Why does god like negging people so much? What a manipulative bas .
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
It gets tossed because it is unverifiable, and indistinguishable from any other book with self-proclaimed truth.
Show me how sin makes me mortal. This is a pretty testable claim.
First let's define terms, scientifically.
Define "sin".
I can probably go back and find your posts, where you if I'm correct say something along those lines. I just think it's phony to take on God's and ONLY God's right to judge us. If that's something you never intended to say, then I'll just assume I misread it.
The odd thing is that when in comes to the merits of proving the credibility of Scripture you have thrown a gauntlet of 'burden of proof' that becomes almost unreasonable for ANY book in antiquity. Yet somehow, I know that any evidence that I could provide to show why the merits of other 'holy books' are less credible than the merits for the Scriptures of Judeo/Christian beliefs would immediately be tossed out and dismissed by most of you all.
Heck, you all gobbled up Fuzzy's assertions without a single shred of evidence. Why...? Because, ultimately you all don't want to validate a book which contains a message you plainly reject.
Besides, the exercise would be futile. And we would have the ad nauseam discussion over said merits.
The fact is NO BOOK in antiquity is more validated by other historical works than Judeo/Christian Scriptures. Your collective willingness to want to believe every blog post that states the contrary as an indictment against said credibility isn't proof itself. Just more fallacious consensus gentium.
Frankly, I don't have neither the time nor the willingness to dissuade you all.
Go on believing that 'any myth' from ancient antiquity can present enough evidence of its credibility when compared to what the Scriptures can support. At this point I don't care.
Except that Scripture doesn't ever claim that the Sun revolves around the earth...
The contradictions are all yours though.... You keep wanting to suggest that a Supernatural being MUST obey the natural laws. THAT is a contradictory requisite. You again want to define the framework in a way that constrains GOD to make "natural" sense.
He's Omnipresent in the sense that He can be anywhere or everywhere He chooses to be. And since He isn't constrained by natural laws HE CAN BE.
You missed the point altogether.
Atheists can't claim scientific validation to their disbelief. THAT was my point.
IF they want to say they don't believe. Fine. But they can't then turn around and in the very same breath say that their disbelief is scientifically supported. The two statements are incongruous.
Um, not quite.
For the umpteenth time. My belief in GOD has nothing to do with my academic understanding of our world. What's ignorant is your incessant arrogance to suggest that a belief system can only be built on scientific truths alone. Science is not the only revealer of truth.
I applaud efforts to keep searching for the truth. That's how we got to the point where we observed that our universe in fact began...
But ultimately, my belief in GOD is rooted far deeper. It means nothing to you, because you don't walk in my shoes. You haven't seen, heard, or experienced the things that I have... None of those things would sway you anyways, AND they don't have to... They're my experiences alone.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-25-2016 at 09:36 PM.
I made a point to talk about things that are easily verifiable on the interwebs. Your smear campaign without disputing any point of fact just makes you seem like an asshole frankly.
You can make circular arguments about what 'scripture supports' all you like. It's not even worth addressing.
Your admission of dismissiveness is ultimately why no one wants to discuss anything with you – it’s already plainly obvious that you don’t read the content of arguments anyways – admitting it, however, is just downright cynical.
I don’t know if you are trying to be disingenuous or simply don’t understand the nature of argument.
I’m not debating the merits of non-real math, or imaginary numbers. Your example, however, is from a framework where the laws of physics are still very much the governing dynamic that define the boundaries of reality. All observations, measurements, interactions of anything we do in a lab, supercolliders, or elsewhere in the real universe are governed by those laws.
We might be able to seemingly ‘bend’ one law here or there when talking about the perturbative characteristics of virtual particles/antiparticles and their interactions, or to some extent with certain fractional quantum Hall effects - but quantum effects themselves are still ultimately reined in by those laws... Hence, any mathematical construct that you are trying to employ to extrapolate the dynamics of what we observe TODAY and suggest that it is applicable to the origins period or even the Planck epoch are intrinsically untenable… (Again, another “LOL”…) Quantum fluctuations alone don’t validate the use of imaginary topology just for the sake of ‘making the math work’. The concept of these mathematical devices isn’t novel either; we’ve been using Hilbert space, for functional analysis in many other applications that are constrained by similar mathematical hurdles – understanding of course that use of the mathematical device can produce non-real solutions. The crux of my argument is that you stubbornly want to latch on to those non-real solutions seemingly to avoid the ramifications of real solutions in various cosmological models – solutions that produce the ‘singularity’ because ultimately THEY point to a finite beginning for our universe.
My statements are declarative statements that are trying to get you to see the bigger picture. You want to argue about the math in theoretic rhetoric. The engineer part of me, however, is trying to point out the practical implication of the math in those cosmological models – namely that if something (space time) is infinitely small to the point of being zero, THEN you essentially have ‘nothingness,’ BUT within the ‘nothingness’ you essentially have ‘everything’.
