461 replies to this topic

[Mr Walker]

scowl, on 07 December 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

That is not a problem. They are correct and proved constructs and understandings. "Human" does not mean "wrong". Unless you can prove it wrong, which you did not, it stands as correct.



Then the god couldn't create an object it couldn't lift therefore the god is not omnipotent! That's like saying 2 X 3=7 because you can add one afterwards.

Is this really that complicated to understand? This proof is simpler than 90% of the proofs I had to learn in 9th grade geometry!

Thats because it is wrong and based on a false dichotomy  See above.

It is not that human means wrong it is just that human constructs are not real and physical like a rock or a tree The "laws" which apply to human constructs do not apply to real objects and vice versa.

In my own human construct I can fly, walk through solid objects, and even teach others how to do the same. These abilities are based on rational and physics based understandings of the nature of matter energy and the principles behind them.

But they dont work in real life, or only rarely. Physicists acknowledge there is a possibilty of me walking right through a solid wall one day. It is just a very low probabilty. So is winning the lottery. Never the less i attempt to walk thorugh a wall regularly and i buy a lottery ticket each week. Who knows?

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

I'll jump straight to the end and assume you believe atoms are objectively real.

Your video doesn't address modern materialism, that is everything is derived from matter and energy. Perhaps you should look up String theory?

Quote

Now for another example. I see a blue sky and a colour blind person sees a green one. This is possible because colour isnt real but perception. Yet the problem for you is the blue or green sky exists outside of our heads.

Eyes senses the light and register colour. There is no problem once you understand the biology of the eye.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Beckys_Mom, on 03 December 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

After all that is said and done.. I believe he knows a lot more about this than you.. He has been on this forum for quite some time and I have yet to see him brag, he certainly doesn't crave attention ..If he was the kind that did crave attention, it would be a different story ..

Oh you.

Coffey, on 03 December 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

The part I will admit to being wrong about was saying he should learn those things. That was rude. I apoligise to him for that. (Sorry imaginarynumber1, I shouldn't have been rude to you)

I still love you.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Once again perceptions arent real.

Then your god isn't real, either, by your weird ass definitions of things. He's just an idea, and as we have seen ( ) ideas aren't real!

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 08 December 2012 - 09:40 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Etu Malku, on 08 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

How so?

Let x=y

Multiply by x

x²=xy

subtract y² from both sides.

x²-y²=xy-y²

Factor

(x-y)(x+y)=x(x-y)

Divide out (x-y)

x+y=y

If x=y, then

y+y=y

so

2y=y

divide by y (since any single variable has a constant of 1)

2=1

You can also use this method so show that any two real numbers are equal. The problem, however, arises when you divide by (x-y) as you are actually dividing by zero, which, we all know, would result in the sudden and complete destruction of the entire universe as we know it.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 08 December 2012 - 10:02 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

How can your perceptions have existed before you became conscious?

I am sorry. That is a non sequitor to the point I made. My perceptions are totally irrelevant to the universe and its existence and nature.. The universe would be exactly the same, sans me  and my perceptions, except that i would not be in it. The universe did not begin or change (more than an infinitesimable fraction) when i first began to perceive it, nor will it end or change when i cease to perceive it.

My consciousness only exists because of the prior existence of the universe. I only perceive the universe because of my organs and mind. But if i died, or had never existed, if every self aware being died or did not exist, the universe would still be there. If a forest falls on a planet with no ear to hear it, it still makes a sound.
To believe or philosophise other wise, is mere anthrocentric hubris.

Edited by Mr Walker, 08 December 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[C235]

Imaginarynumber1, on 08 December 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Let x=y

Multiply by x

x²=xy

subtract y² from both sides.

x²-y²=xy-y²

Factor

(x-y)(x+y)=x(x-y)

Divide out (x-y)

x+y=y

If x=y, then

y+y=y

so

2y=y

divide by y (since any single variable has a constant of 1)

2=1

You can also use this method so show that any two real numbers are equal. The problem, however, arises when you divide by (x-y) as you are actually dividing by zero, which, we all know, would result in the sudden and complete destruction of the entire universe as we know it.

Can we use this to pay off our bills?

[Imaginarynumber1]

C235, on 08 December 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Can we use this to pay off our bills?

God I wish. Maybe we should try...

[Beckys_Mom]

Etu Malku, on 08 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

How so?

