Heaven & Hell (Open to Everyone)

[Into the Night]

Thanks for confirming for me that you have never had a philosophy class and cannot discuss topics without getting bent.

Thanks for confirming that you are really pretty mentally inflexible and actually kind of stupid.

Philosophy isn't a class.

 

[Cypress]

what

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong. They just didn't offer them when you were at DeVry Tech.

You are hallucinating again. Again, you show your hatred for electricians (for some reason).
Philosophy classes aren't theology classes.

 

[Cypress]

Discussing theology doesn't require a license or certificate. Interpreting the Bible doesn't require one either.
What 'problem of violence' are you referring to? Why is it a 'problem'?

You regularly deny science. Atheists don't misrepresent or represent any religion. There is no such thing as a 'militant' atheist. Atheism isn't a religion. The Church of No God is, however.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[Saint Guinefort]

World Christianity 2.5 billion
Protestants 900 million
Other Christians 1.6 billion

Protestants= around 36% of world Christianity.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_member


That's exactly what I said, Protestants are just a minority of world t, but you still had to frantically google anyway

What does that have to do with the discussion of the Bible? This is a THEOLOGY discussion...not a Popularity Contest. Why can't you have a philosophical/theological discussion without getting so bent whenever someone so much as questions the Bible?

 

[Into the Night]

It's a JOKE you dumbass. Geeeezus one too many shocks from bad wiring destroy your brain?

You weren't attempting humor. So now you take your statement back?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You weren't attempting humor. So now you take your statement back?

At least Cypress tries to cover his stupidity with fake intellectual bullshit. You don't even try.

 

[Into the Night]

What does that have to do with the discussion of the Bible? This is a THEOLOGY discussion...not a Popularity Contest. Why can't you have a philosophical/theological discussion without getting so bent whenever someone so much as questions the Bible?

Theology is not philosophy. Redefinition fallacy.

It could be argued that churches ARE popularity contests.

 

[Into the Night]

At least Cypress tries to cover his stupidity with fake intellectual bullshit. You don't even try.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Inversion fallacy.

You can't even get your fallacies right. Learn what a true inversion fallacy is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why?

Because of the overwhelming faith required to follow atheism.

That is not what atheism is. Atheism literally means no theism. It neither denies nor acknowledges the existence of any god or gods.

That is agnosticism.

Atheism is the absolute faith that there is nothing other than the natural universe and cannot be anything beyond it.

Agnosticism is reasonable - based on reason. Atheism is dogmatic, the mirror image of theism.

Atheism isn't a religion.

Of course it is. One of the most dogmatic of all religions and intolerant of competing faiths.

Those are religions.

As is atheism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wrong. They just didn't offer them when you were at DeVry Tech.

I've know several people who graduated from Devry, all of them well educated.

For IT people, it was one of the better educational programs I've seen. My undergrad is Computer Information Systems from Cal Poly Pomona. DeVry probably spent more hours on absolute technology than we did. I mean, i guess it's not an BA in English .. I recall you look down your nose at any degree that has a practical application.

 

[Uncensored2008]

World Christianity 2.5 billion
Protestants 900 million
Other Christians 1.6 billion

Protestants= around 36% of world Christianity.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_member



That's exactly what I said, Protestants are just a minority of world t, but you still had to frantically google anyway

But what you claim simply isn't true.

{The following are the percentages of Christians, Evangelical Protestants, Mainline Protestants, Historically Black Protestants, and Catholics in the United States1:

• Christian: 70.6%
• Evangelical Protestant: 25.4%
• Mainline Protestant: 14.7%
• Historically Black Protestant: 6.5%
• Catholic: 20.8%

41% of multiracial Americans identify as Protestant, including 23% who are evangelical and 18% who are non-evangelical. 11% are Catholic2.}

Protestants are over double the number of Catholics.

PRRI

Your wiki link is all but made up - as it provides no actual data.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I've know several people who graduated from Devry, all of them well educated.

