Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
iforgot

Where do athiests think we came from?

463 posts in this topic

And?

Members of the flat earth society uses the same sensory perception. This would be quite a problem for one who equates reality with perception.

I dont equate reality with perception.

The reason is reality is perception. This has been shown to you with various links over the years to biologists, neuroscientists, psychologists and even Wiki.

When you argue with intellectuals with PHDs, when you argue against what science tells you on reality, then you are biased. You also change your ideas frequently like a drowning man clutching at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this so called absolute proof?

Here it is...

Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?

If He can then he cannot do all things because He cannot lift the stone He created.

If He cannot create the stone then He cannot do all things.

Absolute logical proof that omnipotence cannot exist in our universe.

Science hasnt got one peice of evidence that God never existed as described in the Bible.

The universe and life that God created as described in the Bible has been shown to be unlike the universe we live in and the life we have discovered.

Example - How do you know the devil didnt drug you and stuff you into a virtual life simulator?

If you have evidence that this has happened, please submit it at once. Or please contact the Martians living in my garage.

No one has a right to hold any idea as truth because you sir are a mere human being incapable of grasping the ultimate truth.

I've been using physical and chemical "truths" for a few decades. They have served me well. Sorry to disappoint you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constructing another straw man argument are we?

I caught you out last time you did that and you looked like a fool lol.

Yes you did. That's right :tu:

(I can never tell whether sarcasm works when written down)

Edited by Arbenol68
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you argue with intellectuals with PHDs, when you argue against what science tells you on reality, then you are biased.
According to you the big bang and evolution didn't occur, you were completely oblivious to the QM interpretations, yet pretending you've studied QM. Who the **** are you trying to fool? About as intellectual as a house plant.

I'm arguing to some fool who ignores science. Please don't call your ridiculous views "science", they are anything but that.

You also change your ideas frequently like a drowning man clutching at straws.

Haha. What? They've always remained the same. You really are sad. Edited by Rlyeh
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It means you need to talk in Greek philosophy terms to me because I'm Western not Eastern.

2. Reality isnt objective its subjective.

3. Subjective reality and the mind are the same thing.

4. My back is firmly against the wall lol.

1 Right & Left Hand Paths are distinctly of Western origin . . . my label "ignorant" stands (in a pleasant way of course)

2 the subjective universe creates reality, in other words we assign meaning to the objective universe through our subjective universe.

3 it is very close

4 :passifier:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are butchering my statements

It was easier to split the statement up as they were two separate sentences (as once again shown below ) you had written..I wanted to address them seperately

Ok, here is your previous statement that I broke down into two parts...

History has shown no progress maybe even backing in the field of supernature. In my theory science will stop not us! though in your theory you can go as far as you please.

As you can clearly see, the above quote are two separate sentences and anyone can split them up separately to address them...You addressed them to me, so yes I split the two sentences up and addressed each one

So with that I asked you - Can you explain why you feel history has not shown progress ?

And .. What makes you think science will stop?

It is only complex to you.

When someone says- Science will stop.. & Post up false information saying - History has shown no progress One makes no sense and the other is a false statement of facts, because history has come a long way and indeed shown progress, everyone knows this..... There is no point in making such statements, if you cannot follow through..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? If He can then he cannot do all things because He cannot lift the stone He created. If He cannot create the stone then He cannot do all things. Absolute logical proof that omnipotence cannot exist in our universe.

2. The universe and life that God created as described in the Bible has been shown to be unlike the universe we live in and the life we have discovered.

3. If you have evidence that this has happened, please submit it at once. Or please contact the Martians living in my garage.

4. I've been using physical and chemical "truths" for a few decades. They have served me well. Sorry to disappoint you!

1. Lets start by asking ourselves what exactly is a stone? (maybe you can list out its properties). Now lets start chipping peices off it and then we can ask ourselves at what point does the stone cease to be a stone? As you cant answer that question it shows that the stone isnt a real object but an idea in your head. The last time I checked ideas dont have mass revealing a logical flaw in your argument. As for science mass has also been shown to be a property of the Higgs Field not atoms.

2. In what ways do you think thats true?

3. Has what happened? You're not being clear enough for me to give an answer.

4. I'm quite well educated in science and whilst theories may allows us to build complicated machines it doesnt mean we should ignore the flaws and baseless assumptions on which they're based.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was easier to split the statement up as they were two separate sentences (as once again shown below ) you had written..I wanted to address them seperately

Ok, here is your previous statement that I broke down into two parts...

What I have highlighted ( and originally put into two parts ) is what I felt needed to be addressed, because you directed them at me

So with that I asked you - Can you explain why you feel history has not shown progress ?

And .. What makes you think science will stop?

When someone says- Science will stop.. & Post up false information saying - History has shown no progress One makes no sense and the other is a false statement of facts, because history has come a long way and indeed shown progress, everyone knows this..... There is no point in making such statements, if you cannot follow through..

