Lord: Justice

[near.lucemferre]

Thread cancelled due to reoccurring 11's

 

[Enoughie]

So basically you're saying that you can define things however you want and come to whatever conclusion you want, and that proves the existence of God. But if there are aliens that disproves the existence of God.

Great. This makes perfect sense.


_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

 

[near.lucemferre]

Not at all. I think you've interpreted this incorrectly. The term Alien doesn't only mean those things with the oval head and big gloomy eyes, it means other life-form (simply, anyway). It doesn't disprove the existence of God, it's a fabrication to represent God. More importantly, words are conceptual, as in, not real -- therefore to interpret the universe empirically, by using words, you will find yourself stuck, for these have already been defined (meaning you cannot freely interpret them as you wish). God is a pronoun (in word form), the rest of the interpretation is down to your wisdom (knowledge + imagination).

 

[Enoughie]

Not at all. I think you've interpreted this incorrectly. The term Alien doesn't only mean those things with the oval head and big gloomy eyes, it means other life-form (simply, anyway). It doesn't disprove the existence of God, it's a fabrication to represent God. More importantly, words are conceptual, as in, not real -- therefore to interpret the universe empirically, by using words, you will find yourself stuck, for these have already been defined (meaning you cannot freely interpret them as you wish). God is a pronoun (in word form), the rest of the interpretation is down to your wisdom (knowledge + imagination).

And all this nonsense would scientifically prove the existence of God how exactly?

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

 

[near.lucemferre]

Well, scientists have the trust of the people (the majority anyway), if a scientist or group of scientists (well known) claimed that God was found, do you think that people would believe it ? (Be reasonable AND meaningful)

 

[Enoughie]

Well, scientists have the trust of the people (the majority anyway), if a scientist or group of scientists (well known) claimed that God was found, do you think that people would believe it ? (Be reasonable AND meaningful)

The whole point of science is that it's not based on trust or belief in scientists. It is based on verifiable and reproducible results that could have predictive value.

So if scientists can demonstrate the existence of a God, I'd be more than happy to look at their data.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

 

[near.lucemferre]

And that's the point. They can forge a physical being to which they can use for verification of Gods existence. You're being quite strict for someone who browses a religion forum (governed by imagination, reinforced by knowledge). Did you actually consider any other of the points or was your first reply really all you took from it? If the answer to this question is yes, please don't reply.

 

[micrurus]

governed by imagination, reinforced by knowledge

that reminds me of a cartoon I saw

 

[near.lucemferre]

Yes. Creationists have imaginative ideologies, or pictures of the universe that make it seem a nice and beautiful habitat. Where as, most scientists (physical-scientists, self-proclaimed 'scientists') consider the universe to be purely rational and relatively boring (in terms of philosophy). Everything that we already know is 'old news' so to speak, whilst everything we don't know is what drives us forward.

 

[Enoughie]

And that's the point. They can forge a physical being to which they can use for verification of Gods existence.

I don't even know what you're talking about here.

You're being quite strict for someone who browses a religion forum (governed by imagination, reinforced by knowledge).

Strict how? That I define things as they are? And that I don't accept the idea of "let's define things however we want, and that would prove anything we want" as a reasonable method of getting at the truth?

Did you actually consider any other of the points or was your first reply really all you took from it? If the answer to this question is yes, please don't reply.

I read your post. I think it's a lot of nonsense.

Since you didn't adequately respond to the first point I brought up, I don't see a reason to continue.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

 

[Meow Mix]

Proof of God:

Nowhere throughout this whole confusing post did I see a shred of "proof," just what appears to be conspiracy theories about government agencies fabricating a false god on a planet somewhere... where do you get this stuff? I mean, really? What makes you think NASA is going to claim that God Almighty lives on a planet and ask people on Earth to worship it? Where do you get that conclusion from, I'm genuinely curious? Also, what does it have to do with "proving" God?

I read the whole post but I didn't really see anything that resembles an argument with premises and conclusions, it seems to drift in and out of conspiracy theories and some nebulous mystispeak about God's characteristics being incompatible with "the number one" and sex identity. Where is the proof, where is the argument? What's presented doesn't really say anything meaningful from which to draw a conclusion at all.

1. God first creates the Heaven and Earth, and after God becomes the Heaven and Earth; the current God (Heaven and Earth included) then create Light, and continue whilst the pattern and/or divine plan progresses onwards. Without first creating the Heaven and Earth, there would have not been sufficient resources and/or elements to produce the required effect of generating Light or the Big Bang.

