God & Jesus: The Totally USELESS Concepts
65
It is the slow-witted among us humans who allow mere concepts to run their lives. How could a concept, such as a God, physically interact and influence people? Theists usually dismiss this question because it instantly destroys their religion. Yet they will always admit it to themselves and to everyone around them -- that the God concept is physically interacting with them, and in many ways.
When a concept, such as God or Jesus, “jumps” out of somebody’s brain, starts walking around and physically interacts with them and their environment.....it is a sure sign that somebody forgot to take their medication. It is time to call the men in white so they can take this person to a beautiful place with lots of trees and flowers.
Their irrational and self-refuting dogma always crushes their arguments. But theists will rant and rave, shout and scream, and take fits of rage, so that hopefully, you will see reality through the same “blinders” they are wearing.
And all this for a concept -- a stupid human idea -- which has NO explanatory power for any natural phenomena. The final nail in the coffin for the God & Jesus concepts, is that they cannot be used to account for anything in the Universe. They are nothing by mere tautological rhetoric.
Do you disagree?
Yes? Great! Here’s how it works:
God Hypothesis: Assume God/Jesus exists/existED.
God Theory: I can now use God/Jesus to rationally explain the following natural phenomena.....blah blah......and in particular, the creation of the universe as follows.......blah blah......and so on.
So there’s your challenge. Are you up for it? What can this God concept do for you other than dellude you into thinking that you are actually talking about something?
If you think that your God/Jesus concept has ANY explanatory purpose in nature, then please.....be my guest, don’t hold back....fill in the blanks!
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
What so mad? You have committed a fallacy that is very popular among skeptics/atheist. You created a straw man version of Christians/Creationists which makes it easy for you to blow down. It would be like me saying "all mathematicians believe 2+2=5 (straw man)" and then you say 2+2=4. It's easy, but illogical and false. If you already have your mind made up why pretend you'd accept anything contrary to your well embedded worldview? If God didn't exist there would be no atheists.
ello,
(What so mad?)
Does your religion teach you that people are “mad” at you whenever they ask you to explain what use your God concept has? Should I call people “mad” when they ask me what use my “briefcase” has in this modern age of laptops and iPads?
(You created a straw man version of Christians/Creationists)
Oh please be my guest.....explain how it is a fallacy to ask theists to explain a SINGLE phenomenon in nature using their God concept.
Go ahead.....we are awaiting a reply to this question which destroys your religion.
Do you even know what a “fallacy” is? Or are you just parroting what you were forced to memorize by your monks?
(It would be like me saying "all mathematicians believe 2+2=5 (straw man)" and then you say 2+2=4)
Again, I ask you: what is “strawman” about people you meet in the street asking you what USE your God concept has?
Does this question “threaten” you in any way?
(If you already have your mind made up)
Mind made up about what?
Did you even read this hub or are you just parroting what you memorized by rote at the monastery?
(why pretend you'd accept anything contrary to your well embedded worldview?)
And what is my worldview? Is asking you to explain a SINGLE natural phenomenon with your God concept a worldview? Really? Is that what they brainwashed you to repeat like a tape recorder?
(If God didn't exist there would be no atheists)
Please explain HOW this “God” you reference exists. What does the word “exist” mean when you use it to refer to “God”?
I mean, here is your chance to "redeem" yourself by explaining just ONE natural phenomenon with your God concept.
I am dying to see an explanation for CREATION!
"When pertaining to the entire universe (all material that exists: existence shows a universal order). Since there is an order, order requires a designer (common sense). Due to the law of causality everything that begins to exist has a cause, and since an infinite regress is contrary to reason, the first cause must be eternal, immaterial, personal, and possess genius beyond all genius. For the logical mind that would be enough, but you can tell me again that you're dead."
If a designer existed, he would have to be part of the universe, which means the universe would have had to always exist and thus no creation occured. A creator outside the universe is an impossibility and could not have existed since the universe comprises all that exists.
Perhaps you would like to rationally explain how any being can exist outside of existence?
You can't have it both ways. A designer was part of the universe or he was not. Pick your hemlock.
Or you can simply start making up crap to fill the holes in your reasoning: it is possible in some world that an immaterial mind floats around in non-existence and interacts with existence even though it cannot logically exist unless it is part of existence.
Compare these two statements:
Theist: The immaterial mind that exists outside existence told me to do it.
Son of Sam: The meighbor's dog told me to do it.
Of the two, Sam seems downright rational.
Well you got me, and I was so careful. I don't like being trolled or harassed and since you and yours are such anti-religious religious zealots who use the most vile, blasphemes language I use "ello", from my nickname Ella. Sorry if that upsets you, but I can only stand so much foul language, threats, and blasphemy . If you ever want to have exchange with me you would have to control yourself. If you felt deceived I apologize, but there was no smokescreen, so please avoid the crocodile tears. I do not expect you to be honest about your socks, but I will and from I deal with I have good reason to do so.
"Your responses are perfect examples of what is defined as the workings of a primitive, not fully evolved, and not fully functioning APE brain. I'm sure you will be happy to know that I will add you to my list of primitive thinkers, like Mickey Mouse & Goofy, who offer nothing of value to consider."
You've use this often it's a great script, but what facts are involved here?
To my tiny fatfist in this tiny Univers
Re: God Hypothesis: Assume God/Jesus exists/existED.
God Theory: I can now use God/Jesus to rationally explain the following natural phenomena…
My Answer:
Let me explain this with human point of view…
You see, although the laws of this universe when studied critically does not give one proofs of a logical existence of God/Jesus concept. It is darkened and remains in mystery and incomprehensible in totality. Some schools of thought call this the study of the unknown or better still ‘Adonai’. It is this same unknown phenomena that is driving everybody to seek out means of survival at all cost. This unknown force or deity is what the ancients perceived to be that God (Adonai) we are talking about. But in this chaotic situation, there has to be a way out. You will agree with me that this is how nature herself operates; the law of polarity – negativivity and positivity, darkness and light, good and evil, beauty and ugliness, male and female.
This other force that is called light brought in law, order and sanity into ceation. That light is what the God/Jesus disciples call ‘The Christ’. You might feel this is absurd or achaic, out of place in logic or old fashioned. You see, religion is a phenomena that cuts across what we call age and civilization. The light gives room for one to arrange and order his life and environment and also, it is beautiful to behold and allows for demonstration of inborn wisdom. It or He represents that unknown God and acts on His behalf. Remember, language is a creation of we creatures called human. That is why it has been so difficult for all religions of all ages in this earth to properly express God in all totality (even me).
Anyway, I will advise all of you listening to me now to do away with seeking God but to start to seek the light whom God had given, and follow His teachings and directives. He is the Christ, (love and wisdom).
Lastly, the Holy spirit is that very force or creative energy employed in all process of creative activities. It is the manifestation the reaction when that love and wisdom is working.
This is that very process going on between the negative force and the positive. I will compare it with the nature of a simple atomic structure, that is the reactions of both the electrons and the protons in the atom. If the number of electrons and protons are equal, you’ll see that there is some sort of balance. That is how the whole system of creation works.
In this world, if there is balance between all forces concerned, there will surely be peace, love and harmony. This is the preaching that is being preached to all creation. The universal message of the messiah devoid of religious affirnity, racial segregation, intellectual probation or age controversy.
Scientists might say that they know the process of creation and disagree with the way it was stated in some holy books like the Bible. Some say all the written account written in these books are achaic and unreasonable. This is the result of language barrier between the scientific age and the ancient days. Don’t ask me why God did not solve that problem. These are part of those things we would later understand if we all embrace the light (CHRIST) which God has provided.
Jesus was an ordinary flesh and blood that was born of the virgin Mary. That name is the same as JOSHUA, or JUSTUS. He was a biological product of the virgin Mary; the chaste woman of the Isrealite. God found her worthy enough to cause a unique creative process of conception in her. Due to Jesus’s nature of birth and consecration it allowed him to receive the annointind of Christhood. So the Christ; the creative power of God, the Holy Spirit rested on Him.
So also in this present dispensation, there are others too who have this anointing, they are not called Christ though but Christians.
I hope everybody listening to me will understand my hypothesis.
Hi micadeolu,
(the laws of this universe when studied)
Before we study something, we must first realize that we can only study “objects” or “relations between objects”.
The universe has no “laws” to be studied. A “law” is a concept, an idea, conceived by a human in order to enforce a RULE that can be used to “predict” future observations.
As such, a law is 100% dependent upon a subjective human observer who is limited to their 5 senses for observation.
Before Adam & Eve, there were NO laws. Laws are only conceived by man.
(proofs of a logical existence)
Existence is never logical. You are confusing the two. Logic is a concept, it is based on human-conceived rules we call ‘axioms’. Existence has to do with physical reality. Existence has no conceptual rules or axioms or proofs.
Existence does not depend on any human. Existence is only FACTUAL, ie. physical. Existence is “physical presence”, and does not depend on any human to ‘prove’ it. Did the Sun not “exist” before Adam & Eve were around to prove it?
Whether God exists or not, is a FACT! If God wants to “exist”, ‘He’ MUST have physical presence.
It has nothing to do with what you can see, touch, hear, smell, taste.
We cannot sense gravity with our 5 senses..... but a physical mediator (although invisible to us), still exists which mediates the physical “effect” of what we call ‘gravity’. This mediator has physical presence.
Also, “existence” has NOTHING to do with belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, testimony or evidence, observers or experiments, opinions or proof. This means that it doesn’t depend on the prior existence of any human observer!
(This unknown force)
What is this ‘force’ you speak of? Is it an object or a concept? Can you draw a picture of it or reference it on online so I can see this litter critter for myself?
“Force” is a VERB ; to force!
‘Force’ is what an object “does” or “exerts”; it’s a dynamic concept. There is no such “thing” as ‘a’ ‘force’. It is actually the “something”, the physical object, which is in motion to impart “force”, via a physical connection with another object.
(this chaotic situation)
Again, “chaos” is a human idea, that is dependent upon the OPINION of the person who is dogmatically declaring what is, or what isn’t “chaotic”. Before Adam & Eve, there was NO chaos. After Eve ate the apple, that’s when “chaos” started and all Hell broke loose!
(the law of polarity – negativivity and positivity, darkness and light, good and evil, beauty and ugliness)
Again, these are “ideas” invented by a human with extremely limited sensory capabilities. Every single human on the planet has their OWN opinion on these issues, or rules, which you call “laws”.
(You will agree with me that this is how nature herself operates)
Absolutely NOT!!
How nature “operates” has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you or I or anybody else on the planet “agrees” to. This is not an issue we “vote” on at the ballot box or with a show of hands. This is an OBJECTIVE issue which we rationally explain with a THEORY – a rational explanation which does NOT depend on the testimony of observers with opinions and limited senses.
A Theory explains nature’s phenomena using only NATURAL (ie. physical) mediators that exist in nature – not using humans and their biased ideas!
(force that is called light)
Light is not a ‘force’. A force is a verb, an action requiring physical contact, which is imparted by one physical object onto another. Light is a “phenomenon”, a resulting effect, that is mediated by a “physical object”.
Can you explain this phenomenon we call light, using God? I will PayPal you $5000 if you can!
(it is beautiful to behold and allows for demonstration of inborn wisdom)
Again, mere opinions stemming from an unsophisticated and primitive human. Nature is NOT dependent upon human opinions, and what WE decide is “beautiful” – that is subjective. Nature is OBJECTIVE. Nature can only be explained without invoking your opinions and emotions!
(That is why it has been so difficult for all religions of all ages in this earth to properly express God in all totality)
We don’t need to express, describe, explain, or prove God. All we need to do is ASSUME “God exists”. Then use this “assumption” to explain ONE natural phenomenon in this Universe. This is how the Scientific Method works. This is the BEST we can ever hope to accomplish.
Do you agree, that if the proponents of the God concept, cannot explain anything using God, then they are misguided? Don’t you think that they are deluded?
If you cannot explain anything using God, then what good is God for?
War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!!
Wow why is it people have so much to say and worry so much about people they don't believe in and why do they waste so very much of their totally USELESS time?
Polly,
(they don't believe in)
It has nothing to do with "belief". Nobody "believes" in concepts like God. People only "accept" concepts based on the rules (axioms) that govern them.
Do you believe that "1+1=2", Polly?
What sense does it make to believe in math?
Math is a concept that we must "accept" if we want to use it as a tool for quantification purposes.
Same goes for God & Jesus. BOTH are concepts and TOOLS people use to pat themselves on the back (metaphorically) so they can FEEL better. They are nothing but "emotional" tools - hence conceptual.
Why are God & Jesus emotional tools?
Because the authorities (bibles, churches, theologians, etc) create RULES (axioms) and bestow FEAR in people to follow these rules so they can control them (to steal their money). It's that simple!
You see, this is the ONLY purpose of the God & Jesus concepts. They are conceptual tools that man uses to control other people (followers).
Just like math is a conceptual tool for quantification purposes.
Both God & Jesus have NO explanatory power. They cannot be used to explain anything in the Universe!
quite simple really....don't you think?
I believe GOD(Entity or whatever you want to call it)does have Physical influence on us. But he's not a puppet master. If intelligent; GODS' intelligence would be way beyond ours and he wouldn't be having conversations with us. I learned through Astrology that the Moon and other planets affect our behavior due to the gravitational pull they have on us. Just like the moon pulls the water to the shore. I think all the planets and the universe have an affect on us. And that is what God is to me. The people having conversations with God have serious worry in their life and they are looking for help. They are desperate to believe in something/anything, and it helps to bring them peace. And then you got the really true believers out there that are just schizohrenics that found a way to speak out without getting locked up!
(I learned through Astrology that the Moon and other planets affect our behavior due to the gravitational pull they have on us.)
Oh, most definitely, Friendlyword.
In fact, the physical effect of gravity affects every single atom within our body. So don't be surprised if gravity's tension at specific neurons in our brains, affect our mood, emotions, etc.
(And that is what God is to me.)
Thank you for your honest comment!
(The people having conversations with God have serious worry in their life and they are looking for help.)
Yeah, I'm not knocking these people in any way. I sympathize with the pain they are going thru. I just wish they would consider more rational and "effective" avenues to help themselves.
When people help "themselves", everybody in society benefits. And we really need to understand this point.
Thank you so much for your intelligent comment!
I have no anger toward you and I guess I could argue back with you but I won't, and no one should. You make me feel very sad is all. I know you really believe what you say.
Polly,
(You make me feel very sad is all.)
Care to explain?
I don't even know you, and you certainly don't know me. So your statement about "ME" personally "making" you sad, is quite impossible.
I will then assume that THIS particular hub made you sad, for whatever reasons. But if that's the case, why do you keep coming here?
I mean, I don't mind you coming here, and I certainly don't want to tell you to leave, and I never do that with anyone, and I won't do that to you.
But....what I am trying to say is.....are you playing mind games with me? Do you perhaps want me to feel sad too? I don't understand why.
I really don't understand your behavior. Or maybe I am having a hard time trying to understand what your question is.
(I know you really believe what you say.)
Actually, Polly, you do not know that. And I will explain to you why.
Before you can claim to "know" what somebody "believes", you first have to be able to READ their mind. Please be honest with me, you cannot read minds....nobody can.
Sorry Polly....I still don't understand what your specific question is.
Anyway, I hope you have a nice day!
God exist because you exist. You continue to live in a world created by Him. You are the one who popped into the world only a few years ago. On the cosmic scale your life is like a flashbulb in the history of man. You can't tell me where you came from neither where you are going after death, but you can tell me that God doesn't exist while I am looking at you? Anti-Homie, give me a break.
wilmiers,
Did you come here to have an intelligent conversation or to prosthelytize?
If you want to talk intelligently with me, please continue to read below:
(God exist because you exist.)
Please explain to me what you mean by the word 'exist'?
Just what does it mean "to exist"?
I would like you to provide a consistent definition that can be used to demonstrate how ME, YOU, and God exist.
If you cannot produce such a definition, then all you have said in your post is completely without any meaning whatsoever. No human can understand what you are saying, got it?
I hope this is not too much to ask of you. But I figure that you would know for sure because you used this word 'exist' so convincingly in your statements above.
Please take your time, do your research, and you are welcome to post here as often as you like.
Thank you for your comment.
@Fatfist,
(Pollyannalana wrote, "I have no anger toward you and I guess I could argue back with you but I won't, and no one should. You make me feel very sad is all.")
Polly's comment is simply a classic example of a passive-aggressive response. It's like saying, "I won't confront you directly, but I will drum my fingers on this table to let you know how irritated I am, and thay way I can make you change your behavior to immulate me, so I will be more comfortable."
The root of ALL evil is belief that you can change another person.
(Polly's comment is simply a classic example of a passive-aggressive )
You nailed her Winston!
I was just staying cool, and didn't want to say anything....but I was on to her from the get go.
Pollyannalana is actually a member of a gang of religious "thugs" here on HP. Her motive was to irritate me and get me to use PROFANITY or THREATEN her. Then she would run to the HP staff and get them to BAN me.
Her gang of thugs have been trying to BAN me ever since I posted my first hub here: There is NO Absolute Truth.
That is the Holy Grail of hubs, Winston. That hub proves that there is no ETERNAL TRUTH, which is the hallmark and root of Christianity.
