I refused to answer any of your points until you address my last post to you. It's very simply. I post something, you refute, I refute, you refute... but you wish for it to be like this... I post something, you refute, I refute, you post something, I refute, you post something... this isn't a reasonable debate. Until you learn how to conduct a reasonable debate there is no point in discussing with you. Accusing me of being close minded changes nothing. When you're ready to be mature, then we can have a discussion. I will repost the unanswered refutations of mine for you below if you decide you wish to carry on the discussion.


He did or he is a liar. He has told me things about myself claiming god told him that are simply untrue.


I may be wrong about it sucking in the sun. The point of the post was when mass is condensed it strengthens gravity. I made the assumption that the earth's mass, condensed into the size of a marble, would consume the sun. If this is wrong then someone more qualified than either of us can correct me.


That's what I said... if all the matter contained on the planet were to be condensed to the size of a marble, there would be a very strong gravitation pull.


My understanding is that when matter is condensed the gravitation pull is strengthened. If this is untrue then someone can correct me.

It's an absolute fact that matter exists in some form. You have absolute factual information that God exists? Can you tell us what your information is? Even if it is personal revelation, I want to know how you can make such an arrogant claim as to know for a fact.


Your consciousness is perception of existence. You don't have your own individual reality. You have your own perception of reality.


Perception doesn't alter logic. Perception alters science, logic is a means of pertaining knowledge outside of the senses.


It's quite possible that this is rational in my reality...


I would not argue this as we can physically see what causes people to see color. The color green doesn't actually exist. It is how the brains interprets light waves. If someone is blind, they can't perceive light waves but the light waves still exist. The perception is defective.


Color doesn't exist. It is merely a perception of light waves.


Both the historical and contempory record of god indicate he does not even exist. The only evidence for God is those who claim they have felt God on an emotional level. There is no evidence of him affecting the physical world. This leads to the belief that he is simply an idea created by the human mind. Nothing more than an electrical impulse.


That is simply false. It is merely enough to indicate that men have believed he existed. Nothing more.


You claim you can, yet you don't explain how. I believe I am god. I perform miracles everyday. I raised two people from the dead yesterday. I was met with frustration by those who I told because they cannot experience my divinity. However I have revealed myself to my dog and she knows I am god. The personal knowledge of my dog is enough evidence to indicate I am in fact God. You can ask her yourself. She can talk. However there is a slight chance your perception of reality won't be able to hear her.


So we can agree that perception doesn't alter reality.


The image is nothing more than an electrical impulse.


Likewise, do to the fact that I am omnipotent, I wasn't surprised to hear my dog talk, as I knew I had created her with the ability to do so.


What works for you or me doesn't alter reality. It is the same reality. Whether it works for you does not effect whether or not God exists.

Im going to answer as you wish but purely out of cpourtesy, I do not accept your "rules for debate" . First, who on earth said these are the only grounds for reasonable debate.
The fact that they are common practice here, neither makes them rules, nor the best or only form of debating. They actuallly indicate the incapacity of many people today to comprehend or keep more than one idea in their head at a time. In primary school i was expected to read , synthesise , evaluate, and debate pieces of writing; prose and poetry,,fictoin and science ,far longer than what i wrote.

As a teacher i know this is a dying skill, although i do my bit to teach 14 to 16 year olds the skills i learned as a 10 to 12 year old.
The internet has encouraged this rather limiting and limited form of debate, but that does not make it either the only, or even the best, form of debate.

Secondly it starts to get ridiculous and unnecessarily difficult, after two or three responses in this manner, simply getting the quotes right and making sense of the sequence of responses to each individual point. but here goes nothing;



I have as much absolutely factual information that god exists as i do that matter exists. I already stated this, and used illustrative examples of my reasoning.. You wont believe me, but if you insist on examples, read through my posts. Its not my job to convince you; and other readers may well be bored by the many times i have posted the physical miracles, large and small, god has performed in my life. I dont mind if you like many others dont believe me. Thats just tough Do you believe i really have a car? Why? And why then do you refuse to accept that miracles and god have exactly the same physical presence in my life as my car. Ask yourself what is preventing you from believing/ accepting these clear and unequivocal statements by me.



This is debatable and has been bebated on um many tjmes. In fact in a way i tend to agree with your viewpoint , but i believe that it is i who have a fuller and more complete perception of what constitutes objective physical reality.Agai I can understand you not believing in what you cannot see.


