Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOL.... perhaps, but one thing is for sure, once a person loses their ability to be rational few, if any, ever get it back.
Why yes, and belief in magic is supremely rational.
God has the ability to create that is not magic, that is his natural ability. same as man just much more complexity is involved.
If you're going to argue for something you call "spiritual nature", you might want to first make an honest attempt to separate that from religion. You haven't done that. What you have done is align your so-called "spiritual nature" with very typical arguments for gods.....
But if one wants to push the issue (and this thread exists as an example of "pushing the issue") -- then theists (Boss, et al. need to confront the problem of why their gawds would put into place a wrong paradigm (in this case, Genesis), or prove the paradigm (Genesis) is right, with evidence.
If you defend the "wrong info" theory by saying "a Being created all this", then you must address why other cultures didn't have such a conflict with immense timelines, and more or less sophisticated ideas and you're going to have to address why the gods offers no updates, but prefers there be clashes of ideology to a destructive level. Remember, this is a god who claims to have a vested interest in our salvation so leaving clear hints as to his veracity is something he'd pretty much have to embrace in order to successfully fulfil his own agenda.
If you defend the literalist position, that means you start by proving god exists, first and foremost.
Then you need to prove 6 days is an accurate number for the creation itself. Not 6 trillion years, not 6 hours, not 6000 weeks, but 6 days.
And of course you'll have to prove that competing tales are mythology whereas the Genesis account is not.
Every atheist I know-- myself included-- eagerly await a hint of such proofs from any theist, anywhere, any time. After thousands of years, not one has managed to do it.
Which, of course, really isn't that surprising.
You either aren't a very good reader, or you prefer to lie and distort what you've read from me. The "super human being" god, which you keep asking "why did he do this? why did he make this?" is a god I don't believe exists, either physically or spiritually. God isn't a "he" and doesn't have humanistic attributes, in my opinion. God exists, created the universe and life, and is omnipresent. Paradigms and contradictions created by men, who don't comprehend God, is not God's problem.
You continue to want to argue the bible and have a theological debate on the religious teachings of Christianity, when we are attempting to examine the question of a spiritual existence. Some people here, have been able to separate religion and spirituality, and discuss this question without bias, but you have not demonstrated such ability. You continue to default back to debating religion and religious beliefs.
Now, it's very curious, since you claim to not believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible, but you seem to want to challenge a story in the book itself, as if you have some valid interest in getting the story right. A story you don't believe in, and it doesn't matter if god did it in 6 days or 6 trillion years, you don't believe god did it at all. Let me ask you something, honestly... IF, for the sake of argument, you agree that spiritual nature can possibly exist... does it necessarily have to be in the form of Biblical god? Is that the only possible way that a spiritual god can exist? I ask, because your perspective seems to be this way, that either the god depicted in the Bible exists, or nothing spiritual exists at all. You continue to be unable to recognize spirituality in any other form than religious, and specifically, Christian. Just trying to get to the bottom of why that is?
If you're going to argue for something you call "spiritual nature", you might want to first make an honest attempt to separate that from religion. You haven't done that. What you have done is align your so-called "spiritual nature" with very typical arguments for gods.You either aren't a very good reader, or you prefer to lie and distort what you've read from me. The "super human being" god, which you keep asking "why did he do this? why did he make this?" is a god I don't believe exists, either physically or spiritually. God isn't a "he" and doesn't have humanistic attributes, in my opinion. God exists, created the universe and life, and is omnipresent. Paradigms and contradictions created by men, who don't comprehend God, is not God's problem.
You continue to want to argue the bible and have a theological debate on the religious teachings of Christianity, when we are attempting to examine the question of a spiritual existence. Some people here, have been able to separate religion and spirituality, and discuss this question without bias, but you have not demonstrated such ability. You continue to default back to debating religion and religious beliefs.
Now, it's very curious, since you claim to not believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible, but you seem to want to challenge a story in the book itself, as if you have some valid interest in getting the story right. A story you don't believe in, and it doesn't matter if god did it in 6 days or 6 trillion years, you don't believe god did it at all. Let me ask you something, honestly... IF, for the sake of argument, you agree that spiritual nature can possibly exist... does it necessarily have to be in the form of Biblical god? Is that the only possible way that a spiritual god can exist? I ask, because your perspective seems to be this way, that either the god depicted in the Bible exists, or nothing spiritual exists at all. You continue to be unable to recognize spirituality in any other form than religious, and specifically, Christian. Just trying to get to the bottom of why that is?
I honestly don't know how I could make it clearer. I've have repeatedly stated that I have no "religious" belief, and my understanding of god doesn't conform with understandings found in organized religion. My spiritual understanding of god is not a god with humanistic attributes, who "cares" about you, "loves" you or "judges" your behavior. My god doesn't need you to worship it, and I don't need to "save" you through my god. The only relative similarity I have indicated, is that my god is a spiritual entity, responsible for creation.