Once there is no absolute truth, God & Jesus become irrelevant.....ie. non-existent.
You see, atheists have been trying to "directly" prove there is no God for over 2000 years. Such proofs are impossible because generic gods cannot be disproven.
But since God & Jesus and all of Christianity is based on absolute truth, when absolute truth disappears, so do God & Jesus.
When I first posted that hub last year, the Christians here on HP went BONKERS! They didn't know what hit them. Their whole belief system was crushed. They tried attacking me back then so I could backlash at them and get banned.
They even threatened me that they would post a hub PROVING that there IS absolute truth. They figured this tactic would get me to remove my hub.
But I CHALLENGED them to do it. It is an impossible task and they know it. Their lame tactics are childish, if not stupid.
They even sent me threats over email, so they wouldn't get caught here on HP. I ignored them and for the most part, they went away. But I may get a thug come here once in a while to try and entice me.
These clowns are a joke. All you have to do is treat them with KINDNESS. This tactic makes them so angry that they have trouble sleeping for days.....priceless!
Wow!!!
Has it ever occured to you that the opposite of religion is not reason... it's more religion - the belief that religion is wrong! Reason is the compliment of both, it explains the contradition and reveals human nature. Get it?? No?....Ok, try this, you have a "science brain" right? What does the 3rd dimention (z-axis)explain about x-axis & Y-axis. Don't get it??? Ok! let's keep playing! it's fun right? use faith to cross the road.. what you get? you got it! have any money? Now use logic to justify that a piece of paper has as much value as the bread you are buying, (don't buy into eating money thing?) have any children? drive a car, ever put a cigar in your mouth, opened an expensive bottle of wine, spoken to a beautiful girl and imagined orbiting Venus? are you alive! Your faith is the destruction of the faithful - you do reasonable minds no favours! Great science does not set out to destroy the previous - it simply uses it to it's full extent of its use!
but you write well and are very articulate - there's hope for you (see what I did??) I know I get it Iam patronizing..so are you!
Pythagorus,
(Has it ever occured to you that the opposite of religion is not reason... it's more religion)
Exactly what my articles are about! Just as the opposite of up is down and not ‘not-up’, since the root context (ie. direction, in this case) is always maintained in opposites.
(the belief that religion is wrong!)
This is NOT what my hubs are about!
Right/wrong, correct/incorrect, true/false, proof/disproof, belief, wisdom, knowledge,.....are all OPINIONS. Hence they circumscribe Religion.
The realm of our metaphysical interaction with nature’s reality only encompasses what is RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL. This means that somebody’s claims must first & foremost be understood, not only by the person making the claim, but by everyone else as well. This is where ALL forms of Religion fail because they are irrational,.... not just the traditional ones (Christianity, Islam, etc), but the contemporary ones (Relativity, Quantum, etc).
(it explains the contradiction)
We don’t explain “contradictions”. Contradictions are propositions of the form: P & not-P at the same time. Rational humans explain Theories,.....such as....”by what physical process was matter & space created?” None of the religions (including mathematical physics) on this planet can ever hope to explain this irrational theory.
(What does the 3rd dimention (z-axis)explain about x-axis & Y-axis.)
Dimensions have no explanatory power in and of themselves. A dimension is a definition. Like many of the supposed Great Thinkers of the past 100 years, you are confusing Definitions, Hypotheses and Theories!
A valid question would be: "Can we rationally explain if time is a dimension?"
A dimension is a static concept that qualitatively describes ‘architecture’. It is one of three mutually orthogonal directions in which an object points or faces.
The tiny ants of planet Earth have never understood that a dimension (length, width, height) is not the same as a coordinate (long, lat, alt), and not the same as an axis or a number line. A rational human never confuses dimensions (structural/orientation) with coordinates (location), with vectors (motion), and with axes (scalar number lines). We learn the differences in kindergarten. Some people forget about them, go to college, graduate as mathematicians, and then go off creating their own religions.
(Your faith)
My faith?
Every single statement you posted here is based on YOUR faith, Pythagorus.
Hmmm... I think I got it.. you have been assimilated by the borg. How else could you have missed the human issues of relationship. Haven't read that book yet?
(a rational man)? you were told not to feel or is that in the irrational drawer... oh yes, and since you are onto me, what is pi? a nice little word defined for your purpose or a thing that would lock you up in eternity... the problem with rational men is that they are irrational when no one is looking!!
So Please do tell, feel like you have been lied to? me too. You do write well! why don't you use feelings to convey it instead?
ps please don't call me names..I am not who you think I am!
pythagoras,
(why don't you use feelings)
Please use your feelings to explain a single phenomena in nature with either God or Jesus, and I will PayPal you $20,000 so you can give to your favorite charity.
We have a deal? Yes or No?
Where are your feelings now.....running down the street?
(please don't call me names)
Please post verbatim the text where you feel you were called a 'name' by me.
1. Learn how to read.
2. Learn grammar.
3. Learn the difference between an object and a concept.
4. Learn to comprehend.
5. Learn the difference between Math & Physics. You get a FAIL at both!!
6. Avoid strawmen, they don't make you look holy, no matter how hard you pray!
7. Why do you need to use a SOCK account when you have God & Jesus by your side?
argumentum in circulo ad infinitum
logic for logic's sake, and very little intelligence beyond it... No, I don't use feeling to prove god. I use feelings to hold my dearest ones... I was hoping we would have a discussion that covered the 3 brains, and the role of each in supporting the rational man... but you insist that it's you way or the hiway so, good bye to you... enjoy your perversion of wrath unleashing! on the poor faithers.. you don't interest me, boy!
Pythagorus,
(argumentum in circulo ad infinitum)
One of the most basic underpinnings of reality, is that there are NO infinities!
Disagree? Ok, then please demonstrate one ‘thing’ that is infinite.
(very little intelligence)
Well, if you stick around here, read, comprehend, and get in touch with reality, you’ll get to be just as intelligent as everyone else. Don’t worry, God hasn’t given up on you yet.
(prove god)
Well, are you gonna stop chasing your tail around in circles and please ‘prove’ your god for us? You are accomplishing nothing but emotionally torturing yourself with all the nonsensical comments you post here.
You see, pythagorus,.... I just sit back,....let people post their drivel here,....and sure enough,....by their 1st or 2nd post, they end up stabbing themselves and commit suicide! All I ever do is point out their contradictions and they end up pushing their own button on their electric chair.
(I was hoping we would have a discussion)
I was hoping too......but you couldn’t resist......you couldn’t control yourself.....your Pastor has brainwashed you to parrot nothing but drivel. It’s intellectual suicide! There had better be a heaven for you, cause all the decades you spent wasting your life away would be in vain.
But sadly, since SPACE HAS NO BORDER for you to exit, since SPACE HAS NO BOUNDARY for you to cross, your atoms will be stuck here for eternity, perhaps nourishing some alien race in the future. Hopefully they will end up being more intelligent than you.
You have conveniently AVOIDED all questions posed to you, pythagorus, because they have destroyed your religion. You even declined my $20,000 offer to you because your drivel ain’t worth anything.
That’s what happens when you to talk to a real person, rather than the puppeteers of your Church.
(you don't interest me, boy!)
If this has been an emotionally painful experience for you, then I suggest you visit a shrink ASAP!
(good bye to you)
Ok, then run away and dismiss the arguments that destroy your religion. That’s the only way to protect and preserve what your Pastor has forced down your throat all those decades.
If you want to come back and talk rationally, instead of speaking in tongues, you are always welcome to do so.
I am an easy-going person, but I instantly destroy all forms of religion.
Good luck to you and your offspring...
ofcourse! it's opinion!.. but you too have hope...and there you go with the insults.. consider this.. the metaphores you use are either meauw! or grrrr! its the stuff inbetween that gives power to reason so grow up and use it!... only the dickhead faithers hear it..your talent is good (yes I like it, shithead) science as in - atomic energy, we can use that too to fire you up-
man, you need to chill and see that not everyone is a faither dumbass!
it's not pi=3.141 it's pi=3.141......forever until we find otherwise. then we you me them can
Pythagarus,
(ofcourse! it's opinion!)
Well I’m glad you finally figured out that all you’ve been doing is giving me your heart-felt opinions.
(but you too have hope)
Yeah, that you’d start giving us some rational explanations, rather than worthless opinions. I can’t physically knock some sense into you,....but I can only hope that you help yourself, with medication, psychotherapy, or other options.
(and there you go with the insults)
What insult? Do I threaten you? Is it the characters on your screen that trouble your emotions? You need to chill out and get in touch with reality. I don’t know what your Pastor has been brainwashing you with over there at your Guildwood Presbyterian Church,....but not everybody is out to “get” you.
(man, you need to chill and see that not everyone is a faither dumbass!)
Yeah well,.....I’ve been waiting to see that from you.....but....all you’ve demonstrated is that you are another escapee from the insane asylum. I’m surprised they don't have electrified fences over there to prevent you psychos from escaping all the time.
LOL...i think you are enjoying it..(so am I, see I can say it without blasphemy, but what's this sh@t about a f&$king Church? put it up your arse, it don't work for me!see I have to sensor myself otherwise the children will get upset, and that would be rude!)
I say Chill you say chill out, I keep this up and I will have you say "yes, master, please, master".
But enough of this nonsense... and answer the question, Ohlogicalrationalus...humble-pi, pi-inyourface, pi-pi-pi...you just can't hear it can you just like the faithers...
Respectfully now: how does a number become irrational when it is based other finite numbers eg diam. and circumference of a circle, AND no matter the size it poses exacly the same problem that we have to reduce it to a desirable precision to defined it (see wha i did..define,finite,irrational,infinite.)
OH! almost forgot, thankyou for your comments, I know it takes time to do this sh%@t you are doing...
pythagarus,
(but what's this sh@t about a f&$king Church?)
Oh c’mon, stop the act. That’s the church where they taught you to speak in tongues, like you’ve been doing in all your posts. You know....it’s just one block west from Tim Hortons at Kingston & Livingston.
(But enough of this nonsense)
Finally! Let’s see what rational thoughts you have for our audience.....
(how does a number become irrational)
Oh I see!!
What we have here is another escapee from the Math Insane Asylum. He couldn’t spell Pythagoras, so he opted for the close-enough version: Pythagarus.
Numerology is one of the main Mental Wards of the Math Asylum. The loonies of Numerology study numbers (VERBS) from every possible perspective. These autistic nerdy patients are given these circular tautological tasks as part of their rehabilitation. Otherwise, they fear that these idiots might commit suicide like some of their crazy pioneers, like Boltzmann, Cantor, Ehrenfest, Turing, Godel...
Numerology and Mathematics in general, is a Religion! You might as well spend your time obsessing about Christianity at your church down the street where they initially raped your brain, and caused you to be like this.
Q: How does a number become irrational?
A: ALL numbers are irrational by definition!! They cannot be used to explain anything in the universe. Numbers are axiomatic tautologies, they are VERBS, they are DESCRIPTIVE and never prescriptive. They can never be used as actors for any theory. This is why they necessarily require a biological observer to CONCEIVE them! Are you gonna tell me that your God conceived of numbers and gave them to Adam & Eve?
(finite numbers)
Numbers are neither ‘finite’ nor ‘infinite’.
Finite is an ADJECTIVE, and as such, it can only be used to describe OBJECTS, and never concepts like numbers, which are verbs. Got it?
You see.....this is why I told you on the first day you came here:
2. Learn grammar.
3. Learn the difference between an object and a concept.
5. Learn the difference between Math & Physics. You get a FAIL at both!!
Maybe this is why you initially got upset at me. But I only gave you this advice for your OWN good, so that you can finally learn what obviously went over your head all those years in school. This is why you are obsessed with religious ideology.......because you don’t understand the basics of reality!
(diam. and circumference of a circle)
Before we go any further.....please answer these basic questions for me:
a) Is a circle an object or a concept?
b) Does a circle, any circle, exist? Yes or No?
c) Is Pi an object or a concept?
d) Does Pi exist? Yes or No?
There......that’s your homework!
Simple, ain’t it?
Now please.....answer a,b,c,d in your next post.....and give to me straight....no speaking in tongues, no poetry, no metaphor, no ordinary speech, ......be as scientific as possible....thanks.
(OH! almost forgot, thankyou for your comments, I know it takes time to do this sh%@t you are doing)
No problem.....I do it so I can save your soul.
Why don't people ever wanna answer a SINGLE question I pose to them?
They always come here with their hootsbah, acting very blase, and quite sure & capable of themselves.
They portray their God, Aliens, Mathematics, Circles, Pi, Creation, Big Bang, Solid Material Space, as the BEST THING since sliced bread. But when asked to defend/explain their religious claims, they immediately lose their faith and run off with their tail between their legs.
Is any religion "safe" when fatfist is in town?
@ fatfist:
You say: "Is any religion "safe" when fatfist is in town?
Well, it is very apparent your religion is about physical objects via pre-selected, personally biased, pre-filtered physics that you limited your brain to for the sake of healing from your religious abuse in the past. I understand you're a recovering Godaholic and that you enjoy bashing people of faith along with any type of cognitive functions that doesn't mimic a dead rock.
...Until the day YOU, Mr. Fatfist, can tell us how consciousness spawned from your eternal, dead, floating object/rock belief, then you will always be at a stalemate when it comes to defying anyone's beliefs, whether you know it, accept it...or not.
It is easy to sit back, say space is nothing, this & that with shape is an object, and everything else is hooey. I really don't get the big deal that you're trying to push. I'm being as civil as possible - since I hate getting my comments deleted, but your "object worship of eternal matter" doesn't prove, state, define, demonstrate/manifest or showcase a damn thing besides primitive thoughts within a limited scope - from earth.
It is your personal decision, reason, and the right to provide your peroration on this "hub" or whatever, but really, do you just enjoy exchanging poppycock and over-analyzing silly semantics?
Is any religion "safe" when fatfist is in town? I suppose that would depend on the stubborn bastards at hand, no wouldn't it?
Mr. Alien Worshipper with the million aliases.......
I told you before, that I don’t accept spammers and trolls here.
Q: What is a spammer or troll?
A: The moron who won’t answer any of the questions posed to him.
(I'm being as civil as possible - since I hate getting my comments deleted)
Be civil with the Pastors and peers of your Church. When you come here, you are expected to PARTICIPATE in the conversation, argument, whatever......by answering the questions posed to you. Just like I answer YOUR questions.
Otherwise, you are nothing but a stupid troll who is upset when you can’t get any followers for your religion, .....and in that case, your comments will be deleted.....got it?
This is my LAST attempt to have an intellectual discussion with you, ok?
So start ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS just as I am going to answer yours!
(Well, it is very apparent your religion is about physical objects)
A religion reifies concepts into objects.
Please explain WHAT is “religious” about objects, such as atoms, which exist in the universe, which encompasses atoms and space?
Only objects exist, nothing else! So what is religious about that?
If you disagree, then explain with the luxury of DETAIL what ELSE exists, otherwise your argument is put to rest right here and now!
(how consciousness spawned)
Please define in unambiguous & consistent terms, what “consciousness” is.
Is it an object, or a concept?
Is it a NOUN, or is it a VERB?
Define it in detail so we can have a rational discourse, please!
(It is easy to sit back, say space is nothing, this & that with shape is an object, and everything else is hooey. I really don't get the big deal....)
Finally, you are honest about something. The difference between OBJECTS and SPACE eludes you. You haven’t the slightest clue what these words mean, even though I explained them to you in my other hubs where you trolled a few weeks ago.
What is it you don’t understand about objects and space?
Would you like to provide your OWN definitions instead? If not, please go back and re-read what I posted and try to comprehend, so you can avoid strawmen!
You better start answering these questions in your next post.....
[Please explain WHAT is “religious” about objects, such as atoms, which exist in the universe, which encompasses atoms and space?]
Objects are very religious when one doesn't know the origin of such "things" - as you do not either.
[Only objects exist, nothing else! So what is religious about that?]
If nothing existed but objects, we would all be thoughtless rocks, period!
[Please define in unambiguous & consistent terms, what “consciousness” is.]
Consciousness is the awareness of your surroundings using at least one type of sensory system or more, also known as life. To even pose a question, such as you just queried, you must have some type of consciousness. To react to something, think, rationalize, see, hear, feel, have emotion, et cetera, you must be conscious, and so on. None of these things can exist in your dead rock belief because your faith consists of lifeless objects that you can draw on paper with no meaning - although that would defy every breath you take while you type such nonsense on the computer.
[Is it an object, or a concept?]
Consciousness is a noun and it also exists.
[What is it you don’t understand about objects and space?]
You don't understand that objects and space ARE ALL "empty terms" without consciousness.
(Objects are very religious when one doesn't know the origin of such "things")
I already rationally explained to you in my other hub, that matter & space has absolutely NO origin....
Here is how we rationally put your ORIGIN argument to rest:
1) Matter (atoms) and space (nothing) cannot be created or destroyed.
2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into matter.
3) Matter cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.
4) Space is unbounded, unlimited, and borderless. Space cannot vanish/disappear – it is already nothing!
5) Space is omnipresent and surrounds every object.
6) There is not a single object that can occupy all of space or that can enclose space - including a supposed “Universe object”.
