Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[Wildswanderer]

Natural.

All states present.

Natural consciousness. Cooled living presence.

Natural universe cooled presence. Cooled gases. Particles. Present.

Theist. Didn't invent nor create the status.

Earths heavens hot but cooled thesis.

Status theist machine cool then hot.

Reversal.

Reversal of status cosmic.
Reversal of status our life supporting heavens ...cooled. Evolution thesis all things exist now had evolved.

Reason I want.

I want to destroy cold gas owned by earths body which was first hot. Cold only in atmosphere. As earth is just a rock.

I want to react particles. Hot. Change them.

Earth particles cold.
Earths gases cold.
Earths heavens cooled.

Machine as mass UFO gets cooled leaves. Theist. I want my machine to leave earth as stars were never earth.

Time shifting lying.

Wants total opposition by machine.

Machine idea.. a cold metallic stone mass set on gas fire came first. I will join the two ideas together. Machine then machine reaction.

God mass star sun hit put back into a hole it caused. Instant mass. Was first on earth.

Machine metal cold body as if it represents the suns star mass. First.

Yet it's colder. As earth wasn't radiating like a sun.

Hotter reaction than the machine he wants inside his machine. Machine nearly blows up.

Nuclear model uses water cooling. New collider used ice. As it wasn't using water.

Coldest conscious life support cooling ice.

Pretty basic advice. The particles you want destroyed back to a thesis in the beginning only radiating space existed.

Is worse than a sink hole. As Nothing.

You want earth to become the black hole to suck out of space cold gases and particles into earth.

So you said I have to burn out earths cold gases to achieve it. Seeing their gas history is hot first with gods body Rock owner cold particles.

Earth without a heavens in other words.

The channel he says must form a cooled irradiating hole.

By invention. To copy exact advice in the position where it's theoried first.

As any type of information was pre history. Prehistoric he says.

What our human brother knew about cosmic theists. Wanting life biology cooled gas heavens destroyed. As biology not particles is after nature gardens life living breath AH oxygenation.

Is not any particle.

Particles the machine star thesis leaves earth into a colder sucking cosmos where cold gas with particles held are.

Nope not helpful.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There is no evidence for supernatural healing. The body is very good at healing itself.

Did you know that the rate of "miraculous cure" from cancer amongst people going to Lourdes is lower than the rate of spontaneous remission in the general population?

Who is Lourdes?

 

[osgart]

Please explain what you mean by moral truth and perfection.

Virtues are the meanings of good character. Treating people with sincerity as they deserve for example.

Vices are everything of bad character. Stealing, cheating, abuse, murder.

Moral truth is founded on trustworthiness, and deserve. I ought to be trustworthy in my dealings; and for good reasons.

Perfection is that conceivably one has a moral nature that never errors from virtues and defense of virtue, and lives entirely without any vices.

I don't see that humans are morally perfect, but the truth of morality is that to have a quality of life one must deal in virtues, and avoid or confront vices.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So when you fall ill or injure yourself, you merely trust god will heal you. You never see a doctor or go to the hospital. You never take any medication.

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

All healing is from God. Medicine only borrows from what he created. The knowledge to use it comes from him also. He created the brain.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So most doctors and medical scientists are imbeciles?
If you knew anything about human anatomy, you would know that if it was designed, it was the designer who was an imbecile.

So almost all the world's top scientists are irrational? Er, ok...

As I said before most scientists believe in a creator.
And I know plenty about anatomy.
We couldn't have even designed cameras without seeing the eye.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The evolution of higher animals from simple organisms is well understood and supported by huge amounts of evidence. Just because you don't/won't understand it doesn't mean no one else does.

Basically what you are doing here is like a child on their first day at school claiming that adding up is impossible because they can't do it, and telling the teacher they are wrong.

Lol, their explanation is absolutely absurd. Life pulled itself up by it's own bootstraps. Nevermind that we never see that in nature. Every life comes from another life.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Leaving aside it is a rather obvious use of a no true Scotsman fallacy, so the claim ironically is irrational by definition. I ask again, what evidence? Evidence contains facts and

The "finely tuned expansion event,” strangely refered to as a big bang, when nothing exploded is a good start. Guided processes in labs still cannot produce what is claimed to have happened by accident.

 

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
There is no "moral truth and perfection". The concept of morality is subjective and dependent on circumstances. So as an argument for god, it is incoherent

If you say so.

Perhaps if you offer some moral absolutes for us, and objective evidence for them?

 

[ppp]

Virtues are the meanings of good character. Treating people with sincerity as they deserve for example.

Vices are everything of bad character. Stealing, cheating, abuse, murder.

