Evidence of the Non-Physical

[DNB]

No it doesn't, that's an asinine assertion.



Your posts do seem very confused.



Humans are animals, and other species that have evolved to live in societal groups have also evolve the ability to differentiate between moral and immoral behaviour. Your petulant demand is pretty funny, but this is a public forum, if you don't want to read what others post then don't, seeeemples.



Your is a possessive pronoun, not an abbreviation of you are, and your bare assertion show you're not able to think on any objective level here.



Given your demonstrable penchant for doing that, perhaps some introspection is called for on your part.

Hey, Bazinga, stay focused on the discussion at hand. My reference to animals is in regard to non-humans - those not created in the image of God. But, you knew that, and you are just playing difficult in order to create a type of non-sequitur.
Speaking of bad grammar, what does 'seeeemples' mean?
Unfortunately, I knew that you would be confused by my final point. And, thus, your rather desperate and insidious attempt to place the obligation on my part to further explain the phenomenon, precludes my onus altogether - if you can't understand the initial predicate, then at what point will you comprehend any of it?

Sheldon, in my opinion, you lack perception, you have limited depth to your thoughts and understanding. And, this has been the issue at hand in all of our discussions, including the assessment of homosexuality.
I believe that Dawkins is entirely correct in stating that, if there is no God, theists are the most deluded and irrational people on earth. But, on the other hand, if there is a God, then logically speaking, atheists are the most shallow and blind persons on earth.
In other words, I believe your philosophy to be: if it cannot be quantified by empirical means, then it cannot exist. And this, I disagree with. There is a spiritual dimension in all humans, and there is a spiritual realm in the heavens. Man's definitively unpragmatic behaviour, is clear evidence of this, for even the ants, monkeys and fish are more reasonable in how they conduct their lives, than him, despite his astronomically greater intelligence (this was my final point in the last post, ...that i just said that I wouldn't bother to explain).

 

[Sheldon]

Atheism leads to something came from nothing,

No it doesn't, this is a facile straw man fallacy you have created.

My reference to animals is in regard to non-humans - those not created in the image of God.

All living things evolved, from common ancestry, this is a scientific fact, supported by a weight of objective evidence that puts it beyond any rational or reasonable denial.

Sheldon, in my opinion, you lack perception, you have limited depth to your thoughts and understanding.

That one is called an ad hominem fallacy.

In other words, I believe your philosophy to be: if it cannot be quantified by empirical means, then it cannot exist.

I don't care what you believe, I get to decide what I think, not you, your time and energies would be better spent trying to conjure a shred of objective evidence for any deity, instead of attacking me with straw man fantasies you've created.

There is a spiritual dimension in all humans, and there is a spiritual realm in the heavens.

I don't believe you, and since all you have offered yet again is an unevidenced assertion, Hitchens's razor applies.

 

[DNB]

No it doesn't, this is a facile straw man fallacy you have created.



All living things evolved, from common ancestry, this is a scientific fact, supported by a weight of objective evidence that puts it beyond any rational or reasonable denial.



That one is called an ad hominem fallacy.



I don't care what you believe, I get to decide what I think, not you, your time and energies would be better spent trying to conjure a shred of objective evidence for any deity, instead of attacking me with straw man fantasies you've created.



I don't believe you, and since all you have offered yet again is an unevidenced assertion, Hitchens's razor applies.

That's the problem Sheldon, you won't concede a single point. This shows either a predisposed obstinance or an innate lack of perception. And I don't mean concede out of mercy or a feigned semblance of open-mindedness, but in acknowledging the landslide majority of humans who have ever lived, having worship a deity of some form or another. What would compel an animal who has evolved from stardust and protoplasm, to do something so antithetical and subversive to their secular nature and that of the universe?

I understand how some may not believe in God, considering the discretion that He has employed in making Himself known, and all the atrocities that occur in the world every day, and throughout the centuries. I feel an obligation to address these issues when discussing the existence of the spiritual realm with atheists - I do not say that there is absolutely no phenomena within the universe that may justifiably compel one to question God's existence. Whereas you, on the other hand, believe that it is utterly an absurdity to believe in God, that there is not a shred of evidence that presupposes His existence. You are not being objective, nor reasonable.

 

[rational experiences]

Men on earth.

Theists.

Theist then build design machine.

Machine static owns no volition but he wants to be a God. In the cosmos blasting everything as status machine controlled by my thoughts.

So he blows up power mass.

Life gets irradiated attacked by cause. Manifests in spirit body gases.