QUOTE

Already answered



QUOTE

True , but heck didnt you just say a line or two ago that you/one/ I cannot have anindependent reality? How come you are suddenly allowed one




In a way i'll accept your answere here, but we are talking about two different things and really you just made my whole point for me

If someone is god blind they cant percieve the enegry waves/ vibrational phase of god, but god still exists. The perception is defective
QUOTE




Excellent point, but carefull. The samColour has the same physical reality as a rock we can name it how we like and argue about its nature. Kick a rock and it will hurt your toe. Wear red and green togetjer and peole will pass comment. So which is it? Does nothing actually have an objective physical reality or does anything which can be perceived(including rocks, colours and god) have a possible objective reality/ Got to make up your mind here for logical consistency

QUOTE


Already answered; this is your perception but a factually incorrect statement

QUOTE



Ding! wrong answer. If humans interact physically with god then god must exist. Just like the rock and the colour green.

Again the problem is that because of your peexisting belief that god does not exist you refuse to BELIEVE that anyone can interact with him





In fact i gave two personal examples to show how i can appreciate the frustration and disbelief at not being able to experience/see a part of areality held in common by a group of people.

Then unfortunately you degenerate the argument into siolliness, perhaps as an expression of disdain in my beliefs, perhaps in an attempt to reduce them through mockery. That was so silly i didnt even take it personally or get offended by it




This was my first example of understanding, and no, what it illustrates to me, is something much more complex. Perception always alters personal / subjective realities. It often affects the significance of objective realities, because those individuals act on their subjective reality rather than the objective reality.It often clouds the issue completely so no one can agree whicjh is the true reality..
But none of that was my point. My point was how do you know that yours is the objective reality. I think mine is a more complete objective reality than you are able to experience.
QUOTE


I wasnt clear what you were saying here In a way you are right but it is far more complex than this. Why can i have comletely lifelike dreams indistinguishable from reality.Why can i see anngels? why can i have visions of the future, predict cards, dice and find lost objects. If these are mere electrical impulses i want to know a lot more about them. I think you are on the right trackr in that energy, particularly electrical energyr has a role to play, But that is not an explanationr or a cause.



Not worth commenting on


You missed my whole point. Put simply, am i supposed to ignore the reality of my experiences, especially when they are so wonderful and positive, That would simply be stupid. But more than that, it works for many people.

Again your comment about god simply reflects your beliefs. I could just as easilly argue" Whether you believe in god or not is irrelevant. he exists independently of what you personally choose to believe." and so i doargue.

I think that a black hole is a region of space where the gravitational field is so great that it's escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This region is called the event horizon and it's caused by a massive point with zero volume and infinite density that we call a singularity. Physics is on my side.

What do you think it is? Why do you think it's impossible for a singularity to form?

This is only true when you disregard the effects of quantum mechanics though

Show that a singularity can form and I'll believe it possible.

Does the name Schwarzschild ring any bells?

Aha! -- Thanks Tiggs!
I had forgotten this "little" gem (pardon my pun). I had read about this with awe and amazement when I was at school, and now here it is again -- showing just how small and insignificant our solar system can really be, when we take a step back, so to speak.

Here is a short excerpt from the URL you posted:
The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to the mass. Accordingly, the Sun has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 3 km, while the Earth's is only about 9 mm.

An object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole.

I'm glad I don't suffer from claustrophobia.
Karlis

We believe that the universe originated in a singularity for a number of reasons. Try to follow me on this.

We know that the universe is expanding. We can tell because we can measure the distances between stars and that distance grows each year.
But not only is the universe expanding, its expanding at an accelerated rate. We can do the math backwards and logically assume that the universe, because not only is it expanding, but also accelerating in expansion, came from a single point.
Thats basically it in a nutshell.

Heres some further reading for you, WWF
Gravitational Singularity
Big Bang
Hopefully this will clear some things up for you.

Please explain how we can have a reasonable debate when you simply ask question and I give answers? That's called interrogation.


No you don't, and you can't. You claim to offer evidence but seeing a vision and losing an addiction does not provide factual evidence of god.


Actually that is the point of debate. To convince others. Otherwise it is merely a discussion.


There is physical evidence cars exist. No physical evidence has been provided of god. When you have some, please show me. All you have done is claimed to have personal experiences that no one else can testify too that you have attributed to god and claimed factual knowledge.


I'm glad we can agree on this. I obviously believe my perception is closer to reality.


It was a joke, perhaps you missed the smiley face.


Is that so? How?


This isn't a good analogy. Whether or not someone can see green like everyone else does, they can be shown physical evidence that the lightwave exists. If you wish to compare me to a color blind person, not only is this a bad analogy, but I could equally compare you to a scizophrenic who sees things that aren't there.


