> It would be silly to discredit billions just because 2.5 million feel there is no God or that religion is burdensome to humanity.
Truth is not a popularity contest. The veracity of your claims is equal to the quantity of verifiable empirical data supporting it.
> You lack it after you are made aware of it.
You're an idiot.
> It was science that lead me to God, not religion.
And you have not shown any scientific evidence for this "god" thing you say exists. In fact, you have stated god cannot be demonstrated scientifically - which is it?
> It does not, but as Professor Kaku wrote: “I work in something called String Theory which makes the statement that we are reading the mind of God. … We physicists are the only scientists who can say the word “God” and not blush,”
What he said does not matter. What he can demonstrate does. Besides "a god" is a long way from the virgin impregnating, pig possessing, leper healing, cosmic zombie you call "god".
> To even know the word "lacking," you need to learn of it correct? So how can you lack something you have not had the prior awareness of?
I have a flugenbinderfogenstat. It's the best thing ever. You don't have one. You lack it. You have never had one, and therefore must have always lacked one. The fact you only just heard about my fabulous flugenbinderfogenstat makes no difference.
> If you were sick on an island, never learned what being "sick" is nor about "medicine." How can you know that you lack medicine if you never heard of it?
Because I never had any medicine, I must have lacked it. My awareness of the situation is irrelevant. You say you are University qualified?
> Not believing in God is also a belief. Until atheism proves there is no god, they only believe and do not know there is no god.
"a" = without, "theism" - belief in a god. I do not have a belief in a god, therefore are atheist. It has nothing to do with claiming there IS NO GOD, which is an absurd position to take. Can you demonstrate leprechauns absolutely do not exist?
> Yes, I see it everyday at the universe expands. There is my point. Creation is ongoing.
Matter is not being created. Try again.
> That is why it is called "faith." We do not know 100%, we believe. No religion will say, "I know."
So you are an agnostic theist. You believe there is a god, but you do not know it's true.
> > Define information and data for this context.
> You don't know what the words information or data mean? Wow. The Scientific laws of information are clear that matter cannot produce information/data.
I asked you to define your usage in this context for clarity. I though this might save some time, seeing as though we are already arguing over the definition of "atheist". Instead you insult me. Fu*k you.
> Exactly, so how the heck did all this order come about without intelligence?
Which "order" is that? The fact a star has exploded every second since the beginning of time, or that we are destined for an eternity of nothing in a heat dead universe?
> But the programmer has to be sentient. See? Dvd's, magnetic strips etc did not obtain data on its own. It needed a sentient being to program it not only to accept and understand it, but to store it.
In the case of DVDs etc I can witness the programmer. Everything else encounters the problem of induction.
> There is if you had a true grasp of the supernatural.
Clearly I don't, and you have been totally unable to provide any reliable methods to grasp it.
> Physicists even use the term "God" when referring to these studies. I provided a quote earlier from Dr. Kaku.
I can sometimes be heard to say "holy sh*t", but I doubt that means by stools are actually divine.
> Exactly, so science just like religion is based on speculative conclusions. "I see therefore it is.." Science knows as much about the universe as religion does. :)
Religions have already decided they have the answers. What if the Catholic Church found out there is no god - would they update their dogma?
> [singularity] It did, but it was not nature as we know it.
Thanks for conceding the point.
> No, a singularity is a point in space where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite. It is not the entire universe. The universe as we know it came from this, but it is not the universe. The singularity could have developed into a multiverse, fluidic or solid space.
No god here I see.
> No, quantum events occur at an atomic level. Most likely the universe came from a single primordial atom.
Read more.
> No, if God is known to have created everything, where is the mystery in that?
In the "if" at the start of your question.
> The Mystery is Who is this God exactly, what is He about. That we cannot know now in our finite state.
Yet you are claiming to know.
> It is not nonsense unless you have an open mind and do not fear mysteries.
I am open to your idea, but you will need to prove them.
> Science attempts to explain things, not throw them out.
So use it to explain your god.
> People often see "God" when they go into a coma and can swear it was real. Was that experience real or in the mind?
I can't tell the difference between those two options. How do you?
> It does because God opens our minds to think beyond atoms, light, matter and energy.
Show there IS something beyond matter.
> [souls] Well I gave you the proof. You still deny it.
No you didn't. I would have noticed.