For IT people, it was one of the better educational programs I've seen. My undergrad is Computer Information Systems from Cal Poly Pomona. DeVry probably spent more hours on absolute technology than we did. I mean, i guess it's not an BA in English .. I recall you look down your nose at any degree that has a practical application.

lol. wrong

 

[Margot]

If a 'reaction' from touching God created the Universe, then the Universe isn't the Universe for it is not universal. You are saying God and Satan exists outside the Universe. That is not possible, since that would make the Universe not the Universe.

Asked answered! It's not a Debate.

 

[RB 60]

LOL Your fantasies are interesting, Arbie. Lots of projection.

Dear Dumbass; I already did. The fact you are too blind to see it or too dimwitted to understand why you proved your own statement a lie is not my problem.

As usual, you sidestepped.

 

[RB 60]

LOL Agreed.

For some reason I piss off all the nutjobs, Trumpian cocksuckers, racists and dumbasses on JPP. IDK why.

Still obsessed with sucking cock. You have perverted issues. You should seek out Diesel, he's your type

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Still obsessed with sucking cock. You have perverted issues. You should seek out Diesel, he's your type

Doc one day spent an entire afternoon just posting "cocksucker" at me on the forum. It was surreal.

 

[RB 60]

Doc one day spent an entire afternoon just posting "cocksucker" at me on the forum. It was surreal.

He's obsessed with sucking cock. Too bad no man will let him suck their cock. One of those French Poodles just might...

 

[IBDaMann]

I submit that the Theory of the Big Bang is NOT consistent with any model of science.

Pick one. Pick any science theory and let's see how speculation of an expanding universe that began from a singularity is somehow inconsistent with that theory.

That theory is NOT a theory of science.

Correct. It doesn't need to be science to be consistent with science.

Example. I tell you that I arrived at the park by driving my combustion engine vehicle along a particular route that took a certain amount of time. You agree that this is consistent with science. The next day I tell you that I arrived at the park by instantly teleporting half way to my magic carpet, which I piloted the rest of the rest of the way to the park. You begin to have doubts about today's account being consistent with physics.

Once upon a time, there were actual problems with the Big Bang being consistent with physics. Then Stephen Hawking fundamentally altered physics to account for the expanding universe we observe. If you haven't read his thesis, I recommend it. The "Big Bang" as a name/label, kind of fell out of use in deference to Hawking's "singularity." The model came about by the observation that the (observable) universe is expanding. If you go backward in time, the universe is contracting. The singularity is simply the theoretical limit. If you don't have a problem with the concept of absolute zero, or a perfect black body, even though you know they don't exist in nature, then you shouldn't have a problem with the theoretical point/limit whereby the universe began its expansion by simply tracing the expansion backwards. It's just a model. Many people have argued their own personal speculations about what happened at the "singularity" or thereabouts, and it's all irrelevant because nothing changes the model itself.

No model of any theory of science supports infinite energy in an infinitely small space.

Correct. Hawking's singularity is not infinite energy. If you don't like the idea of it being a dimensionless point, make the singularity whatever you want it to be. It's irrelevant. The only question that matters is "do you agree that the observable universe is expanding?" ... without making any claims as to the nature of any unobservable universe. If so, if you were to go back in time far enough, what is the logical conclusion?

* no boundary to the Universe has ever been detected.

Correct, but we have to address your personal semantics of the word "universe". Maybe there are many of these expanding universes. You want to say "if there are many, they aren't uni-verses" ... leaving me to respond "So that's why there is only one uniform, because if there were many uniforms, they wouldn't be uni-forms" ... or "Now I see why there is only one unit of measure. If there were many, they wouldn't be units of measure."

So let's create a term for the moment and refer to the "expandiverse". There is no limit of only one expandiverse.

* our view of the Universe is finite. We cannot see all of the Universe.

This is an understatement. We can see a mere flake of a mere speck of a mere particle of this expandiverse, and that's overstating our visibility.

* remember a model of any theory of science is just a model. A noun to describe the theory with.
* there is NO Ultimate Theory of the Universe that is a theory of science.

Agreed. Hawking created a model for an expanding universe, which I am calling an expandiverse to eliminate confusion over the semantics of prefixes.

The Big Bang no longer means what it meant. Hawking changed that. The term is now "singularity" and merely represents the theoretical limit of the point of origin of the expansion of the expandiverse.