Moral truth is founded on trustworthiness, and deserve. I ought to be trustworthy in my dealings; and for good reasons.

I think I am in accord with the substance of what you are trying to say there. Ethologists generally define the primary moral metrics as empathy, equity, reciprocity, and cooperation. And that if you are acting within those metrics, then you are acting morally. And you seem to be saying something similar. Is that fair to say?

Perfection is that conceivably one has a moral nature that never errors from virtues and defense of virtue, and lives entirely without any vices.

I do not see that this can ever be the case. One is moral when one acts in response to a situation or event while staying within the bounds of the (above) moral metrics. But there are literally situations where one must act, and all possible actions violate those standards to some one in some way. That has nothing to do with human perfection or imperfection, but with the design of the universe.

I don't see that humans are morally perfect, but the truth of morality is that to have a quality of life one must deal in virtues, and avoid or confront vices.

I agree. We are imperfect actors and we must recognize that fact, and take responsibility. But I still hold that I can make all moral choices and take all moral actions and still get immoral results.

 

[syo]

1. God speaks to me.
2. God gives me dreams and visons.
3. God heals my diseases.
4. God keeps me from sin.
5. God helps me to understand scripture
6. God speaks through me.

An ordinary person can do all these things. Why mingle God?

 

[Sheldon]

I don't see that humans are morally perfect, but the truth of morality is that to have a quality of life one must deal in virtues, and avoid or confront vices.

Vices are subjective though, as are concepts of good and bad. The best you can get is a consensus around which societies tend to form laws. This doesn't make morality objective. There are clearly evolutionary precursors, so most of us instinctively find some behaviours reprehensible, but this is still subjective. We wouldn't need jails otherwise.

 

[osgart]

Perhaps if you offer some moral absolutes for us, and objective evidence for them?

Moral absolutes are the virtues.

It's cause and effect between moral agents.

Immorality produces mistrust and violence, things like that. Morality produces trust, and an environment of productive activity.

Immoral agents produce nothing of value, or worth because they are always screwing someone over.

Moral agents have entirely different motives; they want to relate and accomplish something with other moral agents.

 

[osgart]

I think I am in accord with the substance of what you are trying to say there. Ethologists generally define the primary moral metrics as empathy, equity, reciprocity, and cooperation. And that if you are acting within those metrics, then you are acting morally. And you seem to be saying something similar. Is that fair to say?


I do not see that this can ever be the case. One is moral when one acts in response to a situation or event while staying within the bounds of the (above) moral metrics. But there are literally situations where one must act, and all possible actions violate those standards to some one in some way. That has nothing to do with human perfection or imperfection, but with the design of the universe.


I agree. We are imperfect actors and we must recognize that fact, and take responsibility. But I still hold that I can make all moral choices and take all moral actions and still get immoral results.

What kinds of violations are you talking about?

And how does moral actions, and choices turn out immoral?

 

[ppp]

But there are literally situations where one must act, and all possible actions violate those standards to some one in some way.

What kinds of violations are you talking about?

Sure. Two simple cases.
If I kill someone to stop them from killing me, I am acting morally to preserve my life, but I am acting immorally to take theirs. If the only way I have to feed my starving child is to steal a load of bread, I am acting morally towards the child, but immorally towards the baker.

And how does moral actions, and choices turn out immoral?

Moral dilemmas. Where all available choices will help someone and harm someone else.

 

[osgart]

Sure. Two simple cases.
If I kill someone to stop them from killing me, I am acting morally to preserve my life, but I am acting immorally to take theirs. If the only way I have to feed my starving child is to steal a load of bread, I am acting morally towards the child, but immorally towards the baker.


Moral dilemmas. Where all available choices will help someone and harm someone else.

If someone is trying to take your life how is it immoral to take theirs in self defense? It's perfectly moral. Killing and murder are not the same thing.

Forcing a moral dilemma is immoral to begin with. There should always be a better way to feed the child than stealing, or the immorality falls on everybody involved. When someone has to resort to stealing a necessity than the immorality falls on everybody involved in that being the case. Immorality is only when the person is without cause and justification.

In a morally perfect world this would not happen. There would be systems based on compassion, and no moral dilemmas would arise. Everyone involved would be seeking the best solutions so that all parties were compensated.

 

[Sheldon]

Moral absolutes are the virtues.

I'm going to need more, if you're claiming objective morals exist then can you not offer even one objective moral? With objective evidence to support the claim of course, you can't assert morals are not subjective, then string subjective claims in tandem about morality, as if this evidences the claim.

It's cause and effect between moral agents.

What is?

 

[Sheldon]

If someone is trying to take your life how is it immoral to take theirs in self defense?

