- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Some people cannot see repercussions of their own actions because they lack foresight, these people are typically called fools. Some people cannot learn from the past because they ignore or have no hindsight, these people are also called fools sometimes.
Not according to your Book of Unicorns. Knowing what scripture says is so unfashionable these days, don’t you think.Quote Even that which you physically see is merely an image generated by the brain.
Indeed. And what you think you see can be an image invented by the brain. Which is exactly my point. You have not shown that your “god experiences” aren’t just the usual illusions that your brain creates in order for you to cope with the data overload it experiences from your senses. You just assert, with no evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of your claims. Of course that is because the god delusion, while powerful, is also vulnerable to questioning.Quote Is it not foolish to stand in full confidence of what you have experienced in your physical brain and thinking that there is no such experience outside of what your brain has interpreted for you.
It’s really hard to tell whether that is foolish or not, as it does not parse in English.Quote Perhaps now in hindsight you might understand what we really think about your testimony so far. Then again, maybe not.
I haven’t given you much of anything that could be called testimony, and more to the point you haven’t given any yourself that tells us any of the “experiences” you attribute to your god.Quote Even if you doubt the experience that people have had with God or even people's real experiences with death.
What is a god? Who has died and lived to tell about the experience?Quote You still have yet to refute that a creator is the only option that works for explaining everything you see. Remember the other 2 options? Nothing and something with the IQ of zero.
What is a creator? EXACTLY what did it do? Precisely how does using a fantasy term like “creator” equate to an explanation?You may recall that I have asked these questions of you before, t8, and you have never even attempted an answer to any of them. Is yours just the mocking voice with nothing of its own to say? Looks like that is confirmed by your repetition of the evidence for it.
Quote So far Stu you have failed in your quest to demonstrate that there is no creator. Heck, you cannot even show us a half-good alternative.
I have no idea what you think a “creator” is or does, so how can I demonstrate it is not there? My position remains clear, and unchallenged: I make the scientific conclusion, based on the complete lack of unambiguous evidence for any god claims, that gods do not exist. You don’t have to know what gods are to conclude that. I am open to evidence. Do you have any?Quote Please send a more skillful Atheist to the forum. You have had your turn. Time to pass the baton onto a more able Atheist I think.I also feel like a challenge. You don't offer that, but you have been a good laugh I admit.
This is a slightly perverse way of you conceding defeat, but fair enough if you really feel that way. Thanks for playing, and come back if you have a single actual explanation, response to real science or the merest scrap of unambiguous evidence for all your claims of celestial conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends, whatever they are.Of course it is not just the skeptical points I make which go unanswered, Tim has made many very well articulated points that show how christian “thinking” does not rise above the level of assertion of magic.
I also remember the chap who, I suspect, precipitated the great schism that cast the skeptics into Hades down below here a couple of years back. Wasn’t he a converted Jew who had all the christians here on a plate by knowing three scripturally-supported interpretations for every one given in reply, and the logical arguments that showed them all to be mutually contradictory no matter which line you took? That was a performance for either of us to admire. Of course it isn’t my goal to take on the celestial conspiracy theory on its own terms. I have always been more interested in stopping people from getting away with misrepresenting empirical science. There is not nearly as much creationism here as there used to be. People know that it will be torn to shreds for the nonsense that it is.
Quote Your avatar also says it all. An orangutan with his hand over his face. Perhaps that is prophetic concerning what you can really see?
If it had a speech bubble, it would say “Good grief!”.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 17 2011,23:16) Not according to your Book of Unicorns.
Isn't it Evolution that says that unicorns are possible.
Ancestors without the horn were not able to kill of predators as well as the mutated ones with a sharp horn that grew on the head. Thus they produced more offspring and slowly diverged from their ancestors who eventually died off. Unfortunately a meteorite landed on the area where unicorns lived and they all died.See Stu, you just need to use the level of imagination that Evolution theory affords you.
Quote (Stu @ June 17 2011,22:48) Quote (t8 @ June 17 2011,22:15) Getting any positive number by adding zeros together.
1/0 = ∞∞ x 0 = 1
Or, if you prefer,
3/0 = ∞
∞ x 0 = 3
I thought we had already been through this.
Stuart
Making sure we are on the same page Stu.OK, let's scrutinise this.
First off, infinity and zero are often treated as numbers, but that is no proof that they are numbers. Both are more concepts than numbers. Sometimes in maths we need to talk about the concept of nothing or lack of a number or we need to express something that goes on forever.
Secondly, the nature of division is divide by something. If you divide by nothing, then there is no true division. That is like saying, the nature of drinking water is to drink an amount of water. But to drink zero water is tantamount to an empty glass, and thus you are not drinking at all.
So, if I divide three bananas among zero orangutans, then I am not dividing the bananas at all. That said, you could make the argument that it can be divided an infinite amount of times, but all that is really happening here is that you are saying something similar to a car travelling at 0 miles an hour would take an infinite amount of time to reach it's destination. But you could also say that it will never reach it's destination because it is not moving toward the target. Just because both ideas equal never reaching the target, is not proof that they are the same thing.
