and his angels

[Blake]

Sure Lucifer made a bad decision - hindsight is 20/20 and vanity has been responsible for a lot of very evil and stupid actions throughout mankind. That said, there is absolutely no evidence that Lucifer was unhappy with heaven (no matter how many times you state it).

So he is just flat stupid.

There is no oops, hindsight 20/20 when you have god calling his shot in the book of revelation.


God made hell for Satan and his angels

Then he clearly doesn't love them and rather foolish of him to create them in the first place

[underdawg]

So you believe the Bible should be taken to be 100% literally true?

I never said that and name me a credible pastor of a Christian church that says that.

[underdawg]

So he is just flat stupid.

There is no oops, hindsight 20/20 when you have god calling his shot in the book of revelation.



Then he clearly doesn't love them and rather foolish of him to create them in the first place

call Satan stupid or foolish if you wish

Clearly - you have read God's mind? Here I thought we humans were unable to do that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Christians believe that Mary was a virgin? - yes
Christians believe that Christ was resurrected? - yes
To not believe in the above statements would basically make believing in Christianity worthless - I Corithians 15:14

Yes on demonic pigs and yes on Christ reattaching an ear, healing the blind, healing the sick, etc.

I never understood how people could question why Christians believed in miracles given that they also believe that God created the universe. Which miracle is greater?

i actually can respect this. I think its horseshit but at least youre consistent.

and its not about God creating the universe. its about God creating the earth as we know it in 7 rotations about its axis and the whole garden of eden thing. noah claiming that his code of law was given to him by a burning bush. and on and on and on.

i also think that the OT version of sacrifices at the temple so the priests could have a nice barbeque every day being twisted into jesus being that sacrifice was a nice touch. then of course the great leap that john took and paul later ran with.

if you want to believe that then go ahead. its no more hokey than hindu or islam.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never said that and name me a credible pastor of a Christian church that says that.

all the guys on TV, the catholic church, most nondemoninational fundamentalists are like that. etc.

and credible pastor lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure Lucifer made a bad decision - hindsight is 20/20 and vanity has been responsible for a lot of very evil and stupid actions throughout mankind. That said, there is absolutely no evidence that Lucifer was unhappy with heaven (no matter how many times you state it).

God made hell for Satan and his angels

you just said humans couldn't know the mind of god. quit fronting.

[Blake]

I never said that and name me a credible pastor of a Christian church that says that.

I didn't say you did, thus the question mark.

I don't know one credible pastor in any church.

[underdawg]

you just said humans couldn't know the mind of god. quit fronting.

Matthew 25:41

[underdawg]

I didn't say you did, thus the question mark.

I don't know one credible pastor in any church.

Ziiiiiinnnggg!

[underdawg]

all the guys on TV, the catholic church, most nondemoninational fundamentalists are like that. etc.

and credible pastor lol

I'm sorry - I thought by saying a credible pastor it was obvious that I meant credible among Christians

[Brazil]

blablablablablabla

[DMC]

Don't know what list you're looking at, but the first scientist on that list was from Penn State.

From your link:
Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution.
I was trying to help you out of your retardation.

Here's what your link actually leads to:

Sorry...Page not found


The page you are looking for (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/-) is not available, please try one of the following options:


Go to dissent from darwin homepage (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php)
Report the problem ([email protected])



So I took it upon myself to to to the "dissent from darwin homepage where I found this:


"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"


For starters, that's a far cry from disagreeing. Encouraging careful examination of a theory in no way disagrees with the principle aspect of evolution itself, just as disagreeing with the theory of gravity does not cause objects to suspend in mid air pending your acceptance. (ok I owe Mr Gould a bit on that one).


From that site, there is a link that says "scientists" and there are 4 of them. The first is this guy:


Ralph Seelke received his Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine in 1981, was a postdoctoral researcher at the Mayo Clinic until 1983, and has been an Associate Professor or Professor in the Department of Biology and Earth Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Superior since 1989. An authority on evolution's capabilities and limitations in producing new functions in bacteria, Prof. Seelke recently co-authored the science textbook "Explore Evolution (http://www.exploreevoution.com/): The Case For and Against Neo-Darwinism."



This is his homepage not found on that website:


http://www3.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/


On that page is the following quote:


John Piper-
God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him
The primary goal of God is His own glory


Also there are numerous quotes regarding God and against evolution in general.


Also there is this link:


For inspiring/controversial/interesting views from John Piper, go to the Desiring God (http://www.desiringgod.org/) web site.




So it's clear from the onset that you aren't up to speed on this. The rest of the big 4 are no better.

They have an established, required belief system and they are trying to pollute science with dogma in "knowing the answer" before they set out to do their testing. Their reports will be skewed due to confirmation bias.

Basically, to these "scientists", religion trumps knowledge and if science indicates things that do not agree with the bible, science must be wrong.



Try again, this time actually click on the link you are posting to see if it's active.

[DMC]

So Christians are lazy minded, gullible suckers - the hate is strong in you young jedi.
Your response to me is proof enough. You didn't use the quote function, didn't research anything you posted and didn't even verify that the links work.

Lazy.

[Blake]

call Satan stupid or foolish if you wish

Clearly - you have read God's mind? Here I thought we humans were unable to do that.

