tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post134376171923366440..comments2023-08-11T04:59:57.364-04:00Comments on Sacerdotus: Atheism is STUPIDUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-61514620251490974072019-07-21T00:51:49.960-04:002019-07-21T00:51:49.960-04:00All things in nature need a trigger. God is the u...All things in nature need a trigger. God is the ultimate cause and cannot have a trigger. The universe is a contingent formation of spacetime, matter and energy. It has a beginning that is not contingent in itself. What caused the universe is something outside of it just like the one who makes a painting or pottery exists outside of its structure and contents. This cause is timeless, and therefore, has no trigger and no end. We call this God. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-28411802248616655562019-02-12T14:21:05.310-05:002019-02-12T14:21:05.310-05:00All things need a trigger what was the trigger for...All things need a trigger what was the trigger for god?Hello Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08013723761210395342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-9375178840116544792016-05-15T17:25:00.493-04:002016-05-15T17:25:00.493-04:00Bravo. I'm glad more and more science-minded p...Bravo. I'm glad more and more science-minded people are calling BS on atheism's flimflam. They don't understand science better than theists, in fact, while they may be good at science it is DEMONSTRABLE that atheism closes minds and closes off paths of inquiry. They like to brag that most scientists now are atheists but it's also increasingly observable that scientific advances of any really breathtaking nature have not really happened much since the 1970s. Atheism--dogmatic materialism--CLOSES MINDS.Dean Esmayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07176356058113531053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-71756728939292848972015-11-24T17:55:36.888-05:002015-11-24T17:55:36.888-05:00Atheism is a natural outlier. We know that we are ...Atheism is a natural outlier. We know that we are conceived to believe in God and the supernatural via the VMAT2 gene. As for the 'god ignore list,' these are just names man gave to God. We do not necessarily 'ignore' them. We just recognize them as man's attempt to classify God. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-72246889939974254252015-11-24T13:18:50.320-05:002015-11-24T13:18:50.320-05:00We are all Atheists..
Thor, Ganesh, Vishnu, Zeus.....We are all Atheists..<br />Thor, Ganesh, Vishnu, Zeus...<br />We all have a god ignore list.<br />It's ok to think atheism is silly & wrong..<br />But know that you are atheist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00189841573875622687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-14389683997906761942015-08-24T14:12:42.813-04:002015-08-24T14:12:42.813-04:00Mathematical models are complicated and are usuall...Mathematical models are complicated and are usually confirmed on computers. You would need a lab for this. The sightings I have mentioned are not "human" crafts. They behave in manners that defy our available technology. Many astronauts have observed many strange things while in orbit which they cannot explain. Galileo was not bad, neither was the Church at his time. He just had an ego and the Church at the time felt he was an ingrate. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-63893382022537884082015-08-21T02:05:39.003-04:002015-08-21T02:05:39.003-04:00Well i dont have mathematical models (yet) on dime...Well i dont have mathematical models (yet) on dimensions, on ufo's my point is if say the us government was testing a top secret aircraft, they wouldnt tell nasa, or anyone for that mater, for fear of leaks. And if you look at the documentaries some of the sightings could have been SR71 which looks like a triangle and can fly inthe stratosphere reaching incredible speed that can not be matched by regular jets, or the B2 from side view it looks like a sourcer<br />On Galileo i think that was enlightening, i see your point of view, its very valid, Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13407892346941566260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-4630156632102025012015-08-21T01:35:49.913-04:002015-08-21T01:35:49.913-04:00Well if you do not believe space has dimensions, t...Well if you do not believe space has dimensions, then you have to show evidence for this. There is a physicist (female) who posited that the universe is in fact 1 D as opposed to 4D with time being the 4th. Her ideas stem from mathematical models though. I cannot remember her name, but have it written in my old notes from college. In regards to the emf and ghosts, I have no idea how these people came up with this idea so it is best that you ask these "ghost hunting" people. My guess is that they believe the "soul" is electromagnetic and is detectable. As for UFO's, well there are some strange things captured even by NASA which cannot be totally ruled out. But again, not hard evidence had been presented. Just bits and pieces of "evidence" that become a playground for pareidolia. How can Galileo be a victim of an "anti-science institution" if they funded him? The Church had issue with him when he stepped into their realm: theology. As a matter of fact, the Pope was his best friend! Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-78682395975528958642015-08-18T06:05:07.502-04:002015-08-18T06:05:07.502-04:00I know everything checks out, with space time the...I know everything checks out, with space time theories but they are models hypothesed to explain phenomena, i just think (me not science) that space does not have dimensions. What i meant by sufficiently on the emf ghost is, you have to 1.show that emf can exist as an intelligent entity artificial or natural<br />2. That emf can exist without a difference in electrical potential, or atleast a cause for the potential difference, in the case of a ghost<br />3.show that that said emf is a ghost and not anything natural<br />So all the documentaries about ghosts and ufo's are meaningless<br />And yes i think galileo was a victim of "anti science institution", but i wasn't there so maybe the pope was just angry about authority being questioned, i dont know, bt seems a reasonable explanationAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13407892346941566260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-57312668814071464472015-08-18T02:15:46.001-04:002015-08-18T02:15:46.001-04:00Disprove why? All things work out. Define suffic...Disprove why? All things work out. Define sufficiently? This is what I meant about bad science. We cannot just present any idea, provide something as evidence and then call it science. There are many people out there who can tell you that a ghost is detectable via EMF. Just look at the many programs out there regarding ghost hunting and what not. They know this better that I. I am not attacking Galileo. Some try to use his case to make it seem as if the Catholic Church was wrong and he was a victim of this "anti-science" institution. This is far from the truth. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-80848224153903400622015-08-16T19:55:26.233-04:002015-08-16T19:55:26.233-04:00Personally, i think space time symmetry is one of ...Personally, i think space time symmetry is one of the things that will letter on be disproved, it is a rational explanation though for explaining why light cant escape a black hole, but i just dont agree with it. If you can sufficiently (in a logical/ rational sense) explain how a ghost is an emf or a magnetic field, and how the emf/magnetic field can control itself, you will win yourself a Nobel physics prize, ufo's are un identified flying objects, so they exist by default, if an ordinary person see a weird craft he can not identify eg a B2 bomber, or a military type attack drone at night, thats a ufo. Its only that some of us will just come up with the lazy explanation of extra terrestrials. And please give galileo a break, no one has ever come up with a perfect error free complete hypothesis Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13407892346941566260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-79389820827894281442015-08-16T14:08:28.627-04:002015-08-16T14:08:28.627-04:00No, the idea was already there. Not everyone adop...No, the idea was already there. Not everyone adopted it because it did not fit the Aristotelian model. Galileo struggled to refute the strongest argument against heliocentricity which derived from Aristotle. The argument was that if heliocentrism was, in fact, an accurate assessment of the position of the Sun in relation to the rest of the planets, then there would be a parallax shift in the positions of stars that would be observable as the Earth moved or revolved around the Sun. Galileo could not refute this because he did not have the technology to do so. This was why academics in his time saw him as overzealous. He wanted to force the scientific community to accept his views and even wanted the Bible altered. This is what got him into trouble. So you are giving Galileo a bit more credit than he deserves. Moreover, the problem I see with your idea that "science is anything that has proof or a rational explanation" is that anything can be presented as science, even claims that ghosts exist because of EMF readings or that UFO's exist because of videos. As for light/photos, I think you are trying to describe relative mass where the E alters P which causes a variation of velocity giving the illusion of mass. This is really the interaction of gravity and E P in conjunction with 4 vector. The equation C^4 / E^2 - P^2 / C^2 which derives of M^2 shows a 0. This is because E accounts for the P & C indicating that there is no mass. Newton was wrong on the particle front. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-20480061077200743272015-08-15T02:47:12.489-04:002015-08-15T02:47:12.489-04:00Sorry i have to disagree, galileo proved what cope...Sorry i have to disagree, galileo proved what copernicus stated, big difference <br />If a scientist willfully lied, or brought forward a theory not based on evidence, or rational argument e.g. the Hutchinson effect is not science because it is not based on any established fact, even though no one can disprove it, and that has nothing to do with whether or no not john Hutchinson is a scientist. Science is not science because a scientist came up with it, science is anything that has proof, or a rational explanation for something that can not be proven quantitatively. There is no bad science, yes there is bad science practices i.e the bell curve (the book, not the normal distribution ), bad practices results in misinformation, not bad science, there is science then there is misinformation aka hypocrisy., the corpuscular theory stated that 1. Stated that light is made up of discreet particles, according to quantum mechanics it does, they call them photons<br />2. Light travels in a straight line, according to everyone it does-ish,<br />3.light has a mass, while this is open to discussion, quantum mechanics show that light is affected by gravity, to me, that means its got a mass of some sort,<br />4with a finite velocity, well according to quantum theory light has a finite speed c<br />So which part was Newton wrong about?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13407892346941566260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-30218742888859133452015-08-15T01:47:29.205-04:002015-08-15T01:47:29.205-04:00I understand what you wrote, but I was simply corr...I understand what you wrote, but I was simply correcting your misconceptions. What Copernicus and Galileo had were very similar: observation. Science can definitely be bad. This is why scientists and science students have to take ethic oaths before pursuing research. I had to do it during my college years working in labs and so forth. Galileo was not "right"per se, he simply restated what was already known but was not popular science. Science has checks and balances in order to prevent it from going bad. That was my point. As long as it does not make itself an absolute authority and checks its data constantly in relation to new data, then it will remain good. Newton was wrong, we have to admit it. In science it is okay to be wrong. Scientists welcome it. In science there is definitely wrong. There is no way to know what truth is without its contrast. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-26356825377735975222015-08-15T00:47:08.803-04:002015-08-15T00:47:08.803-04:00Well sir it seems like you did not understand anyt...Well sir it seems like you did not understand anything i said<br />1.copernicus had a theory, Galileo had proof<br />2.science can not be bad as long as it is rational and honest, otherwiseits just plain old hypocrisy<br />3.Galileo was "right", he can not be entirely right by virtue of not being G-d<br />4.science has checks and balance because it is open to correction by anyone qualified or not, as long as u bring a rational/logical argument backed by proof<br />5.Newton was actually not wrong, as Plank latter proved, its just that there was evidence which didn't agree with his model, but thats the beauty of science, there is no wrong, there is no right, reputation does not count, its all about the persuit of truthAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13407892346941566260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-5149354062495808382015-08-15T00:18:16.985-04:002015-08-15T00:18:16.985-04:00Actually Galileo was not entirely right. His idea...Actually Galileo was not entirely right. His ideas were not new. Catholic priest Copernicus already posited the idea. The Bible is not wrong because the passages in question were not meant to describe astronomy. Science is only good when it is objective and questions its own findings. Science becomes bad when it violates the natural law and when it sets itself as the ultimate authority without checks and balances, so to speak. Your examples prove my point. Had the ideas of Newton remained, then science would have been useless. This is what I meant by bad science. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-20593265358241455422015-08-14T23:14:42.669-04:002015-08-14T23:14:42.669-04:00Heresy is a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox...Heresy is a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine, challenging the bible would be blasphemy but technicality does not mater Galileo was right and the bible was wrong. There is no good science or bad science, there is just science and there is hypocrisy. Science is not a religion, its a collection of truth (to the best of available knowledge) and is constantly corrected and updated e.g Newton deduced from refraction and reflection that light was made up of particles, this was science until Hetz showed that light could defract and therefore should be a wave not a particle, so science was "corrected" and it became science that sunrays are waves until Plank showed that light behaved both as a particle and as a wave, and again science was corrected that sacerdotus is good science Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13407892346941566260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-23958773519943614782015-08-14T18:55:54.540-04:002015-08-14T18:55:54.540-04:00No, he was not charged for heresy because of his f...No, he was not charged for heresy because of his findings. He was charged because he demanded that the Bible be altered to fit his findings. This is of course heresy and poor science. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-6861072038504318782015-08-14T05:56:27.819-04:002015-08-14T05:56:27.819-04:00Galileo was imprisoned for heresy, why? Because he...Galileo was imprisoned for heresy, why? Because he had presented evidence through his invention the telescope, that it was the earth that revolved around the sun, not the other way around, but since the bible said otherwise, it was heresy Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13407892346941566260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-50924380081805245952013-10-27T11:24:10.150-04:002013-10-27T11:24:10.150-04:00Great post and terrific rebuttals to the objection...Great post and terrific rebuttals to the objections. <br /><br />Thanks for writing it. Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-67280256000684662792013-08-09T00:23:19.099-04:002013-08-09T00:23:19.099-04:00I understand your frustration; however, I used to ...I understand your frustration; however, I used to be one and still have friends who are atheist. I am very much aware of the common trends found in atheist behavior. If you do not notice them, this is because of inhibition. God cannot have a cause because God caused all things to be. Because things are, then they had a beginning. Since a beginning is not eternal, then it also has a beginning. Therefore, since God created all things and all things had a beginning, He is not bound by time and therefore cannot have a beginning or a cause. Dark energy still has a cause. <br /><br />Any ideas suggesting an impersonal force still has many questions and contradictions. Any standards found in the universe can be attributed to personal choice. Gates could have designed Windows to operate via voice only instead of with a mouse. Similarly, God can design His creation in any way He wanted. Your suggestion that we exist because we are fortunate implies chance. The math does not support this. You need to look at things carefully and not fall into the filtering that I speak about in this post. This is where your problem lies. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-55085198302053235262013-08-09T00:17:28.786-04:002013-08-09T00:17:28.786-04:00Science can show God exists. There is no conflict...Science can show God exists. There is no conflict between Faith and Science.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-1012444027283339092013-08-09T00:15:33.678-04:002013-08-09T00:15:33.678-04:00There is evidence. Your filtering of this evidenc...There is evidence. Your filtering of this evidence does not disqualify its existence. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-26965356190485910132013-08-09T00:13:44.635-04:002013-08-09T00:13:44.635-04:00Religion is in our genes. Your comment shows your...Religion is in our genes. Your comment shows your stupidity in regards to genetics. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-49123196906964136662013-08-09T00:12:57.414-04:002013-08-09T00:12:57.414-04:00"Secret" is just a word that describes h..."Secret" is just a word that describes how private and secure this collection is. Scholars have access to them and only need to ask to see the archives. I believe a website exists with many of its contents which is viewable to all. Liturgy in the Catholic Church is in Latin because of her Roman patrimony. It has nothing to do with keeping it unintelligible. Science as we know it has its foundation in the Catholic Church. Islam if studied carefully, will prove itself to be a splicing of both Judaism and Catholicism. It cannot be the true religion because of this reason and the fact that a man founded it, not the Messiah which God promised. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.com