Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Czernobog]

And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?

We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.

We don't know all of these things. For instance, "We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created." We know no such thing. Simply because Homo Sapiens did evolve, in no way indicates that thery were predestined to evolve. You are stating a conclusion for which there is no evidence. Several of your conclusions are being stated without evidence.

The potential for everything which is possible and has come to pass was controlled by the laws of nature. You can either believe that or you can believe in a special creative act of God. The reality is that we do live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise.

Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

 

[Czernobog]

First of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?

https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.

The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).

These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.

However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase. Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements. Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies. This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today. Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.

One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.

Ok, I get it now, you're talking about the origins/evolution of matter from the earliest moments of the BB, and how stars make other elements. But how is that related to god?

A first cause is needed. That cause is outside the realm of examination. That cause is in the realm of philosophy. You have to ask yourself what are the attributes of a first cause.

No, it's not. You keep insisting that, and I keep reminding you of the new discoveries, and the theories that they have led to that make your statement untrue. Now, understand, I am not saying that there was no begining. After all, we can't know for certain, at this point, and all we can do is theorize. However, you keep insising that a "first cause" is necessary, as a definitive declarative, and I have presented to you, repeatedly, the newtheory which disputes that contention.

What are the attributes of a first cause?

By definition, that nothing happened before it. It implies that the universe requires a "beginning". Except it doesn't. Might it have had a beginning? Sure. However, you cannot state, categorically, that it did have a beginning. As such, you cannot state, categorically, that there was a "First Cause".

 

[ding]

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness

All potentialities at the moment space and time were created. All controlled by natural laws.

First of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?

https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.

The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).

These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.

However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase. Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements. Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies. This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today. Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.

One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.

Ok, I get it now, you're talking about the origins/evolution of matter from the earliest moments of the BB, and how stars make other elements. But how is that related to god?

A first cause is needed. That cause is outside the realm of examination. That cause is in the realm of philosophy. You have to ask yourself what are the attributes of a first cause.

Then you're a philosopher, not a Catholic. And you just admitted again that god is unprovable. You might be an agnostic as well.

I would have to kill myself if I ever became a philosopher, those guys are worse than what you are, they actually believe their shit.

 

[ding]

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

It is the only revealed religion. The allegorical account of Creation. The account of the Great Migration. etc.,

You are not agnostic. If you were you would be arguing equally the other side. You don't do that. You have a horse in the race.

After an extensive study of the major religions.

Leon doesn't know what there was before the BB. Humans may figure it out one day. But ok, if there is a god, he'd know. But no such god has ever been proven EITHER WAY. Making me agnostic.
What is "the only revealed religion"? What does that mean?
So you studied all the religions and figured you'd pick the one that made the most sense to you? Like I've said before, your standards are way too low.

You don't know anything about my standards or me. All the other religions were men seeking God. None made the claim that God was seeking them. But revelation will be given to people who seek God. That's why there are not material differences between the religions on the important matters, at least not on the central theme of dying to self to see objective truth. I read each religion in its best possible light. That was my standard. The main difference between the religions is the nature of God. That's not surprising as it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God. To me that is all theology bullshit anyway as they all have the general same core values of virtue.

Didn't you write the "ding" posts? Can't we tell anything about you from your creations? I guess not.

"it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God" So you admit that god is not provable. ABOUT FUCKING TIME!

You crack me up. I'm going to miss you the most.

You're going to miss me? Running away in shame?

No. When they eventually ban you.

 

[ding]

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence. This the part we are going around in circles over. You can't seem to differentiate between evidence and what evidence means or tells us or implies.

All tangible items can be evidence? Okay, go out in your front yard, pick up a random rock, and tell us what that rock tells you about WillReadMore.

Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?

You asked: If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you? (post # 1,386)
Then, when I pointed out in post # 1,392 that that would only be true if you knew that the object you were observing had actually been created by WillReadMore, you insisted, in post # 1,410, "No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence." You, literally, insisted that any object you choose can be used to tell you about WiiReadMore.

Now, when I have challenged you to do just that, your response is, "Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?" So which is it? Can all tangible items be used as evidence for you to tell us about WillReadMore? Or, do you have to actually know that an object was created by WillReadMore in order to tell us about him, based on observations about that object?

You do realize that I am continuing on with my examination, right? I don't need your approval or acceptance. You want to keep evidence out of the record, I want to discuss what it means.

 

[sealybobo]

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Yes, we can and will continue to study and broaden our understanding of our universe.

That IS what science does.

But, you are suggesting there is evidence for a particular outcome on one question (the existence or nonexistence of an all-powerful intelligence), and there you have a real problem.

No. I don't. There are plenty of signs if one only looks with an open mind.