Saying that it will take forever to get there is the same as saying it will never get there. Thus, some have postulated that infinity and zero are related. However, if they have anything in common it is perhaps that they are the borders of the reality that we see and to go beyond that we start to venture into philosophy and thus we might postulate that if you go far enough to the east, you will arrive at the west.
However, both zero and infinity are concepts that we accept within our faith in God. God is described as infinite, and zero or nothing is describes as the lack of something and even destruction where something that was, no longer will be.
Quote (t8 @ June 20 2011,09:34) Quote (Stu @ June 17 2011,23:16) Not according to your Book of Unicorns.
Isn't it Evolution that says that unicorns are possible.
Ancestors without the horn were not able to kill of predators as well as the mutated ones with a sharp horn that grew on the head. Thus they produced more offspring and slowly diverged from their ancestors who eventually died off. Unfortunately a meteorite landed on the area where unicorns lived and they all died.See Stu, you just need to use the level of imagination that Evolution theory affords you.
Without evidence of unicorns you have nothing of any meaning to say. Just like your Book of Chattering Snakes.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ June 20 2011,10:02) Quote (Stu @ June 17 2011,22:48) Quote (t8 @ June 17 2011,22:15) Getting any positive number by adding zeros together.
1/0 = ∞∞ x 0 = 1
Or, if you prefer,
3/0 = ∞
∞ x 0 = 3
I thought we had already been through this.
Stuart
Making sure we are on the same page Stu.OK, let's scrutinise this.
First off, infinity and zero are often treated as numbers, but that is no proof that they are numbers. Both are more concepts than numbers. Sometimes in maths we need to talk about the concept of nothing or lack of a number or we need to express something that goes on forever.
Secondly, the nature of division is divide by something. If you divide by nothing, then there is no true division. That is like saying, the nature of drinking water is to drink an amount of water. But to drink zero water is tantamount to an empty glass, and thus you are not drinking at all.
So, if I divide three bananas among zero orangutans, then I am not dividing the bananas at all. That said, you could make the argument that it can be divided an infinite amount of times, but all that is really happening here is that you are saying something similar to a car travelling at 0 miles an hour would take an infinite amount of time to reach it's destination. But you could also say that it will never reach it's destination because it is not moving toward the target. Just because both ideas equal never reaching the target, is not proof that they are the same thing.
Saying that it will take forever to get there is the same as saying it will never get there. Thus, some have postulated that infinity and zero are related. However, if they have anything in common it is perhaps that they are the borders of the reality that we see and to go beyond that we start to venture into philosophy and thus we might postulate that if you go far enough to the east, you will arrive at the west.
However, both zero and infinity are concepts that we accept within our faith in God. God is described as infinite, and zero or nothing is describes as the lack of something and even destruction where something that was, no longer will be.
Zero is a whole number.As the unambiguous evidence for you god amounts to nothing, your god is best modeled in physics by the number zero.
Stuart
Quote Without evidence of unicorns you have nothing of any meaning to say. Just like your Book of Chattering Snakes.
OK Stu, I can see you have no comeback and thus have resorted to creating sentences entirely composed of your opinion and structured for the purpose of only to get a response, (rather than add some learning). So there is no point in responding to them is there?Instead I would like to add that some say zero and infinity are described as “duals” with each having roughly equivalent but opposite effects. The existence of zero implies the existence of the infinite and vice versa.
Q: If they indeed they do exist in some form, then what exists that is infinite?
A: God for a start.
Q: If zero is indeed a real concept then what in reality is zero in existence.
A: Perhaps a person who exists and is then destroyed. Or matter and antimatter collisions. Perhaps the amount of wisdom in your quote above?Quote (t8 @ June 21 2011,10:38) Quote Without evidence of unicorns you have nothing of any meaning to say. Just like your Book of Chattering Snakes.
OK Stu, I can see you have no comeback and thus have resorted to creating sentences entirely composed of your opinion and structured for the purpose of only to get a response, (rather than add some learning). So there is no point in responding to them is there?Instead I would like to add that some say zero and infinity are described as “duals” with each having roughly equivalent but opposite effects. The existence of zero implies the existence of the infinite and vice versa.
Q: If they indeed they do exist in some form, then what exists that is infinite?
A: God for a start.
Q: If zero is indeed a real concept then what in reality is zero in existence.
A: Perhaps a person who exists and is then destroyed. Or matter and antimatter collisions. Perhaps the amount of wisdom in your last post?
You were more interesting when you were talking about unicorns.Stuart
In a manner which matches the fortuity, if not the consequence, of Archimedes' bath and Newton's apple, the [3.6 million year old] fossil footprints were eventually noticed one evening in September 1976 by the paleontologist Andrew Hill, who fell while avoiding a ball of elephant dung hurled at him by the ecologist David Western.
John Reader
Quote (Stu @ June 21 2011,17:40) You were more interesting when you were talking about unicorns.
