God Talk

[FreePlay]

I have never refused to define what I think God is

Sure you have. You keep referring to the Biblical god, leading me to believe that this is what you're talking about, but then you throw in some bizarre new age thing that is completely unlike the Biblical god. Then you expect me to implicitly understand what you're talking about.

"I rarely read his lectures because it creates questions that bother me for days, if not months.
Not about what he proposes, but the questions that open up as a result of his theorems etc."
In plain simple point. An example.
If Hawking is addressing an assumed dimensional requirement to support intelligent life, it creates a curiosity in me to ponder, to what degree do we measure intelligent life in an unknown dimension, such as the one that God assured his recorders & followers, existed.

First of all, the Biblical god never assured any sort of dimensions of anything. Second, what you just said is literally nonsensical. "An assumed dimensional requirement to support intelligent life"? (This has no meaning.) Third, yes, you ARE saying you think the way he overcame his handicap is more important than what he teaches. You're saying that the things he teach leaves you with questions that eat at you for months, so you'd much rather look at him as an inspirational figure instead of someone whose teachings you could actually consider.

The two points here are; a deduced dimensional theory based on our physics, (Quantum or otherwise) & an assured dimension by an incalculable source.

Another literally nonsensical sentence.

you regard the history as recorded in the Bible as little more than some sort of Jewish hoax & is completely inaccurate or fictitious.

Considering that archaeology has disproven the majority of the historical record in the Bible, yes, I do think it's completely inaccurate and fictitious.

With those parameters, you are definitely the winner. Of what, I'm not sure though.

As opposed to refusing to define parameters, and thinking you can win an argument by being vague.

I'm sure your words sound deep and meaningful in your head, but trust me, when you're trying to base an argument on Biblical literalism and extra-Biblical new age mysticism at the same time, it's absolutely nonsensical.

 

[Terra]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terra
"The two points here are; a deduced dimensional theory based on our physics, (Quantum or otherwise) & an assured dimension by an incalculable source"
Freeplay wrote
"Another literally nonsensical sentence"

That will do me mate.

If you don't get that we're both wasting our time.

Cheers

 

[Terra]

One thing I thought I should do is address your confusion about this.

Freeplay wrote
"An assumed dimensional requirement to support intelligent life"? (This has no meaning.)

A dimension is a construct whereby objects or individuals can be distinguished.
In physics it's the the physical units of a quantity, expressed in terms of fundamental quantities like time, mass and length

In this case, as in Earth, an assumed dimensional requirement to support human life (Intelligence) is in simple terms, Oxygen, food & water.

In an other part of the universe, these essentials may vary greatly, so "An assumed dimensional requirement to support intelligent life"? doesn't necessarily mean they are flesh & blood.

Hope this helps

 

[FreePlay]

One thing I thought I should do is address your confusion about this.

Freeplay wrote
"An assumed dimensional requirement to support intelligent life"? (This has no meaning.)

A dimension is a construct whereby objects or individuals can be distinguished.
In physics it's the the physical units of a quantity, expressed in terms of fundamental quantities like time, mass and length

In this case, as in Earth, an assumed dimensional requirement to support human life (Intelligence) is in simple terms, Oxygen, food & water.

In an other part of the universe, these essentials may vary greatly, so "An assumed dimensional requirement to support intelligent life"? doesn't necessarily mean they are flesh & blood.

Hope this helps

You're using "dimension" to mean something that only you would ever say it means. You are, quite literally, twisting the English language for your own purposes, then acting like it's something you should do if you're going to have an intelligent discussion. Then you get upset when I say you're babbling or nonsensical. News flash: Using words to mean things they don't mean is babbling.

A dimension is an independent axis or direction in space or spacetime.

Eggshell tapioca vibrant radar, don't you agree?

 

[Terra]

You're using "dimension" to mean something that only you would ever say it means. You are, quite literally, twisting the English language for your own purposes, then acting like it's something you should do if you're going to have an intelligent discussion. Then you get upset when I say you're babbling or nonsensical. News flash: Using words to mean things they don't mean is babbling.