You see what you want to see. Look at that pretty flower. There must be a God. It's settled

 

[ding]

We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.

We don't know all of these things. For instance, "We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created." We know no such thing. Simply because Homo Sapiens did evolve, in no way indicates that thery were predestined to evolve. You are stating a conclusion for which there is no evidence. Several of your conclusions are being stated without evidence.

The potential for everything which is possible and has come to pass was controlled by the laws of nature. You can either believe that or you can believe in a special creative act of God. The reality is that we do live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise.

Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

 

[Mudda]

Leon doesn't know what there was before the BB. Humans may figure it out one day. But ok, if there is a god, he'd know. But no such god has ever been proven EITHER WAY. Making me agnostic.
What is "the only revealed religion"? What does that mean?
So you studied all the religions and figured you'd pick the one that made the most sense to you? Like I've said before, your standards are way too low.

You don't know anything about my standards or me. All the other religions were men seeking God. None made the claim that God was seeking them. But revelation will be given to people who seek God. That's why there are not material differences between the religions on the important matters, at least not on the central theme of dying to self to see objective truth. I read each religion in its best possible light. That was my standard. The main difference between the religions is the nature of God. That's not surprising as it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God. To me that is all theology bullshit anyway as they all have the general same core values of virtue.

Didn't you write the "ding" posts? Can't we tell anything about you from your creations? I guess not.

"it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God" So you admit that god is not provable. ABOUT FUCKING TIME!

You crack me up. I'm going to miss you the most.

You're going to miss me? Running away in shame?

No. When they eventually ban you.

Why would they ban me? And why should I care?

 

[ding]

https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.

The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).

These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.

However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase. Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements. Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies. This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today. Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.

One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.

Ok, I get it now, you're talking about the origins/evolution of matter from the earliest moments of the BB, and how stars make other elements. But how is that related to god?

A first cause is needed. That cause is outside the realm of examination. That cause is in the realm of philosophy. You have to ask yourself what are the attributes of a first cause.

No, it's not. You keep insisting that, and I keep reminding you of the new discoveries, and the theories that they have led to that make your statement untrue. Now, understand, I am not saying that there was no begining. After all, we can't know for certain, at this point, and all we can do is theorize. However, you keep insising that a "first cause" is necessary, as a definitive declarative, and I have presented to you, repeatedly, the newtheory which disputes that contention.

What are the attributes of a first cause?

By definition, that nothing happened before it. It implies that the universe requires a "beginning". Except it doesn't. Might it have had a beginning? Sure. However, you cannot state, categorically, that it did have a beginning. As such, you cannot state, categorically, that there was a "First Cause".

Regardless of the how's, we know it began in a dense hot state and expanded and cooled. We know that this universe is not eternal. We know that what started as that hot dense sphere eventually became self aware. We can study exactly how that process unfolded. We can note similarities between the stages and extrapolate from there. The attribute of the first cause is that it must be eternal. That is the starting point.

 

[ding]

You don't know anything about my standards or me. All the other religions were men seeking God. None made the claim that God was seeking them. But revelation will be given to people who seek God. That's why there are not material differences between the religions on the important matters, at least not on the central theme of dying to self to see objective truth. I read each religion in its best possible light. That was my standard. The main difference between the religions is the nature of God. That's not surprising as it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God. To me that is all theology bullshit anyway as they all have the general same core values of virtue.

Didn't you write the "ding" posts? Can't we tell anything about you from your creations? I guess not.

"it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God" So you admit that god is not provable. ABOUT FUCKING TIME!

You crack me up. I'm going to miss you the most.

You're going to miss me? Running away in shame?

No. When they eventually ban you.

Why would they ban me? And why should I care?

Because you are pretty much a troll. It's just a matter of time.

 

[ding]

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Yes, we can and will continue to study and broaden our understanding of our universe.

That IS what science does.

But, you are suggesting there is evidence for a particular outcome on one question (the existence or nonexistence of an all-powerful intelligence), and there you have a real problem.

No. I don't. There are plenty of signs if one only looks with an open mind.

You see what you want to see. Look at that pretty flower. There must be a God. It's settled

Not like that it won't be.

 

[Czernobog]

We don't know all of these things. For instance, "We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created." We know no such thing. Simply because Homo Sapiens did evolve, in no way indicates that thery were predestined to evolve. You are stating a conclusion for which there is no evidence. Several of your conclusions are being stated without evidence.

The potential for everything which is possible and has come to pass was controlled by the laws of nature. You can either believe that or you can believe in a special creative act of God. The reality is that we do live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise.

Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence. This the part we are going around in circles over. You can't seem to differentiate between evidence and what evidence means or tells us or implies.

All tangible items can be evidence? Okay, go out in your front yard, pick up a random rock, and tell us what that rock tells you about WillReadMore.

Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?

You asked: If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you? (post # 1,386)
Then, when I pointed out in post # 1,392 that that would only be true if you knew that the object you were observing had actually been created by WillReadMore, you insisted, in post # 1,410, "No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence." You, literally, insisted that any object you choose can be used to tell you about WiiReadMore.

Now, when I have challenged you to do just that, your response is, "Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?" So which is it? Can all tangible items be used as evidence for you to tell us about WillReadMore? Or, do you have to actually know that an object was created by WillReadMore in order to tell us about him, based on observations about that object?

You do realize that I am continuing on with my examination, right? I don't need your approval or acceptance. You want to keep evidence out of the record, I want to discuss what it means.

Nice non-sequitur. "When my argument is expsed as irrational, I'm just going to keep right on going anyway, and pretend that my argument is rational,"

 

[ding]

The potential for everything which is possible and has come to pass was controlled by the laws of nature. You can either believe that or you can believe in a special creative act of God. The reality is that we do live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise.

Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The matter/energy that started this all 14 billion years ago is in you today. It has only changed form since then. Literally the material that was present at the birth of the universe (i.e. that hot dense space) is having a conversation about itself.

 

[Mudda]

Didn't you write the "ding" posts? Can't we tell anything about you from your creations? I guess not.

"it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God" So you admit that god is not provable. ABOUT FUCKING TIME!

You crack me up. I'm going to miss you the most.

You're going to miss me? Running away in shame?

No. When they eventually ban you.

Why would they ban me? And why should I care?

Because you are pretty much a troll. It's just a matter of time.

I'll be here waiting by my agnostic (not an intellectual dead end) self.

Or are you just sore that a mod rapped your knuckles and now you're reporting every post of mine. Ya, that'll help.

 

[Mudda]

Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The matter/energy that started this all 14 billion years ago is in you today. It has only changed form since then. Literally the material that was present at the birth of the universe (i.e. that hot dense space) is having a conversation about itself.

We all know that, but it still doesn't prove the god of the bible who you claim didn't make the world in 6 days.

 

[ding]

No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence. This the part we are going around in circles over. You can't seem to differentiate between evidence and what evidence means or tells us or implies.

All tangible items can be evidence? Okay, go out in your front yard, pick up a random rock, and tell us what that rock tells you about WillReadMore.

Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?

You asked: If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you? (post # 1,386)
Then, when I pointed out in post # 1,392 that that would only be true if you knew that the object you were observing had actually been created by WillReadMore, you insisted, in post # 1,410, "No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence." You, literally, insisted that any object you choose can be used to tell you about WiiReadMore.

Now, when I have challenged you to do just that, your response is, "Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?" So which is it? Can all tangible items be used as evidence for you to tell us about WillReadMore? Or, do you have to actually know that an object was created by WillReadMore in order to tell us about him, based on observations about that object?

You do realize that I am continuing on with my examination, right? I don't need your approval or acceptance. You want to keep evidence out of the record, I want to discuss what it means.

Nice non-sequitur. "When my argument is expsed as irrational, I'm just going to keep right on going anyway, and pretend that my argument is rational,"

No, it was the logical choice. I don't need your approval, I don't need to convince you. It would have been illogical to try as you are inconvincible. You have already admitted that there is no evidence you will accept. It would have been a waste of my time.

I believe I have laid out a pretty compelling examination of the evidence. I believe you have been busy filing motions to suppress.

 

[ding]

You crack me up. I'm going to miss you the most.

You're going to miss me? Running away in shame?

No. When they eventually ban you.

Why would they ban me? And why should I care?

Because you are pretty much a troll. It's just a matter of time.

I'll be here waiting by my agnostic self.

Or are you just sore that a mod rapped your knuckles and now you're reporting every post of mine. Ya, that'll help.

I haven't reported you once. You'll end up doing the work yourself.

 

[ding]

You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

No, there isn't evidence of that. Just because man became self aware is, in no way, evidence that the universe is self aware. In fact, you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism, let alone a self aware living organism.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The matter/energy that started this all 14 billion years ago is in you today. It has only changed form since then. Literally the material that was present at the birth of the universe (i.e. that hot dense space) is having a conversation about itself.

We all know that, but it still doesn't prove the god of the bible who you claim didn't make the world in 6 days.

But you're agnostic so you don't know, right?

 

[Mudda]

You're going to miss me? Running away in shame?

No. When they eventually ban you.

Why would they ban me? And why should I care?

Because you are pretty much a troll. It's just a matter of time.

I'll be here waiting by my agnostic self.

Or are you just sore that a mod rapped your knuckles and now you're reporting every post of mine. Ya, that'll help.

I haven't reported you once. You'll end up doing the work yourself.

That's the problem!!!