So IF our universe had a finite beginning.
THEN it follows that before the universe began you had ‘nothingness’ AND after it began you had ‘everything’. BY arguing about the undefined nature of the mathematics you’ve managed to lose sight of the bigger picture. You do so only because it suits you. You don’t want to concede any ground whatsoever. Heck, you’ve admitted you’ll likely not even reach this portion of my argument.
Again, cosmological theories that avoid a ‘beginning’ don’t jive with observations and are not based on reality, because mathematically they use devices that employ imaginary time or imaginary space BOTH which are inherently, by definition NOT REAL. If you want to add your name to the list of folks who advocate the merits of such a belief go right ahead.
You all lazily rely on the “GOD of the gaps” rebuttal every time it suits your need to twist the emphasis of an argument. “GOD” isn’t the answer to the gap of my understanding of cosmology. GOD is simply an answer that works for me, due to the entirety of my life’s journey – the experiences I’ve lived and witnessed. The fact that I believe that our current understanding of cosmology also jives with certain key aspects of the origins narrative as described in Scripture doesn’t mean that YOU have to believe as much… IT just means you are still searching for your answers. That said, you don’t get to decide that your opinion (because that is what it amounts to at this juncture) is any more valid than mine.
Blake mentioned that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable scientific answer for the origins question. I agree it is… only in the sense that it is an answer to the question. What I don’t believe however, is that it is an acceptable reason to fully rule out supernatural origin as many of you routinely do. Divine Creation still answers the question, not as some indecipherable gap, but as a definitive CAUSE that also satisfies the Kalam cosmological argument: “Anything which begins to exist must have a cause…. Those are the very ramifications that the atheistic ‘luminaries’ in the field of cosmology understand and try to avoid when trying to prove that the universe is somehow eternal, even while all evidence points to the contrary.
dp
IF they're so easily verifiable how come you never provided any evidence...?
Subject those sites to the same level of scrutiny.
Still no argument on a point of fact. I wrote from memory for the most part. If you dispute any particular that would be interesting.
You've given up the topology argument completely. Before I said you lose and you said it was juvenile. Aside from your pigheadedness providing delectable irony, there are actual ways to judge an argument. One way to quickly identify the losing side are they who drop arguments. Thus, you lose.
That is your entire schtick though. Ignore most everything and instead try to reduce it down to some oversimplified construct like your t = 0 narrative. You do it in these massive walls of text too.
You say absolutely nothing. Signals and stochastics are what they are. Empirically proven to match with reality. Your Newtonian construct of before and after is meaningless. You don't have a physics degree or whatever you claim this time. Your level and sophistry are apparent.Your admission of dismissiveness is ultimately why no one wants to discuss anything with you – it’s already plainly obvious that you don’t read the content of arguments anyways – admitting it, however, is just downright cynical.
I don’t know if you are trying to be disingenuous or simply don’t understand the nature of argument.
I’m not debating the merits of non-real math, or imaginary numbers. Your example, however, is from a framework where the laws of physics are still very much the governing dynamic that define the boundaries of reality. All observations, measurements, interactions of anything we do in a lab, supercolliders, or elsewhere in the real universe are governed by those laws.
We might be able to seemingly ‘bend’ one law here or there when talking about the perturbative characteristics of virtual particles/antiparticles and their interactions, or to some extent with certain fractional quantum Hall effects - but quantum effects themselves are still ultimately reined in by those laws... Hence, any mathematical construct that you are trying to employ to extrapolate the dynamics of what we observe TODAY and suggest that it is applicable to the origins period or even the Planck epoch are intrinsically untenable… (Again, another “LOL”
My statements are declarative statements that are trying to get you to see the bigger picture. You want to argue about the math in theoretic rhetoric. The engineer part of me, however, is trying to point out the practical implication of the math in those cosmological models – namely that if something (space time) is infinitely small to the point of being zero, THEN you essentially have ‘nothingness,’ BUT within the ‘nothingness’ you essentially have ‘everything’.
So IF our universe had a finite beginning.
THEN it follows that before the universe began you had ‘nothingness’ AND after it began you had ‘everything’. BY arguing about the undefined nature of the mathematics you’ve managed to lose sight of the bigger picture. You do so only because it suits you. You don’t want to concede any ground whatsoever. Heck, you’ve admitted you’ll likely not even reach this portion of my argument.
Again, cosmological theories that avoid a ‘beginning’ don’t jive with observations and are not based on reality, because mathematically they use devices that employ imaginary time or imaginary space BOTH which are inherently, by definition NOT REAL. If you want to add your name to the list of folks who advocate the merits of such a belief go right ahead.