This is totally incorrect. "Heaven," if that is space, didn't exist in this state before the Big Bang since the Big Bang event was marked by the expansion of space to its current state. Nor could Earth of any kind have existed until at least hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang event, since atoms didn't (and couldn't) exist in the early stages due to the immense pressure and temperatures. Even so, I'm using a VERY loose interpretation of the word "Earth" to simply mean "atoms," and the first atoms would have only been hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Not until the first stars went nova billions of years later would you start seeing heavier elements found on Earth like silicon, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, etc.

 

[near.lucemferre]

It was elaborate and defined. There was really no discussion. I was looking for disproving, not ad hominum and debate. Anyhow, let's not get this out of hand, I can't be bothered to argue on the internet today

 

[near.lucemferre]

Nowhere throughout this whole confusing post did I see a shred of "proof," just what appears to be conspiracy theories about government agencies fabricating a false god on a planet somewhere... where do you get this stuff? I mean, really? What makes you think NASA is going to claim that God Almighty lives on a planet and ask people on Earth to worship it? Where do you get that conclusion from, I'm genuinely curious? Also, what does it have to do with "proving" God?

I read the whole post but I didn't really see anything that resembles an argument with premises and conclusions, it seems to drift in and out of conspiracy theories and some nebulous mystispeak about God's characteristics being incompatible with "the number one" and sex identity. Where is the proof, where is the argument? What's presented doesn't really say anything meaningful from which to draw a conclusion at all.




This is totally incorrect. "Heaven," if that is space, didn't exist in this state before the Big Bang since the Big Bang event was marked by the expansion of space to its current state. Nor could Earth of any kind have existed until at least hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang event, since atoms didn't (and couldn't) exist in the early stages due to the immense pressure and temperatures. Even so, I'm using a VERY loose interpretation of the word "Earth" to simply mean "atoms," and the first atoms would have only been hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Not until the first stars went nova billions of years later would you start seeing heavier elements found on Earth like silicon, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, etc.

You say that 'This is all I took from the post' and expect me to give your reply credibility; for the record, geb and nut or heaven and earth whatever represents Air and Moisture.

 

[Meow Mix]

You say that 'This is all I took from the post' and expect me to give your reply credibility; for the record, geb and nut or heaven and earth whatever represents Air and Moisture.

...neither of which existed until billions of years after the Big Bang event, since "air" is mostly nitrogen and "moisture" contains oxygen.

Nitrogen and oxygen weren't formed in the Big Bang event (mostly hydrogen and helium with some lithium were). Heavier elements like nitrogen and oxygen are formed through thermonuclear fusion in stellar supernovae, the first of which occurred billions of years after the initial Big Bang event. No supernovae, no nitrogen/oxygen.

 

[near.lucemferre]

...neither of which existed until billions of years after the Big Bang event, since "air" is mostly nitrogen and "moisture" contains oxygen.

Nitrogen and oxygen weren't formed in the Big Bang event (mostly hydrogen and helium with some lithium were). Heavier elements like nitrogen and oxygen are formed through thermonuclear fusion in stellar supernovae, the first of which occurred billions of years after the initial Big Bang event. No supernovae, no nitrogen/oxygen.

I take it you've been there and had first hand experience then, seeing as you're so confident. Seriously though, Air and Moisture (Anitmatter, Darkmatter)

 

[Tristesse]

Well, scientists have the trust of the people (the majority anyway), if a scientist or group of scientists (well known) claimed that God was found, do you think that people would believe it ? (Be reasonable AND meaningful)

Unless they have good evidence, I wouldn't believe it.

 

[Meow Mix]

I take it you've been there and had first hand experience then, seeing as you're so confident. Seriously though, Air and Moisture (Anitmatter, Darkmatter)

No, but I am a cosmology grad student and know a thing or two about Big Bang cosmology.

I'm curious as to where you get the notion that "air" and "moisture" correspond to antimatter and dark matter, though...? What is the correlation? It seems like you just pulled that out of the air, ad hoc.

Regardless, thanks to CPT (charge-parity-time) asymmetries a lot of the original antimatter was annihilated very shortly after the Big Bang event. The role that dark matter played is difficult to discern until we determine exactly what nonbaryonic matter it's composed of -- e.g., mostly neutrinos? Neutralinos? Supersymmetric particles? Depending on what it is per se it may not have existed until long after the Big Bang event as well. In any case since dark matter is nonbaryonic it didn't play a significant role other than gravitationally; which is insignificant thanks to the inflationary period.

 

[near.lucemferre]

Trust me! I have done a lot of research on these subjects and have evidence to support my claims; however, for my and your well-beings I finally decided that it would be best not to hack your brains with mind-blowing information and to remove this discussion entirely.