7) Matter cannot escape space. We are all trapped in “here” (space) for eternity.
8) If there is a “supposed” ORIGINATOR, “He” is serving an eternal prison sentence here too, as not even “He” can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of. So he'd better work hard and earn his keep, just like all the other inmates. Boundless space humbles the most arrogant of ORIGINATORS and, nevertheless, NO ORIGINATOR could have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it!
Therefore, matter & space are ETERNAL! We’re done.
(If nothing existed but objects, we would all be thoughtless rocks)
Huh? WTF does that mean?
That is a non-sequitor!
You exist, right? Are you an object? Do you have shape? Do you have location?
Yes you do have shape, so you ARE an object!
Yes you do have location, as there is a static distance between Obama’s butt and your head!
You have a surface (shape) that can physically interact with other objects, due to your location.
All that exists has the intrinsic property of shape and the extrinsic property of location. Hence only objects exist.
I will ask you again: PLEASE RATIONALLY DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING OTHER THAN AN OBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!
If you can’t, then your assertions are baseless i.e. Religious, based on FAITH, bald assertion, and not logic/reason/explanation.....so we’re done. Your argument is bunk!
(Consciousness is the awareness.... using at least one type of sensory system or more)
Since consciousness IS awareness, then it is without any question a VERB!
Awareness is a VERB – to be aware!
And as you have rationally explained, consciousness is a verb too – to be conscious i.e. aware!
(think, rationalize, see, hear, feel, have emotion)
ALL VERBS TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You see, my dear feeble-minded friend.......absolutely ALL verbs require a physical mediator to mediate their action. It is impossible to have verbs without OBJECTS – IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
And the physical mediator in question is MATTER i.e. objects.
All verbs are concepts, as they do not exist. They are only “conceived” by biological brains.
Objects, without a doubt, ALWAYS precede consciousness.....objects precede all verbs.
Your very OWN argument has demonstrated exactly why MATTER IS ETERNAL, AND HAS NO ORIGIN, NO BEGINNING!
So your argument about “consciousness” was easily put to rest (debunked) by YOURSELF.
Good job!
(Consciousness..... also known as life.)
Huh? What kind of religious crap is that?
A plant is life. Does a plant have consciousness? How about a jellyfish? How about mold? How about an amoeba? How bacteria? They are all examples of life.
Please rationally explain this bald assertion of yours that life has consciousness. I would love to read it.
Here......let me EDUCATE YOU, since your Pastor didn’t when he was fondling you during your communions.
Here is the unambiguous definition of ‘life’ that we can use consistently in any dissertation:
Life: the ability an object has naturally developed to move of its own volition against gravity.
You see.......just because something is LIVING, it doesn’t necessarily imply that it has consciousness.
(Consciousness is a noun)
HA HA HA HA HA!!!..........LOL! Nice try, you almost “HAD” me there.
Obviously.......DEAD WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
You buried your own argument here. All I did was sit back and watch you commit suicide!
You see, this is the REASON why people who come here to troll, don’t want to ever answer a single question I pose to them.....ever! But at least you had the hootsbah and lustful desire to attempt to destroy my argument about existence......nice try and thank you for participating in this intellectual discussion.
Remember: NO RELIGION IS “SAFE” WHEN FATFIST IS IN TOWN!!
(Consciousness .... also exists. )
Whoa!!!! You almost got me there too.....I almost agreed with you. Boy, you are quick to the draw, but unfortunately you only shoot BLANKS!
Exist: physical presence (object + location)
There is no provision for verbs, motion, or biological observers in the unambiguous definition of ‘exist’.
Therefore, consciousness, without a doubt, DOES NOT EXIST!
A human being exists, though....
(objects and space ARE ALL .... without consciousness.)
Finally.....a rational statement.....you are starting to GET IT.
Objects and space DO NOT have consciousness.
When objects, like atoms & molecules, are in motion through mediums which are surrounded by space,....those motions may be interpreted by a biological being as “consciousness”.
But objects precede all verbs, and all biological beings!
See, I told you,......if you have honest intellectual discussions with me, you will definitely learn what your Pastor never taught you when he was doing you all those years!
Anti-Dolt
Ideas are ignored, and of progress there is no thought. This populace has two mothers, both of them stepmothers-Ignorance and Misery.
Keep kicking ass fatfist
Fatfist,
One of the inherent problems is that rationality has limitations, as the properties of space and matter can only be postulated. Of course, any time an opening is left, no matter how tiny, someone will attack with the Plantinga-like Modal-crap that "It is possible in some world that..."
At that point it seems to be more a matter of comparing probabilities to determine rationality. But then there is a real problem - how does one calculate the probability that an imaginary being is in fact real?
I would say the probability argument pretty much slams the door on surrealistic wishful thinking.
Winston,
Rationality is all we have. Matter, space, universe, existence,....are all reasoned conceptually.
If they cannot be reasoned, if they cannot be understood, if we cannot explain,.....then all we are left with is religion.
Those who proclaim matter & space was created or has origin....need to provide a rational explanation. They only parrot what their Pastor forced them to memorize.
If matter & space were created or had origin, then what WAS before the origin? This is the question that destroys their religion. And this is why they elude my questions and just parrot their religious beliefs.
Most people do NOT understand points 1 to 8. It doesn't sink in because they are conditioned to be creationists for life!
Fatfist,
(Most people do NOT understand points 1 to 8).
I think they attack it because in their mind it is not 100% proven, true, right, correct, or whatever other term you want to apply - basically, they are afraid to accept the idea. I think it is fear that that makes people so determined to have 100% proof, when there is NO SUCH CRITTER as absolute truth. It is the same irrational fear of the dark, of lightening, of fire, and of every other natural circumstance that mankind at one point or another could not understand.
But the best we can do is provide a rational argument (or explanation as you like to call it, but I am more inclinded to view it as a rational logic). I understand points 1-7 as premises that lead to the logical conclusion of 8. I also recognize that the power of the argument lies in its rationality - but even then it can never meet the requirements of the HOPEFUL to be 100% correct, true, proved, right, etc. After all, it is RATIONAL EXPLANATION, not a Modal Property (which of itself can never be 100%, anyway).
I will grant he-who-harrasses-under-many-names one due: he was right that the properties you described of matter and space can never be more than postulates. We cannot know as fact, not to 100% certainty. (However, that does not mean that rational postulates and irrational postulates carry equal weight. Far from it.)
So the believers discard rational explanations, because it is only 99.98% "right", in order to hold onto creationist belief, which they can believe in with 100% certainty.
And that makes them a little less afraid.
Anti-Dolt
Education begins with the burning of our intellectual and moral idols.
Fatfist Nailed it, Theist and Atheist are exactly the same.
Go pray to Dawkins or The Priest
You see, the Universe consists only of a bunch of atoms, rocks, gases, light, stars, etc. The Universe has no ability to memorize previous locations. In other words, the Universe does not recognize ‘time’. Time is a figment of the imagination of living entities, such as humans. The reason we perceive time is that we have memory.
Amen
Science has its nights and its dawns, because it gives the intellectual world a life which has its regulated movements and its progressive phases. It is with Truths, as with the luminous rays: nothing of what is concealed is lost; but also, nothing of what is discovered is absolutely new. God has been pleased to give to Science, which is the reflection of His Glory, the Seal of His Eternity.
My God is The Universe it has no beginning and it has no end.
Fatfist,
O.K., so time is a descriptive term used to conceptualize a change of conditions. The change in conditions occurs (we call it passage of time), but because the term "time" is conceptual it cannot be used as a rational explanatory property. (x did not occur because of time) And because it is conceptual time cannot by definition exist. If time does not exist, it can have no effect on objects, nor can time be a property of space, for a descriptive concept can only be a property of thought, i.e., a priori.
So if ball A starts at point B and ends at point C, we can explain what caused the ball to be at both points B and C, but we can only describe the trip conceptually.
Winston,
(so time is a descriptive term)
Of course. What explanatory power does this word have? Can we explain how we AGE with ‘time’?
At best you can describe to me how many units of measure you call ‘years’ you have counted.
(used to conceptualize a change of conditions)
More specifically, it is used to count regular events (verbs, action, motion).
There is no such thing as time in Physics. We have no use for the word. Time is like the word God. It conveniently cures all ills and allows us to prove everything under the sun. But what is this worth if we sacrificed understanding in exchange?
Time is a scalar quantity (a number line) used for quantifying our PERCEPTION of motion (ie. measuring movement). It doesn't slow down, speed up, dilate, contract, bend, warp, shrink, expand, etc. any more than a meter shrinks or expands. Only the object being measured can speed up, slow down, shrink, or expand.
Time does not cause anything. Time does not make you age. Objects cause events and make you age. It is the vibration & physical interaction of atoms in your body that causes aging, which is the removal and addition of atoms which don’t interact exactly as they previously did. It has nothing to do with time. Time is a “measurement” and an artificial “quantification” of this process.
But isn’t it convenient to count how long it takes for us to die, so we can put it on our Death Certificate and use it as an entrance ticket at the pearly white gates when we meet St. Peter?
(x did not occur because of time)
Event X occurred because the 3D surface of object A, physically came in CONTACT with the 3D surface of object B. Nature is simple. It is the Religious Nutcases who want you to believe that nature is so complex, that you need the blessings and the religious services of your authoritative agent (Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Einstein, Hawking) to help you understand.
Time is only useful to those who sell watches ;-)
(And because it is conceptual time cannot by definition exist.)
Exist = object + location
(If time does not exist, it can have no effect on objects)
Halleluiah! Once the whole world understands this basic idea, the angles will surely come down from heaven....
(nor can time be a property of space)
Space = nothing
Time = nothing
Space has absolutely no properties. Because space is nothing, it is conceived rather than perceived. You cannot see or measure nothing. We have a conception (understanding) of what nothing is. As such, space can only be described by negative predication....ie. boundless, borderless, colorless, etc.
(time... for a descriptive concept can only be a property of thought)
Thought is a verb, and has no properties. Time is simply a concept relating the motion of “specific” test objects with respect to each other....yes, a priori!
Time NECESSARILY requires an observer: time = motion + memory
Time is a relation or “relative motion” between the motion of two objects A and B. Therefore we can objectively define time as follows...
Time: The distance-traveled by an object B (a clock’s hands) as object A (Earth) traverses the distance D (orbits Sun). Again object A and B are assumed to be moving uniformly (rate of change is assumed absolute) with respect to each other.
Hawking writes a Book called "A brief history of TIME" and nowhere will you find the definition of the center of his writings. He states that while he has no evidence of time travel, it is theoretically possible; and that it's possible that we have been visited by more technologically advanced people from the future! Whaaaaaaaat?
The same goes for another clown, Paul Davies, who wrote a book titled “About Time”. How can he write this book if he confesses up front that he has no idea what time is?
And remember.....these clowns are the authoritative Arch-Bishops of the Mathematical Physics Religious Cult.
(nor can time be a property of space)
Space = nothing
Time = nothing
Fucking Genius
Fatfist may I used some of your facts to introduced logic to other apes. I am still mind fuck, that the acient apes new more than are so called bullshit religion science.
People try to explain nothing with stupidy.
Amen
(Space = nothing ......Fxxxing Genius)
Yep, thanks to the genius of the Almighty (may peace be upon Him), He realized that when He made space OMNIPRESENT, He should not use any matter. Otherwise, how will His mindless ape followers be able to squeeze their way through that solid brick of space to go to work, and empty their pockets in church every Sunday? Especially when you can’t waddle through solid matter when there is no space to displace the matter, like there is in the ocean and in the atmosphere.
Total genius indeed.......the Lord (may peace be upon Him), looked endlessly through His supplies to find “nothing”, and used it to make nothing. Then He opened His box of periodic table elements and dispersed them throughout this vast sea of omnipresent nothingness.
To be fair though......He did try to use objects to make the universe an omnipresent solid OBJECT. But He couldn’t do it because it is impossible to impart any shape to an omnipresent object, without a nothingness backdrop to encapsulate the object and give it SHAPE. He eventually realized that it was a contradiction......kinda like making a rock so big that even He can’t lift it. Ha! This fool was a TOTAL GENIUS, may peace be upon Him!
Besides.....an omnipresent solid object would cripple even the most arrogant of Gods, since He would be eternally stuck and unable to move, think, impart virgin births, or have consciousness!
At least with the other option, omnipresent nothingness, He is an eternal prisoner in the biggest prison ever. But at least He can still have His fun and cause bad things to happen to his little stupid apes so they can go to church and worship Him.
And that’s why He settled for omnipresent nothingness....may peace be upon Him!
You know was even funnier fatfist that, they say Dark Matter takes up 80 percent of space. My question to this fools, how much space do you know you have?
Fatfist my question is a how do you measure the amount of space in space? hahahaha
Something To Nothing,
Well, seeing how 80% of nothing = nothing, the mathematical physicists finally got one right. Let's simplify their equation:
80% of space = dark matter
Nothing = dark matter
Nothing = Nothing
Brilliant!
"They need to invent White Matter too in order to be politically correct."
hahahahahaha I actually die laughing, and came back laugphing. lol
Hey check this out more of the same. Oh this damm apes they have been forsaken by God.
Oh man, you are such a troublemaker! You just wanna sit back and watch a bloodbath with the fundies and see me get arrested and thrown in the slammer, don't you?
Hahahahaha I do like having fun with this tools. They chose there ignorance. I wonder why no one else comes to this hub and start proving threre religion. Fatfist scared verybody.
I guess i will give it a try.
(Atheist) But most of the scientific community agrees on the Theory of the Big Bang. Who are you fatfist to challenge such credible scientist! Your just a mad blogger.
(Theist) I believe the Universe was created because the bible said so. What makes you fatfist greater than the bible are you telling me your are god?
Yeah well, I always ask people to PROVE that their hand, nose, ear, eye, or tooth exists. None of them can ever perform this seemingly simple task. But yet they claim to have proof for abstract concepts such as creation, warped space, black holes, etc...
And it gets even funnier when they come here asking ME to DISPROVE (prove false) their wild claims.
It is painfully obvious that the educational system is at fault here, as it has continued where the priest teachers left off 300 years ago.....making empty proven assertions without so much as an explanation.
Aristotle attempted to deal with these very issues 2500 years ago by developing his Classical system of logic. He explicitly stated that PROOF always stems from assumed axioms (rules). Proof is always SYSTEMIC. No system....no proof.
But when the Christians expanded philosophy into the theological realm, they took Aristotle's logical system and rooted it within their theistic dogma, for the purposes of proving their God.
So when theists quote from the Bible and deem it as proof, their proof is only applicable WITHIN the confines of the Bible (the axiomatic System). Yet they don't understand this basic concept, and claim that their proof applies to nature's reality,...i.e. existence! They were taught by their Pastors, so that's what happens.
But I don’t let the atheists off the hook either, as they FAIL to understand what ‘proof’ is too. That’s why these fools engage the theists at their level by trying to DISPROVE their theistic claims on the basis of reality (existence), without so much as realizing that Biblical claims are systemic (dogmatic assertions). And of course they don’t realize it because these fools come here to prove Big Bang, 0D particles, quantum fluctuations, solid physical space, magical energy, etc. They are no different than the theists they argue with, and in fact, they use the exact same arguing methods to “prove” their case....too funny!
Ahhhhh....but these FOOLS have completely ignored the teachings of their pastor Kurt Godel. Gödel thought that human beings were “divine” and not spiritless machines like Turing was trying to prove. This divine creativity is what he thought humans used to create new mathematical concepts. In fact, Gödel went mad and ended up in the insane asylum because he wanted to prove that there are certain "absolute" or "god-given" truths that lie outside the realm of logic. But even he couldn’t come to terms with his own theorem when he applied it to God, because it demonstrated that certain things, especially reality, cannot be proved within any logical system.
Godel could not detach himself from the need of PROOF for our reality; so he went MAD and starved himself to death. Suddenly, the religious belief that there was a perfect logical proof which governed certainty and reality, had unravelled itself. Logic had revealed the limitations of logic and the search for certainty had revealed uncertainty. But still, people want to desperately cling to a “belief” in 100% certainty (PROOF) because it makes us feel that we have knowledge.
So the real question is: are we grown up enough to live with and deal with uncertainty (no proof), or will we continue to pledge blind allegiance to false certainty?
Why is it that the educational system, and society in general has completely IGNORED Godel's struggle with the words PROOF, ABSOLUTE, and CERTAINTY?
This is why I tell people to take their proofs & authorities and SHOVE them! When you come here, I expect you to provide explanations that make sense.
This is why it is so funny to watch these fools argue over such nonsense as:
Theist: Evolution is just a “theory”, it is not fact, it is not truth, it hasn’t been proven. So there!
Atheist: It has been PROVEN because we have evidence, math equations, probability charts. Besides, in scientific terms, “theory” means fact!
Agnostic: Either way, I don’t know.
|
|
Theist: God exists. We have evidence, the Bible, eyewitness reports, historical facts, etc. Besides, Jesus’ disciples wouldn’t have risked their lives and died if they didn’t have 100% truth!
Atheist: Well, that is NOT sufficient evidence. You have not demonstrated your claims to my satisfaction. Sure, if you have demonstrable evidence, I will BELIEVE in God. But until you do, I only have a LACK of BELIEF.