If he is not stupid, then he has no free will......or heaven and God arent really that great to be around. Can't have it both (or 3) ways.

ftr, If he is at least 6+ k years old and is still vain, he is beyond stupid.

[Blake]

I'm sorry - I thought by saying a credible pastor it was obvious that I meant credible among Christians

Billy Graham:


....But the real question is this: Did the miracles recorded in the Bible actually happen -- or are they simply myths or legends? The Bible's testimony is clear: They actually happened -- and the reason is because God made them happen. If we leave God out of the picture and say He isn't powerful or doesn't have anything to do with the world, then there isn't any room for miracles.

But once we understand that God is all-powerful, and that He cares what happens to us, then the miracles recorded in the Bible won't be a problem for us.....

http://www.billygraham.org/articlepage.asp?articleid=5135

but how much of the Bible do you feel is literal? In percent please thanks.

[DMC]

What about the Crusades - can you please quote the part of the New Testament that was used to carry out this war?

Since when did Christians begin to ignore the Old Testament? Does your Bible not contain both? Does your pastor only preach from the New Testament? Your account of creation is from the Old Testament, the great flood, the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, the Ten Commandments, the laws of Moses, Joshua and the battle of Jericho, Job's trials and tribulations, the Psalms of King David, on and on.

Christians want to hide the OT like flowers in the attic when non theists guests come around because you are ashamed of it, but it's part and parcel of Christianity.

[underdawg]

I was trying to help you out of your retardation.

Here's what your link actually leads to:

Sorry...Page not found


The page you are looking for (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/-) is not available, please try one of the following options:


Go to dissent from darwin homepage (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php)
Report the problem ([email protected])



So I took it upon myself to to to the "dissent from darwin homepage where I found this:


"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"


For starters, that's a far cry from disagreeing. Encouraging careful examination of a theory in no way disagrees with the principle aspect of evolution itself, just as disagreeing with the theory of gravity does not cause objects to suspend in mid air pending your acceptance. (ok I owe Mr Gould a bit on that one).


From that site, there is a link that says "scientists" and there are 4 of them. The first is this guy:


Ralph Seelke received his Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine in 1981, was a postdoctoral researcher at the Mayo Clinic until 1983, and has been an Associate Professor or Professor in the Department of Biology and Earth Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Superior since 1989. An authority on evolution's capabilities and limitations in producing new functions in bacteria, Prof. Seelke recently co-authored the science textbook "Explore Evolution (http://www.exploreevoution.com/): The Case For and Against Neo-Darwinism."



This is his homepage not found on that website:


http://www3.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/


On that page is the following quote:


John Piper-
God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him
The primary goal of God is His own glory


Also there are numerous quotes regarding God and against evolution in general.


Also there is this link:


For inspiring/controversial/interesting views from John Piper, go to the Desiring God (http://www.desiringgod.org/) web site.




So it's clear from the onset that you aren't up to speed on this. The rest of the big 4 are no better.

They have an established, required belief system and they are trying to pollute science with dogma in "knowing the answer" before they set out to do their testing. Their reports will be skewed due to confirmation bias.

Basically, to these "scientists", religion trumps knowledge and if science indicates things that do not agree with the bible, science must be wrong.



Try again, this time actually click on the link you are posting to see if it's active.

Don't know what happened to the link, but it still takes you to the site and to the right is where you can download the list.

Please provide evidence that these "4 Scientists" have an "established, required belief system" and that they are out to poison science or is it because one or all 4 are Christians that it's automatically assumed to be so?

There are 20 pages of names of doctors and professors - are you saying that they also share the same view and have the same prejudice against science?

[underdawg]

Billy Graham:



but how much of the Bible do you feel is literal? In percent please thanks.

why do you need a percent - just come out with whatever argument that you're trying to bait me into.

Jesus used parables in his teaching to illustrate his point, different writers used metaphors and imagery to illustrate their point. I don't have a percentage to give you - sorry.

[underdawg]

Since when did Christians begin to ignore the Old Testament? Does your Bible not contain both? Does your pastor only preach from the New Testament? Your account of creation is from the Old Testament, the great flood, the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, the Ten Commandments, the laws of Moses, Joshua and the battle of Jericho, Job's trials and tribulations, the Psalms of King David, on and on.

Christians want to hide the OT like flowers in the attic when non theists guests come around because you are ashamed of it, but it's part and parcel of Christianity.

not hiding at all - the Crusades were based on the battle of Christianity over Islam. If they were basing this war on their belief in Christianity, wouldn't there be something in Christ's teachings to give them authority to do so?

For the record, I do not know any Christians personally that hide from the Old testament. Where do you get this information?

[DMC]

Don't know what happened to the link, but it still takes you to the site and to the right is where you can download the list.

Please provide evidence that these "4 Scientists" have an "established, required belief system" and that they are out to poison science or is it because one or all 4 are Christians that it's automatically assumed to be so?

There are 20 pages of names of doctors and professors - are you saying that they also share the same view and have the same prejudice against science?

Is it a coincidence that they are all Christians?

Scientists question religion and science

Theists only question science and give religion a pass

Am I to go down your list of scientists and tell you what each of them actually means when they dissent?

Do you know the difference between the theory of evolution and evolution itself?

Do you realize this entire exercise is a "god of the gaps" attempt? Because the alternative that theists propose to evolution is creation and let's see them experiment with that.