If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Monad Portal]

Matter and energy are interchangeable, E = MC^2. But the language of physics still treats the particle zoo of quarks and leptons as distinct particles of matter. The idea from quantum field theory that particles are just vibrations of the underlying quantum field is just a theory, and may or may not be ultimately correct.

You wouldn't follow me around and read everything I write if you actually thought that. Dumb gets boring real fast.

blah blah.

but why are you so determined to retardedly mix up separate disciplines like a retard.

 

[Cypress]

but why are you so determined to retardedly mix up separate disciplines like a retard!!!

You tried to reduce the animate (aka, life) to just physics (matter and energy), and were subsequently humbled and embarrassed when I reminded you that immaterial realities like conscience, imagination, values, ideas are part and parcel of the animate.

 

[Monad Portal]

You tried to reduce the animate (aka, life) to just physics (matter and energy), and were subsequently humbled and embarrassed when I reminded you that immaterial realities like conscience, imagination, values, ideas are part and parcel of the animate.

the animate is just matter and energy.

this is factually correct.

I'm not embarrased by your nonsensical jackassery.

are you?

 

[Cypress]

the animate is just matter and energy.

this is factually correct!

And factually incomplete. Almost laughably incomplete.
Because no theory of physics accounts for or explains consciousness, values, imagination, conscience, ideas, beliefs, ethics, creativity.

 

[Monad Portal]

And factually incomplete. Almost laughably incomplete.
Because no theory of physics accounts for or explains consciousness, values, imagination, conscience, ideas, beliefs, ethics, creativity.

it's not intended to do so.

it's the entirely wrong discipline.

let's talk about values.

which is worse, dog-fighting or human fighting?

Thread 'Dog-Fighting or Human-fighting, WHich worse?'

Sunday at 7:22 AM

WHich is worse, dog-fighting or human-fighting?

discuss.

• Monad Portal
• Replies: 88
• Forum: Current Events Forum

 

[Cypress]

it's the entirely wrong discipline!!

So what? An educated free-thinking person can broach science, philosophy, religion in the same paragraph. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Francis Collins did. Medical ethics, economic history, and philosophy of science are legitimate multidisciplinary academic subjects.

 

[Monad Portal]

So what? An educated free-thinking person can broach science, philosophy, religion in the same paragraph. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Francis Collins did. Medical ethics, economic history, and philosophy of science are legitimate multidisciplinary academic subjects.

but you're just an idiot.

 

[Cypress]

You have just made the stupidest comment of the week. Let's examine your (il)logic under other circumstances!
* But if criminals are being held accountable for their crimes, so must the non-criminals.

I do not accept your stupid analogy that theists are like criminal defendants who have to provide explanations and alibis, while atheists are innocent and don't have to explain anything to anyone.

Atheists owe explanations to theists (and vice versa) as much as Epicureans owed explanations to Stoics.

Unlike you and every other atheist on this board, I have actually read and investigated the seminal atheist authors and influencers of the last 150 years, and understand they have a worldview. Which in essence is a belief in strict physical materialism and an assumption that life, the universe, and everything can be explained by purely inanimate naturalistic causes.

 

[Monad Portal]

I do not accept your stupid analogy that theists are like criminal defendants who have to provide explanations and alibis, while atheists are innocent and don't have to explain anything to anyone.

Atheists owe explanations to theists (and vice versa) as much as Epicureans owed explanations to Stoics.

Unlike you and every other atheist on this board, I have actually read and investigated the seminal atheist authors and influencers of the last 150 years, and understand they have a worldview. Which in essence is a belief in strict physical materialism and an assumption that life, the universe, and everything can be explained by purely inanimate naturalistic causes.

yes they have a nazi nihilistic population reduction worldview.

like many theists.

 

[ZenMode]

The implication of the Bible is that God has control of his own creation. Why do you think that is 'playing dumb'?

It's playing dumb because walking on frozen water is not a miracle, which is clearly implied.