> The mind and brain are not the same thing. If it were, it would be discussed in biology and physiology.
Have you ever seen a mind without a brain? Where are all these biologists dissecting "minds"?
> Logically speaking, there can only be on God.
Why? Why not have thousands of gods creating billions of universes? Why not? You explain.
> If there were more than one, then all those entities cannot be God because God has to be absolute and not be able to share His/Her omnipotence.
Who says? You? You get to dictate what attributes god have now?
> [jesus is god] Each are one in the same. These are just titles of the absolute being. "IAM" "SAVIOR"
Bold assertion. No evidence provided for your claims here. Fail.
> Easily, separation from God and refusing His mercy is hell.
So your definition of Hell rests on the god you have not shown exists.
> Yes, our minds are wired to spot faces. It's called Pareidolia.
And perhaps our brains are wired to believe other things are there when they really aren't. Like "gods" for example. How how this simply cannot be the case.
> There is no atheist organization that helps anyone.
Despite me showing examples to the contrary ….
> Atheism by nature is egotistical. It focuses on the self. If there is no God, then there is no judgment, if there is no judgement then I am free to do whatever I want.
Not is I want to live in a society filled with other people.
> If there is no God, then there is no neighbor for me to love as myself.
Right. Because if there is no god my neighbours suddenly vanish. Absurd.
> All I have is myself. It is no surprise why Communism destroys societies.
Communism is communism, not atheism. That's why they are different words.
> > What do you expect an atheist organisation to do? Deconvert people?
> I expect an atheist organization that is involved in charity work to do exactly that. But none exist. :)
You're an idiot.
> You know what I am looking for. Find me an atheist "Mother Teresa."
A self centred egotistical and deluded woman who thought condoms and abortion were the most pressing problem for humanity and spent millions building run down building for people to die in with her name all over them? I won't find too many, I dare say.
> Well that is what I noticed being that atheists fill their breath with human rights rants yet offer no assistance to human beings. Now, that is sad and hypocritical.
And you know how much atheist donate to charities and help in their communities how?
> No, Galileo was locked up because he claimed Scripture was wrong and teachings had to be changed. The Church supported his ideas until his ego too hold.
Thanks for proving my point. The Church believes it has the answers and would rather publish people than update their dogma based on the evidence.
> No, he was executed by what you just pasted. :) He was not executed for his science, but for his heretical views regarding doctrine. You have just contradicted yourself. Very cute. :)
And you have just admitted the Church KILLS PEOPLE for disagreeing with them. Nice going.
> Well how did people back then view witches? Each culture has a different view of what a witch is.
Wait - you think witches really exist? Oh my.
> "Thou shal not killed" refers to innocent people.
Innocent by what standards? You have already admitted disagreeing with the Church is punishable by death.
> It is eternal, that is why I said the idea is there: IT IS BAD. If people were stoned or what not, it was because what they did was immoral and evil. The message for all eternity is that the particular act is not tolerated.
Would't the people performing the stonings be guilty of murder? You'll be there a while.
> Everything is dangerous when used for evil, even science, ie atom bomb/manhattan project. Atheism is also dangerous when used to abuse power, ie Castro, Pol Pot, etc..
> Well I trust the courts. If they did not see innocence in this man, then I respect their decision. Witnesses or jurors recanting is not evidence of innocence.
And a court has never made a mistake. Nope, not once.
> Not really. Again, we thought 186,282 was the fastest speed in the universe, now we might be wrong.
Empirical evidence will change their minds.
> Scientists are judging this world based on how we see diamonds here. That planet could just be a new element that looks like a diamond electronically from our distance.
I . . . . I . . . don't know where to begin.
> > No, you implied that humans and apes are identical.
> Well it is on twitter. :) I favorite it.
I just checked. You lied, and I never said humans and apes are identical.
> No scientist has ever claimed evolution is true. It is a theory based on empirical evidence available. It is not a fact.
It is a fact allele frequencies within populations change over time, and the theory of evolution explains this fact.
> Not spooky, this is an actual study.
See the quotes around "spooky action at a distance"? They are there because it's a quote. From Einstein. Look it up.
> > Ever "see" a mind without a brain? No? I prove my point.>>
> Science has not advanced to that yet, but there are studies about how to transfer a human mind to a computer.
I'll take that as a "no", this meaning you have no evidence minds are distinct from brains. Oh, and transferring a human mind to a computer only reinforces my position that minds are the emergent product of physical constructs.