A dimension is an independent axis or direction in space or spacetime.

Eggshell tapioca vibrant radar, don't you agree?

I have been about as decent in this debate, as a victim of your condescending bullshit can be.

Your high & mighty pontification, parroted so studiously, but totally lacking in the fundamental capacity to understand some pretty basic things, reminds me of a lessen I learnt when I was learning signals. I was told to send messages at the same speed I could read them. It's a shame you never got that advise.
I doubt you could work out what it means though.

BTW. "You're using "dimension" to mean something that only you would ever say it means."

That definition was not mine, it came from an online dictionary (Cut & paste)

You should write & tell them. I'm sure they would make the appropriate correction, given your capacity to know everything.

 

[FreePlay]

I have been about as decent in this debate, as a victim of your condescending bullshit can be.

Your high & mighty pontification, parroted so studiously, but totally lacking in the fundamental capacity to understand some pretty basic things, reminds me of a lessen I learnt when I was learning signals. I was told to send messages at the same speed I could read them. It's a shame you never got that advise.
I doubt you could work out what it means though.

You're quite right, when you talk about learning "signals" I have no clue what you're talking about.

My "high and mighty pontification" is called "logic and reason". You've said all sorts of non-cohesive bits of things without giving any explanation of what you mean.

BTW. "You're using "dimension" to mean something that only you would ever say it means."

That definition was not mine, it came from an online dictionary (Cut & paste)

You should write & tell them. I'm sure they would make the appropriate correction, given your capacity to know everything.

Feel free to give me a link to the definition so I know who to complain to.

 

[birdman]

Over the years ive come to the following conclusion on religon.

The tower of babel (according to the bible) was where the languages of the world were created. (i in no way belive that the language creation was sudden and god given) With language as a barrior, wouldnt that make it quite easy for religions to split off as well?

I have come to belive that there was at some time or another, an original religion, off of this came spin off's of the major religions we see today. Most major religions today have some sort of savior, a flood story, and similar comandments and morals. This is why i dont belive in any of the religions that we see today.

I dont belive in miricals, but i belive our universe is too complex for a higher power not to exist.

(i would be very interested in your view of this)

 

[Bran]

Over the years ive come to the following conclusion on religon.

The tower of babel (according to the bible) was where the languages of the world were created. (i in no way belive that the language creation was sudden and god given) If language quickly became a barrior, wouldnt that make it quite easy for religions to split off as well?

I have come to belive that there was at some time or another, an original religion, off of this came spin off's of the major religions we see today. Most major religions today have some sort of savior, a flood story, and similar comandments and morals. This is why i dont belive in any of the religion that we see today.

I dont belive in miricals, but i belive our universe is too complex for a higher power not to exist.

(i would be very interested in your view of this)

Ancient Judaism is what you're looking for there. Most of the main religions branched off from that. Clearly the Eastern religions are not though, did you forget about Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism (only to mention a few)?

Oddly enough I don't believe in a god but do kinda believe in magic (spiritualism maybes?) so I'd contest your miracles only being product of a "higher being." Way to be closed minded about religion, since you kinda forgot about half the worlds views. Also remember before biblical religions existed most of the west believed in multiple gods like thor, odin, zeus, and the like.

 

[Slasher]

This gave me a chuckle

To me, pretty much. It's like... your life is going badly, and suddenly everything starts going your way, or you see just the perfect thing to cheer you up, stuff like that. In my own personal life, it seems like far too many "coincidental" things have happened for them to be pure coincidence. It feels like someone who cares about me is watching out for me.

More interesting to ponder is that under the theory of the Big Bang, a whole lot of something came from nothing. A point mass of infinite density would necessarily have zero volume. The mass of all the matter and energy in the universe is obviously fixed, since it cannot be created or destroyed. So to get an infinite density (m/V), you'd have to have a number approaching 0 for volume. Using calculus you could say that it is zero, or at least as close as you could get to it.