You all lazily rely on the “GOD of the gaps” rebuttal every time it suits your need to twist the emphasis of an argument. “GOD” isn’t the answer to the gap of my understanding of cosmology. GOD is simply an answer that works for me, due to the entirety of my life’s journey – the experiences I’ve lived and witnessed. The fact that I believe that our current understanding of cosmology also jives with certain key aspects of the origins narrative as described in Scripture doesn’t mean that YOU have to believe as much… IT just means you are still searching for your answers. That said, you don’t get to decide that your opinion (because that is what it amounts to at this juncture) is any more valid than mine.
Blake mentioned that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable scientific answer for the origins question. I agree it is… only in the sense that it is an answer to the question. What I don’t believe however, is that it is an acceptable reason to fully rule out supernatural origin as many of you routinely do. Divine Creation still answers the question, not as some indecipherable gap, but as a definitive CAUSE that also satisfies the Kalam cosmological argument: “Anything which begins to exist must have a cause…. Those are the very ramifications that the atheistic ‘luminaries’ in the field of cosmology understand and try to avoid when trying to prove that the universe is somehow eternal, even while all evidence points to the contrary.
You have no credibility.
There are a few people who would disagree with that interpretation.
You can find them on youtube, if you wish.
I would guess Cardinal Bellarmine and others felt they had some basis.
The only real relevance to the discussion is to point out the implications of relying on an old book to give you the truth.
That's why I don't play the "context" game. Either the bible says slavery is evil or it doesn't.
Your problem is that it doesn't. You can interpret all the context you want, and that doesn't change.
Full context for quote here.
He's Omnipresent in the sense that He can be anywhere or everywhere He chooses to be. And since He isn't constrained by natural laws HE CAN BE.
You missed the point altogether.
Atheists can't claim scientific validation to their disbelief. THAT was my point.
IF they want to say they don't believe. Fine. But they can't then turn around and in the very same breath say that their disbelief is scientifically supported. The two statements are incongruous.
Um, not quite.
For the umpteenth time. My belief in GOD has nothing to do with my academic understanding of our world. What's ignorant is your incessant arrogance to suggest that a belief system can only be built on scientific truths alone. Science is not the only revealer of truth.
I applaud efforts to keep searching for the truth. That's how we got to the point where we observed that our universe in fact began...
But ultimately, my belief in GOD is rooted far deeper. It means nothing to you, because you don't walk in my shoes. You haven't seen, heard, or experienced the things that I have... None of those things would sway you anyways, AND they don't have to... They're my experiences alone.
Your personal experience is not really a good reason for me to accept something as true. If houses can communicate with people then we can test that.
But if you want to play the "supernatural" game we can do that too. It will lead, yet again, to conclusions you don't like.
How do you know "God is supernatural"?
Yeah but creating heavens and earth in 6 days is good enough to lol.
Just in case it got missed, let's go down the other line of reasoning, to yet another uncomfortable conclusion for you.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
It gets tossed because it is unverifiable, and indistinguishable from any other book with self-proclaimed truth.
Show me how sin makes me mortal. This is a pretty testable claim.
First let's define terms.
Define "sin".
edit:
Going to be hard to get out of this one:
This is where the "supernatural" schtick begins to breakdown.
Your "supernatural" claim becomes measurable and testable when "supernatural" starts having effects on the natural.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 01-26-2016 at 09:47 AM.
Nah, talking snakes.
Although you, me, Phenomanul , and FuzzyLumpkins can all agree this is funny:
Bible God is getting ruled out.
I haven't skirted it at all. I readily admit that you can interpret anything you want to on whatever passage you want to.
Interpretation is a huge problem for your belief system, as already noted.
The more clear a passage is about it intentions, the less room there is for interpretation, because interpretations can be incorrect. This is a good reason to reject vagueness, and why science strives for specificity.Henry G. Brinton, a pastor at Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, writes that the Bible was used a weapon by both the North and the South. Brinton says some contemporary Americans are making the same mistake their Civil War ancestors did by twisting the Bible to support their own battle cries.
Brinton, author of “Balancing Acts: Obligation, Liberation and Contemporary Christian Conflicts,” says both the Union and the Confederacy invoked the Bible to justify their positions on slavery.
Slaveholders justified the practice by citing the Bible, Brinton says.
They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" ( us 2:9).
Lol unreasonable. Poor phenomanul can't prove bible god is real.
It's true tho that I do reject the bible's message to kill the gays and be obedient slaves
Kinda the definition of 'Supernatural'...
I’m not arguing against signals and stochastics. Or about your experience in telecom – your continued attempt at ‘sleight of hand’ noted.