We know that green exists as a lightwave. We don't know if we are actually perceiving it correctly. Rocks exist. Kick one and whether it hurts or not depends on whether an electrical signal is sent to the brain to feel pain.


I have been consistent except for the one comment, which was a joke. On one hand we have objective reality which no one can make declaritive statements about other than a claim of self-awareness and matter in some shape or form. On the other hand we have subjective reality which is human perception. We as humans strive to accurately perceive reality. Some have a much more correct version of reality than others. Who that is, we cannot know. I obviously believe I have a fairly accurate perception while you believe you do. The point is, you can't know that you're subjective belief in god is correct.


You don't know this to be true. You only believe my perception to be incorrect.


If humans physically interact with god then god must exist. That is true. However, humans claiming or believing to interact with god only affirms their perception is honest, not true.

My preexisting belief was theism. It was only through an honest look at reality I came to this conclusion.


Your perception isn't held in common with everyone. Every person who claims to experience the supernatural has a slightly different perception at the least. Others worship different gods. I'm sure you've heard the saying. We're both atheists, I just believe in one less god.


Not an expression of disdain, silliness, or mockery. It was not meant to be taken personally nor offensive. You have provided no more than I as evidence for your claims. Therefore myself being posited as god is on equal footing with your posit to know your god exists. Anyone can make claims and that is the point. In reality however, my claim of being god has more merit in fact, than yours, as I am known to exist in some form, your god is not.


Perception does not alter subjective realities. Subjective realities are perception. We act on our subjective reality because it is the only reality that we know. We as humans must decide which subjective reality is closest to an objective reality and act upon that subjective reality. It is true, your belief in god and my disbelief makes it impossible to agree on true reality. Is that a problem?


Your point is correct. I do not know nor have I claimed to. You however do claim you know god exists and you will not admit that is merely perception and you cannot know if he does. What you think doesn't change objective reality anymore than what I thing would.


We do know what causes dreams. I don't personally but scientists do. They are in short thoughts. THey have no more bearing on reality than a movie, as that is what they are. Movies in our minds controlled by electrical impulses.


Then neither are any of your claims of miracles worth commenting on.


I never said for you to ignore your perceptions. I said you should not claim them as objective reality, merely what you believe to be objective reality.


This isn't the same. I said regardless of your beliefs, he may or may not exist. Yet you say, regardless of my beliefs, he does exist. You posit your perception, once again, as objective reality. Our personal perceptions of reality do not effect whether or not god exists. He does or he doesn't. Your beliefs, my beliefs, your claims of knowledge, do not change anything.

Universe is what we worship
for it gives life.

anything before only bring us death.

...

I see your and raise you a

And no one has disproved it either, so how does it make it an impossible scenario

I can't go into detail but try reading - Stephen Hawkings - 'A breifer history of time' (I just bought it for my partner)

Again, show me a singularity forming.

QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Apr 24 2008, 09:11 AM)


But thats not what happened. I gave a lengthy reply. As another poster pointed out i responded to your povs but you did not like what i said. You didnt like the form of my post either, but then i find this form, if not boring, then tediously simple

QUOTE


This statement illustrates the problem ( not yours alone) of us indulging in meaningful debate. How can you possibly, in all logic and honesty know what factual information i have on either side of the equation. You can choose not to believe my statements (and i appreciate it is difficult to call anyone a liar even on a forum like this). However, i would not and could not believe in god without absolute proof of his existence. I simply dont work that way and never have. If you had experienced what i have you would either have commiteed yourself to an insane asylum (instead i had myself checked out by top neuro sureons and psychiatrists. none could find any evidence of physical or mental illness. They put my cumulative experiences in the scientifically inexplicable category).So would i, especially as many of them have no religious component or connotation whatsoever, but god also interacts aurally visually and mentally with me in an intentional planned and exlained way to do things for me and to achieve whatever his purposes are for me. for example. He tels me he will do something for me. Then he does it, sometimes altering the objective physical reality of the world to achieve this. How do i know its the objective reality, because other people see either the physical action or its results. Thus it is not an hallucination or delusion. This is what convinced the experts that i was not hallucinating or delusional.

