The true living God

[ding]

You can use your own experiences as a proxy to know that information and rules are a sign of intelligence.

Intelligence was predestined to arise through the laws of nature. The potential for intelligence to arise existed before space and time because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

My experience tells me that gravity operates according to know rules. The same rules that are everywhere in the universe. Was an intelligence needed to create the rules? I see nothing in my experience to answer yes to that question.

Yes.

The material world is made up of mind stuff. It’s just information.

 

[ding]

Professor Kohlberg would disagree with you.

So does common sense.

Haha..."common sense"...the "common sense" of you religious goobers is why we had to invent science in the first place...because you were pretty much always wrong. Still are.

God loves science. He created it.

 

[alang1216]

You can use your own experiences as a proxy to know that information and rules are a sign of intelligence.

Intelligence was predestined to arise through the laws of nature. The potential for intelligence to arise existed before space and time because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

My experience tells me that gravity operates according to know rules. The same rules that are everywhere in the universe. Was an intelligence needed to create the rules? I see nothing in my experience to answer yes to that question.

Yes.

The material world is made up of mind stuff. It’s just information.

No. Like Lowell and others, you see patterns in nature and conclude there is an intelligence behind it. Their mistake was the same as yours, thinking the intelligence was on the other end of the telescope:

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was erroneously believed that there were "canals" on the planet Mars. These were a network of long straight lines in the equatorial regions from 60° north to 60° south latitude on Mars, observed by astronomers using early low-resolution telescopes without photography. They were first described by the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli during the opposition of 1877, and confirmed by later observers. Schiaparelli called these canali, which was translated into English as "canals". The Irish astronomer Charles E. Burton made some of the earliest drawings of straight-line features on Mars, although his drawings did not match Schiaparelli's. Around the turn of the century there was even speculation that they were engineering works, irrigation canals constructed by a civilization of intelligent aliens indigenous to Mars. By the early 20th century, improved astronomical observations revealed the "canals" to be an optical illusion, and modern high-resolution mapping of the Martian surface by spacecraft shows no such features.​

 

[Taz]

Maybe they came out at the same time? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW?

Matter and energy were created in accordance to the laws of nature which means the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Not it doesn’t. Stop lying.

It does. I’m not lying.

You lie that you know what was before the BB. Nobody knows that.

I just explained it to you. The laws of nature existed before the birth of the universe. So that was before the BB.

That's just your say so, only backed up by fartsmoke.

 

[Taz]

You have nothing. Not even anything interesting that might lead somewhere. Nada, Zilch.

Despite your objections I have quite a lot. We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Same old fartsmoke.

You misspelled truth.

You can’t get ANYONE to agree with you. You lose.

If that were the case you wouldn’t be arguing about it.

I'm not, I'm telling you to open a window.

 

[Taz]

You said you had empirical evidence for god, so where is it? Until then, nobody's established anything in that regard.

So I can't post anything questioning god's performance or I'm branded as a Satanist?

You are a follower of Satan. You are a hell's angel and probably get off on it. Just read your post #414 and the countless ones blaming God for creating evil when Lucifer created the first sin.

You, yourself said this. It means you believe God exists. I've tried to correct you on it as above, but to no avail.

If you want empirical evidence, then we found the chicken came before the egg in 2017. The enzyme on the eggshell is only produced by the ovaries of the hen. I discussed many others on the science and this board.

So you have no empirical evidence for god. I win.

View attachment 268657

It means evolution destroyed. God wins. Are you going to ask me if you have to give up masturbation next ?

That’s not any kind of evidence. You dunce.

You are too stupid af to live nor comprehend how life is precious. That's not my fault. Let's move you to the atheist level lol..

Scientists Have Made A Transparent Eggshell So You Can See The Embryo Inside

Please explain why this is relevant to me asking you for empirical evidence for god?

 

[james bond]

You are a follower of Satan. You are a hell's angel and probably get off on it. Just read your post #414 and the countless ones blaming God for creating evil when Lucifer created the first sin.

You, yourself said this. It means you believe God exists. I've tried to correct you on it as above, but to no avail.

If you want empirical evidence, then we found the chicken came before the egg in 2017. The enzyme on the eggshell is only produced by the ovaries of the hen. I discussed many others on the science and this board.

So you have no empirical evidence for god. I win.

View attachment 268657

It means evolution destroyed. God wins. Are you going to ask me if you have to give up masturbation next ?