More like two half of sentence

"History has shown no progress in the field of supernatural" = "History has shown no progress at all" :blink: Your logic is fascinating I rather you shoot me with your bow rather than Arguing me to dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"History has shown no progress in the field of supernatural" = "History has shown no progress at all"

That's were you are wrong - Paranormal investigations have been carried out numerous times through the use of science - Photography, both still image and video, temperature sensors, motion sensors, EMF meters etc

Christian scientists will brag that they have come far and claim that ID is proven fact and they call what they have done - Science !!!! No one has managed to prove the paranormal / supernatural, but it has never stopped science from trying.. That itself is still progress

You also said - Science will stop ! I ask you - How so ?

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's were you are wrong - Paranormal investigations have been carried out numerous times through the use of science - Photography, both still image and video, temperature sensors, motion sensors, EMF meters etc

Christian scientists will brag that they have come far and claim that ID is proven fact and they call what they have done - Science !!!! No one has managed to prove the paranormal / supernatural, but it has never stopped science from trying.. That itself is still progress

You also said - Science will stop ! I ask you - How so ?

You prove my statement by stating I'm wrong!

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

You are still doing this. How funny. these are 3 words out of our last posts. In case you missed what I wrote "Science reaches its limits where When creation meets Its Creator (God)" for this reason.

Edited by C235

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Lets start by asking ourselves what exactly is a stone?

Oh my gosh...I understand exactly what people are saying about you!

I present a very simple three-step logical puzzle that proves my point and you are completely unable to understand it. To avoid this and to present yourself as some kind of genius, you start questioning the definitions of individual words in the puzzle, oblivious that this is completely irrelevant to the meaning of it!

I assume after we get to the precise definition of "stone" that you'll want to argue about what each individual letter in the word means!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my gosh...I understand exactly what people are saying about you!

I present a very simple three-step logical puzzle that proves my point and you are completely unable to understand it. To avoid this and to present yourself as some kind of genius, you start questioning the definitions of individual words in the puzzle, oblivious that this is completely irrelevant to the meaning of it!

I assume after we get to the precise definition of "stone" that you'll want to argue about what each individual letter in the word means!

The philosophical point being made is that a stone is an idea in your head and ideas dont have mass.

Planets, humans, trees, stones and atoms are just ideas. Reality is just a collection of those ideas. You cant use something which doesnt exit (ideas) as proof that something else does or doesnt exist. Its nonsensical.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science's all attempts were futile. what does it prove to you?

Sciences all attempts were futile ? I am not sure what it is you are trying to say. To take a guess at what it is you are trying to say is - All attempts science made were futile ? IF so, then I would suggest that, even if science has tried and failed, at least trying is a step forward, and that is still progress

"Science reaches its limits where When creation meets Its Creator (God)"

How do you know this? My point is simple - If we do not know what tomorrow will bring, then how can we be as arrogant to suggest science will stop ?

You at one point posted this ...

Maybe science can go beyond natural one day. Who knows really? Everything is possible.

You then say...

In my theory science will stop not us! though in your theory you can go as far as you please.

One min you think maybe science can go beyond the natural...Everything is possible The next you claim that the attempts were futile and your theory ( as you note in the above quote )is that science will stop !!! Which is it? They will reach their limit and stop? OR everything is possible ( according to you ) ?

Edited by Beckys_Mom
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophical point being made is that a stone is an idea in your head and ideas dont have mass.

Planets, humans, trees, stones and atoms are just ideas. Reality is just a collection of those ideas. You cant use something which doesnt exit (ideas) as proof that something else does or doesnt exist. Its nonsensical.

LMAO . . . getting all "deep" on us now? What dictionary are you using, Timothy Leary's?

stone: noun

1.the hard substance, formed of mineral matter, of which rocks consist.

2.a rock or particular piece or kind of rock, as a boulder or piece of agate.

3.a piece of rock quarried and worked into a specific size and shape for a particular purpose: paving stone; building stone.

4.a small piece of rock, as a pebble.

Edited by Etu Malku
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophical point being made is that a stone is an idea in your head and ideas dont have mass.

Nope, the point has absolutely nothing to do with stones or mass or ideas. It's about the impossibility of a single being possessing two abilities that contradict each other.

There are countless other pairs of abilities that contradict each other i.e. a fire so hot that God can't put it out, a cannonball so fast that God can't stop it, a sound so quiet that God can't hear it, two numbers so large that God can't add them without a calculator, and so on.

I learned this paradox when I was about ten years old.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO . . . getting all "deep" on us now? What dictionary are you using, Timothy Leary's?

This person has no ability or motivation to understand anything we tell them. They feel that whatever they believe is more important than what is true.

Let them live in the Matrix or whatever make-believe world they've invented for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO . . . getting all "dep" on us now? What dictionary are you using, Timothy Leary's?

A dictionary does not dictate if something is real or not.

Lets use the example of a car.