QUOTE


I beg to differ. Debate has many purposes . To educate , inform and to entertain. Many debates are won not on the technical accuracy of the points but on the flair, style and persausiveness of the arguments. There are other readers of these words and i write for them as much as you.Only a small part of my purpose is to convince you. given that i think that unlikely if it was the only purpose then further debate would be pointless. That is one reason i find this form of debate particularly limiting.
QUOTE




As i said , plenty of others can testify to the objective reality of my experiences. Not all attribute them to god. Some see them as a form of personal psychic ability. Others to some form of synchronicity. However the personal communication on an ongoing basis, the sequential and structured nature of the events, and their similarity with other documented cases of divine intervention gradually led me first to acceptance and then to knowledge of god. There is no room in my life for belief in things unproven.

I have detailed most of these experiences many times. you can read them That does not mean you will believe them . For example in the middle of a raging bushfire the voice i have come to recognise as god or my guardian angel speaks clearly to me. turn on yopur radio."" Now the power is out and has been for hours.

I find out later that all the power lines, transformers, even poles for miles around have melted in the intense heat. The scene resembles a nuclear explosion for many months later. None the less from experience i obey the voice. The radio comes on and operates for about 30 seconds. It tells us that the fire front has unexpectedly changed direction and is now burning through a small hamlet a ew miles from us. We grab the cat and box of photos/papers put aside for just this purpose and evacuate.

The smoke, ash and wind is incredible. One young mother and her children run off the road into a tree and die. Altogether 9 people are caught and die. Hundreds are injured and hundreds of homes are lost. As we leave in these conditions i say to god. "Ï put our lives in your hands god, do with them as you will". He replies clearly and audibly. "Do not fear. You will be completely un harmed"
As we raced to utrun the approaching fire front my wife urged me to drive faster. i replied if we are driving we will outrun the fire if i run off the roaad we are dead. Gods messagee kept me calm and non panicking. i drove on for about 10 ks before we got clear of the fire. behind us our house explodesd ibefore the fire even reached it9a common occurence on that day) . If we had stayed we would have perished if we had panicked we probably would have perished. God simply and directly ensured we survived without a scratch.

Ive told that story before . Some people will come up with anything to avoid seeing the truth in my experience.One even suggested that the radio might have held enough electrical charge to operate by itself. No it didnt. It wasnt that sort of radio, and even if that had been the case, it would not have explained the sequential juxtaposition of the warning from god, the radio operating, and the physical warning on the radio.
Why you might ask did god simply not speak to me directly? Ive thought about that a lot. One reason might be that this way i had one independent witness to what happened. My wife. Second, even the most god fearing man, might have had a moments doubt at a voice in his head saying leave now. The independent physical confirmation from abc radio could leave no doubt that the fire was coming and was an imminent threat A moments doubt could have killed us. As we drove through the smoke the mayor of a local town 25 k's away was speaking on the abc he saw our house explode, and commented therë goes another poor devils house"or words to that effect. Even a few minutes delay would have killed us.

And you must understand, this is only one of many similar events over my life, including several which also directly saved my life.


QUOTE


No real arguement here just disagreement on who is correct.



Fair comment I missed the smiley face, but they can be dangerous, in that people use them for differnt reasons eg dont take offence at this comment. i do tend to take things literally. I can appreciate your joke and yes it does change my perception of your comment

QUOTE

Look back at your comment. its too hard to cut and paste, in a cut and paste when you cant leave the post without it saving. (another reason i dont like operating this way).
QUOTE



Perhaps its the closest analogy possible to the situation here. I've seen the diagrams of refraction, wave length etc which indicate how colours are formed, but if i cant see the colour, what evidence do i have that it actually exists. It requires a leap of faith, and or a belief/acceptance that what others are telling me is true. This I feel is the position you are in. You cannot see god, you dont believe the experiences/evidence of others, and perhaps due to the nature of god, or perhaps due to the limitations of human science, schematics of the nature and function of god have not yet been completed.
QUOTE



Im still getting confused here. if you kick a rock you may feel pain, if both the transmitters and receptors in your body are working properly. You may also see green, if the transmitters and receptors in your body are working properly. If you are colour blind you wont see the colour. If you are a leper or paraplegic you wont feel the rock. ín both cases you are left with either other observations ,the word of others or less direct evidence to "know that the rock or the colour green exist. God is just the same. If you have the transmitters/ receptors (whatever they actually are; and they may have both physical and emotional/spiritual components) then you can perceive god. If you do not, you have only indirect observations, the word of others, or secondary evidence on which to base a conclusion. And i repeat it is understandable that anyone in that position would find it difficult to accept the physical existence of god other than through faith.
QUOTE