Agnostic: Either way, I don’t know.
......and the circus show continues on and on and on and on......
pythagarus
Ideas are ignored, and of progress there is no thought. This populace has two mothers, both of them stepmothers-Ignorance and Misery.
What do you think of this guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qlgzTlAvOo
He does not even hide the fact that this guy wants to merge with science,religion,and polictics. I know there already merge but he is going to make it official they wont even hide it anymore. lol
Yeah, Jacque Fresco, the Venus Project, Zeitgeist.
Preaching how human apes will all get together, with pretty smiles, and cute hats, holding hands, cooperating, preaching peace, not war, respecting each other, no greed, no crime, no car accidents, no alcohol, no cigarettes, no hookers, no strip joints,....
Anybody who thinks he can round up a bunch of ignorant wild apes to perform this heavenly act at a circus show near you,.... must be on some honkin' crack pipe!
I am God?
would you like me to agree with you? and then what? why don't you tell me about the "then what">>> not that we don't agree.... but doesn't mean that I will side with your mutinous buttkissing inflamed lips... what do you have in mind? you have something against stepmothers? Or just the ones that loved your father instead!....
See how it works? you can not participate and not f%$k it up just a little with your own observations... how you deflect is a function of your own bias... discovering my biases is why I am here, not because of the sh%t he spews, but nor would I expect you to join me to bash him... that he presents an opportunity, albeit a challenging one, so too is the potential reward. It's like pulling teeth, but from my own mouth... try giving something of yourself up instead of pretending agreement when your message is really a cry of battle! And for Pete's sake, grow some balls take the f$$kin' ? from your name.
In case you are wondering... this is the contradiction...now you choose to look or hide... I suggest “look” and let us know what you see... Peace.
To the gentle, many will be gentle; to the kind, many will be kind. A good man will find that there is goodness in the world; an honest man will find that there is honesty in the world; and a man of principle will find principle and integrity in the hearts of others.
The Apes cant even graps this statement. Instead they will argue and praise there religion, instead of themselves and simple logic that every human has but refused to used it.
pythagarus what are you talking about?
Pythagarus,
(what's this crap about wallmart... you are just not greeter stuff – lol... too evolved for that, hey!)
I told you, drop by the Walmart location in Scarborough East if you want to see a very humbled and docile version of fatfist, wearing a blue apron. I will buy you a Tim Horton’s coffee and donut if you promise not to laugh at me, ok?
(concepts..."creating" at least 2 definitions, one is conceptual the other a consequence (or stuff-excluded))
When you define a concept, there is nothing to exclude because the definition is always positively predicated.
Here, let me teach you what a concept is cause most people haven’t the slightest clue.....
concept: a word that invokes or embodies two or more objects
A concept is a relation between objects. Humans invented all concepts. Nature does not recognize a single concept.
Concepts at a minimum reference TWO objects.
A single object alone cannot be said to be big, round, small, moving, motionless, etc. In a universe of only one object, at the macro level it has no description, no relation, and no properties other than its shape. It’s only when we introduce a two or more objects that we can have distance, motion, numbers, measurement, weight, etc.
The only way you can “exclude stuff”, as you say, from a definition, is if you are using negative predication. But negative predication always reduces a definition to nothing.....ALWAYS!
The only negatively predicated concept is “space”, as it is our conception of nothing. It is boundless, shapeless, limitless, colorless, etc. It cannot be predicated positively. But the space between objects and your ears, is natures space, as it was always there. All concepts we conceive are artificial. Space is the only non-artificial concept. We didn’t invent space. We discovered it.
(I presented the pi problem precisely)
NO YOU DID NOT!!!!
I still don’t have a freakin’ clue about this supposed Pi problem or issue you speak of!
Can you please spell out the problem, with the luxury of descriptive/explanatory detail? My slow-witted brain has difficulty following posts that go all over the place and lead to nowhere......especially after a long day at Walmart.
(it relies on 2 concepts; diameter and circumference, which "define" the circle)
Great! Now you’re learning. Pi = C/d. Pi is a verb. It is an activity that you do.
(diameter and circumference... which exist because language defined it)
No, you foolish ape!!!!!!!
Language can define whatever the hell it wants, but all words remain concepts unless you can resolve them by POINTING to an object. In reality, words in language which do not resolve to an object, are called VERBS!
Pay attention....I already told you before: Exist = object + location
Are “diameter” and “circumference” objects in your religion? Can you even draw a picture of them? Do they even have shape?
If not, they don’t even qualify as OBJECTS,.....nevermind ‘exist’. They are verbs (concepts) representing the distance-traveled by the leading edge of your tape measure.
They require 2 objects to be realized:
1) The observer
2) The tape measure
At best, you can tell me that a CIRCLE is an object. Measurements, like diameter & circumference, which require laying units of tiles, are always concepts (verbs). You need to lay tiles to realize them in your brain, got it?
Pythagorus (The compassionate One) Vs Fatfist (The Tyrant) Battle of the Millennium 2010
The two god's will battle it out, and then the one that wins, will be the only God amongs mortals. The battle of the universe lies withing this hub.
So are you gonna tell us what is keeping you up all night regarding your imaginary circles, diameters, circumferences, and Pi?
Do they run around your home like ghosts in the middle of the night?
Will you ever answer any questions, or are you here for Group Therapy?
Yes, I will...
You sounded like someone I once loved! She would say "hey, moron, you are Not Ok, come here sweetie, lean you pretty head against my bosom, while I pulp your brain with stories of promise... What? you don't believe? then let me punch you with a lullaby of punishment till you question your self worth and confuse your Eternal Being for my temporal hell! make any sense, darling...don't worry, just lie your pretty head against my bosom and all will be Ok with Me!"
You raised physical fear in me (irrationally, but real fear) with your ability to find me... Bring it on! and then what???!! that's always the question... that's why we all hide behind these stupid names, no? But the cause is always the same - irrational fear (always the f@#kin fear) of reprisal, loss of love, or reward etc. – and the effect always of the same character – irrational dependency on concepts!
But that's not your fault, fatfist... when you pointed out that “concepts are verbs”, I was able to see the fear-effect someone else has had on my life... your offer to pay me $20,0000 to deal with the fear is more appropriate then you will ever know... so I took it on elsewhere... I offered to cancel my professional contract with him instead, unconditionally! (while I continued to look at the character of my irrational fear with you). Not as reprisal but as freedom from his method. As it turns out, I have not been fired and he actually apologized (to one other person too!). fatfist, consider your offer paid in full, Thankyou... feels good to be rational!
heads-up, Everything-x”?” may be gearing-up courage to confront his optimistic-fear-effect head-on!
pythagarus,
Regarding your last post.....you really need psychiatric help.
That's what happens when they don't put electric fences around the perimeter of the Insane Asylum. Escapees, such as yourself, are able to flee to what they "think" is freedom,....but they are entering a world of mental enslavement and conceptual imprisonment.
Without your regular medication administered by the nurse, you have fear, torment, despair, diameters & circumferences are chasing you in the middle of the night, circles are wrapping themselves around you and confining you to misery, you find Pi=3.14.. inside every pie you eat, etc.
No wonder you haven't spoken a single coherent sentence, nor can answer any question ever since you started posting here.
(I offered to cancel my professional contract)
No, no,...that's not a good idea! Please continue going to the psychiatrist on a daily basis. You need professional help.
Or better still.....surrender to the nearest Police station at 42 Division right now! They will call the men in white jackets who will take you to a nice place with lots of trees, flowers, sunshine, and nice people who will take care of you.
(Thankyou... feels good to be rational!)
Thank me AFTER you get committed to the asylum on a permanent basis. And talk to me 40 years later, about...."feeling rational".
....LOL, you are a riot! goodbye. Hmmm... forgot something,OH!yeah... BiteMe:))
you're welcome Pythagarus ;-)
Are u sayin we don't have consciousness?
The princeton dictionary says, "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation".
Is a state of awareness. You cant speak or think without it.
How about "A Clockwork Orange" by Anthony Burgess:
"I've learned me lesson, sir. I've seen now what I've never seen before. I'm cured! Praise God!"
Xtal,
(Are u sayin we don't have consciousness?)
What do you mean by “have”? What is the context of your usage of that key word?
Do we have consciousness like:
1) we ‘have’ dinner (verb context)?
2) we have ‘a’ car (object context)?
3) we have ‘shape’ (adjective context)?
4) we have ‘cheerful’ dispositions (adverb context)?
Anybody who claims we ‘have’ consciousness, oughta be able to explain in detail what they mean. If they cannot explain rationally what them mean, then they are full of bulls**t.
I have already explained that “consciousness” is a VERB, an activity performed by biological beings (through atomic interactions) with a brain.....see my previous comments. If you disagree, the onus is on YOU to justify your position.
I don’t like quoting authority, but let’s see what wiki has to say:
“Consciousness is variously defined as subjective experience, or awareness, or wakefulness, or the executive control system of the mind. It is an umbrella term that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena..... The word "conscious" is derived from Latin conscius meaning "1. having joint or common knowledge with another, privy to, cognizant of; 2. conscious to oneself; esp., conscious of guilt".
No matter how anybody tries to define this term, it always resolves to a VERB. If you disagree, then you are free to define it as you like so it is NOT a verb. Note that it *may* be used as a noun for the purposes of ordinary speech (i.e. ‘his’ consciousness), as almost all verbs can (i.e. ‘his’ running), because linguistic terms have DUALITIES. This is merely a colloquialism or poetry.
But for the purposes of reality, it is unequivocally a VERB! Otherwise, the onus is on YOU to illustrate a diagram of WHAT this object you call ‘consciousness’, could possibly look like. I mean, we have pictures of what God, angles, lochness monster, ghosts, witches, goblins, and god forbid....aliens look like.
Not only that,.... but consciousness, like all verbs, are only conceptualized by us because our brain has the capability of MEMORY. Without memory we would not conceive of time (verb), consciousness (verb), running (verb), or of any other verb. Don’t believe me?......just go ask a plant!
Since the atomic configuration of our neurons maintains a constant torque signal transmission between atoms for the duration of our lives, ....this interaction, along with the spinning of atomic electron shells, effectively maintains a memory bank. Just like the one inside a silicon microchip where atoms are sending torque signals to each other, and spinning their electron shells in order to maintain state via what we term ‘electrical’ potential & current.
So without this biological and physical implementation of MEMORY, we would NOT “perceive” or “conceive” of any motion whatsoever. This means that no verbs would be realized by biological beings without memory. Since we would not be able to realize any MOTION, we definitely would NOT ‘have’ consciousness. We would not be aware of anything nor ‘experience’ or have 'knowledge' of any phenomena.
As far as we would be concerned (and we wouldn’t even have a concern – verb), our interaction with nature’s reality would be similar to that of a plant. From “our” perspective, all objects, including us, would have only LOCATION, and never any motion!
Motion, just like time, is the illusion of biological beings with memory. Nature's objects only have LOCATION,....they are either HERE or THERE. Nature has no memory of where her objects were 1 nanosecond ago. She only works in the present.
I guess you really had to be there but the bible is jewish, gods people, hebrewite history. Unlike our placid history books there is no inference to God except in the demise of the Spanish Armada and a plaque that says, "The wind blew and God won the war". Like i said you really had to have been there. Jesus healed many sick, diseased, crippled and even dead people, to those at the time this would be your proof and you would not have asked the question.
The prophecies that forecast a messiah and what would happen to him and what would occur, that he would be betrayed and hung on a tree (old word for cross).
When gods people passed through the parted sea and the pillar of flame that lighted their way and the cloud that kept them in shade in the desert during the day, the manna that fell... you would have to have been there.
But faith is the evidence of things not seen.
wind is evident by the trees movement
air is evident, microscopes see things we cannot.
Evidence is a cowards shield, Faith is for a brave man for by faith are things done. Evidence is only the conclusion of things done by faith. God spoke all into being.. now there's faith.
Hanging out,
(you would have to have been there)
Nobody has to be there to SEE/TOUCH it, for it to be real.
An atheist cannot SEE and be with Obama right now in the oval office. Does this mean that Obama is not real?
A theist cannot SEE and be with God right now. Does this mean that God is not real?
I am looking out my window and I cannot SEE and be with the Sun right now. Does this mean the Sun is not real?
Reality has absolutely nothing to do with the 5 senses of a human observer. Reality is observer-less. Reality can only be REASONED, never asserted and never proven and never confirmed!
(But faith is the evidence of things not seen.)
Evidence is based on opinion. Just look at all the innocent people convicted in court every year.
(wind is evident by the trees movement)
Really? Are you sure?
I played a trick on my neighbour once. I tied a rope on the tree in his back yard and shook the tree violently. He immediately came running outside to tie down his patio furniture cause he thought a wind storm approached.
So much for evidence, huh?
(air is evident, microscopes see things we cannot.)
Microscopes cannot see. Only we can see using their optics for magnification.
Air is not evident via a microscope.
So much for evidence, huh?
(Evidence is a cowards shield)
Do you like playing on both sides of the fence? Cause you sound EXACTLY like an atheist!!!
if you would stop trying to find the argument and just read the words that are presented to you, you would have understood most of what you read. But you look for ways to disprove people and in this instance you blind yourself.
You do not need to see the sun ALL THE TIME to know that yesterday you saw it. duh. The point is you have seen it and therefore you believe in it. This is the only way you are going to believe in God so my point was... if you had been a member of Israel crossing the desert with the pillar of fire you would not be asking.. did i see a pillar of fire yesterday? and is there one there now? You see the pillar and know it is from God therefore you believe. doh and duh.
Close your eyes let me stick a pin in you and see if you can reason the reality of the pain. The five senses are a pathway to help us reason, unless you are a sponge with intellect you don't need them or ever use them. It is impossible to believe in anything using reason alone. If i reason my brain is made up of atoms then i have no reason to believe my thoughts are real. Reason is often a trap which limits the percipient and without modifiers, reason can often be misunderstood for imagination.
Like your neighbor and the tree, if he had examined the tree more closely since it was the only one shaking, i assume, he would have come to a different conclusion but he had to use some of the 5 senses to get there. You judge a hasty assumption as evidence, i do not and unless you go around tying ropes to many trees the basic hypothesis of wind pushing trees, is pretty much guaranteed, therefore wind exists. So much for your quick dismissal huh?
I never meant to imply we can see air through a microscope i stated microscopes show us, through magnification yep, things we cannot see. If you doubt what microscopes reveal that is your decision, not mine.
In your search to disprove you missed this point of my message. Evidence is a cowards shield when talking about God, because God is a faith walk. Often people say, show me god.. this prevents them from having to make a commitment to God, as proof in the physical realm is scarce because it is a faith walk again. People must have a little faith to begin their walk and that is how the whole thing starts, faith grows with experience, etc.
You speak of mans evidence and mans court, not the court of God, Therefore, i say yes to innocents convicted, but do not apply it to god at all. The faith that i talk about is belief not opinion.
Hanging out,
(But you look for ways to disprove people)
I was correct in my first attempt of a psychic reading of you! You are absolutely no different than atheists here on HP, except for the extremely minor issue regarding the God Hypothesis vs. the Singularity Hypothesis. All your arguments, thought processes, reification of concepts into objects, making statements and retracting them so you can play on BOTH sides of the fence, etc.....are all identical with that of the atheists whom you hate, but yet manage to sleep in the same bed with.
I urge you to wake up and understand that proving & disproving have nothing to do with reality. Proofs are only based on pre-defined rules of engagement, which reality doesn’t have, obviously! Please teach that to the next atheist you argue with....
(You do not need to see the sun ALL THE TIME to know that yesterday you saw it. duh. The point is you have seen it and therefore you believe in it.)
Please tell that to the blind person who has never seen anything in his life. So then, according to YOUR argument, because the blind person has NEVER seen the Sun, he should conclude that the Sun does not exist, right?
Should the blind person believe YOU, who tells him that the Sun exists because YOU personally saw it?
Or should the blind person believe another blind person, who tells him the Sun does not exist because he never saw it?
How can your religion begin to OBJECTIVELY sort out these 2 claims? What is the objective resolution which does not depend on a person’s opinion?
(You see the pillar and know it is from God therefore you believe.)
But you didn’t see the pillar. And the Jehovah’s witnesses didn’t see it. And the Buddhists didn’t see it. And Tom Cruise from the faith of Scientology didn’t see it. Tom Cruise says that YOU are full of BS!
Who should I believe......YOU or Tom Cruise?
Before you answer, may I remind you.......Tom Cruise is a MAJOR authority who makes tens of millions of dollars every year, lives in many multi-million dollar homes, has butlers, has VERY expensive cars and very expensive restaurant bills, and has lots of followers worldwide, not to mention TV appearances, magazine articles and book deals.
Therefore I am MORE inclined to believe Tom Cruise over YOU!!!!!
Again, I am using your very own kind of Church Logic in order to make my belief-based assessment in these matters. Am I wrong? If so, then YOU are wrong as well. This is your argument.
So between YOU and Tom Cruise, how do we determine who is the rational one? How should the members of the audience proceed in assessing who is the rational one, you or Tom?
Hanging out: “Evidence is a cowards shield, Faith is for a brave man for by faith are things done.”