1. If you remove a wheel is it still a car?

2. If you then remove the windscreen is it still a car?

3. If you then remove the exhaust is it still a car?

4. Etc, etc.

At what point does it cease to be a car?

For the car to be a real object it must have certain qualities yet you cant identify the stage at which it ceases to be a car. That point is a matter of personal opinion because it isnt an object but an idea.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, the point has absolutely nothing to do with stones or mass or ideas. It's about the impossibility of a single being possessing two abilities that contradict each other.

There are countless other pairs of abilities that contradict each other i.e. a fire so hot that God can't put it out, a cannonball so fast that God can't stop it, a sound so quiet that God can't hear it, two numbers so large that God can't add them without a calculator, and so on.

I learned this paradox when I was about ten years old.

How about this for the ultimate paradox!

God creates Adam & Eve, then creates Sin, has Eve commit the Sin, then sends His Son down to die for said Sin that He (God) created in the first place!

Nutty Bugger if you ask me, that God-dude :rofl:

Edited by Etu Malku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dictionary does not dictate if something is real or not.

Lets use the example of a car.

1. If you remove a wheel is it still a car?

2. If you then remove the windscreen is it still a car?

3. If you then remove the exhaust is it still a car?

4. Etc, etc.

At what point does it cease to be a car?

For the car to be a real object it must have certain qualities yet you cant identify the stage at which it ceases to be a car. That point is a matter of personal opinion because it isnt an object but an idea.

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

Further nuttery . . . try selling the car without a steering wheel.

As I have been saying, we assign meaning to the subjective universe through the objective universe.

The car has functionally stopped being a car when you removed the steering wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Nope, the point has absolutely nothing to do with stones or mass or ideas. It's about the impossibility of a single being possessing two abilities that contradict each other.

2. a fire so hot that God can't put it out

3. a cannonball so fast that God can't stop it

4. a sound so quiet that God can't hear it

5. two numbers so large that God can't add them without a calculator

1. Your argument was about using an idea to prove the non-existance of God. As has been shown to you ideas arent real.

2. The concepts of hot and cold are human perceptions not things which exist outside of your head.

3. Whats a cannonball? Yet another idea.

4. Sound is a human perception not something which exists outside of your head.

5. Are numbers objects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further nuttery . . . try selling the car without a steering wheel.

As I have been saying, we assign meaning to the subjective universe through the objective universe.

The car has functionally stopped being a car when you removed the steering wheel.

Whats an objective universe and how do you know one exists seeing as you've never experienced it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where my signature after my posts comes in handy. :tu:

With apologies to the author, that is the sort of Descartian mumbo jumbo which leads people to false conclusions. The universe existed before us. We came into existence as a result/consequence of the prior existence of the universe, which is how we are able to observe it.

The universe provided conditions which allowed us to evolve to a point where we could not only physiclally see the universe, but also conceptually recognise its existence and understand its nature and our realtionship to it.

Without a prior existent universe, we would not be here to observe it. But without us, or any observer, the universe would still exist.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With apologies to the author, that is the sort of Descartian mumbo jumbo which leads people to false conclusions. The universe existed before us. We came into existence as a result/consequence of the prior existence of the universe, which is how we are able to observe it.

The universe provided conditions which allowed us to evolve to a point where we could not only physiclally see the universe, but also conceptually recognise its existence and understand its nature and our realtionship to it.

Without a prior existent universe, we would not be here to observe it. But without us, or any observer, the universe would still exist.

How can your perceptions have existed before you became conscious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats an objective universe and how do you know one exists seeing as you've never experienced it?

The Objective Universe (OU), is the world around you defined by time & space, and the Subjective Universe (SU), is essentially the world inside your head, incorporating the OU filtered through your sense and brain, and also anything you imagine. In mundane existence, the OU affects the SU, but it doesn’t work the other way around. However, there exists what is called a Magical Link between your SU and the OU, which allows the SU to affect the OU.

The objective universe as a whole is un-conscious and mechanical, it is not intelligent, not aware of itself, and is not in possession of Will. Man, while being biologically compatible with the objective universe, is contrasted against it because he possesses the ability to be intelligent, Self-Aware, and Wilful. As man develops these abilities, it enables him to have a non-natural perspective; he can distinguish between himself and all that he is surrounded by. This perspective leads to the development of individuality.

Bottom line:

1. Objective Universe (OU): Things are they "are." Time, space, matter, energy, etc.

2. Subjective Universe (SU): Our unique personal perspective and experience of the OU. What we interpret and perceive it as is our SU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophical point being made is that a stone is an idea in your head and ideas dont have mass.

Planets, humans, trees, stones and atoms are just ideas. Reality is just a collection of those ideas. You cant use something which doesnt exit (ideas) as proof that something else does or doesnt exist. Its nonsensical.

Actually your concept is incorrect. Take for example a person blind and deaf from birth. He is standing next to a building and someone drops a stone on him. He doesn't know the stone is there but he reacts to it's contact and is hurt by it. It couldn't happen if it were just an idea.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.