Understanding that you were joking does clarify things somewhat.
You still seem to be trying to have it both ways and im not sure which way that is. If you see objective reality as you appear to, then not even matter falls within it. My definition of objective reality might be better defined as shared or commonly accepted reality. Thus if only one person sees/ experiences something, that is subjective reality, and probably hallucination or delusion. However as more than one person experiences a common reality, it moves towards having an objective existence (that is it is, not entirely dependent on the subjective experience of one person)

Generally people accept rocks and the colour green as having an objective reality (shared and commonly understood to the point of being almost indisputable). I do not deny this. However, my experiences, combined with those of many other people (remember some of these are witnessed and involve physical alteration of the natural universe) lead me to a knowledge(or if you prefer, interpretation) that there exists an objective/commonly perceived reality with true independent existence outside the minds/perceptions of people, in which god and angels and miracles exist.

It is just that some people do not have the ability to perceive this part of the common/objective reality at all, just as some peolpe cannot see the colour green and some people cnnot feel the rock when they kick it.
QUOTE


I disagree, in your original statement you said the only evidence for god was in the thought waves of people. In fact there is considerable other physical evidence claimed by many people. Whether you accept/or disbelieve this evidence, it exists and thus your original statement was factually incorrect.




I can see why you would think that way. Thats why i asked how come you accept that i have a car. I might just have an honest belief that i have a car and drive it to work each day. You dont seem ready to accept visual sightings of me and my car by independent witnesses. You dont seem ready to accept any description of my car i might give you. Of course i could send you a photograph (something i admit i cant do with god) but in your heart why are you more ready to just accept i have a car, than that god exists?

Then show me Jesus.
Show me the Bible is beyond scrutiny.
Show me that you actually have Pentecostal "powers".

I gave you links to the mathematical formulas that show that it is both theoretically possible and highly likely that the BBT scenario happened. I have yet to see any formula or theory that accurately shows us that a higher power created us, beyond any questioning. Even my own personal philosophy is not beyond scrutiny. You, however, seem to think that yours is. Bah

Interesting, my first "belief was athiesm secular humanism . It was the only logical rational response to the real world. But then god forced his presence upon me, and my definition of the real world was widened somewhat. I still apply the same logical rational means of interpreting it , however.

More to the point, at the time you wrote your Op, your prexisting belief was one of non belief, and it naturally flavours your perception of the world.
QUOTE


The first example i gave was being colour blind in reds and greens, which actually is a very common lack of perception. I got very frustrated, particularly when this prevented me from joining the airforce. I do understand how frustrated people who can't see god must get, at people who can.

The second example was not being able to visualise consciously any image in my mind. I dont know how common this is. I did not realise any one could do this, let alone that most people might be able to, until a teacher, when i was 14 or so, asked the class to visualise an object in their mind, then rotate it.
When i asked for clarification of what he meant, he looked at me like i was an idiot. This angered and frustrated me, particularly as i loved school work and took pride in it. I learned that day that i had gone through 14 years, not just unable to do a commonly performed human function, but totally unaware that this was an aspect of normal human perception.

This experience helped me empathise with people who cant experience god', and are actually completely unaware of his physical reality. Just as my inability to see an image in my mind, limited my ability to perform the task the teacher asked of me, people who cannot perceive god, are limited in their ability to learn from him.
QUOTE


I 'll accept this. Ón reflection i did wonder if this is what you were trying to do. I do not accept the relative merits of your claims however. It is most likely that many more peole have experienced the physical reality of god, than have experienced the physical reality of either yourself or your dog.
QUOTE


Again, i am unclear what you are saying. If subjective realities are perception then surely one alters the other. First my physical inability to see/perceive green influences what i physically see (it looks like brown to me) second the fact that i perceive green as brown alters my subjective reality in many ways including my dress sense, choice of clothes and relationship with my wife.

However, i acknowledge that an objective reality (common viewpoint) on the colour green exists. I acknowledge i cant see it, and i bow to my wife's colour choice.

I feel that you dont recognise your god blindness, and thus cannot accept any advice on it at all. Yes we disagree . No it is not a problem in a personal sense, except where people, because they deny to me my reality as part of the common reality, try to deny me access or respect through the assumption that something is lacking in me.

these days i am making a more concerted effort to point out to people that just possibly I am the complete human and something is lacking in them. If that comes across as arrogant, it is the arrogance of a freed slave who suddenly faces a new objective reality, but is surrounded by people who refuse/fail to see it. We tend to eventually get a bit pushy in demanding both our rights and the respect due to us as human beings.
QUOTE


In the end there can only be one true objective reality. You are correct. I believe that god exists as part of that reality. However it is important that readers understand this is not a belief based on faith, but on the best logical analysis I can make, of experiences that certainly impinge on realities experienced by people other than just myself.