As far as walking on water, I do it quite often. People drive on water. Water has only one structure. It is not an element. Like any substance, it has a solid, liquid, and gaseous phase.

Still playing dumb....

You simply claim it's impossible to walk on water. Ice is water. a sheet of liquid water on a street is liquid water. Even standing in a river fishing for trout can be said to be walking on water.

Still playing dumb....

The Bible describes Jesus Christ walking on deep liquid water. Why do you think God does not have control of his own creation? He knows far more than you do! No theory of science is violated by what Jesus Christ did.

Loading the dice. You're starting with the assumption that gods exist and work backwards from there.

It is YOU playing dumb.

* You think you can make evidence just disappear.
* You think you can prove your religion True.
* You think God and Jesus Christ have no control over their own creation, even though the Bible clearly states who created the Earth and everything on it.
* You accept the Bible and try to deny it at the same time, leaving you in paradox.
* You attempt to describe your religion as 'science'.
* You attempt to try to prove a negative.
* You attempt to try to conduct a proof of ignorance.

Already covered multiple times.

I you want to believe there is no god or gods, that's your prerogative, but you can't prove it, and you can't prove any other religion False.

I would love to believe in gods. I would love to believe that I can exist in perpetuity in some eternal family reunion.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and nobody has provided extraordinary evidence.

Personally, I consider your religion one of darkness, facing your own impending death with great fear; for to you, that is the end of your existence. That is the reality that you have chosen to believe. There is no other alternative your religion can conclude.

At least, to an atheist, the impending death is simply a leap into the Great Unknown. To you, however, it means Nonexistance.

To me, death is just a transition to life everlasting, even with the possibility of obtaining a new and incorruptible body, just as Jesus Christ did. I DO recognize my religion to be based on faith. I cannot prove it. I do not try to.

View: https://youtu.be/9A-Z47wIgu4?feature=shared

Grown men walk on water quite regularly, Void. God has control over his own creation. He can choose to walk on liquid water any way he wants to. No theory of science has been violated.

That's not what is being implied. A grown man walking on a frozen body of water isn't a miracle. It's not even noteworthy.

The best animal was selected for these sacrifices. It was in similitude of the sacrifice God would make of his own Son, Jesus Christ.

Right, so there were animal sacrifices in the Bible.

Jesus Christ Himself changed the sacrifice to a sacrament, designed to again remember his sacrifice he made, now considered history. He was a god coming as a man, lowering Himself to our state, to suffer death...to conquer it. Death still occurs (this we inherit from Adam's actions), but it has no more sting (this we inherit from the actions of Jesus Christ and God). Instead, it becomes merely a transition to everlasting life.

Thus, we inherit both death, and everlasting life,

Right so there were animal sacrifices in the Bible.

Your religions ARE incoherent babbling.

* You deny theories of science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* You deny statistical and probability mathematics.
* You deny logic.
* You are a fundamentalist.

Yawn.

 

[ZenMode]

Thank you for that, Zen.

It is my opinion that anyone who says, "No gods** exist"...is making a blind guess every bit a much as anyone who says, "A GOD exists."

Maybe no gods exist; maybe one GOD exists; maybe many gods exist. Any of those things is possible. We simply do not know.

The REALITY of existence is a very mysterious thing. There may come a time when the science of today will be regarded the way we currently regard "the science" of three thousand years ago.

You, and others, may disagree with my opinion. Fine. We can live with that.



** When I use the words "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST. I acknowledge that such an entity(s) may NOT exist.

I think you're looking at "probable" and "possible" as though they are the same thing.

In a universe where there is so much unknown, more or less anything is possible. It's possible there are gods, just as it's possible there's a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. I'm looking at what is probable based on what is known and reasonable.

There's very little of what we believe to be true that is based on first hand observation, so we are left to look at evidence and information and make a judgement on what is likely to be true.

 

[Monad Portal]

yes.

burning live animals was done all day long at the temple.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I think you're looking at "probable" and "possible" as though they are the same thing.

I am not...and nothing I have said should cause you to suspect that. I know the difference...and it is considerable.