Hanging out: “The five senses are a pathway to help us reason, unless you are a sponge with intellect”
Fatfist: “you like playing BOTH sides of the fence”
Again, YOUR words! You absolutely are EQUAL to an atheist because you contradict yourself with every argument. But then again, what option do you have? Your religion is only based on contradictions, and they have taught you to memorize them by rote and spew them off like some divine knowledge.
You only know how to make your points by arguing on BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE, depending on what point you would like to “prove” with every turn of the argument.
(It is impossible to believe in anything using reason alone.)
A rational person can explain whether “God exists” is a viable claim, or an impossible claim. There is no in-between or any other option. It’s a black & white issue! Only people who are not in touch with reality will actually be so brazen as to “believe” or have “faith” in existence.
(i have no reason to believe my thoughts are real.)
Exactly, you don’t!
Real is a synonym for ‘exist’ = object + location
Are thoughts objects? Do they even qualify as such?
Thought = verb; to think!!!!
Thoughts can only be realized when an object necessarily exists to “perform” motion. The atoms comprising the neurons in your brain are moving, hence you think!
A “thought” is what something DOES; not what something IS.
(reason can often be misunderstood for imagination)
I don’t blame you. You are just repeating what your Pastor told you without even taking the time to understand it.
Heretic Fatfist
If people can’t prove their arm exists, how can they possibly prove God exists? And how can they possibly make any intelligent statement about the existence of God, when they can’t even make an intelligent statement about their ARM?
Gnostic Fatfist
Wind is a relation between 2 or more objects (ie. an observer, a tree, air molecules) involving the dynamisms of memory and motion. You absolutely need a human to conceive of wind, by conceptualizing an object, like air atoms, pushing another object, like a tree.
Rookie
I think I can proved my left foot. I try and experiment there was a rock on the ground and I push it with my foot because it was in my way that means that my foot exist. Or does it proved that everything is just made of matter or something.
prometheus,
(there was a rock on the ground and I push it with my foot because it was in my way that means that my foot exist.)
That’s funny, cause my next door neighbour completely disagrees with you. He claims that the misplaced rock on the ground was the result of you pushing it with your wheelchair because you have no legs.
And Tom Cruise claims to have proven that Aliens from his Scientology church moved that rock.
So whose proof should I believe.....your’s, my neighbor’s, or Tom’s?
(Or does it proved that everything is just made of matter or something)
It is irrelevant what something is made from. The only issue of concern is whether something is an object or a concept. This is the burning issue that the stupid apes on this planet are having the most difficulty with. And their behavior is a direct consequence of that.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahaha
I like fatfist but i dont like Lactantius.
I rather believe Tom because he is a Idol with alot of money. But you are poor so what do you know.
Richard Dawkins has written like 8 books how many had you written fatfist. So in my conclusion Richard is smarter than you. lol
Christopher Hitchen comes out in almost everyshow that makes him smart. What about you? lol
Bill Maher is a proud Atheist and he is famous he is also smarter than you or me.
And Thank God for Bill o'reilly he is looking out for you and me. Because is are nature for you and me to be stupid.
(Bill Maher is a proud Atheist)
That what I thought too. But he actually is a "deist".
He is a smart guy. And he is against all forms of religion.
But he is brainwashed like everyone else to believe that existence was created, and was created "Intelligently. Since he doesn't understand the difference between an object and a concept, of course he doesn't understand ontological reality.
Therefore, he is an Intelligent Design Creationist who believes that some type of God created existence, fine tuned it, and that this God is not concerned with our day-to-day matters - hence no worship or religion!
If he only understood that God is a hypothesis, and creation is impossible, he wouldn't resort to Deism.
Pollyannalana,
As promised, I am a person of integrity. I already told you in your hub that I will PayPal you $10,000 US if you can explain that CREATION is the remotest of extremely remote possibilities.
You decided to CENSOR my comment, so I post it here for the record.
Nobody can now say that "Fatfist is a LIAR", right??
HEY CAN I GET IN ON THAT $10 GRAND?
I wonder Fat...I skipped over all the comments... has anyone put forth the assertion that "God" is INTERNAL? That is your consciousness and mine and everyone else's is the same and it is "God"'s.
Has anyone talked about quantum theory and how things don't get created until they are observed (by consciousness)?
I guess if I want the money I'll have to insist you define "CREATION."
Pjk,
(HEY CAN I GET IN ON THAT $10 GRAND?)
Of course you can!!
Christians & Mathematical Physicists claim to prove the creation of space & matter day in and day out.
But when I ask them if they can rationally explain IF there is even an extremely remote possibility that space & matter were created, whether by a God, or by any other means….they always run away with their tails between their legs. And they never look back….
(has anyone put forth the assertion that "God" is INTERNAL? That is your consciousness and mine and everyone else's is the same and it is "God"'s.)
People like playing with words and always define their terms NEGATIVELY so they can put them out of reach from a rational person’s hands.
For example,
Q: What is spirit?
A: It’s incorporeal and non-material.
Q: What is consciousness?
A: It’s incorporeal and non-material.
Do these clowns expect to get $10k for such divine inspirational answers??
A mouse can do better than that!
A rational person operates within the confines of reality, not within a magical fairyland where a fairy converts Cinderella from rags to riches so she can go to the Ball and meet a magical Prince who ‘has’ consciousness.
In reality, consciousness is a VERB. Consciousness involves the motion of objects, not the motion of nothing. Absolutely ALL verbs require a physical mediator (i.e. object) to mediate their action. It is impossible to have verbs without OBJECTS. Objectless or matterless motion is impossible.
Consciousness is what something DOES (i.e. verb, motion), not what something IS (i.e. entity, object, thing, substance, matter, etc). It is the motion of atoms in the brain, which mediate the verb we call: consciousness.
Objects (atoms), without a doubt, ALWAYS precede consciousness.....objects precede all verbs.
Objects necessarily PRECEDE motion, right?
That’s why existence exists…..and it’s eternal.
Now if you want to DEVIATE from this default position of existence, you will have to rationally explain “creation”. And if you can do that, then you will have shown that it is a least POSSIBLE….and I will paypal you $10k…..I am on the record!
(Has anyone talked about quantum theory and how things don't get created until they are observed (by consciousness)?)
Is this a joke?
Are you gonna tell me that the Earth did not exist, until the first animal evolved with eyesight and consciousness, in order to SEE & THINK about the Earth…..at which point the Earth magically popped into existence? Where was the first observing animal living then?
So the Sun did not exist until some being observed it?
Do you even comprehend what you are saying here?? Don’t you even realize the contradictions?
In order for an observer to OBSERVE ‘things’, those things must ALREADY EXIST! Get it??
Nature has no contradictions. Only humans do!
(I guess if I want the money I'll have to insist you define "CREATION.")
It quite easy, pjk. Just follow the standard hypothesis and theory.
The creationist Hypothesis is that at sometime in the past, there was no matter and no space.
The creationist Theory is that space & matter were CREATED, whether by God or by a Singularity. Create is a VERB. This means that something, call it A, has to impart MOTION onto something else (or to itself), call it B (or A again), in order magically pop objects (matter) into existence (i.e. give birth to them).
If you had paid attention to your very OWN example of “consciousness”, you would have understood that it clearly demonstrates exactly why matter & space are eternal. It is impossible for matter to have a beginning because it is impossible for nothingness to impart motion, and mediate the CREATE verb, in order to magically pop objects with Length, Width, and Height into existence.
Hey, Fatfist,
As far as I can tell, the Church of Quantum is based on the belief that if you can imagine things that are small enough, then those small imaginary objects won't be affected by natural laws - they will instead be subject to "I made them tiny laws".
It also explains what happened to my cat after I washed her in hot water instead of cold, like it said on the label - I put her in a cigar box to bury her but she was alive so I closed the lid, but the next time I looked she was dead, and then alive again and the next thing you know she kept getting smaller and smaller until she just vanished.
And all that was left in my cigar box was a boxful of feline dark energy.
Thanks for that great response FF! I'm still digesting it. You seem like just the person I need to make me question and strengthen (or discard) my beliefs. I'm still pondering my answers to the points you make above. Let me think and bit. I'll be back (for the 10 grand ;o)
Hey pjk,
Thanks for dropping by and asking questions. Without a discussion, hubs can be quite boring.
(You seem like just the person I need to make me question and strengthen (or discard) my beliefs.)
Oh, please don't get the wrong idea about me. I don't want to be responsible for changing your beliefs. There is a lot of emotion and pain associated with that and it just isn't my thing. I have another Christian who is questioning his faith after reading my hubs and he has become really upset. I don't wish to get involved in that stuff. Most theists mean well and are decent humans beings. I have lots of theist friends and even though we disagree on the God issue, we have tons of other things in common.
But on the other hand, I've had quite a few trolling theists and atheists drop by here, who I would love to upset ;-)
My hubs are meant to dispel all the myths about gods and pseudo-science that mankind has invented. If you feel that my hubs trouble you, I suggest you forget about them.
But if you are looking to have an honest intellectual and rational discussion, then feel free to post whatever you like here. I promise that those atheists in the forums will not come here to create a circus atmosphere.
thanks for dropping by
Ok been thinking about it. First. I think its good to get Christians to question their faith. Most of them got it wrong. They just don't know what "god" is. Although the whole use of the word "god" is questionable, I still intend to attempt to "prove" to you (or at least give you a reasonable doubt ;o) the truth in the old biblical saying that "Only a fool says "there is no God."
Second. I have two thoughts for you to ponder or refute.
I love your "challenge" to prove the LACK of contradiction in my assertion that "...the Sun did not exist until some being observed it?"
1. What if your life right now is a dream? If you dream of the sun is it real while you're dreaming? No? Then what is real? Something you can taste, touch, hear, see or smell? Something you remember? All these are but "atoms firing in your brain". Is that reality? Do the atoms fire differently when you dream?
I would suggest that "God" is a "conscious being" dreaming that he is each and every one of us simultaneously. I would also suggest that your house, Fatfist, ceases to exist when you are not observing it. By "you" I mean "you in any current human body around your house".
While your smoking that in your pipe...
2. I heard today about this Japanese guy. Here's a clip
"...Mr. Emoto and colleagues decided to see how thoughts and words affected the formation of untreated, distilled, water crystals, using words typed onto paper by a word processor and taped on glass bottles overnight. The same procedure was performed using the names of deceased persons. The waters were then frozen and photographed."
Here's a link where the results can be viewed. http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_e (I think I just might make a hub page about this...but I digress.)
It seems like this is proof that observation/intention/thought influences the creation and structure of atoms in physical reality.
More thoughts:
Pjk,
(HEY CAN I GET IN ON THAT $10 GRAND?)
Of course you can!!
Christians & Mathematical Physicists claim to prove the creation of space & matter day in and day out.
But when I ask them if they can rationally explain IF there is even an extremely remote possibility that space & matter were created, whether by a God, or by any other means….they always run away with their tails between their legs. And they never look back….
PJK - I don't want the money. I just want to see you type the words "OK God exists."
(has anyone put forth the assertion that "God" is INTERNAL? That is your consciousness and mine and everyone else's is the same and it is "God"'s.)
People like playing with words and always define their terms NEGATIVELY so they can put them out of reach from a rational person’s hands.
For example,
Q: What is spirit?
A: It’s incorporeal and non-material.
Q: What is consciousness?
A: It’s incorporeal and non-material.
Do these clowns expect to get $10k for such divine inspirational answers??
A mouse can do better than that!
PJK - OK. I do want the money. ;o) The word "God" is just to...misleading. Its definition dooms us right off the bat too.
A rational person operates within the confines of reality, not within a magical fairyland where a fairy converts Cinderella from rags to riches so she can go to the Ball and meet a magical Prince who ‘has’ consciousness.
In reality, consciousness is a VERB. Consciousness involves the motion of objects, not the motion of nothing. Absolutely ALL verbs require a physical mediator (i.e. object) to mediate their action. It is impossible to have verbs without OBJECTS. Objectless or matterless motion is impossible.
Consciousness is what something DOES (i.e. verb, motion), not what something IS (i.e. entity, object, thing, substance, matter, etc). It is the motion of atoms in the brain, which mediate the verb we call: consciousness.
PJK - I love this. Right up until the last sentence. The atoms would not exist without consciousness.
Objects (atoms), without a doubt, ALWAYS precede consciousness.....objects precede all verbs.
Objects necessarily PRECEDE motion, right?
PJK - Ya.
That’s why existence exists…..and it’s eternal.
PJK - I don't follow...
Now if you want to DEVIATE from this default position of existence, you will have to rationally explain “creation”. And if you can do that, then you will have shown that it is a least POSSIBLE….and I will paypal you $10k…..I am on the record!
(Has anyone talked about quantum theory and how things don't get created until they are observed (by consciousness)?)
Is this a joke?
PJK - NO.
Are you gonna tell me that the Earth did not exist, until the first animal evolved with eyesight and consciousness, in order to SEE & THINK about the Earth…..at which point the Earth magically popped into existence? Where was the first observing animal living then?
PJK - NO. Not an animal. You.
So the Sun did not exist until some being observed it?
PJK - Correct. You.
Do you even comprehend what you are saying here?? Don’t you even realize the contradictions?
PJK - I know man. Its way out there. I'll go slow ;o)
In order for an observer to OBSERVE ‘things’, those things must ALREADY EXIST! Get it??
Nature has no contradictions. Only humans do!
(I guess if I want the money I'll have to insist you define "CREATION.")
It quite easy, pjk. Just follow the standard hypothesis and theory.
The creationist Hypothesis is that at sometime in the past, there was no matter and no space.
PJK - OK, That's where I have to stop you. I asssert that space exists as an infinite source of Potential energy. Observation and thought cause the release of this energy in the form of matter.
The creationist Theory is that space & matter were CREATED, whether by God or by a Singularity. Create is a VERB. This means that something, call it A, has to impart MOTION onto something else (or to itself), call it B (or A again), in order magically pop objects (matter) into existence (i.e. give birth to them).
If you had paid attention to your very OWN example of “consciousness”, you would have understood that it clearly demonstrates exactly why matter & space are eternal. It is impossible for matter to have a beginning because it is impossible for nothingness to impart motion, and mediate the CREATE verb, in order to magically pop objects with Length, Width, and Height into existence.
PJK - I'm tired. There's probably a good response to the above thought but I can't think anymore. (Kush)
Hi pjk,
(Although the whole use of the word "god" is questionable)
It only “appears” questionable because people are always using this god term in ordinary speech, which gives them freedom to inject ambiguities and a million contexts into it. This makes your god different from your mother’s god, and different from your father’s god, and from your pastor’s god, and from your neighbor’s god. What I am getting at is that each and every single Christian on this planet has a DIFFERENT conception of what God is and means to them personally. This is subjective.
A rational human uses the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory) to objectify this issue rather easily. But first, what is God?
There are 2 issues circumscribing the term God, and absolutely all nouns in language:
1) God-The-Concept: This is the definition or meaning of the term. God is the CREATOR of space & matter.
2) God-The-Object: This is not defined, and is impossible to objectively do so. We can only describe the object. God is an entity or being. God is SOMETHING rather than NOTHING..... i.e. an OBJECT! God necessarily has shape/form and internal structure to His being. God is invisible to humans.
Now it’s very easy.........
Since the term God was conceived by a human who hypothesized it to be an object, it was NOT a run-of-the-mill useless object. This object had some pre-conceived context, meaning, and purpose attached to it. The purpose of this God object was that it created space & matter. Therefore, there is a CLAIM associated with the term God!!
This is a POSITIVE CLAIM because it posits a CONSUMMATED EVENT....creation! A CLAIM is absolutely worthless without an associated Theory.... i.e. a rational explanation!!
We easily apply the Scientific Method to God-the-Concept AND God-the-Object as follows....
God Hypothesis: Let us assume that God is an object that exists. Let us assume at some instant in the past there was no space and no matter, but only God!
Creation Theory: I can now explain how space & matter were created (ie. verb) by God as follows........blah blah.
The Scientific Method is able to critically analyze this God CLAIM and reach 2 objectively rational conclusions:
1) Either the Creation CLAIM/THEORY is rational, and hence possible.
Or,
2) The Creation CLAIM/THEORY is irrational, and hence impossible.
If the Theory is rational (contradiction-free), then it is POSSIBLE that the CLAIM occurred.
If the Theory is irrational (has contradictions), then it is IMPOSSIBLE that the CLAIM occurred.
That is the ultimate in human achievement. There no other method of analysis that is as objective or more objective than this.
(I still intend to attempt to "prove" to you)
You need to get with the program and stop parroting the party line, pjk. Proof is only cirmscribed within the context of an axiomatic tautologous system (ie. logic, math, computer programming, business rules, etc.). The proof is ALREADY implicitly invented by the axiomatic system BEFORE you even begin to prove something....get it?
In reality, proof is IMPOSSIBLE!
Let me repeat this again, because you may not have understood me.....
In reality, proof is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
Proof is in the eye of the beholder.....it is subjective. Reality has no axioms and is not proven by the extremely limited human sensory system.
This is why we use critical thinking and analysis to validate ALL CLAIMS.....thinking has no physical limits!!
("Only a fool says "there is no God.")