QUOTE
I


I can really only suggest you read some of my other paranormal experiences of a non religious nature. There exists a connection of some form that allows people to read minds, to travel around the world and see people and events in real time, to predict the sequence of cards before they are unturned, to see where lost and stolen objects are, to see the number of chairs in a nearby room or the exact combination to a lock with 10,000 possible combinations. to be able to visualise the nature place and purpose of keys from a complete stranger, without any knowledge of that person. to know that a yahtzee of threes will occur in the next fall of a dice.To see accurately and completely events of a day or even a year before they happen. All these things happen to me some more regularly than others. i have no control over them nor any scientific understanding of them. However, like my experiences of god they are independently witnesses and can be verified. Sometimes by up to 30 students in a room. Some times by just one or two very puzzled and often scared individuals

Personally, i think these äbilities are "accidental" by products of the same design mechanism which allows me to experience and perceive things like angels and to hear, feel, and experience god.

Some times the things go together. Sometimes when we need money for a good reason, god will say to me "go and play the pokies." Now i neither approve of, nor recommend, gambling , but actually this is never a gamble. Each time this happens, within a spin or two i have won exactly what i needed.

In the past two months this has occured 3 times. I won exactly $615, $850 and $2 500, each for an investment of $20 and a few minutes in the hotel.

And no,i wont give you next weeks lotto numbers. God provides what we need, not what we desire.
QUOTE


Naturally i disagree ,but only because you were not serious and i was. If you made a genuine and honest claim for miracles in your life I would accept that unequivocally. With my own experiences, how could i not?





Fair comment. In my other post i explain how, given the shared nature and independent physical evidence of some events, i feel they fall under objective reality, but i think we may be working under different understandings of that term.

QUOTE



Fair comment again. Yes that's what i said. Your beliefs are based on your realities, so are mine. I did feel that you were saying god did not exist (actually im sure thats what you were saying and reiterated time and time again through various post) My response (and i said it was how i would argue) was that god does exist, or that there is at least as much evidence that he exists as that matter exists)

Saying something is possible doesn't mean it has happened. You're making claims of things that have never been observed.

The same thing goes for Christianity, but you automatically assume that your beliefs deserve our merit, while ours don't, and its getting pretty frustrating.

I think you''ll find that that's something Scientists call a Theory. In this case, the General Theory of Relativity.

If you have an alternative theory that can explain all of the various gravitational effects we see in the Universe, then please enlighten us by publishing your alternative to that young upstart Einstein's General Theory of Relativity within a peer-reviewed Scientific journal.

Want and desire go hand in hand Walker

I wanted to be a mother..therefore it was my great desire to become one...I prayed after failure (so often) was granted my DESIRE..my want had become a need....God answered

Want and desire is more or less the same...and why you roll your eys is odd..

cos due to the fact that when people, especially kids, around me, see me doing weird things and displaying unusual abilities.... people often ask for the lotto numbers. Ive taken to rolling my eyes physically, when i explain that prayer, and even psychic abilities, only seem to operate on the basis of genuine need, rather than desire or want. I have to be careful how often I go into the local pub and win money, because in a small town people tend to notice, and comment, on that.

You see i would consider having a baby as a genuine human need in your case, but most humans actually need a lot different things from what they want or desire.. They need love and respect, but they want wealth and power. They need companionship and friendship, but they want really hot sex. That's what I mean.

God gives us (my wife and i) everything we need as human beings. He has not yet, however, rocked up at my door with an 80 inch plasma tv. and man i would really like one of those babies.

I do give free palm readings, however, As a young man i found it a good way to hold the hands of many young ladies, now i find the whole sociological concept and people's reactions to be very interesting. (and i still get to hold the hands of many pretty young ladies )

But saying all of that..the desire for (like you say) a plasma tv <--wait why would anyone want a plasma TV LOL?? sorry but the LCD flat pannels are the kind to REALLY desire

Anyhoo to desire a LCD tv..is human nature..to wish for luxury items...

Human naure is what we all go on...so regardless what it is you desire..it is still a want and can become a NEED...

If you pray to God for a big tv..(it would be stupid because God isnt a gennie lol)..but God could help you get that TV..by helping you make the money to buy it..meaning if you are willing..to work and earn the doe..then he might make it easier for you..as you put so much effort into it

Demonstrate your beliefs and then they'll have merit. If you can create a singularity the size of a needle point from a boulder I'll believe you. This should be no problem since supposedly a singularity can be created from a star 50 times the size of a sun according to your beliefs.