So in science humans had to preach back at him. Saying we live in the spirit body the gases.

We owned a relevant cause for claiming God is one only the planet O versus O maths conversion his God.

Reason to argue holy God or let me destroy you God. Of men in science.

 

[Sheldon]

That's the problem Sheldon, you won't concede a single point. This shows either a predisposed obstinance or an innate lack of perception.

That's not true, and you are using an ad hominem fallacy here again.

And I don't mean concede out of mercy or a feigned semblance of open-mindedness, but in acknowledging the landslide majority of humans who have ever lived, having worship a deity of some form or another.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, again.

What would compel an animal who has evolved from stardust and protoplasm, to do something so antithetical and subversive to their secular nature and that of the universe?

I don't understand what you're asking sorry?

Whereas you, on the other hand, believe that it is utterly an absurdity to believe in God, that there is not a shred of evidence that presupposes His existence. You are not being objective, nor reasonable.

Please quote a post of mine where I have exhibited any bias in treating god claims any differently than I treat any other claims?

If you are claiming there is any objective evidence, beyond unevidenced anecdotal claims for personal experience, then please demonstrate it, I and other atheists have asked after all.

 

[rational experiences]

Science.
O calculus.
O mass held as one God. For men to physically manipulate.
Heavens mass not held.

So science was taught the heavens is not held into containment.

Men of science theory atmosphere and UFO and want to contain it within machine themselves then beyond machine containment into reaction.

First ask is how does it get inside of a machine?

You have to ask why science was told it is not contained. As rational human advice.

Mass O.
Calculus of mass O.

Removal of mass by calculus O.
O God.

In two places man says I will factor God. God as the heavens. God as the earth. As just two bodies of mass.

Then O one by o one remove it until nothing is once again met. Beginning.

Then I will begin again and create God by thesis.

Proves he is mentally incapable of telling any truth as man never invented created either presence of God or its heavens.

So when the mind concluded what it has science then derided any human who believes in life's sanctity holiness on earth. As human used God status to teach only.

Their intent by thesis is known not to want any type of God to even exist.

Law came to its own study human behaviour as a law study of the theist.

Prove God says science as I want it.
You can't prove beginnings said science.
So there is no God then says science.
Teaching says earth and it's heavens is named as God.

That is not what I want I want beginnings.

Everyday the exact same version.

Science stating there is no God.
Humans telling science God is named by science as earth and it's heavens.

Science telling humans to prove God as beginnings as I want it for a science thesis.

The whole time it is science arguing with itself.

Now if you say I survived as mass is first not one single human looking at one single human. As if that human filled up empty space to theme the space god created you.

A human body owns all power through space.

Which is what a human theist is doing.

They attacked bio life in machine studies then abuse us asking after why we still exist. As mass owns our living protection which is not a calculus is the answer.

To a scientist he thinks it's a miracle as he inferred what a human is first himself by thesis.

Zero ground spatial plane no empty space. Beginnings theory empty space.

Why he thought God was some magical state himself. As we still survived after he intended to remove our presence into non reality. His mind thesis.

As consciousness knows when a mind says nothing. It sees nothing. It meant to give us nothing also.

The mind also says lying I was not doing nothing. Meaning I can't do anything like I think.

So it coerced it's own belief claiming my intention was not to remove you.

Why then claim a human is God. And you theory God for machine reactions?

His answer. No I theoried God about lifes creation first as his con. So you would not realise his intent was to remove life by God.

 

[DNB]

That's not true, and you are using an ad hominem fallacy here again.



Argumentum ad populum fallacy, again.



I don't understand what you're asking sorry?



Please quote a post of mine where I have exhibited any bias in treating god claims any differently than I treat any other claims?

If you are claiming there is any objective evidence, beyond unevidenced anecdotal claims for personal experience, then please demonstrate it, I and other atheists have asked after all.

If there is no God, then the mass majority of humans who have ever lived are out-of-their-minds, including myself, for sure. How did the catalyst behind the universe, create such an amazing realm with such symbiosis and harmony between all life forms, where all living creatures work in the most pragmatic way towards their betterment, ...except man, the being with the highest intellect, is the most absurd of them all - build altars and prays to entities that don't exist?
How did this prevalent aberration occur in the universe?

 

[Sheldon]

If there is no God, then the mass majority of humans who have ever lived are out-of-their-minds, including myself, for sure.

One can be very wrong without being "out of one's mind".