> > Same DNA sequence, NOT the same brain, structures, chemistry, body, experiences, views, and thoughts. NOT the SAME.
> No, they are exact genetic copies of one another. The brain, structures etc are not exempt from genetic code. Only difference is the "mind/personality." :) Interesting right?
Read what I said again: Same DNA sequence, NOT the same brain, structures, chemistry, body, experiences, views, and thoughts. NOT the SAME.
> Logic. If they were on the same planet with the same genes and environment, why the stagnant difference in evolution?
Evolution says things can change, not that they must.
> Sentience/personality are hint to the existence of a soul.
As soon as you can demonstrate that "souls" exist and they are separate things.
> As soon as we know how to study this immaterial thing, we will know the complete answers.
Any idea on how we might determine immaterial things exist at all?
> No we can't. What human has gone to the sun and has gotten evaporated for us to know this really does happen?
Do we need to?
> We speculate this is the reaction based on the composition of the human body and the temperature of the sun's surface.
Pretty solid, if you ask me.
> Just because human beings resemble apes does not mean they are apes. They are homo sapiens.
Yes we are. We also belong to the genus "Homo", in the tribe "Hominini", a member of the family "Hominidae", part of the order of "Primates", in the class "Mammalia", of the phylum Chordata", in the animal kingdom. The family "Hominidae" is also known as "The Great Apes". We are apes. Get over it.
> Brain activity can be anything. They are not necessarily thoughts.
They may not be conscious thoughts, but dead people have no brain activity. I wonder why?
> Involuntary movements are also detected as brain activity.
Yes - because the brain controls the muscles.
> In a human female yes, because this is not a natural occurrence within that species.
Yes, virgin births in some species is an entirely natural occurrence. Seems your god is retreating all the time.
> No it was no trick. Both feet up in the air about 4/5 feet.
Yeah, and I have seen David Copperfield fly and make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
> I said yes.
Seeing "the fingerprints of creation" is NOT seeing a god create a universe.
> No, but academics who will argue with empirical data that the earth is flat. The Church only gets involved if someone said the doctrine was wrong.
Then, as you already admitted, they KILL YOU. If this is the way "god's people" behave, then I want no part of it.
about 2 weeks ago · · Report · Delete Post
"You posts represent your intention well. You provide circular arguments to points I have already addressed."
Not at all. I have simply asked - repeatedly - for ANY evidence to your claims of scientific learning. If you understand this repitition to be circular then it is because you are yet to address it!
"You commit the fallacy of Selective Observation in every post and then claim a false sense of victory."
Where do I claim victory?! I actually laughed as I wrote that! I simply have asked for evidence of your learning because you make erroneous statements relating to science.
"To date you have not provided any substantial science defending your premise. Your responses are coated with the same rhetoric I debunked."
You have debunked nothing. Ever. What is my premise? That is a serious question. Tell me what my premise is, because it is clear to any third-person that my only issue is with your inability to aknowledge that you MUST provide even a shred of evidence to support your academic claims.
This is how it works: you make a claim (that you hold degree-level qualifications in the sciences). You then make ridiculously statements relating to genetics, DNA and Quantum Theory that leave me questioning your claims. I ask for EVIDENCE that you then PROVIDE, and we carry on.
If you make a claim, you MUST be able to back it up or it is baseless and can be dismissed as such. That's how it works. You know this, but can't address it...if I was the type of person to claim "victory", I would certainly be close to it now.
"It is hilarious that you attempt to discredit my knowledge, yet you did not know it was a Catholic priest named Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was the one who formulated the idea and even corrected Einstein."
Wow! I aknowledged that I misunderstood your statement and even apologised. In writing, for all to see. It is not that I didn't know this fact, it was that I misunderstood you and thought YOU didn't know it. We both know this, so to suggest anything different says far more about you than me. :)
"Your attempts to save face are equally as hilarious as your denial of this fact. :)"
Again, I never denied anything, rather admitted a mistake and apologised. I am satisfied with my behaviour.
And what "fact"?! Haha!
This suggestion by you is - unsurprisingly - smothered with your own rhetoric and misunderstandings, half-truths, pseudo-science and guesswork. I once again offer you my pity in that your comments describe you more perfectly than any other. You just lack the integrity and self-awareness to realise it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.