Let me guess, it was the part where I said to give you imagination free reign as they do in Evolution theory.What about Leprechauns. Their size helped them to run under small trees and fallen logs thereby allowing them to escape predators who were quite large and easily picked off the bigger humans. The climate changed and the big predators died off being cold blooded, leaving Leprechauns to eat potatoes for a few thousand years. Eventually they died because of the first great potato famine coupled with bigger humans who were also hungry and hunted them for food. Thus today in Ireland you see normal sized humans and there we have another great Evolution story.
Actually a topic dedicated to theories like this might be as good as the Evolution Poems topic was.
Real science is constrained by what is possible with the making of proteins by DNA. It is not evolutionary biology that contains three different methods of producing humans. I'd call Genesis more imaginative, but it's not really. The Judeo-christian Book of Human Parthenogenesis is dull reconstructed Mesopotamian mythology. Perhaps the most impressive part of it was the change-management as the polytheistic gods were whittled down to zero by cultural “assimilation”.
Or was that one god? May as well be zero, it makes no real difference.
Have you never visited Ireland? Leprechauns as far as the eye can see!
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ June 21 2011,21:23) Actually a topic dedicated to theories like this might be as good as the Evolution Poems topic was.
I'd say it would be definitely as good as that was, if possibly slightly worse even.Stuart
Quote Real science is constrained by what is possible with the ….
Let me finish the sentence without the extra detail.“the physical realm.”
So it reads as”
Real science is constrained by what is possible within the physical realm.
OK, we are making progress.
Now try and discern the following scripture:
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
and again
These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
If you think these scriptures are waffle, then they are self-fulfilling in regards to yourself.
Quote Let me finish the sentence without the extra detail. “the physical realm.”
So it reads as”
Real science is constrained by what is possible within the physical realm.
…as opposed to the imaginary realm of talking donkeys and other emperor’s finery.Quote Now try and discern the following scripture: The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Who is this man without a spirit? Sounds like a really bad state to be in. Glad I have spirituality. Can’t imagine what like would be like without it. No Imaginary Friends or celestial conspiracy theories though, of course.What is a god, again?
Quote These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. If you think these scriptures are waffle, then they are self-fulfilling in regards to yourself.
I agree with you that they are waffle, and also I think you should tell us who this person without spirit is. Maybe we could show him the wonder of the universe and help him to get a sense of awe of his understanding of his place within it.When we do meet him, you better leave it to me. Don’t want him confusing spirituality with belief in things that aren’t really there.
Stuart
Thanks for the demonstration Stu.
You gave a live example to what those scriptures were saying.Might as well be a blind man saying “What is this colour green”.
Of course this is lost on you.
Quote (t8 @ June 23 2011,21:38) Thanks for the demonstration Stu.
You gave a live example to what those scriptures were saying.Might as well be a blind man saying “What is this colour green”.
Of course this is lost on you.
The same could equally be said for you and what I wrote about spirituality.What value is spirituality based on things that just aren't true, like virgin birth, walking on the surface of water, walking again after being killed, and snakes chatting with humans?
Stuart
Back to scientific quotes and words of scientific wisdom.
“The doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture.” (Congregation of the Index, under Pope Paul V)
Tim
Yes organised religion for political power is one of the most abusive systems that was ever devised. A cunning idea I have to admit.
They also reject much of what scripture says.Quote (Stu @ June 23 2011,22:06) The same could equally be said for you and what I wrote about spirituality. What value is spirituality based on things that just aren't true, like virgin birth, walking on the surface of water, walking again after being killed, and snakes chatting with humans?
Stuart
I have been on both sides of the fence.Half my life I was an ignorant atheist.
Never again. I have no excuse not to believe because have seen and experienced God first hand.
I will let you get back to disproving the colour green (symbollically speaking).
“As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.”
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8“One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!”
A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.“With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started — it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”
A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.“However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.”
A Brief History of Time – (page 193)In response to his book, Prophet Hawking said this:
“If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence.”Quote (Stu @ June 21 2011,21:32) Real science is constrained by what is possible with the making of proteins by DNA. It is not evolutionary biology that contains three different methods of producing humans. I'd call Genesis more imaginative, but it's not really. The Judeo-christian Book of Human Parthenogenesis is dull reconstructed Mesopotamian mythology. Perhaps the most impressive part of it was the change-management as the polytheistic gods were whittled down to zero by cultural “assimilation”. Or was that one god? May as well be zero, it makes no real difference.
Have you never visited Ireland? Leprechauns as far as the eye can see!
Stuart
Hi Stuart,I have more “Scientific Evidence” for you, unlike the fairytale beginnings you believe in.
……391=יהשוע pronounced is YÄ-shü-ă in the Hebrew tongue.
1 Cor 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?……More scientific FACTS, concerning the number 391
In our bodies we have (for cell reproduction) DNA, needing also RNA to reproduce.
DNA consists of:
…Adenine=52
…Guanine=71
Cytosine=110
+Thymine=94RNA consists of:
Adenine
Guanine
Cytosine
+ Uracil=6452+71+110+94+64=391 …PROVING we are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