If I have pointed this out once in the thread, I have done it a dozen times, at least. Still, I have people like yourself, accusing me of "pontificating" and "proselytizing" as if I am Billy Fucking Graham. I think this is because, in your minds, spirituality equals the Christian version of God in the Bible, and can't possibly ever be anything else. It's almost as if your minds are completely closed to any other possible incarnation of god, but you claim to not believe in any god.
Could it be, that you actually DO believe in the God in the Bible, and fully believe that this is the one and only true god, but you are just in denial, or angry at your god? Because you do seem to be unable to imagine any other form of god, and continue to want to debate Christian theology, as opposed to human spirituality.
I honestly dont know why youre unwilling to admit that your gawds are no different from any other assertions of gawds. Calling your gawds spiritual nature appears to be just another form of someone making their religion fit a comfortable niche.
Could it be that youre just another fundamentalist Christian creationist?
Sorry kids, we are just as clueless on this issue now as when this thread started at post one. There isn't any more proof than disproof. Belief doesn't outweigh skepticism. Why not debate whether chocolate is better than vanilla? Or if green is better than red? Let's just admit it's good to be alive and move on.
LOL.... perhaps, but one thing is for sure, once a person loses their ability to be rational few, if any, ever get it back.
Why yes, and belief in magic is supremely rational.
Magic, sorcery, mind control, whats the difference? Can you deny the effect it has on the gullible?
Time as we experience it is a flow but it is it not like a river where you can find the "source of time". Time is a "fluid" concept that is more akin to tides than rivers. There is a "doppler" effect to time where the faster you travel the slower relative time moves. It is even theoretically possible to travel backwards in time.
NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment - NASA Science
It is just as erroneous to assume that there was a "beginning of time" as it is to assume that the universe was "created". Time is just another dimension of the space/time continuum in which we exist. The universe has always existed and as time is only a dimension of the universe it too has always existed.
You article mentioned does not present anything that would account for or work around the first moment problem.
Think about it. In any sequence of events, periods of time, no matter how large or small, there is a moment of time that precedes another moment of time.
The sequence must have started at some first moment in time, or else there could never be any other moments that follow. Without a first moment in time we could not have arrived at the present moment in time.
Time warps, spirals etc, do not escape that problem.
The first moment problem would apply to your gawds, also.
Although obviously, most religionists insist that their gawds get special dispensations... because their gawds have magical powers.
Time as we experience it is a flow but it is it not like a river where you can find the "source of time". Time is a "fluid" concept that is more akin to tides than rivers. There is a "doppler" effect to time where the faster you travel the slower relative time moves. It is even theoretically possible to travel backwards in time.
NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment - NASA Science
It is just as erroneous to assume that there was a "beginning of time" as it is to assume that the universe was "created". Time is just another dimension of the space/time continuum in which we exist. The universe has always existed and as time is only a dimension of the universe it too has always existed.
You article mentioned does not present anything that would account for or work around the first moment problem.
Think about it. In any sequence of events, periods of time, no matter how large or small, there is a moment of time that precedes another moment of time.
The sequence must have started at some first moment in time, or else there could never be any other moments that follow. Without a first moment in time we could not have arrived at the present moment in time.
Time warps, spirals etc, do not escape that problem.
There is no problem with time. The problem pertains to our perception of time as being linear. We place arbitrary limits on time by defining a day as a single rotation of our planet and a year as being the time it takes to circle the sun. None of these arbitrary limitations apply in the rest of the universe. Time is more analogous to a Mobius strip. It has no beginning or ending. We are only perceiving it from our own limited perspective which is why you believe that it must have a "beginning". Time, or to be more precise, Space/Time does not have any such limitation.
I am not an atheist. I just don't believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn.
And I know that anyone who does profess to believe such bullshit has either been misled or has made evil a deliberate choice.
I see you have made yours.
I have made my choice that is correct. If you are not an atheist you are not far from it with the way you think.
Well, according to the way I think I'm certain that if even one tenth of the bible is true at the judgment it will be better to have been an atheist than to have pretended to believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn....
maybe you should put that in your pipe and smoke it before you go running for a touchdown.... into the wrong end zone.
You article mentioned does not present anything that would account for or work around the first moment problem.
Think about it. In any sequence of events, periods of time, no matter how large or small, there is a moment of time that precedes another moment of time.
The sequence must have started at some first moment in time, or else there could never be any other moments that follow. Without a first moment in time we could not have arrived at the present moment in time.
Time warps, spirals etc, do not escape that problem.
There is no problem with time. The problem pertains to our perception of time as being linear. We place arbitrary limits on time by defining a day as a single rotation of our planet and a year as being the time it takes to circle the sun. None of these arbitrary limitations apply in the rest of the universe. Time is more analogous to a Mobius strip. It has no beginning or ending. We are only perceiving it from our own limited perspective which is why you believe that it must have a "beginning". Time, or to be more precise, Space/Time does not have any such limitation.