It is irrelevant what anybody “says”. We resolve all claims objectively, not subjectively. A rational and critical analysis that demonstrates Creation to be IMPOSSIBLE, automatically makes God-the-Creator impossible! Irrespective of what anybody claims! There is no room for EMOTION or subjectivity in the Scientific Method.
I have several hubs that rationally explain WHY there is no God, and WHY the Universe is Eternal. You can call me a FOOL all you like. People’s claims and opinions have no bearing on reality.
(What if your life right now is a dream?)
We can talk about WHAT IF scenarios till the cows come home. You need to put up a solid argument. What if I sow a sack of testicles to my aunt.....does that make her my uncle??
(Then what is real?)
REAL is a synonym for EXIST. We scientifically (unambiguously & consistently & observer-independent) define exist as follows:
Exist: physical presence (object + location)
Object: that which has shape
Location: the set of static distances to all other objects
If the Scientific definition of exist is too rigorous for your tastes.....I welcome you to provide your own. If you can’t, we use this one.
(Something you can taste, touch, hear, see or smell? Something you remember?)
These are SUBJECTIVE criteria, and have NO bearing on reality. Such issues do not concern the Scientific Method, which is objective!
(I would suggest that "God" is a "conscious being" dreaming that he is each and every one of us simultaneously.)
Fine! Knock yourself out! God can be whatever you like Him to be. And He can dream whatever He wants. But my hubs have already explained why this God being is IMPOSSIBLE to be The Creator of space and matter. Your God being is just another living prisoner in the biggest of all prisons we call the Universe!
(I would also suggest that your house, Fatfist, ceases to exist when you are not observing it.)
Great! Please rationally explain to me how my house, an object, loses shape, and loses length, width, and height.....and converts into space (nothing), when I go to the beer store. And when I return, space (nothing) acquires MOTION and creates (verb) length, width, and height simultaneously in ZERO-TIME to form my house object.
Can nothing acquire motion? Is matterless motion possible? You have a LOT of explaining to do.
This is YOUR claim. This is YOUR Theory!
If you can provide a rational explanation, then it may be possible. If not, your claim goes in the TRASH, along with the claim that a billy-goat vomited that brand new 70-inch flat screen on my wall.
Regardless, your CLAIM is easily shown to be impossible via its ontological contradictions.
Pjk,
(PJK - I don't want the money. I just want to see you type the words "OK God exists.")
Like I said, God can be any being you want Him to be. All you are making is a CLAIM. Take a look at my hub: Creation is Impossible,.....you will find links to other hubs which also explain creation to be impossible from different perspectives. This means that God-The-Creator is impossible to exist or to have existed.
If you don’t like my explanation, you can try and refute it. Then I promise I will remove the hubs. Then, if you want God-The-Creator to exist, you must rationally explain your Theory of Creation. It’s that simple.
God can be any being we subjectively choose....like Lady Gaga, for example. In that sense, God exists! Thank God for the nose job!
("God" is just to...misleading. Its definition dooms us right off the bat too.)
Remember what I posted earlier.....only God-The-Concept can be defined. God-The-Object can only be described. You need to be able to express your ideas to others in a rational and consistent manner.
(PJK - I love this. Right up until the last sentence. The atoms would not exist without consciousness.)
No! That’s not what I said. Read the sentence again and try to understand the terms.
Fatfist: “Consciousness is what something DOES (i.e. verb, motion), not what something IS (i.e. entity, object, thing, substance, matter, etc). It is the motion of atoms in the brain, which mediate the verb we call: consciousness.”
Atoms (objects) in motion (verb) in the brain etc. etc. etc.....is termed: CONSCIOUSNESS
Human (object) in motion (verb) on the sidewalk.....is termed: WALKING or RUNNING, depending on the context.
Verbs do not exist. Only objects exist.
Consciousness, running, walking, eating, etc.....do NOT exist. Only the object that DOES these ACTIONS, exists!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objects (atoms), without a doubt, ALWAYS precede consciousness.....objects precede all verbs. Objects necessarily PRECEDE motion, right?
PJK - Ya.
That’s why existence exists…..and it’s eternal.
PJK - I don't follow...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me explain......Create is a VERB. It implies motion. Something needs to MOVE in order for space & matter to be created (verb). Only matter can attain motion. Therefore, MATTER WAS ALREADY THERE!
(PJK - I know man. Its way out there. I'll go slow ;o)
It is irrelevant how OUT THERE it is. The point is.....you are making a CLAIM. You are THEORIZING that matter is created from nothing in ZERO TIME when viewed only by a human, and not an animal.
This is YOUR THEORY!
A THEORY without a rational explanation, a theory that cannot be explained to another human being, a theory that cannot be put up as a MOVIE on the big screen without missing frames......is pure BUNK!!! It belongs in the TRASH, to put mildly.
Here is what YOU are telling the audience:
1) In frame 85 of your movie, there is the Sun.
2) In frame 86 of your movie, there is nothing but space.
This is an ontological contradiction. This is IMPOSSIBLE. If I rewind Mother Nature’s Universal Movie to frame 85, I expect to see the Sun. In frames 86, 87, 88, 89, .......N,....I expect to see the process by which the Sun lost Length, Width, and Height, and was converted into NOTHING.
Got it?
Can you reference such a video anywhere on the Internet?
Can you even explain what goes on in frames 86 to N?
If not, your CLAIM is no different than the claim that an amoeba vomited that 70-inch LCD screen hanging on your wall. It’s garbage!!
Either we are going to talk rationally, or each of us can invent his own Religion and ASSERT it.
Nature could care less what you assert. Nature has NO ontological contradictions. Only humans do, because they did not take the time to critically analyze their claims before shoving them down the throats of others. Such claims do not concern reality or Science.
(I asssert that space exists as an infinite source of Potential energy.)
Great!
Exists = object + location
Please draw an image of this little critter object which YOU call SPACE!
While you’re at it, please draw an image of this little critter which YOU call ENERGY!
All objects have shape/form. You must illustrate all your objects of your hypothesis. A simple hand-drawing will do, or reference a pic on the Internet. If you can’t do that.....then you have said nothing!!
For example, here is a pic of the God object: http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/09/go
If humans can illustrate the mighty God......then surely you can illustrate these little SPACE and ENERGY thingies!!
(Observation and thought cause the release of this energy in the form of matter.)
Great!
Let us see a pic of these little critters. Then we’ll BOTH know if your claim is rational or not. That’s how we analyze such issues in reality. In Religion........well........we just swallow whatever we are told by our Pastor without so much as questioning him!
(PJK - I'm tired.)
No problem. Just relax. Take your time. And stay focused on the objectivity of our discussion.
You said "A rational human uses the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory) to objectify this issue rather easily. But first, what is God? ... There are 2 issues circumscribing the term God, and absolutely all nouns in language:
1) God-The-Concept: This is the definition or meaning of the term. God is the CREATOR of space & matter.
2) God-The-Object:"
Why do you omit the third idea I assert? That you are God. It can't be explained rationally because you don't have all the facts.
You said: (You need to get with the program and stop parroting the party line, pjk.)
PJK - That's funny. I think I do anything but.
(Proof is only cirmscribed within the context of an axiomatic tautologous system)
PJK - WOW! Good bumper sticker. (but you lost me.)
(ie. logic, math, computer programming, business rules, etc.). The proof is ALREADY implicitly invented by the axiomatic system BEFORE you even begin to prove something....get it?)
PJK - I think I see what you're saying. Would the axiomatic system be consciousness?
(In reality, proof is IMPOSSIBLE!)
PJK - Is that why you're offering the money?
You said , making me laugh hysterically, (We can talk about WHAT IF scenarios till the cows come home. You need to put up a solid argument. What if I sow a sack of testicles to my aunt.....does that make her my uncle??)
PJK - (Still laughing) Colourful. My argument would be to suggest that your rational methods are flawed because they lack critical knowledge. It was once very rational to think one would sail of the edge of the flat earth until one discovered a critical bit of info.
(I would also suggest that your house, Fatfist, ceases to exist when you are not observing it.)
Great! Please rationally explain to me how my house, an object, loses shape, and loses length, width, and height.....and converts into space (nothing), when I go to the beer store. And when I return, space (nothing) acquires MOTION and creates (verb) length, width, and height simultaneously in ZERO-TIME to form my house object. Can nothing acquire motion? Is matterless motion possible? You have a LOT of explaining to do.
PJK - Yes. It all happens in zero time. The best way to rational explain it would be to say...here it comes... ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD. There is no "out there" Everything is a reflection of your consciousness so you'll never be able to rationally explain it until you see the whole picture.
pjk,
(Why do you omit the third idea I assert? That you are God.)
I already told you....Lady Gaga can be God or anybody can be God. You can call me God if you like, I am not the least bit flattered by it. GOD is a term that resolves to an OBJECT, the object can be me, you, and every single person on this planet. You can make GOD be a synonym for HUMAN or MATTER or whatever you wish. But I rationally explained why it is impossible for the term “GOD” to be associated with the CREATOR of space & matter.
What is it that you don’t understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Proof is only cirmscribed within the context of an axiomatic tautologous system)
PJK - WOW! Good bumper sticker. (but you lost me.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok then......please DEFINE what you mean by PROOF. If you can’t, then you’ve said nothing. All you’ve said is lsjdfyoithiuheagpo9uwotjdfgj!
(PJK - I think I see what you're saying. Would the axiomatic system be consciousness?)
No! If you read what I posted earlier, you would understand that consciousness is a concept, a VERB. Now if you DISAGREE, and I welcome ALL disagreements,.....then you will have to illustrate an image of the OBJECT consciousness (if you think it’s a noun). Otherwise, you have no argument.
((In reality, proof is IMPOSSIBLE!) PJK - Is that why you're offering the money?)
You didn’t understand what I’ve been saying all along. Go read my initial comment....it asks for a RATIONAL EXPLANATION if the Creation of space & matter is even the remotest of remote possibilities. That’s what I said, right? I didn’t ask for proof, right?
Now, if you disagree.....if you think you can PROVE this to me......before you PROVE it......you MUST define what PROOF means. Is the term PROOF objective and observer-independent? Or is it an OPINION? I’ll wait for YOUR explanation!!
(your rational methods are flawed because they lack critical knowledge.)
Great! Please explain what this term KNOWLEDGE means so we both understand each other. Then we will BOTH understand what I lack.
Is KNOWLEDGE subjective (dependent on the opinion of an individual), or is it objective (observer-independent)??
I can’t wait to read your response on this one!
(PJK - Yes. It all happens in zero time. The best way to rational explain it would be to say...here it comes... ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD. There is no "out there" Everything is a reflection of your consciousness so you'll never be able to rationally explain it until you see the whole picture.)
Is this a joke? Do you understand the difference between an EXPLANATION and a BALD ASSERTION??
Explanation: When we rewind nature’s universal movie, we see the following happening in frames 50 to N when your house disappears.
Assertion: Your house disappears BECAUSE I SAID SO – IT’S ALL IN YOUR HEAD!!
Well, my dear pjk......mother nature, Physics, and rational people couldn’t care less how many beers your dumped in your belly before your HEAD told you that your house disappeared. Only drunks make bald assertions without explanations. Rational people are able to explain ALL FRAMES IN MOTHER NATURE’S UNIVERSAL MOVIE.
Regardless......I went on Google Earth, which has an image of my house taken on a weekday last year by the satellite, which has NO CONSCIOUSNESS!!
Well, as luck would have it.....nobody was home during the day......I was at work.
But.....THE PICTURE SHOWED MY HOUSE WAS ALREADY THERE.....MY HOUSE EXISTS EVEN WHEN THERE IS NOBODY THERE TO SEE & THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!
YOU ARE SO FULL OF CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Personally, I think you deserve a LOT more than $10,000 for this crap you are trying to sell to people. I think you deserve $10,000,000 for this nonsense.....what do you think??
(Everything is a reflection of your consciousness so you'll never be able to rationally explain it until you see the whole picture.)
Nature couldn't care less what you SEE or don't see. Nature has been perpetually moving atoms from one location to another for eternity. Subjective observations of people under the influence of drugs & alcohol play no role in reality.
(ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD)
Yes, I’m sure it is.
Rational people call that BRAINWASHING!
Fatfist,
It's not beer - it is peyote.
"The only thing that is real is the being in you that is going to die.” - Carlos Castaneda
Funniest part is that no matter how sophisticated someone tries to make this argument from non-reality, it all boils down to an adaption of the scene in the movie "Animal House" where Donald Sutherland is smoking dope with the two students and one stoned student starts pontificating about the how the universe could be inside a shoebox inside of God's closet...
Winston,
LOL....yeah, it would take a hell of a lot of beer,....although FAXE has 10% alc. so 10 cans would do the trick.
I love it how dreamers like to assert their beliefs as FACT and force it down people's throats without so much as offering an explanation.
Why, just last week, my Pastor tried to put his hand down my pants. When I objected, he quickly reassured me that it's what Jesus would ultimately want for the good of my soul. There was no way I could refute such a formidable argument!!!!
These people like to parrot the party line.
They like to avoid the Universal Movie because it puts too many limits on their Religion. In frame 50 of the Universal Movie, my house BOTH exists AND not-exists! BREATHTAKING!
Absolutely all religious folk don't understand what a contradiction entails. If they did, they would ditch their religion in a heartbeat.
They don't understand that Creation is a VERB.
They don't understand that annihilation is a VERB.
Creation or annihilation is IMPOSSIBLE in ZERO TIME (exist AND not-exist). But still......they deserve to get paid their $10k.
Just to "PROVE" (cause Quantum Religionists love to “prove”) that Quantum is a Religion that is INFINITELY MORE insane and INFINITELY MORE irrational than the Flat Earth Society,.....I did the following scientific experiment....
At 2 AM, where not a conscious soul was in sight, I drove to my cottage located in the deep woods in the middle of nowhere. I set up 5 video cameras with 6hr recording capacity around my cottage and set them up in night mode. The cameras are made up of evil matter. They have no divine consciousness that is blessed by God. So they are not considered to be “conscious observers” by the Religion of Quantum. Then I drove back to my mansion in the city.
Before the 6hr recording time expired, I came back to the cottage and checked the recordings of the cameras. Just as I explained in here, my cottage was always there. It did not lose length, width, and height.....it did not lose its shape and stop existing in zero time, or at any time at all. There was no conscious mind to observe it all night long in the dead of the wilderness, but yet it still managed to exist.
So now I have 100% “PROVEN” observational evidence that this Quantum Religion is PURE CRAP!!!!!
This Quantum BS is debunked once and for all!
And I urge everyone to set up their cell phone on a table to record an object, like a vase, and leave the house. Come back 10 min later and check your video. Does the vase at any time vanish from the video? Did the Quantum Boogie Man take your vase the instant you turned your back and shove it up the black hole of his behind? Did the Quantum Boogie Man pull out the vase from his behind and replace it the instant you came back? The video will tell the whole story. Mother Nature’s Universal Movie has NO lost frames, and never lies. Only Religionists LIE!
Although, I still have respect for those poor lost ignorant souls who BELIEVE in this nonsense......in fact...just as much respect as I have for that ignorant soul who BELIEVES in raping & dismembering children and then eating their remains.
Out of all the claims made by the Religion of Quantum, there is only ONE that is rational.....their claim that Quantum doesn’t exist. And the funny thing is that they also claim that money doesn't exist, and yet, they want people to GIVE it to them. Quite the circus show.
Fatfist,
Isn't quantum physics by its nature subjective? The two-slit experiment requires an observer, so the results have to be subjective.
A more likely explanation than quantum is pilot error - the data was misinterpreted.
I believe in God and if God did not exist science could not.
Exist is the default position.
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is —a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions— i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
1. ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions—see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history! Ultimately, God’s Word Convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’
Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent
Hi pjk,
(Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence)
Reality has NO labels or fictitious titles people like to invent. Reality has no theists, atheists, evolutionists, objectivists, non-objectivists, democrats, republican, communists, Christians, muslims, etc....
Reality only has objects wrapped in space! All these other terms people invent are only CONCEPTS. They don’t exist. Only humans exist.
(the same evidence - the same facts.)
Again, you need to understand what you are saying, pjk. A fact is ONLY past tense!!! A fact is a CONSUMMATED EVENT, not an alleged 'present' one like you insinuate here. A fact is a CLAIM.
Space & matter were created or not, by DEFINITION of the word “create”. This is not a fact.
In Science, we don't have or use 'facts' (consummated events). Facts belong exclusively to religion. It means that the Pastor has already decided for all of us what exactly happened. In Science, we have STATEMENT(S) OF THE FACTS. A statement of the fact is an ASSUMPTION in the hypothesis. The proponent PROPOSES a scenario: what COULD have happened in the past. Whereas a blatant ‘fact’ (ordinary speech) that cannot be supported in the ‘explanation stage’ by a rational explanation, is simply forced down our throats as authoritative BELIEF! No different than what you’ve been trying to do here.
If FACT = EVIDENCE, like you insinuate, then FACT = OPINION, and has nothing to do with the Scientific Method (hypo + theory).
Truth, lies, sex, and videotape are all EVIDENCE and FACTS in a court room. Their only purpose is to twist the arm of the juror to vote one way as opposed to the other. Science does not work like the courtroom. Only Religion works that way. The Sci Method is observer and opinion-independent.