I’m arguing against the premise that your ‘telecom observations’ apply to a period that they, BY DEFINITION cannot be applied to (especially when you imply values of time < zero). You bring up stochastics - which when applied to cosmology inherently try to ‘make sense’ of the vastness of the cosmological fields by reducing several of the asymptotic tensors to usable terms using deterministic methods and probabilities (random even). Stochastic processes are intrinsically mathematical tools, and while most modern cosmological models are generated by said methods – cosmological solutions, however, are still very real, the parameters are still very real: time remains a discrete term, the cosmological constant remains a discrete term, critical energies remain discrete terms, etc… yet you keep wanting to justify imaginary solutions for cosmological models as valid answers – at their most critical point, no less (t=0). The use of stochastics in other applied fields is not the same as using stochastics in cosmology where over 46 physical constants must be satisfied.
It’s worse than backpedaling when you keep trying to state the same thing over and over again, after being told of its absurdness.
Newtonian construct...??? You must be out of your damn mind.
Transfinite arithmetic leads to inherent contradictions which is why physicists are generally forbidden from using it. In math, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual. Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite quan ies and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. However – and here’s the point – it’s not descriptive of what can happen in the real world....
The universe indicates a finite beginning because it has one; that the mathematical expressions for the various cosmological models currently fail to ‘unify everything,’ including some discrete quantum effects and other phenomena is irrelevant in light of the fact that a beginning IS still indicated by most of the models. In fact, the finiteness of the cosmological constant itself appears to be a necessary condition for the stability of models which undergo an exponentially expanding state (as currently observed in our universe). The finiteness of the cosmological constant, in turn, is dependent of the finiteness of time. So again, a “t=0 premise” is completely defensible because one can’t assume an infinite number of past events for time, and then traversing the infinite to get to the moment of the big bang singularity. It would be as if someone had managed to count down all of the negative numbers to arrive at zero, the ‘origins moment’... Such a task is intuitively nonsense. For that mathematical reason alone physicists can conclude that there must have been a beginning to the universe. So IF time marks the beginning (i.e. time began), and IF one can’t traverse an infinite past to get to point zero THEN the universe did not exist prior to t=0.
In the big picture: Nothing……….. “BOOM”…… Everything. You wanting to believe the ‘unreal’ nature of other models for the sake of avoiding that ramification is your prerogative alone but ultimately why we don’t see eye to eye on the viability of solutions.
LOL
Who are you trying to convince..?? Yourself? The delusion that you have to gauge your intelligence against anyone else’s on this board only speaks to your own insecurities.
AND I don’t have to show you anything. The last time I listed my degrees on this forum (over 10 years ago) I was lambasted and accused of trying to ‘show off,’ of being ‘arrogant’. Again, no matter what I do… you all criticize it as ‘wrong’. The hate will keep coming simply because you all don’t agree with my beliefs. Just imagine… Since that time frame I’ve added three more degrees to my wall – 2 in the last year alone.
What’s annoying is that you all get so caught up on semantics and harp on my word choices (neglecting the arguments themselves) – but English was not even my primary language as I didn’t start learning it until the age of 12.
What part of “I’ll be back Monday” was difficult for you to understand….? I have really busy work days on most days. It’s rare when I can mul ask and weave in forum participation. Unlike you, I’m also trying to address like 5 other simultaneous posts that are lost in the flow of any semblance of true discourse... You have it easy. You can focus all of your brain power on having to counter-address only my posts… Unfortunately for you, your rebuttals never amount to nothing more than your opinions and assertions, or get this, fallacious comparisons (i.e.” telecom observations apply to the framework of the big bang singularity”). That you keep pressing with said argument is still laughable.
You keep saying your argument is correct, but FUNDAMENTALLY it is WRONG.
And your schtick is claiming to be smarter than anyone else to the point of smug and cynical dismissiveness.
How else do you want me to talk about cosmology if you also want me to reduce my responses down to one liners? You can’t have it both ways. Some concepts in cosmology – the whole point of stochastics actually – need to be framed in relatively simplified constructs (expressions) to be described at all in a practical sense.
So wait...? You say that the JESUS endorses slavery because HE never explicitly condemns it, but then you also say that the bible endorses the concept that the Sun revolves around the earth even though it's not explicitly stated?
The context you wish to apply for the latter has to be twisted to even fit.
The context for the former doesn't. JESUS said, "LOVE your neighbor as thyself" / "Treat others in a manner as you would also like to be treated" (which is not consistent with the endorsement of slavery).
YES context is important. But so is intent.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-26-2016 at 08:45 PM.
For someone that likes to accuse others of sophism you sure do rely on it much.
I'm not suggesting my own personal experience has to convince you of anything. Again though, why insist that science be the only revealer of truth..?
Also, the supernatural is by definition an 'untestable premise' for the scientific toolset.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-26-2016 at 08:42 PM.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