ROFLMAO
A mobius strip does not escape the first moment problem, nor does changing the units of chronological measure.
There can be no following time segments of any kind on any model of time flow without there also being a FIRST segment of time.
As long as a T1 is followed by a T2, there MUST be a first T of some kind.
Exactly, time is relative, it is not a constant. Time exists only in terms of motion. Time can speed up or slow down according to its motion.There is no problem with time. The problem pertains to our perception of time as being linear. We place arbitrary limits on time by defining a day as a single rotation of our planet and a year as being the time it takes to circle the sun. None of these arbitrary limitations apply in the rest of the universe. Time is more analogous to a Mobius strip. It has no beginning or ending. We are only perceiving it from our own limited perspective which is why you believe that it must have a "beginning". Time, or to be more precise, Space/Time does not have any such limitation.
ROFLMAO
A mobius strip does not escape the first moment problem, nor does changing the units of chronological measure.
There can be no following time segments of any kind on any model of time flow without there also being a FIRST segment of time.
As long as a T1 is followed by a T2, there MUST be a first T of some kind.
At this point we have reached an impasse. Science has established in repeatable peer reviewed experiments that the Theory of Relativity and the Space-Time Continuum are factual and measurable. You continue to see time as nothing more than a simple mechanical stopwatch in spite of all of the evidence that it is far more complex in reality.
While this debate was enjoyable there is no point in continuing if you refuse to recognize the established facts. Have a nice day.
There is no problem with time. The problem pertains to our perception of time as being linear. We place arbitrary limits on time by defining a day as a single rotation of our planet and a year as being the time it takes to circle the sun. None of these arbitrary limitations apply in the rest of the universe. Time is more analogous to a Mobius strip. It has no beginning or ending. We are only perceiving it from our own limited perspective which is why you believe that it must have a "beginning". Time, or to be more precise, Space/Time does not have any such limitation.
ROFLMAO
A mobius strip does not escape the first moment problem, nor does changing the units of chronological measure.
There can be no following time segments of any kind on any model of time flow without there also being a FIRST segment of time.
As long as a T1 is followed by a T2, there MUST be a first T of some kind.
At this point we have reached an impasse. Science has established in repeatable peer reviewed experiments that the Theory of Relativity and the Space-Time Continuum are factual and measurable. You continue to see time as nothing more than a simple mechanical stopwatch in spite of all of the evidence that it is far more complex in reality.
While this debate was enjoyable there is no point in continuing if you refuse to recognize the established facts. Have a nice day.
Exactly, time is relative, it is not a constant. Time exists only in terms of motion. Time can speed up or slow down according to its motion.ROFLMAO
A mobius strip does not escape the first moment problem, nor does changing the units of chronological measure.
There can be no following time segments of any kind on any model of time flow without there also being a FIRST segment of time.
As long as a T1 is followed by a T2, there MUST be a first T of some kind.
At this point we have reached an impasse. Science has established in repeatable peer reviewed experiments that the Theory of Relativity and the Space-Time Continuum are factual and measurable. You continue to see time as nothing more than a simple mechanical stopwatch in spite of all of the evidence that it is far more complex in reality.
While this debate was enjoyable there is no point in continuing if you refuse to recognize the established facts. Have a nice day.
I have made my choice that is correct. If you are not an atheist you are not far from it with the way you think.
Well, according to the way I think I'm certain that if even one tenth of the bible is true at the judgment it will be better to have been an atheist than to have pretended to believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn....
maybe you should put that in your pipe and smoke it before you go running for a touchdown.... into the wrong end zone.
No one believes that God was wearing a diaper fool.
Well, according to the way I think I'm certain that if even one tenth of the bible is true at the judgment it will be better to have been an atheist than to have pretended to believe that God was wearing diapers on Christmas morn....
maybe you should put that in your pipe and smoke it before you go running for a touchdown.... into the wrong end zone.
No one believes that God was wearing a diaper fool.
LOL...so no one believes the story about God diddling a virgin to father himself , no room at the inn, the manger, wise men, hark the herald angels singing, and almighty God in swaddling clothes...diapers ?
So you are all just pretending to believe?
who knew?
et al,
I still waiting for a definition of "God;" (conceptional)? And then, "definitive Proof that the conception Exists?
Most Respectfully,
R
Time began when motion began and ends when motion stops.Exactly, time is relative, it is not a constant. Time exists only in terms of motion. Time can speed up or slow down according to its motion.At this point we have reached an impasse. Science has established in repeatable peer reviewed experiments that the Theory of Relativity and the Space-Time Continuum are factual and measurable. You continue to see time as nothing more than a simple mechanical stopwatch in spite of all of the evidence that it is far more complex in reality.
While this debate was enjoyable there is no point in continuing if you refuse to recognize the established facts. Have a nice day.
And NONE of that avoids the first moment problem.
But great rhetorical effort, points for that, ed.