Therefore... the Big Bang came from a (nearly) zero volume.

What's even cuter is this: What the hell CAUSED the Big Bang? And what happened BEFORE the Big Bang? Those are questions that science has thus far been incapable of answering, but which can be answered quite easily with "nothing" and "God." Sure, it might sound like a copout, but I can't see science managing to figure it out since the beginning of the Big Bang would have come in a universe in which time was quite literally infinitely fast, and therefore any sort of observation about the proto-universe would be meaningless (since there would be no way to distinguish one moment from the next).

That's funny as I find comfort in God.

Ditto.

 

[Chathurga]

Last time I checked people can change their opinions. Odd that you find it funny.

 

[birdman]

Ancient Judaism is what you're looking for there. Most of the main religions branched off from that. Clearly the Eastern religions are not though, did you forget about Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism (only to mention a few)?

Oddly enough I don't believe in a god but do kinda believe in magic (spiritualism maybes?) so I'd contest your miracles only being product of a "higher being." Way to be closed minded about religion, since you kinda forgot about half the worlds views. Also remember before biblical religions existed most of the west believed in multiple gods like thor, odin, zeus, and the like.

buddism, hinduism, taoism are also very supportive of my theory.
buddism - buddah, the awakened one, sounds like a "savior" to me
taoism - many morals that other religions share

polytheistic religions (hinduism) - i forgot to mention those, most of these relgiions have a "main" god. many of their more minor gods and goddess preformed the same miricals that prophets or disciples preformed. see the parallels here?

i belive in spiritualism to an extent. I belive we can positively/negativelyaffect the world around us based on our energy. However, i think theres an scientific componant to it that we do not understand.

There was a study done where buddist monks blessed water, these bottles of water (same bottle for each) was then given phrases that were wrapped around the outside of the bottle. negative phrase/cursed water looked horrible. while positive/blessed water looks like snowflakes.
Masaru Emoto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
of course, the scientific community doesnt like that because it wasn't controlled enough.

 

[eldiablov]

This gave me a chuckle

FreePlay already mentioned he changed his views quite drastically :neutral:

 

[Slasher]

FreePlay already mentioned he changed his views quite drastically :neutral:

No kidding

Freeplay, what signaled this drastic change in views in such a short amount of time? Just curious

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

No kidding

Freeplay, what signaled this drastic change in views in such a short amount of time? Just curious

im interested to know as well.

I know for me, the anti-gay bigotry of many christans killed my faith very quickly

 

[Terra]

You're quite right, when you talk about learning "signals" I have no clue what you're talking about..

I figured that.
It means that you're out of your depth.
You are trying to debate a subject that requires a combination of logic & evidential probability.
Your "logic" is nothing more than parroting what you have read.

My "high and mighty pontification" is called "logic and reason". You've said all sorts of non-cohesive bits of things without giving any explanation of what you mean.Feel free to give me a link to the definition so I know who to complain to.

They are non-cohesive to you because you are limited to making the "obvious" assumption. In other words, things need to be spelt out to you in basic terms, & your response to what you don't understand is cynical & condescending ridecule. It exposes your limitations.

Let me give you a simple comparison of evidential probability.
We are dealing with two theories. The Bible & Evolution.

In Genesis, it says; "and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters"
In Evolution, when the earth cooled down it was a mass covered by water from which a single cell began to mutate.

In these two examples, we have a book of ancient history & a on the other hand a book of deduction gained from biological relationship.

So it comes down to Faith (In the accuracy of the Bible) & proof of relationship through visible genetic science.

Where both arguements come into a common assumption is the beginning.

They both contend that in the beginning, earth was submerged.

Evolution deduced this from scientific biological ascendacy, which also "proved" what the Bible asserted over 3000 years before science addressed creation in earnest.