How did the catalyst behind the universe, create such an amazing realm with such symbiosis and harmony between all life forms, where all living creatures work in the most pragmatic way towards their betterment,

I have no idea what you mean by "catalyst behind the universe", but all living things evolved driven by natural selection, that is why they perfectly match their environments after billions of years. This includes humans, though we have also evolved brains that enable complex problem solving.

...except man, the being with the highest intellect, is the most absurd of them all - build altars and prays to entities that don't exist?
How did this prevalent aberration occur in the universe?

I don't understand the question sorry, why do you keep prefacing references to life on earth with references to the universe like that? Humans evolved, as have all living things, this is an objective fact, the weight of objective evidence is beyond any reasonable rationale denial.

 

[DNB]

One can be very wrong without being "out of one's mind".



I have no idea what you mean by "catalyst behind the universe", but all living things evolved driven by natural selection, that is why they perfectly match their environments after billions of years. This includes humans, though we have also evolved brains that enable complex problem solving.



I don't understand the question sorry, why do you keep prefacing references to life on earth with references to the universe like that? Humans evolved, as have all living things, this is an objective fact, the weight of objective evidence is beyond any reasonable rationale denial.

But, they didn't evolve, the devolved if God does not exist and all their efforts, expenses and donations, prayers, debates, production of Bibles, construction of Temples, Altars and Shrines, are all in vain. Why is this so hard to explain to you????
Dawkins calls it delusion, a mental disorder. I would agree but go even further, it's demented and subversive, and needs to be eradicated if there is no God. Nothing good can be derived from believing in a fallacy, and ultimately, it is extremely detrimental. Why does man persist in his religious endeavors, is he that easily placated with a placebo?

 

[Sheldon]

But, they didn't evolve, the devolved if God does not exist and all their efforts, expenses and donations, prayers, debates, production of Bibles, construction of Temples, Altars and Shrines, are all in vain. Why is this so hard to explain to you????

Well I've read that 3 times and don't know what you're trying to say sorry? It is an objective fact that all living things evolved, denying that is no less absurd than denying the rotundity of the earth. However even were the field of biology set back to naught and species evolution entirely reversed, creationism would remain an unevidenced myth, which at its core makes claims for unfalsifiable magic that has no explanatory powers whatsoever.

Dawkins calls it delusion, a mental disorder. I would agree but go even further, it's demented and subversive, and needs to be eradicated if there is no God.

Well, both you and Professor Dawkins are entitled to your opinions, though why you're telling me is unclear?

Nothing good can be derived from believing in a fallacy,

I'm not sure that is true.

ultimately, it is extremely detrimental. Why does man persist in his religious endeavors, is he that easily placated with a placebo?

You know I am an atheist who doesn't hold any belief in any deity or deities right? So that's an odd question to aim at me. I also never said it was a placebo?

 

[DNB]

Well I've read that 3 times and don't know what you're trying to say sorry? It is an objective fact that all living things evolved, denying that is no less absurd than denying the rotundity of the earth. However even were the field of biology set back to naught and species evolution entirely reversed, creationism would remain an unevidenced myth, which at its core makes claims for unfalsifiable magic that has no explanatory powers whatsoever.
Well, both you and Professor Dawkins are entitled to your opinions, though why you're telling me is unclear?
I'm not sure that is true.
You know I am an atheist who doesn't hold any belief in any deity or deities right? So that's an odd question to aim at me. I also never said it was a placebo?

Sheldon, this is taking way too long.
Do you have any idea how much money has been spent spent, time and effort exhausted, conflicts, wars, feuds, marriages, births, discussions, debates, books written, martyrdoms, schools created, calendars defined, art and jewelry created, temples built, all in the name of religion, and you don't think that man would be justifiably called demented if absolutely no deity existed?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon, this is taking way too long.

What is?

Do you have any idea how much money has been spent spent, time and effort exhausted, conflicts, wars, feuds, marriages, births, discussions, debates, books written, martyrdoms, schools created, calendars defined, art and jewelry created, temples built, all in the name of religion,

I give up, how much?

and you don't think that man would be justifiably called demented if absolutely no deity existed?

Not sure what you're asking here, you seem to be implying that if no deity exists, that we would have to infer that all theists are suffering some dementia, is that right?

That seems an odd claim for a theist to make, and I can't really comment, but maybe you could stop asking bizarre loaded questions and actually demonstrate the best objective evidence you think exists for any deity?

 

[DNB]

What is?




I give up, how much?



Not sure what you're asking here, you seem to be implying that if no deity exists, that we would have to infer that all theists are suffering some dementia, is that right?