It's not in my opinion, others might disagree. Thus the conept that murder is immoral is a subjective one.

Killing and murder are not the same thing.

No indeed, but laws are subjective no? They vary from place to place and from culture to culture, and beyond a broad consensus they are obviously subjective.

Forcing a moral dilemma is immoral to begin with.

That isn't the point though is it, the point is that we all can and sometimes do face such moral dichotomies, in fact unsolvable moral dichotomies are incorporated into testing for sociopathic tendencies. You know there are different types of morality right, like consequentialism for example?

There should always be a better way to feed the child than stealing,

There undoubtedly are, but that wasn't the point obviously.

Immorality is only when the person is without cause and justification.

So who subjectively decides that?

In a morally perfect world this would not happen.

You now seem to be suggesting morals are in fact subjective after all?

There would be systems based on compassion, and no moral dilemmas would arise.

So that's a subjective idea, and why would moral dilemmas not arise? Not everyone is compassionate based on the same values or ideas, take abortion for example, or the death penalty. These are moral issues that divide subjective opinion, how about immigration, of course the examples are virtually limitless.

Everyone involved would be seeking the best solutions so that all parties were compensated.

This makes no sense, since you assume the best solutions are not a subjective viewpoint.

 

[osgart]

I'm going to need more, if you're claiming objective morals exist then can you not offer even one objective moral? With objective evidence to support the claim of course, you can't assert morals are not subjective, then string subjective claims in tandem about morality, as if this evidences the claim.



What is?

Take the virtue of trustworthiness, do you not think it requires motives of responsibility, and other qualities of character to be trustworthy? Those qualities that it takes to be trustworthy never change.

You can be subjective all you want, but it always takes honesty to fulfill a promise, or make an agreement of value.

Circumstances and situations come and go, but the moral truth is it takes honesty with discretion to make good things happen.

Goodness is that which innocently promotes life and well being deservedly.

 

[osgart]

It's not in my opinion, others might disagree. Thus the conept that murder is immoral is a subjective one.



No indeed, but laws are subjective no? They vary from place to place and from culture to culture, and beyond a broad consensus they are obviously subjective.



That isn't the point though is it, the point is that we all can and sometimes do face such moral dichotomies, in fact unsolvable moral dichotomies are incorporated into testing for sociopathic tendencies. You know there are different types of morality right, like consequentialism for example?



There undoubtedly are, but that wasn't the point obviously.



So who subjectively decides that?



You now seem to be suggesting morals are in fact subjective after all?



So that's a subjective idea, and why would moral dilemmas not arise? Not everyone is compassionate based on the same values or ideas, take abortion for example, or the death penalty. These are moral issues that divide subjective opinion, how about immigration, of course the examples are virtually limitless.



This makes no sense, since you assume the best solutions are not a subjective viewpoint.

We can find good laws that actually promote civil well being. There is a consistent cause and effect within the private heart of every individual that either desires to be virtuous, or not.

Morality is something that goes to the private, personal heart of every individual. Therein the heart is where everyone must resolve their own personal motives whether they be virtues, or vices. In the heart everyone makes their decisions about who they are going to be.

It's true that in reality you can't always determine who is right or who is in the wrong.
Its true that in reality morality goes beneath the surface of everyday actions and events.

The truth of morals is in the private places of being and that's not always on display.

If there were no common understanding of basic morals, then humanity wouldn't get very far. People are always looking for qualities in others, and reading situations to see what kind of person someone is.

It may escape words or escape perception in a lot of people, but virtues and vices are always driving forces in life. The themes never change.

 

[ppp]

If someone is trying to take your life how is it immoral to take theirs in self defense? It's perfectly moral. Killing and murder are not the same thing.

Murder is a legal term. And yes. Killing them is immoral. Saving your own life is moral. It is an action with multiple moral components.

Forcing a moral dilemma is immoral to begin with.

Moral dilemmas happen naturally.

There should always be a better way to feed the child than stealing, or the immorality falls on everybody involved.

There should. But the fact of the matter is that there isn't always a better way.

When someone has to resort to stealing a necessity than the immorality falls on everybody involved in that being the case. Immorality is only when the person is without cause and justification.

That is not true. Justification does not make immoral acts moral. Justification makes immoral acts understandable and forgivable.

In a morally perfect world this would not happen. There would be systems based on compassion, and no moral dilemmas would arise. Everyone involved would be seeking the best solutions so that all parties were compensated.

You are working under the false assumption that all parties can always be compensated. Even if everyone understood morality perfectly, and acted on that understanding, the morality of a society does not negate the fact that there are limited resources and competing goals of equal need and justification. That is a fact of the nature of the universe in which we live. The one that you think was created for us by a perfect being.