That’s not any kind of evidence. You dunce.

You are too stupid af to live nor comprehend how life is precious. That's not my fault. Let's move you to the atheist level lol..

Scientists Have Made A Transparent Eggshell So You Can See The Embryo Inside

Please explain why this is relevant to me asking you for empirical evidence for god?

God created adult humans and animals, including the chicken. This is how the world populated with natural selection. The egg is complex. Atheist scientists have not been able to break it down on how it developed on its own. It was experimentally proved the chicken came before the egg. We do not even have a single shred of evidence for a single cell to pop into existence. All of this is empirical evidence for God, but your head exploded long before that.

 

[Taz]

So you have no empirical evidence for god. I win.

View attachment 268657

It means evolution destroyed. God wins. Are you going to ask me if you have to give up masturbation next ?

That’s not any kind of evidence. You dunce.

You are too stupid af to live nor comprehend how life is precious. That's not my fault. Let's move you to the atheist level lol..

Scientists Have Made A Transparent Eggshell So You Can See The Embryo Inside

Please explain why this is relevant to me asking you for empirical evidence for god?

View attachment 269611

God created adult humans and animals, including the chicken. This is how the world populated with natural selection. The egg is complex. Atheist scientists have not been able to break it down on how it developed on its own. It was experimentally proved the chicken came before the egg. We do not even have a single shred of evidence for a single cell to pop into existence. All of this is empirical evidence for God, but your head exploded long before that.

You really think that a serious scientist of any stripe would consider what you just spouted as real proof?

 

[Hollie]

So you have no empirical evidence for god. I win.

View attachment 268657

It means evolution destroyed. God wins. Are you going to ask me if you have to give up masturbation next ?

That’s not any kind of evidence. You dunce.

You are too stupid af to live nor comprehend how life is precious. That's not my fault. Let's move you to the atheist level lol..

Scientists Have Made A Transparent Eggshell So You Can See The Embryo Inside

Please explain why this is relevant to me asking you for empirical evidence for god?

View attachment 269611

God created adult humans and animals, including the chicken. This is how the world populated with natural selection. The egg is complex. Atheist scientists have not been able to break it down on how it developed on its own. It was experimentally proved the chicken came before the egg. We do not even have a single shred of evidence for a single cell to pop into existence. All of this is empirical evidence for God, but your head exploded long before that.

It’s a little silly to use your unsupported beliefs in gods as evidence for the gods.

We do not have a single shred of evidence for the hierarchy of gods creating your gods.

Please identify the gods that created your gods, (the chicken and egg analogy you make).

 

[james bond]

View attachment 268657

It means evolution destroyed. God wins. Are you going to ask me if you have to give up masturbation next ?

That’s not any kind of evidence. You dunce.

You are too stupid af to live nor comprehend how life is precious. That's not my fault. Let's move you to the atheist level lol..

Scientists Have Made A Transparent Eggshell So You Can See The Embryo Inside

Please explain why this is relevant to me asking you for empirical evidence for god?

View attachment 269611

God created adult humans and animals, including the chicken. This is how the world populated with natural selection. The egg is complex. Atheist scientists have not been able to break it down on how it developed on its own. It was experimentally proved the chicken came before the egg. We do not even have a single shred of evidence for a single cell to pop into existence. All of this is empirical evidence for God, but your head exploded long before that.

You really think that a serious scientist of any stripe would consider what you just spouted as real proof?

It is scientific evidence for God because the ovaries of the chicken can only produce the enzyme found oun the eggshell. Thus, you are predestined.

 

[james bond]

It’s a little silly to use your unsupported beliefs in gods as evidence for the gods.

We do not have a single shred of evidence for the hierarchy of gods creating your gods.

Please identify the gods that created your gods, (the chicken and egg analogy you make).

See my post #510. It is evidence for God. People throughout history have always wondered which came first. It's also a blow against Darwin and his common ancestor haha.

 

[Hollie]

It’s a little silly to use your unsupported beliefs in gods as evidence for the gods.

We do not have a single shred of evidence for the hierarchy of gods creating your gods.

Please identify the gods that created your gods, (the chicken and egg analogy you make).

See my post #510. It is evidence for God. People throughout history have always wondered which came first. It's also a blow against Darwin and his common ancestor haha.

It’s silly to suggest that your chicken egg comment is proof of the gods.

Nothing about chicken eggs refutes biological evolution.