So the evidential probability that there is a God (Because Genesis records his explanation of the beginning) can be debated from this fundamental unity in both theories.

Where the debate between Theologists & Evolutionists begins to disintegrate is when either side demand to be right, & not impartial to both theories.

If Evolutionists say "I can't see any evidence that a God exists, but I can see evidence of how life evolved" They overlook the historical record that someone knew & recorded what the earth was like in the beginning long before science discovered it.


Am I wasting my time?

 

[Chathurga]

If Evolutionists say "I can't see any evidence that a God exists, but I can see evidence of how life evolved" They overlook the historical record that someone knew & recorded what the earth was like in the beginning long before science discovered it.

Please explain what that has got to do with anything.

Seriously I never have clue what you are saying, you just throw words in and hope the make a sentence.
Have some coherence, please.

 

[Terra]

Please explain what that has got to do with anything.

Seriously I never have clue what you are saying, you just throw words in and hope the make a sentence.
Have some coherence, please.

This is quite incredible.

I am actually debating this on another forum.
There is no misunderstanding there. They get what I am proposing & offering alternative arguement.

What is so fucking hard to understand the significance, that someone stated a scientific fact 3000 years before our scientists found out?

 

[Ciaran]

In Genesis, it says; "and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"

They both contend that in the beginning, earth was submerged.

No they don't, that quote is way to general to assert that the bible is describing a submerged earth.

This is like saying that Nostradamus predictions are correct cause after the event has happened cause his words can be twisted to fit in to events.

 

[FreePlay]

I figured that.
It means that you're out of your depth.

Really? Except that you just said something meaningless, then said I'm out of my depth when I couldn't get the meaning.

You are trying to debate a subject that requires a combination of logic & evidential probability.
Your "logic" is nothing more than parroting what you have read.

No, my logic is logic. Yours is logical fallacies.

Let me give you a simple comparison of evidential probability.
We are dealing with two theories. The Bible & Evolution.

Only evolution is a theory.

In these two examples, we have a book of ancient history & a on the other hand a book of deduction gained from biological relationship.

The Bible is not a history book.

So it comes down to Faith (In the accuracy of the Bible) & proof of relationship through visible genetic science.

The Bible is not accurate. It is filled with self-contradiction and scientific/historical falsehoods.

They both contend that in the beginning, earth was submerged.

That's absolutely not true.

Evolution deduced this from scientific biological ascendacy, which also "proved" what the Bible asserted over 3000 years before science addressed creation in earnest.

Um, no. The Bible asserts the world was made in seven days. Evolution makes that patently impossible. Not to mention that you'd have to be completely intellectually dishonest to be making the claim that the Bible said anything even remotely similar to what you're claiming.

In Genesis 1, the first living things are plants. In Genesis 2, God makes man before there are any plants. In neither of them does the story approach anything even remotely close to the explanations we have about the early Earth.

So the evidential probability that there is a God (Because Genesis records his explanation of the beginning) can be debated from this fundamental unity in both theories.

No.

There is no evidence that raises the probability of God's existence above zero.

Where the debate between Theologists & Evolutionists begins to disintegrate is when either side demand to be right, & not impartial to both theories.

You cannot believe in the Bible and in evolution.

If Evolutionists say "I can't see any evidence that a God exists, but I can see evidence of how life evolved" They overlook the historical record that someone knew & recorded what the earth was like in the beginning long before science discovered it.

Am I wasting my time?

Clearly you are, if you think there is any merit in calling the Bible a historical record. That statement in itself is laughable.

What is so fucking hard to understand the significance, that someone stated a scientific fact 3000 years before our scientists found out?

There is no significance. This is as much a statement of scientific fact as "The stars are aligned well for Leo today. Take a chance at something new and unusual."

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

You cannot believe in the Bible and in evolution.

I disagree. if you look at the creation story as non literal, you can.

now, whether or not doing so is honest to your religion is another thing, but one CAN believe in both.