The universe is made of symmetrical opposites. In fact the universe is made from cubic opposites: Top, Bottom, Left, Right, Front, Back, Past and Future. If your minds cannot see this obvious correlation between living beings, then you're the ones who are dumb, not I (for the record, the cubic law is not just 'physical', it also is apparent in aspects such as the human ageing cycle, the day and night cycle, the black hole to galaxy reproduction, etc).

Another thing, "You don't think, you just think you do," -- you have an extremely infectious and malleable word virus, if you haven't noticed you're constantly thinking in words (unless you're just too proud to admit it, and you'll probably reply to this with words, whilst thinking in words, claiming 'neuroscience' (another word) said 'a bunch of words' about the brain (a word) and when the words hit your head you believed them) you're not actually thinking with your mind, the freewill of what you 'choose' to think is coming from your heart and being manipulated by your brain. If I tell you to stop thinking in words right now, you probably can't or for a short period only; this is because your heart is producing a train of thought, making you 'think' various words depending on what you're looking at -- this is not natural, but rather 'educated' into your system through society (and please don't tell me 'society' is natural because you're just showing how gullible and programmed you are).

In education they teach people a unitary lie, that the mind is the source of everything, when really it's the heart that this the source of all thought, emotion, will and intention -- yet you won't believe this so what's the point in telling you? It can only be proved empirically and you only trust physical evidence alone, the idea which was GENERATED FIRST BY THE UNITARY LIE (forging together of the mind and heart into '1' or '0' entity) which gave physical evidence power over mental evidence and removed empirical observation entirely. So, this 'proof' your expecting me to post is not only harmful to you and others who read, it's evil, dumb and infectious; more importantly it's impossible to prove certain concepts with physical evidence alone.

Think how lucky you are that soon scientists "Will be able to prove free-will doesn't exist," and think about how you'll actually support/believe them if they make that claim. Your mind is being suppressed into a singularity through this unitary lie, soon you'll have no imagination (freedom, liberties, etc); you'll be completely enslaved by words through you own stupidity; but you're more 'educated' than me on philosophy so you must be smarter and therefore a more credible opinion... NEWSFLASH you're retarded (no offence intended, it's a true statement, your heart makes you think, but you think you think with your brain).

Do you know how the Ancient Egyptians discovered and learned Morality? Mr. Philosophy Expert with the exactly correct interpretation.com? They didn't just magically write it on a wall and learn it, they took note of their surrounding elements and learned from them. Morality came from the Aether or what they liked to call 'Horus' (which is also said to be Jesus); the Aether is the God (or dictator of) War (between clouds), Protection (of all inside) -- this, for reasons you should be able to understand if you're a credible philosopher, taught the morality. If you can't see how it did then I reinforce the prior statement of master derp.

Symmetrical - Unsymmetrical (these are opposites in themselves). Anyhow, it's not the perfectly symmetrical opposites I'm referring to, it's the symmetrical cubic structure and obvious relation between beings in this universes. Yes, the right side of my body may not be perfectly symmetrical with my left side -- but it's still my right side as oppose to my left. Also, a Big Bang cannot occur without an element of ignition or collision, things do not simply just 'Bang' without the effect to cause it -- believing so is more stupid than believing in the man sky-wizard God, smart people don't believe in this God because they know it's lies (for it doesn't relate to anything real and is too far fetched), but when someone claims that "Bangs occur randomly" and shows you a piece of paper with unitary lies (numbers and words) on it, you believe it straight away! How dumb are you? Try and clap your hands, with 1 hand without using the fingers -- prove to yourself that bangs can't occur without ignition; you're stupid end of discussion.

There are other correlations, things such as "Grass is green, through the Yellow Sun piercing through the Blue Sky" (this is an empirical observation, physical observation would claim its just coincidence, there are a lot of coincidences then, and it must be a coincidence that I can string them all together and make a working structure of the universe).

If sound is a wave, could there be seas of sound? (or silence maybe)
Are we Red Blooded animals or are we Warm Blooded animals?
Did we evolve or did we just have lots of sex and survive? (serious questions)

Typical Reply: "Waaaaaaaaa! That's just wordplay" - no, it's questions, answer them.

 

[chinu]

Thread cancelled due to reoccurring 11's

So as my post.

_/\_Chinu.

 

[McBell]

Trust me! I have done a lot of research on these subjects and have evidence to support my claims; however, for my and your well-beings I finally decided that it would be best not to hack your brains with mind-blowing information and to remove this discussion entirely.

How can you be trusted?
I mean, you claim to have all this evidence; you claim to be so much smarter than everyone, but then run tail tucked the first time you're challenged.

That does not inspire trust.
In fact, that only costs you loads of credibility.