Is that the entirety of your argument? Chicken eggs?

 

[Taz]

That’s not any kind of evidence. You dunce.

You are too stupid af to live nor comprehend how life is precious. That's not my fault. Let's move you to the atheist level lol..

Scientists Have Made A Transparent Eggshell So You Can See The Embryo Inside

Please explain why this is relevant to me asking you for empirical evidence for god?

View attachment 269611

God created adult humans and animals, including the chicken. This is how the world populated with natural selection. The egg is complex. Atheist scientists have not been able to break it down on how it developed on its own. It was experimentally proved the chicken came before the egg. We do not even have a single shred of evidence for a single cell to pop into existence. All of this is empirical evidence for God, but your head exploded long before that.

You really think that a serious scientist of any stripe would consider what you just spouted as real proof?

It is scientific evidence for God because the ovaries of the chicken can only produce the enzyme found oun the eggshell. Thus, you are predestined.

If that's all you have as empirical proof for god then you have NOTHING. better luck next time.

 

[ding]

You can use your own experiences as a proxy to know that information and rules are a sign of intelligence.

Intelligence was predestined to arise through the laws of nature. The potential for intelligence to arise existed before space and time because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

My experience tells me that gravity operates according to know rules. The same rules that are everywhere in the universe. Was an intelligence needed to create the rules? I see nothing in my experience to answer yes to that question.

Yes.

The material world is made up of mind stuff. It’s just information.

No. Like Lowell and others, you see patterns in nature and conclude there is an intelligence behind it. Their mistake was the same as yours, thinking the intelligence was on the other end of the telescope:

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was erroneously believed that there were "canals" on the planet Mars. These were a network of long straight lines in the equatorial regions from 60° north to 60° south latitude on Mars, observed by astronomers using early low-resolution telescopes without photography. They were first described by the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli during the opposition of 1877, and confirmed by later observers. Schiaparelli called these canali, which was translated into English as "canals". The Irish astronomer Charles E. Burton made some of the earliest drawings of straight-line features on Mars, although his drawings did not match Schiaparelli's. Around the turn of the century there was even speculation that they were engineering works, irrigation canals constructed by a civilization of intelligent aliens indigenous to Mars. By the early 20th century, improved astronomical observations revealed the "canals" to be an optical illusion, and modern high-resolution mapping of the Martian surface by spacecraft shows no such features.​

The universe being created from nothing is not a pattern. It was an event. Man arising from that creation is not a pattern. It was a process. Man preferring right over wrong is not a pattern. It is hardwired into us and is our nature.

 

[alang1216]

Man preferring right over wrong is not a pattern. It is hardwired into us and is our nature.

True enough. Unfortunately what is right and what is wrong is NOT hardwired into us.

 

[ding]

Man preferring right over wrong is not a pattern. It is hardwired into us and is our nature.

True enough. Unfortunately what is right and what is wrong is NOT hardwired into us.

The concept is. That’s why we never abandon it when we do wrong. We just rationalize that we didn’t. Thus proving we cannot abandon the concept because it is hardwired into us.

 

[ding]

Man preferring right over wrong is not a pattern. It is hardwired into us and is our nature.

True enough. Unfortunately what is right and what is wrong is NOT hardwired into us.

What is right and wrong is not subjective.

Man is subjective. You are confusing man’s subjectivity with the standard. Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason.

 

[alang1216]

Man preferring right over wrong is not a pattern. It is hardwired into us and is our nature.

True enough. Unfortunately what is right and what is wrong is NOT hardwired into us.

What is right and wrong is not subjective.

Man is subjective. You are confusing man’s subjectivity with the standard. Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason.

I challenge you to come up with a list of objective standards. You might think prohibiting murder would be one example but every culture defines murder differently. Even our own culture doesn't agree on what is murder and what is not in every case.

 

[ding]

Man preferring right over wrong is not a pattern. It is hardwired into us and is our nature.

True enough. Unfortunately what is right and what is wrong is NOT hardwired into us.

What is right and wrong is not subjective.

Man is subjective. You are confusing man’s subjectivity with the standard. Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason.

I challenge you to come up with a list of objective standards. You might think prohibiting murder would be one example but every culture defines murder differently. Even our own culture doesn't agree on what is murder and what is not in every case.

You only need one. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You are still confusing man's subjectivity for the standard being subjective. That just isn't the case. It can be solved through inspection.

 

[ding]

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.