Your argument doesn't hold up because many people have experienced God. However, nobody has ever witnessed the formation of a singularity or the expanse of a singularity into a universe.

If we did then the Earth would die. I don't think you'd want that, now would you? And your argument doesn't make any sense because there is NO recorded evidence of any sort of "Godly" activity that can be VERIFIED AND RECREATED. According to your logic, if there's no evidence something cannot be true, but aside from personal experiences, there's no evidence of God. Therefore, he must not be true either.

Sorry, what you're saying doesn't work. Many people have experienced God. However, nobody has experienced a singularity as you're suggesting.

Nobody has observed a singularity explode and expand into a universe and nobody has observed a star 50 times the size of the sun condense into a singularity the size of a needle point. I've asked you to provide video evidence of such an action taking place, yet you have failed to do so.

Provide your sources of these "experiences" please. Personal experiences are absolutely unverifiable by the way, and are not considered evidence. No one saw God create the universe in 6 days, either, so you must be wrong in assuming that as well based on your logic. And I did give you evidence, WWF. I gave you pictures of ACTUAL black holes ACTUALLY consuming objects far bigger than our sun.

The personal experience of God is subjective and interpretive. You might consider such an experience "God", someone trained in neuroscience and psychology might consider it a subjective experience of self.

Science and mathematics can be used to demonstrate a singularity - yes, it is only theoretical, but the experience of this demonstration is available to anyone, not just the subject who produced it - unlike your personal experience of God.

Theres no evidence that any of those people actually experienced anything that is unexplainable by psychiatric evaluation. They claim that something happened to them, but there is no physical evidence that there was any higher power involved, other than their own imagination. Many of them, in fact, may be down right lying.

How could you possibly think it is logical to give more merit to personal testimony than a mathematical formula? Mathematics can't be broken. 2+2 will never equal anything other than 4. Human beings, however, are subject to negative personality traits, like being delusional, gullible, and deceitful.

Mother and Father, (GOD) Make Spirit Babies Or sons 1 PLus One Makes another, Then the other makes another and on in to infinity.

Love Omnaka

You're not using or following my logic. You're saying something is science that hasn't been observed. The personal experiences of others have nothing to do with whether or not what you claimed has happened or not. It just simply has not happened and there is no evidence for it. Again, show me a video footage of a singularity forming and I'll believe you.

That's because she doesnt believe in your idea of logic...I mean do you EVER follow a skeptics idea of logic??

With all due respect WalkingWithFire, do I not exist for you since you have no video footage of me? Would you not use deduction ie. you have this post written by someone with an avatar of ai_guardian, to come to a conclusion that a person exists behind it? Of course this deduction would also hinge on the fact that you yourself write posts and that other people exist in the world. If this is not enough evidence for you that I exist then fair enough but then a bible (and other anecdotal 'evidence') is no more evidence of god existing by the same logic you are using, because you do not have video footage of god poofing earth into existence or creating adam out of dirt and eve out of his rib - this depends on the religion you follow, obviously.

If this post IS enough for you to deduce that I exist then you are doing exactly what astrophysicists are doing to deduce that a singularity exists at the centre of a black hole. They have equations from the General Theory of Relativity, which since 1915 have been put through numerous rigorous tests and failed to be falsified yet, that predict black holes and singularities. AND we have indirectly observed black holes through gravitational effects as predicted by GTR. Although there may be another explanation which at this time seems very unlikely, by deduction then we believe that singularities exist. What sort of theory can you provide that will withstand such scrutiny?

So, which is it? Do you believe I exist based on this post or not? Do you use your logic when it suits you and not use it when it suits you?

Cheers

No, I stick to logic that is academic.

If someone is going to say such and such an event occurs there should be evidence for the supposed event.

It's quite the claim to say a star 50 times the size of the sun collapses into a singularity the size of a needlepoint. I should just believe this without any evidence? Such an event has never been observed.

EAsy, matter is not what we think it is, and its true nature is unkown, what we call reality is merely perceptions that are produced in the brain as a result of electrical signals being processed. Therefore what we call matter and reality are infact perception. If there is perception, than there is a source projecting this perception and the source is the only thing absolute, i.e GOd.

This is proven by modern science, biology, philosophy etc. Therefore what we call energy and physical matter is merely perception, it true qualities and reality is unknown. The brain which processes this perception by processing the electrical signals from our nerves, is also a part of this physical world we see and therefore a perceptions too, the question then becomes who is the subject of those perceptions produced by the brain, that is surely I, and i surely exists, cause surely i think, who is this I, it is your soul.