In a universe where there is so much unknown, more or less anything is possible. It's possible there are gods, just as it's possible there's a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. I'm looking at what is probable based on what is known and reasonable.

And probability is normally based on math. Show me your math for whatever probability you assign.

There's very little of what we believe to be true that is based on first hand observation, so we are left to look at evidence and information and make a judgement on what is likely to be true.

You are blindly guessing that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Same thing as the theist do...except in reverse.

 

[ZenMode]

I am not...and nothing I have said should cause you to suspect that. I know the difference...and it is considerable.


And probability is normally based on math. Show me your math for whatever probability you assign.

Do you have an equation for everything you believe to be true or untrue and your level of confidence? How confident are you that water is 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen and can you show your math for it?

You are blindly guessing that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Same thing as the theist do...except in reverse.

Nope. I'm taking various pieces of information into consideration when coming to my conclusion and my degree of confidence.

Among those pieces of information, I consider the state of the world when man was believing in and writing about gods and the claims they made. I also consider the state of the world now and the fact that the same gods who were allegedly so active in the world have completely vanished.

Seems to be an interesting coincidence that gods have all but vanished as man has become more educated about science, the world/solar system, etc.

 

[IBDaMann]

I do not accept your stupid analogy that theists are like criminal defendants who have to provide explanations and alibis, while atheists are innocent and don't have to explain anything to anyone.

It's not an analogy; it's a logical equivalence. You have to accept it if you are going to sit at the adults' table. If you don't like the error that you have made, fix it.

Atheists owe explanations to theists

... for what, exactly?

Unlike you and every other atheist on this board, I have actually read and investigated the seminal atheist authors

What you have read is irrelevant. The only issue is your inexcusable ignorance and your cowardice. Your arguments all depend on you chanting fallacies that you don't understand because you are simply regurgitating errors you encountered on the internet.

and influencers of the last 150 years,

Instead of quoting people, why don't you discuss actual science, or math, or economics, or logic?

For example, why don't you discuss how the Stefan-Boltzmann law totally destroys the so-called greenhouse effect doctrine? You know, apply actual science to real world religious claims. Have you ever totally nuked the religious dogma of ocean acidification with standard chemistry? It's quite liberating.

Quoting human error gets you nowhere.

Which in essence is a belief in strict physical materialism ...[blah, blah, blah]

No atheist holds any theistic view. Your pivot to the irrelevant "world view" is nothing more than a waste of time and bandwidth.

and an assumption that life, the universe, and everything can be explained by purely inanimate naturalistic causes.

Did you just say that there are people who claim that everything can be explained through static dynamics?

 

[Monad Portal]

I am not...and nothing I have said should cause you to suspect that. I know the difference...and it is considerable.


And probability is normally based on math. Show me your math for whatever probability you assign.


You are blindly guessing that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Same thing as the theist do...except in reverse.

we have to come together to at least save mankind's ability to read and think straight.

 

[Into the Night]

please stfu with your god damned ignorant bullshit.

YARP. Gravity is not consistent.

 

[Monad Portal]

YARP. Gravity is not consistent.

it is.

 

[Into the Night]

Vertical line test​

In mathematics, the vertical line test is a visual way to determine if a curve is a graph of a function or not. A function can only have one output, y, for each unique input, x. If a vertical line intersects a curve on an xy-plane more than once then for one value of x the curve has more than one value of y, and so, the curve does not represent a function. If all vertical lines intersect a curve at most once then the curve represents a function Continued in Wikipedia

A circle has no vertical lines, NoName. NONE of the examples I have provide have any vertical lines at all. A line is not a curve. The equation y=mx+b is a function.

 

[Into the Night]

So you run your mouth about science, but when presented with multiple opportunities you couldn't recognize the most famous scientific equations and principles of the last 500 years.

The Universe isn't an equation. The Universe isn't science. Science isn't equations. Science isn't a principle. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has no age. The Universe has no known age. The Universe is unorganized.