Understand?
(The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts.)
Pjk, no disrespect....buy you need to get with the program. Science has no OBSERVERS and no INTERPRETERS. Only in Religion do the disciples OBSERVE Jesus raise the dead, and INTERPRETERS like Benny Hinn tell us his version of what to believe. Both are subjective. Read my previous post about Quantum and light.
(we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true)
Only religionists are presuppositionalists who have FACTS, TRUTH, and PROOFS....which are ALL OPINIONS.
The Scientific Method has NO provision for facts, truths, lies, proof, opinions, knowledge, wisdom, or authority.
What is it that you don’t understand?
(We all exist in the present)
Finally, you said some rational – CONGRATS!!!
Exist is a static concept, an adjective which objectifies presence. It is not dependent on time or any observers.
Exist = object + location
(and the facts all exist in the present.)
No. Facts are concepts, .....statements of OPINION in your use of ordinary speech. In Science we have the STATEMENT OF FACTS. Do yourself a BIG favour and try to understand this.
Facts do NOT exist, not in present or past. Only OBJECTS exist.
If you disagree with this Scientific defn of exist, the onus is on YOU to suggest another one which can be used consistently, unambiguously – objectively!
(if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present?)
In science, we don’t know.....we only explain. Try to understand the difference. There is no such thing as divine absolute knowledge given to you from a wizard, tarot card reader, astrologer, or God.
What YOU claim to KNOW is your OPINION only!! Christians KNOW that Jesus is God. Muslims KNOW that Jesus is not God. The Jews KNOW that Jesus is not God. How come you don’t KNOW this too? Perhaps you have a different OPINION on what constitutes your knowledge????
Subjectivity plays no role in reality.
(Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present .... so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.)
What people believe or observe or interpret has no bearing on reality and on Scientific Method. You can go out there in the field and observe dinosaur bones, monkeys, Jesus walking on water, Buddha getting fat, Benny Hinn healing people.....etc.
But when you come to the Science conference, you are expected to explain your CLAIM that space & matter were created. Regardless.....if your claim of creation has ontological contradictions, then it is IMPOSSIBLE and goes in the trash. So clearly, how evolution happened is IRRELEVANT. Since creation is IMPOSSIBLE, we naturally evolved from matter.
(then they have set the terms of the debate.)
We are not dictators and we do not set the terms of any debate. This is subjective and authoritative. Instead we take the most OBJECTIVE route possible. We use the Scientific Method which is observer-independent and not subject to interpretations. It only rationally explains without contradictions. There is no better or more objective system of reasoning. A single contradiction blows our Theory out of the water, irrespective of what anybody claims. There is nothing more objective than that.
(ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth.)
God is ASSUMED by the theologian and the Bible to be an object. God is a Hypothesis (let us assume God exists). I explained this previously. Now if you claim that God talks and has given you statements which you call TRUTH.....that is fine!
If those statements are objective (concern reality) then each of those statements is a CLAIM, and hence, a THEORY, which requires an explanation. Understand?
(You might not believe the Bible but I do.)
Well, that is all you need to say. I don’t care what you believe. People have a right to believe what they want. But belief plays no role in the Scientific Method. We don’t believe in hypotheses or theories. Theories only explain, and they do so rationally. They don’t enforce rules or axioms down people’s throats. If a person believes in a theory, it is their personal business. But a rational person understands that a rational theory is the BEST explanation we have. A rational person understands that theories with contradictions are impossible, and belong in the trash.
But if you come here claiming that Creation of space & matter has anything to do with reality, I will explain to you the reasons WHY such a claim is impossible. I’ve written several hubs about it.
Not proof but certainly evidence of my assertions:
DR R.D. PEARSON BSc., *C.Eng.M.I. Mech.E 5 March 2003
INTRODUCTION
A major paradigm, accepted across all established scientific disciplines, states that mind and consciousness result from brain function alone. This means that mind must vanish at the instant of brain death, a conclusion totally at variance with the evidence. This evidence has been building for over a century and is now so firm as to effectively constitute totally convincing proof of survival. Roll (9) and Zammit (12) cover this aspect exhaustively.
The reason scientists in general go to great pains to discredit this evidence is because it conflicts with all theories physicists have so far developed. Until a major paradigm-shift in physics has occurred there can be no hope of any change of attitude. Hence it is of paramount importance that the flaws in existing physics are resolved so that it becomes extended to incorporate survival and other controversial phenomena.
This article shows how a successful search made to solve three difficulties in physics resulted in providing just such an extension. The resulting “Survival Physics” shows that, as a natural consequence of the mathematical logic, at least the sub-conscious mind is the true reality at the base of all that exists. Although the brain must die its exact copy lives on to be connected with another parallel universe. Built the same way as our own, these seem just as real as ours when the mind is in register.
This is not the only attempt at producing a theory of survival. The states of others, presented at an SPR conference on 24 April 2004, seem less advanced.
THE PROBLEMS WITH PHYSICS
Theoretical physics has so far been unable to resolve three major difficulties. In consequence greater and greater sophistication in concepts and mathematical formalism has resulted, yet no solutions are yet within sight. Could it be that theorists are all leading each other into a blind alley so that a totally different approach is required? This article shows that when a return is made to the logic of common sense, in which only fairly elementary maths is required, a solution to all three problems appears simultaneously.
One problem concerns the big bang theory that purports to explain the creation of the universe from nothing. It is clearly flawed since it makes a major false prediction known as the “Cosmological Constant” (CC). Theorists are unable to switch off their creative explosion. To show how serious this is I quote the Nobel laureate, Steven Weinberg, (11) who wrote in “Reviews of Modern Physics” January 1989 that this “represents a veritable crisis for physics”. Even today the situation remains unchanged after the 25 years of its existence. In 1987 this author realised his own expertise was potentially able to solve the difficulty. Unfortunately the second difficulty known as “wave-particle-duality” needed simultaneous resolution.
When matter is repeatedly divided the atom is eventually reached. Then further division shows this to constitute sub-atomic particles. Quantum theory is the study of the mechanics operating at this sub-microscopic level of reality. In the 1920’s it was discovered that at this level nothing moved as it does at the visible level. In fact motion seemed governed by a plan formed by interfering waves. If two pebbles are thrown into a pond simultaneously waves spread out in rings and the rings cross into each other creating a patch of rough water.
This is the interference pattern characteristic of waves. At the quantum level, particles only appear where the wave amplitudes add up; none are seen where they cancel out. The conceptual difficulties are best illustrated by reading a book by David Deutsch (2) called, “The Fabric of Reality” (Penguin 1998). He says the only possible interpretation requires the universe to split in two every time one of these particles has a choice of two ways to go.
It involves an almost infinite set of universes existing in the same place each multiplying at an almost infinite rate! This is needed if consciousness is kept out of the solution. One of the original ideas from the 20’s, however, is called the “Copenhagen Interpretation”. This says that a particle only exists when an observer “collapses the wave function”. So this interpretation had already accepted consciousness to be involved in the creation of matter.
To me this meant that the quantum level had an unreal quality and had to be contrived by consciousness. There had to be a true reality at a deeper level having a structure able to evolve a conscious intelligence. It could not, therefore, operate on the wave mechanics of the quantum level but needed to exist to make those waves. It was more likely to operate on the classical mechanics found satisfactory for explaining how stars and planets moved: “Classical Mechanics”.
This introduced the third difficulty for which no resolution has emerged for over 70 years. Einstein’s theory called “General Relativity” (GR) is accepted as the best since it has survived almost every experimental check. Unfortunately it is incompatible with quantum theory.
It was also impossible to apply it to solve the problem of the cosmological constant owing to the assumption that only motion relative to the observer existed. Now as objects are speeded up they gain energy of motion called “kinetic energy”. In relativity its value differs from one observer to another if the observers also see each other in motion. Consequently kinetic energy, according to GR, has to be regarded as illusory. To solve the problem of the CC kinetic energy had to be real. Consequently a new mechanics had to be derived. I had to be, not only compatible with quantum theory, but also had to match all the experimental checks that had elevated the status of GR to one of the two major achievements of 20’th century physics.
THE SOLUTION
To provide a satisfactory alternative to GR seemed to present a formidable obstacle since this had to be derived first. However, by applying the mechanical engineers logic of common sense a satisfactory new “Exact Classical Mechanics” (ECM) soon emerged. It matched all the data just as well as did relativity theory but had the advantage of starting out quantum compatible. It was first published in Russia in 1991 (5) but can be found on the “Campaign for Philosophical Freedom” website of Michael Roll, (1) very professionally organised by Paul Read.
ECM theory had all motion referred to the local background medium, to be called the “i-ther”. So now kinetic energy could be regarded as real. To enable a paradox free theory of creation from the zero energy state of nothingness to appear it was also necessary to extend the theory to yield an, “Opposed Energy Dynamics”.
ECM theory yields Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 by a totally different method but without reference to relativity in any way. This equation shows that matter is made out of energy. So energy is the ultimate building substance of the universe of matter. Since matter had to emerge as a construct of the i-ther, this ultimate level of reality had also be made from the same stuff.
For energy to appear from nothing it had to exist in two opposite and complementary kinds: positive and negative. We assume we are made of only positive energy defined by Newton’s laws. He said that when an object was caused to accelerate it had to be pushed by a “force of action” pointing in the same direction as the motion produced.
An object made of negative energy would move in a direction opposite this force. Although difficult to accept at first introduction, this actually involves no conceptual difficulties. If two objects both made of negative energy are imagined to collide, both have their responses reversed and so the effects cancel. Consequently if all matter were negative it would behave in exactly the same way as that we observe. Indeed it is impossible to say which dominates for our matter.
For creation to occur both kinds need to exist as a balanced mixture of minute real particles to be called “primaries”. These are the only true particles that really can exist. Then it is al
Pjk,
(A major paradigm, accepted across all established scientific disciplines, states that mind and consciousness result from brain function alone. This means that mind must vanish at the instant of brain death, a conclusion totally at variance with the evidence.)
I need no SUBJECTIVE OPINIONATED evidence of this. I’ve discussed this many times before. Here’s how a rational person resolves this issue objectively, without opinions or evidece:
Exist = object + location
Object: that which has the intrinsic property of shape
Location: the set of static distances to all other objects
1) Brain is a physical object. It exists because it has location.
2) Mind is an abstract concept, alluding to the activity (motion of atoms) within the brain. The brain’s atoms are the physical MEDIATORS of this VERB we call MIND.
3) Mind is NOT an object. Mind has no shape and no location. Mind does NOT exist. Mind is atoms in motion.
4) Upon human death, the SPECIFIC motion of atoms and signalling between them ceases. The atoms are still in motion, as atoms are eternally in motion, but the specific MEDIATION in synchronicity which makes the brain “alive”, has ceased.
5) Since that specific MEDIATED motion has ceased, there no mediation for the verb we call MIND.
Pjk.......please stay FOCUSED!!
Mind never existed to begin with. Minds are concepts. Minds do not exist. Only objects exist.
Analogy:
Consider an orgy. People are objects doing their thing, in motion! The orgy does not exist. The orgy is not an object. The orgy is a concept! The orgy has no shape. Only the humans have shape.
Once the humans are done, we say that the ORGY EVENT is consummated.
Once the humans are dead, we say the MIND event is consummated.
MIND = ORGY = EVENT = VERB = MATTER IN MOTION!!!
Let’s talk rationally, please.
(Hence it is of paramount importance that the flaws in existing physics are resolved)
Yes, like stating truths and proofs based on evidence, authority and opinion!
(Theoretical physics has so far been unable to resolve three major difficulties.)
Let’s get our language straight. You mean Mathematical Physics, which is nothing but a Religion.
Science is based on the Sci Method (hypo + theory). Science only explains. Truths, proofs and knowledge are only opinions.
(When matter is repeatedly divided the atom is eventually reached. Then further division shows this to constitute sub-atomic particles.)
Get with the times and stop believing in religions. There are NO discrete particles in the universe. The Particle Theory of Quantum has been thoroughly DEBUNKED. That’s why Quantum cannot offer explanation for anything.....not light, not slit experiments, not gravity, not magnetism, not electricity......NADA!!!
All atoms are physically interconnected. That’s the only way they can possibly attract each other gravitationally. Matter is not separated into little balls. Matter is a continuous web.
(To me this meant that the quantum level had an unreal quality)
Yes! Quantum has nothing to do with Reality. Quantum is a Religion, no different than Jamaican Voodoo!!
(Einstein’s theory called “General Relativity” (GR) is accepted as the best since it has survived almost every experimental check. Unfortunately it is incompatible with quantum theory.)
Because they are BOTH religions. Both have been debunked. Reality is observer-independent and not relative to anybody under the influence of drugs or alcohol or schizophrenia.
(2) Mind is an abstract concept, alluding to the activity (motion of atoms) within the brain. The brain’s atoms are the physical MEDIATORS of this VERB we call MIND.)
PJK - I think this is the key point we should discuss for I think it is the heart of our ... disagreement?
I believe that the mind or actions of atoms in the brain are influenced by an external source. The external source being the soul i.e. consciousness i.e "god".
I guess this is the "spark of life" I'm trying to get you to rationally accept. Its most irrational of course. BF, I sometimes get the feeling the you secretly wish somebody could convince you and get you some objective evidence of your eternal divine nature. Am I right? If not, it must really suck to think there's no "life after death" for you.
(All atoms are physically interconnected. That’s the only way they can possibly attract each other gravitationally. Matter is not separated into little balls. Matter is a continuous web.)
PJK - Something we agree on my friend! Now. If I "manipulate" the atoms in my brain by thinking, for example, about some object I desire, would this "attract" the atoms in that object to me?
(If not, it must really suck to think there's no "life after death" for you.)
PJK,
I'm butting in here, but I am curious as to why you would make the above claim? What is there about no afterlife that is negative?
Man pjk is boring we need some real discussion in this hub.
Well prometheus.....I am doing my best to entertain you.
I've offered them $cash$ to come here and entertain the audience. But all they do is run away after fatfist lights up the coals from under their feet.
All I've been getting as of late are nothing but emotional responses and clown acts.
We need BETTER theistic talent around here.
Ohhhhh....how I WISH for William Lane Craig and Matt Slick to join us here for a NICE discussion. Please God!
The question has been asked pjk is time to shine? And show fatfist your glory, And how ridicules fatfist claims are.
Start talking rationally prometheus.
Eternal means no beginning and no end. I made no claims.
Eternal universe is not a claim because it does not posit a consummated event which allegedly took place.
Only Creation is a positive claim of an event: Space and matter were created by God or the Singularity.
Ooop sorry about that it slip i mean logic.
The question has been asked pjk is time to shine? And show fatfist your glory, And how ridicules fatfist logic is.
(The thing about all those irrational insane people who believe in God... they all seem to be so... damned happy.)
pjk,
Yep, happy right until they realize the plane they are stearing is going to hit the towers and their fate is sealed.
These, too, were good theists.
And i though this was going to be good i put to much faith in pjk.
pjk since i think you know about banking is this truth.
The activity of the banks as negotiators of credit is characterized
by the lending of other people's, i.e., of borrowed, money. Banks borrow money in order to lend it; the difference between the rate of interest that is paid to them and the rate that they pay, less their working expenses, constitutes their profit on this kind of transaction. Banking is negotiation between granters of credit and grantees of credit. Only those who lend the money of others are bankers; those who merely lend their own capital are capitalists, but not bankers. If this is truth then America is base on a system of credit and not capital.
Fatfist,
I don't think pjk is fluent in Fatfistian. Perhaps he understands a little Kantian, though.
(All the examples adduced have been drawn, without exception, from judgements, and not from things. But the unconditioned necessity of a
judgement does not form the absolute necessity of a thing. On the contrary, the absolute necessity of a judgement is only a conditioned necessity
of a thing, or of the predicate in a judgement. The proposition above-mentioned does not enounce that three angles necessarily exist, but, upon
condition that a triangle exists, three angles must necessarily exist -- in it. And thus this logical necessity has been the source of the greatest
delusions. Having formed an a priori conception of a thing, the content of which was made to embrace existence, we believed ourselves safe in
concluding that, because existence belongs necessarily to the object of the conception (that is, under the condition of my positing this thing as
given), the existence of the thing is also posited necessarily, and that it is therefore absolutely necessary -- merely because its existence has been
cogitated in the conception.
If, in an identical judgement, I annihilate the predicate in thought, and retain the subject, a contradiction is the result; and hence I say, the former
belongs necessarily to the latter. But if I suppress both subject and predicate in thought, no contradiction arises; for there is nothing at all, and
therefore no means of forming a contradiction. To suppose the existence of a triangle and not that of its three angles, is self-contradictory; but to
suppose the non-existence of both triangle and angles is perfectly admissible. And so is it with the conception of an absolutely necessary being.
Annihilate its existence in thought, and you annihilate the thing itself with all its predicates; how then can there be any room for contradiction?)
As Kant reasoned, a 4-sided triangle is not a contradiction because it is nothing to begin with. A house that is and is not at the same time, likewise, is not a contradiction as it is also nothing - but gibberish.
(As Kant reasoned, a 4-sided triangle is not a contradiction because it is nothing to begin with. A house that is and is not at the same time, likewise, is not a contradiction as it is also nothing - but gibberish.)