They physical world we see, everything, even the Universe is a carefully contstructed perceptions, our soul vehicle is the body, which interacts with this perception.

I'm sorry, but I fail to follow this post. What exactly are you trying to say?

Academic according to who? Jerry Falwell's University? So far your logic has just gone in a big circle. You disparage a mathematical formula that has stood up against close to a century of scrutiny, and passed with flying colors I might add, and you cling to an idea that can't even stand up to the scrutiny of a bunch of online forum-goers. Honestly...

This sounds awfully familiar. Remember the time you claimed to make a prophecy about me? Yeah, about that, what was it? I know I've been a nag, but since you claim to have all these Pentecostal powers, and you can't back it up, I sometimes (and by sometimes, I mean all the time) wonder if you're pulling our leg. Again, I fail to see how you automatically shoot down any scientific data, data that has been rigorously tested time and time again, and PASSED. Isn't it ironic that you poo-poo something that has quite a bit of information backing it up, and then you get upset when we don't believe your ludicrous claims about your super-god-given-powers. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just pointing out a serious serious flaw in your logic.

Its quite a claim to say that you are in direct contact with God, when there is no evidence nor is there any reason for me to believe anything you claim. Should I believe you without any evidence? I have never directly observed God, yet I believe in him.
Hmph.

Show me a video of God and I'll believe you. Science HAS SEEN BLACK HOLES CONSUMING MASS LARGER THAN OUR SUN IN PHOTOGRAPHS. I don't know what's so complicated about that. We don't have the technology to videotape black holes, yet. It would just be all grainy and you wouldn't even be able to tell what the video showed. I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time here.....

You're not alone in that last sentiment.

Lady Otterwynnd, yep, I said a similar thing in post #135, just waiting for a response from WWF.

Something like that The problem is that the objects we observe are in a section of the 'sky' on the order of fraction of arcseconds and the signals are so faint that the exposures to get our images are on the order of minutes, hours and sometimes days using an array of detectors for radio, x-ray, gamma-ray, infrared and visible spectrums. We could string a series of subsequent observations (images) together but scientists just don't see a point to that imo (as well as being a waste of valuable resources), we have simulations using supercomputers that show what we image and the shoe fits so-to-speak.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention that for ummm, clarity or confusion

Cheers

Thanks for clarifying the process, Ai. Hopefully we'll get a sensible response....

You don't understand what science does and doesn't do. Science does not seek to make claims about the supernatural, which would include God. Also, a black hole consuming a star does not mean it has condensed it into a singularity the size of a needlepoint which is what you're failing to show evidence for. Nobody is arguing that a black hole can swallow up a star.

I have not disparaged anything. Nobody has witnessed a star collapse into a singularity the size of a needlepoint.

Lawyers tell the story of the attorney who is defending a man accused of biting off another man's ear in a bar fight. The eyewitness is on the stand.

Lawyer: Did you actually see my client bite the victim's ear?

Witness: No, I did not.

Lawyer: (too foolish to sit down and shut up) You did not see my client bite the victim's ear? Then how can you sit there and tell this jury that my client bit off anyone's ear?

Witness: I saw him spit it out.

---

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/category/blackholes.html

Behold ears.

The analogy to ears doesn't work in this situation. Nobody is saying that blackholes don't exist, but rather the ability of a black hole to condense a star 50 times the size of the sun into a singularity the size of a needle point.

The thread progressed after a casual and hyperbolic remark was made about the number fifty. Nevertheless, you continued to hang onto the fifty, rather than to address the substance of the remark.

Conversation then progressed to the technical challenges of witnessing the collapse of stars, whatever their mass. You wrote:


I wrote in response. Spit-out ears is to bar fight biting as Chandra imaging is to collapse of stars, which is to say, competent evidence.

My post accomplished its purpose. You now acknowledge the existence of black holes. If you followed the link I gave, then what you would see is that they consume surrounding matter.

"Size of a needlepoint" has the same status as "fifty." It is a way of speaking. The attribute we call "size" is meaningless in the immediate vicinity of a black hole. Language fails, figures of speech are used. Get over it.

Sorry, there was never an argument about whether or not blackholes exist or not, so your argument just doesn't work. The argument was about singularities produced by blackholes. This isn't observable. If you claim it is, please show a video or some sort of evidence of a star being condensed into a singularity the size of a needlepoint.