The mother and the father come together to make baby = family of three   lol

C235, on 08 December 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

. It proved History has shown no progress in this certain field

So because science invented technology to test and prove the paranormal and it hasn't proved it as yet... this is not progress? Of course it's progress, they are not there yet, but still progressing.. If they never so much as made a move to try, then you could say no progress.. The christian scientists feel they too made progress lol

Quote

  You claimed the attempts were futile in HISTORY

I did ? Really ?   I could have sworn the only person that tried to make that claim was  in fact...........

This is your post below right?

C235, on 07 December 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Science's all attempts were futile in paranormal/supernatural. what does it prove to you?

  In fact when I read that sentence, I thought was a typo due to how it was written.. I had to ask you what you meant by - > Science's all attempts were futile?  

Quote

I still say maybe that's possible in future but still limited within creation.  

Well you were the only one that first suggested  that maybe science will prove god..  What you cannot grasp,is if they did, they would have to observe god in order to prove god for the world to see..  

Science studies , tests, experiments and observes., that's how it works

Quote

Its hard to continue debating if You confuse everything so fast

I was not trying to confuse everything..  I read your post  ( pages back )  where you had said, see below

C235, on 06 December 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

One day science will find God, add some scientific name & characteristics to it & then tell us " I told you so!"

I put it to you that if they do prove god, they would have to be able to observe god for all to see... God then becomes part of the natural world and so on Personally, I do not believe they will prove god, I was going along with your hopes that they will one day prove god is real.. Like you say above - I told you so .. My question to that is - Why would science after proving god, say I told you so?   Science  do not claim there is a god and want people to believe .. Unless you speak of Christian scientists ?

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 08 December 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Reality is a collection of ideas and even the atom is not a real object.

Reality is independent of thoughts, ideas, etc, these concepts are how we make sense of it.

Edited by Rlyeh, 08 December 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[Arbenol68]

Beckys_Mom, on 08 December 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

The funny part is, you still think that maybe one day science WILL prove god..   I'd love to know how you think that may happen

As I see it, science can never prove that God doesn't exist - but could provide evidence that he does. This is probably the single biggest reason why I'm an atheist.

For example, if it's the God of the Bible you believe in, then you believe in a personal God who takes interest in all of us, can and does intervene in the world, answers prayers, etc. He may not be of this universe, but he can and does act within it. This should be detectable in some way. In fact research has been done on this - eg, does praying for someone who is ill lead to more favourable outcomes. I'll bet you can guess what the findings of those studies were.

So, science could find God. Hasn't yet. And I won't hold my breath.

[Beckys_Mom]

Arbenol68, on 08 December 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

As I see it, science can never prove that God doesn't exist - but could provide evidence that he does. This is probably the single biggest reason why I'm an atheist.

For example, if it's the God of the Bible you believe in, then you believe in a personal God who takes interest in all of us, can and does intervene in the world, answers prayers, etc. He may not be of this universe, but he can and does act within it. This should be detectable in some way. In fact research has been done on this - eg, does praying for someone who is ill lead to more favourable outcomes. I'll bet you can guess what the findings of those studies were.

So, science could find God. Hasn't yet. And I won't hold my breath.

I wont hold my breath either..C235  was the one putting out a suggestion that one day science will prove god  I was reacting to this post..I put it to him - If they do prove god?  What would happen? and so on

C235, on 06 December 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

One day science will find God, add some scientific name & characteristics to it & then tell us " I told you so!"

[Arbenol68]

Beckys_Mom, on 08 December 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

If they do prove god?  What would happen?

They'll be more than a few of us trying to think up some good excuses.

[Beckys_Mom]

Arbenol68, on 08 December 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

They'll be more than a few of us trying to think up some good excuses.

I'd laugh at you all..I'd laugh harder if god came and said ...Who is Jesus?  I have no son   lol

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 08 December 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

1. Your video doesn't address modern materialism, that is everything is derived from matter and energy. Perhaps you should look up String theory?

2. Eyes senses the light and register colour. There is no problem once you understand the biology of the eye.

1. Oh I see so Quantum Mechanics is from the middle ages is it? (Hahahahah)
2. How is this mysterious property called colour passed from the eye to the brain when the optic nerve only conducts electrical signals?

Photons come in different wavelengths not colours.
A short wavelength is gamma radiation and a long one is radio waves.
In the middle your eyes can detect a short range of wavelengths
When they do an electrical signal is sent to the brain
You brain creates colour from those electrical signals.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Color_vision From the third line I quote 'a human's perception of colors is a subjective process'. Its you that needs to study biology not that I havent pointed this out to you on previous threads (hahahahaha).