Indeed, Winston.
Of course.....it is NEGATIVE PREDICATION. i.e. “is not” is equivalent to “nothing”.
Space is our conception of nothing. There is no other nothing. A house that is AND is-not at the SAME time in frame #50 (in zero time as per pjk), means that the house is NOTHING. It is a non-object. It never even existed.
People think they can come here, business as usual, and fool us with SEMANTIC arguments like we’re a bunch of gullible ignoramuses.
That was the format of his previous arguments which were contradictory or non-arguments. His last argument was the best of all.
My experience with theists, is that if you let them talk and talk and talk.... and allow them to modify their arguments in order desperately try to get the upper hand and get away with murder.....they will eventually shoot themselves in the face. They bring their own gun in the gun fight, but end up using it against themselves.
If pjk had understood at least 25% of what I said to him in the past few days......he wouldn’t have been so hasty in his attempts to get the $cash$. He would have realized what Science was about before introducing EMOTIONAL arguments that showcase eternal space & matter.
Theists are the type who argue about nothing in the forums all day long.
Theists haven't the slightest clue what Science is, what Philosophy is, and....get ready for this one....NOT EVEN WHAT RELIGION OR GOD IS!
Well. With all of that said...it kind of comes down to one end. If you think evolution created you then when you die you cease to exist. If you think a mind created you then when you die you do not cease to exist.
Theists, however clueless they are, at least think they were created by God. They're wrong but they are closer to the truth than evolutionists. However they, like evolutionists, are in for a big surprise when they die.
Hi pjk,
(If you think evolution created you)
You see, pjk, the reason why you keep chasing your tail in circles and don’t understand what you are saying is because you haven’t spent some time to discern the difference between an OBJECT and a CONCEPT.
“Evolution” is a concept, specifically a VERB. It is impossible for verbs to create objects. Only objects can create other objects, and they do so by ASSEMBLING them from eternal matter.
(then when you die you cease to exist.)
That is pure nonsense, not to mention that it has too many errors!
Objects NEVER “cease” to exist. Objects do NOT have the property of existence or inexistence! You are talking gibberish.
Existence is not an object or a verb; it is an ADJECTIVE. Existence has meaning as it objectifies presence. This means that a genuine NOUN of Physics (an object) can only occupy a SINGLE location when it is said to exist. Verbs are concepts which can only be defined by virtue of at least TWO locations. Existence does not depend on two locations or on verbs, as you are insinuating.
An object cannot possibly have a property of existence or non-existence. Objects cannot be made to exist or to stop existing. Objects exist in present-mode only; at a cross-section of time; at the cutting edge of universal events; at an INSTANT! An instant comprises but ONE frame in Reality’s Cosmic Movie Roll, and is conceptually a cross-section of time. This image consists solely of static objects: all objects at a fixed location with respect to each other.
So it is irrational to say that an object exists in one frame, and not exists in another. From frame to frame, a human sheds atoms, or acquires atoms, or modifies its atomic structure. The object or objects, whatever they may be (human, carcass, bones, dispersed atoms), exist only in a cross-section in time.
When you die, it is your LIFE that ceases or comes to an end. It is IMPOSSIBLE for atoms to cease to exist. You don’t understand the difference between LIFE and EXISTENCE!!
Existence is not axiomatic. Objects exist or not, irrespective of any concepts, assumptions, rules or axioms......such as the ones that YOU are inventing here.....which are 100% devoid of any meaning whatsoever. In fact, even YOU didn’t understand the statement you uttered above!
You don’t understand what the term “existence” even means. No wonder you come here spouting your fantasies and fairytales which only cater to YOUR particular emotions.....as every other theist on the planet completely disagrees with you. Please do yourself a favour and go post your nonsense in a Christian, Islamic or Jewish forum.....they will laugh you off the board. They will call you a Satanist, not a theist.
(If you think a mind created you then when you die you do not cease to exist.)
Too many errors! In fact, so many errors, that you didn’t even understand what you just uttered.
“Mind” is a CONCEPT, a verb. Mind is an action that is mediated by pre-existing objects. It is humans who give the term “mind” a meaning in language. Mind could just as well mean “running”. Regardless, mind resolves to a verb. Matter is eternal and completely impossible to be created from nothing or from Gods. I have rationally explained why in a previous post.
You sound similar to a Scientologist who posts here some times.
(Theists, however clueless they are, at least think they were created by God.)
It is irrelevant what you, me, or anyone thinks. Reality is always explained objectively. If you can’t do that, then all you’ve done is offered your Religious Opinion. I can just as easily assert that:
“If you think that a mindless transversal which travels faster than Wednesday created you, and you truly believe it, then when you die you do not cease to exist”
And it would be 100% IMPOSSIBLE for you to disprove this statement!!!
That is the essence of what you are saying. These are the types of arguments you are posting here.
There are 5000 claims such as yours posited by humans every 24 hrs. Why don’t you go and compare notes with the rest of the crowd? You wouldn’t be able to disprove any of those claims, and they wouldn’t be able to disprove yours. But you would all have a good laugh from each other!
(One reason Einstein's idea was so transformative was that for the first time ever, it described how energy and matter are not only related, but can be transformed back and forth into each other.)
pjk,
If you are going to cut and paste, try to find a more accurate source. Einstein's equivalency theory has nothing to do with matter, but mass, and it also has nothing to do with conversion of matter to energy.
(Einstein's equivalency theory has nothing to do with matter, but mass, and it also has nothing to do with conversion of matter to energy.)
Well said, Winston.
E = mc^2
is descriptive, like all of math.
And.....it describes absolutely NO physical components in reality.
It only describes CONCEPTS. This is why Energy is an ABSTRACT concept.
pjk's intelligence is astounding! He doesn't even understand that the 'm' stands for MASS (concept), not matter (object). And yet, pjk wants to come here and preach his RELIGIOUS OPINIONS and threaten us that if we don't believe his garbage, we will die one day. Meanwhile, pjk, who can't even get the Kindergarten basics straight, will actually live forever. What a clown!
pjk converts ENERGY into MATTER on a daily basis. Yep, he does it while day dreaming!
First. Fatfist. I hope you're taking all of this with a bit of good humour. Your responses make me smile ear to ear... sometimes. ;o)
Second. Just because I choose not to answer all your trap-like questions doesn't mean I don't get your points. In fact you make them quite clearly.
Third. I pasted that bit because I thought it might talk to you in your own language better than I can. Doesn't any of it raise a single doubt in your mind man!? There's something "spiritual" as well as "scientific" about reality?
Fourth. I'll only throw in the towel when you say "Oooooooooohhhh.... I get it. Your right." (I'll start holding my breath now.....)
(Well said, Winston.)
PJK - Yes. Well said Winston.
(FF - E = mc^2
is descriptive, like all of math.
And.....it describes absolutely NO physical components in reality.
It only describes CONCEPTS. This is why Energy is an ABSTRACT concept.)
PJK - Oh. So its created by your mind? Just kidding. I get this point dude, but I'm trying to say its all moot.
(pjk's intelligence is astounding! )
PJK - Now this is the smartest thing you've said so far!
(He doesn't even understand that the 'm' stands for MASS (concept), not matter (object). And yet, pjk wants to come here and preach his RELIGIOUS OPINIONS and threaten us that if we don't believe his garbage, we will die one day.)
PJK - Laughing my azz off.
(Meanwhile, pjk, who can't even get the Kindergarten basics straight, will actually live forever.)
PJK - Still laughing. Don't worry man we're all eternal and man do you owe me a beer in heaven.
(What a clown!)
PJK - Yes I am the fool...whose jokes make the King wonder about a well concealed wisdom.
(pjk converts ENERGY into MATTER on a daily basis. Yep, he does it while day dreaming!)
PJK - Exactly! You may think this is ridiculous but this is exactly what happens. I'm glad you're starting to finally get it Fatfist! I'm so proud of you little guy!
pjk,
The only thing I've noticed is that you have spent an inordinate amount of time saying nothing much other than that you believe anything is possible and don't accept rationality as a limit.
Congratulations. Next issue?
What was the "point" of your incoherent and senseless drivel, Accenor?
Do you even understand what you are talking about?
Perhaps your medication ran out a few days ago and you forgot to fill the prescription....
'all numbers are irrational' well said fatfish. Pi comes as an answer to an irrational question; how many square units are there in a circle? Yet no where is straight in a circle! So every exprecible area of a circle is actualy an area of som n-gon. The more the decimals, the larger the n. It is an irrational answere given to an irrational question.
I can't prove God exists without a doubt 100% using deduction. I can't fulfill your requirements of proving that because God exists, there is this or that natural phenomena.
I'm also going to admit that I struggle to prove that since my best friend exists there is this or that natural phenomena. Or even that because you exist that you have an impact on your surrounding environment.
I suppose we could write letters, or you could tell your friends about yourself, and they could tell their friends, and they could tell theirs and then one of those people might happen to tell me. Assuming all the people in between exist and aren't lying, well then I could be reasonably assured that you do too.... but I still might not believe them.
Perhaps this isn't a valid argument... but if it is, could I not use it to extend backwards in time to be able to be reasonably sure my own great grandfather existed... or if that's too obvious because I have blood ties to him, what about Abraham Lincoln? He could have been just a fabrication, or a concept of a man that would have been nice if he was the leader of a country.
But if it works to my great grandfather or Abraham Lincoln, would it be possible that I could extend it back a couple thousand years to Jesus who claimed to be God? He said that the only proof he'd give that he was God was that he would die, and come back to life. His disciples said that he did.... and working backwards those that believed them, told others, who told others all the way back to me. But it is possible they could have lied.
Even though it is possible they could have lied, I struggle with reconciling that possibility with the supposed history that most of them were killed because of their belief. Many a person who believed that Jesus died and rose again were given the opportunity to recant or die. According to what I've read in history (which I must also trust is reasonably true) Many died. As far as I'm aware, some people would die for what they believe is true, but who dies for something they know to be a lie?
I don't think I could prove that Jesus is any more than a concept... but I have a hard time not trusting people I care about, who trusted those they cared about, and so on.
I have a lot of assumptions, if this and this and this and this is true, than I can be reasonably sure that this is true. All it would take is one part to not be true... maybe it's an unfair argument because where would I even begin to look for the evidence that even one part wouldn't be true, or on the other hand that it would.
I do believe God is... somehow... even though God is somehow outside, and inside, and was before, and yet during, and always will be... it's all kinda too big for me... but I don't really have a good reason to suggest that it's not at least possible. But it is possible too that God and Jesus did not exist, that they really are just fabrications.
I think it's not only possible, but also probable that Jesus was/is. Partially because Jesus, the name of, and the 'concept' of, does have an impact on peoples lives. I have seen alcoholics break free and live meaningful lives, I have seen people addicted to porn separate themselves from it, I have seen lives seek more meaningful relationships with other humans, I have seen change and I have been changed too. That's what the hypothesis of the Jesus 'concept' predicts.
Phillip,
"but who dies for something they know to be a lie?"
Exactly!!!
Thank you for finally making some sense!
And this is the reason why Muslim suicide bombers and the 9/11 attackers died. Their God was the ONLY true God. You are right....what idiot would die for a lie?
Therefore....the Muslim Allah MUST be the real true God, and not Jesus,....just as the Muslims say!
I wholeheartedly AGREE with your reasoning which leads us to conclude that Allah is the ONLY true God.
Hmmm, thank you for pointing that out. I'll have to think about things some more.
No problem, Phillip. Just remember that we have to be fair to all parties.
Philip (and Fatfist),
I hope no one minds but I thought Philip did an admirable job of explaining his reasoning - it is an inductive process, which is familiar to most.
Philip,
You are exactly right about the inductive process of tracing history - up to a point. History itself is actually quite a fascinating study and is based on induction. As you say, we cannot know that Abe Lincoln lived, we can only assume due to certain contingencies.
The further back in time we go (ancient history) the more difficult these contingencies are to find.
I won't go into tall the detail here, but I would urge you to look into the stories about early believers dying for their beliefs - it turns out these stories came from the early church itself and there is no independent verification that it occured.
Same with Jesus. There is not enough collaborating evidence outside of scripture to say Jesus was a historical person.
In your research, I urge you to use non-Christian resources due to the bias with the Christian sites. I would look for sites that tried to present both sides evenly.
This argument you make about dying for untrue beliefs is one heard often, and can sound convincing. But if you understand better the history of those times and the history of the bible itself, it is evident that to accept even those stories of sacrifice for belief to be based on biased belief-inspired reporting - not actual verifiable history.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my reasoning doesn't suggest directly that either Allah or any other God is the one true God... but instead the reasoning I suggested points to a probability of Jesus existing. By the same reasoning it would suggest a high probability that Mohammed also existed. Not necessarily that either Jesus as God or Allah was/is the one true God.
The extent to which I suggested that Jesus was possibly God is in that according to his disciples Jesus did what he said he would(ie. dieing and rising). I'm not terribly familiar with what Mohammed said, or wrote, so I can't say whether or not the same reasoning can apply to him.
Still, I think I will ponder this some more. I find your reasoning delightful, and really quite helpful. Thank you for spending the time to lay out helpful points.
@winston
Thank you Winston, you pointed out some very valid points.
I agree with you, and was aware that people will die for something they believe is true even if it isn't. However, that doesn't mean that what they believe is true, is false. I agree that belief doesn't change reality... something either is or it isn't.
And I would agree that things become more difficult the further back in time we try to go.
As for Christian Bias... ironically? the most frustrating thing about modern Christian archaeology is that anyone who apparantly 'finds' anything that potentially wasn't a believer before, somehow miraculously becomes a believer... which is good, but bad in that any otherwise valid evidence they would pose becomes unacceptable.
And on the flip side, it sometimes seems, or those in the secular world who do go digging for that kind of evidence are portrayed in a spiteful light.
Agreed though, secular sources need to be taken into account, and need to be seen as unbiased as possible... perhaps you could point me to some of these sources? I would like to continue reading.
Thanks go out to you too for being kind and patient with your posts.
Philip,
Here is one such source specifically on target as to the the history of the aposltes' martrydom: http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/06/how-did-the
Fatfish
'...Jesus, the totally useless concepts'
wrong! Jesus is an object not a concept! He has a shape. Whether he exist or not is another issue.
Kirui,
"wrong! Jesus is an object "
Jesus is an object (a God being) for the purposes of the Christian explanation of their claim of CREATION. Since creation is impossible under any context.....Jesus is an object which is impossible to have ever existed/lived.
Thus, Jesus is strictly a concept!
Educate yourself fatfist in history dude!! Jesus existed i but anyway all his stories and stuff is all made up but he truly existed! Read this page it would educate you a lot http://www.godmakers.info/documents/en_jesus.html
By the way i agree with you all of you religius apes i bet most of you are young look as in the bible is said in the book of Eclesiastic enjoy your life while it last IS EVEN IN THE BIBLE THE UNIQUE BIBLE SAYS SO! yo do something with your miserables life while they last its gonna be the first and last one you will have Jesus he certainly existed but he was not who you think he was and neither was God i recommend all of you this website
http://www.godmakers.info/documents/en_jesus.html (again)
Educate yourself religius apes
Hi FatFist, You see, no reason to get upperddy. nothing in this here hub i actually disagree with. Nothing in the last one got stuck in my throat from the main course, there was alot to swallow but I got it down. but the side dishes especially those beans I think got to me. burp. i used to belong to the E.T. church of scientology and I do believe you insulted the aliens.
hey fatfist, ok i think i got you figured out abit. once again the sidedishes. Jesus is an object used by the church. sure enough. true. but the statement doesnt represent all the truths about jesus. your judging him by what the church has made of him. on another level since he was a historical figure he existed before and outside the christian faith. it didnt exist yet. so yes hes an object and a concept the two are not exclusive. Jesus has been used terribly by the church, i feel aweful for guy. you dont hate him so much as his icon Im guessing. I maybe wrong but i dont think he ever intended on being made God.
Since the Messiah ain't comin' to save us (and it's all YOUR fault because of your blasphemous articles!), how have you been prepping for the upcoming extinction?
If there will be an upcoming extinction then I have no choice but to have a tragic death. Extinctions are controlled by the economy of nature's food pyramid - there is nothing that man can do. Only fools think that man will colonize the stars and live forever. Living beings (similar to us) have evolved and become extinct since eternity...and they will continue to do so forever. Remember, there was no Big Bang or any ridiculous creation.
So you've not prep'd at all? Blimey.
Bill thinks he can escape it. Mind you he's had 10 years or so to think about it. And I'm a lowly pleb.
Actually, Bill is preparing to live as long as he can when the shit hits the fan. But it goes without saying that nobody can escape it. If you have managed to carve out your little piece of the world and grow your own food,...be rest assured that the roaming gangs will come and pay you a visit. Mad Max always escaped with his life the end of the movie. Reality has other plans for us. Would I want to live in a Mad Max world? No!
Maybe it's like that old saying, 'Better to burn out...' ...than to fade into desperate hunger and sorrow. I suppose if I must go out, it'll be defending those I love.
fatfist Hub Author 24 months ago
To all you preachers and parrots of creationist nonsense (you know who you are)....let's see if you can rationally explain what you preach!
You can start by explaining: Creation