That seems an odd claim for a theist to make, and I can't really comment, but maybe you could stop asking bizarre loaded questions and actually demonstrate the best objective evidence you think exists for any deity?

Something did not come from nothing

 

[Sheldon]

Something did not come from nothing

I never claimed it did, you assigned that straw man to atheism, not me. Though I'd like to know how you claim to know nothing is even possible as a state, let alone that something can't come from nothing? Are you a theoretical physicist? I mean how would you test that exactly, did you put nothing in a test tube?

That claim is not objective evidence for any deity, you can't prop up an unevidenced belief with another unevidenced belief.

 

[DNB]

I never claimed it did, you assigned that straw man to atheism, not me. Though I'd like to know how you claim to know nothing is even possible as a state, let alone that something can't come from nothing? Are you a theoretical physicist? I mean how would you test that exactly, did you put nothing in a test tube?

That claim is not objective evidence for any deity, you can't prop up an unevidenced belief with another unevidenced belief.

So something did come from nothing?

 

[joelr]

Would this qualify? The beam has no discernable mass.

.



.



.
Just kidding.



.



.
…or am I.

The photons in the beam have momentum energy. Energy and mass are equivalent.

 

[joelr]

But, they didn't evolve, the devolved if God does not exist and all their efforts, expenses and donations, prayers, debates, production of Bibles, construction of Temples, Altars and Shrines, are all in vain. Why is this so hard to explain to you????
Dawkins calls it delusion, a mental disorder. I would agree but go even further, it's demented and subversive, and needs to be eradicated if there is no God. Nothing good can be derived from believing in a fallacy, and ultimately, it is extremely detrimental. Why does man persist in his religious endeavors, is he that easily placated with a placebo?

Humans evolved from Hominids over millions of years. Homo Sapien specifically evolved from H. Heilelbergensis over thousands of generations. Then humans were nomadic. They had proto-languages, hunted, survived. When cities finally formed stories were shared and became bigger, more important as lifestyle changed. Animal and nature Gods were appropriate for their needs.
With cities larger scale worship happened. MAny tales were combined into larger stories about even bigger Gods. These stories also evolved.

First, we were already fully evolved. Myths were a way to write down wisdom and knowledge but frame it in stories and fantastic tales. So people worshiped fictional creations? So? That is where humans were at. There is no cosmic law that says humans have to know all truths? For a long time it was assumed there were many Gods, Gods for weather, night, day, sickness, the Gods did everything. That was human science. Gods are the answer.
Religious fiction is re-used from Mesopotamian stories to Greek/Persian stories. Now in modern day places like Europe are largely secular and the US is growing more secular. We do not need old myths to frame law and wisdom in and to tell lies about an afterlife.

Has nothing to do with evolution. Man has also spent countless effort on war, political systems, nationalism, doesn't mean they are anything beyond man-made things.
And yes. Humans are smart but they do enjoy mythical answers to questions about death and what is reality. That's just where we are. Some people are placated by fiction and many are no longer satisfied with it.
Humans changed. We realized that the answer to why do things happen is no longer "Gods do it". We now have scientific ways of looking at the world and can review real evidence. Stories about Gods are no different than fiction about Froto returning the ring. Full of lessons, morality, friendship, struggle, doing the right thing, temptation. We just no longer need to worship the good characters to get the morality.
Older religions were not obsessed with an afterlife either. It was about living while you are alive and performing cultic acts to Gods for good weather, health and so on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Humans changed. We realized that the answer to why do things happen is no longer "Gods do it". We now have scientific ways of looking at the world and can review real evidence. Stories about Gods are no different than fiction about Froto returning the ring. Full of lessons, morality, friendship, struggle, doing the right thing, temptation. We just no longer need to worship the good characters to get the morality.
Older religions were not obsessed with an afterlife either. It was about living while you are alive and performing cultic acts to Gods for good weather, health and so on.

Wel, there is still this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[Sheldon]

So something did come from nothing?

Did it, you can evidence that then? You seem a little confused. Why are some theists so petrified to admit they don't know something?

Looking for answers, and making them up without evidence, are not nearly the same thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

Atheism leads to something came from nothing, was the point...

It simply doesn't. Atheism doesn't say anything about origins. Science doesn't say something came from literally nothing either.

What's more, adding a creator explains exactly nothing because instead of a universe that just happens to exist for reasons unknown, we now have a creator that just happens to exist for reasons unknown.

It adds to the mystery of existence, rather than solving it. It's an evidence-free step in the wrong direction.