It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists Will Destroy ATS

page: 26
43
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Allow me to show my superiority and this man's shortage of memory and debating skills boys and girls, and I do now get much joy from doing this. Usually not, but here and with this individual, oh yes.
And this is only the first 2 pages of his postings!


Originally posted by JPhish
The existence of such a being is not only un-falsifiable but would also be outside of our mental capacity to understand.


Outside of our mental capacity to understand, oh really? Where's the owl picture? Here are your follwing comments on the God outside of our mental capability to understand.
(Hint, if it's beyond out mental capability to understand then you should have no knowledge of it... but... you seem to understand it! Are you ... dun, dun, dun... superhuman!?! CONTRADICTION, read forth)


Originally posted by JPhish
G*d would most certainly have to be "equated" to all energy and all matter.
G*d would be incapable of sin by definition.
A being such as G*d would never have to lie.
G*d is omnipotent and is in essence, always in control. G*d does not need to lie.


Well, if God is equated to all energy and matter then how is God incapable of sin. Is sin... energyless! Your brilliance never ceases to amaze me! So which definition of God are we going by? The one that is incapable of sin or the one that is beyond our capability of understanding?
Because if it's beyond our capability of understanding then how we can know it's incapable of sin?




Originally posted by JPhish
...you can not prove the existence of G*d.



Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Something that can eternally not be proven to exist is completely irrelevant. By default of that line of logic we can conclude that this thing will never suffice evidence, ever, therefore it does not exist.


Remember this? Oh and this, too.


Originally posted by JPhish
The only things that are un-falsifiable are intangible.


Nope, remember my quote above? Relative to tangible existence, that which we are, anything intangible is false. Maybe you need a definition of tangible?

Then see below, you seem to not be able to follow the conversation and you fall off again.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
God being everything (all energy and matter etc.) then becomes not only the acts of the immoral and unjust, and God being within everyone and everything becomes Him not only an Athiest and a scientist, but also a sinner and a liar.


You replied with...


Originally posted by JPhish
I personally do not believe this to be true. G*d would be incapable of sin by definition.


So, you are clearly saying above that you personally do not believe my synopsis of God to be true because I said God is a sinner and you said you don't believe it to be true and that God is incapable of sin by definition. But as we've been shown, this definition that God is incapable of sin is still in direct contradiction with you saying that God is beyond Human capacity to understand (among many other things you then define the incapable of being defined God as) I then replied back with.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
You just told me that God is unfalsifiable and that we are unable to have the mental capacity to understand it... ...You then follow those statements by defending God and God's position with statements of the likes of; paraphrased: "God is not associated with sin". How can you know these things about God if God is beyond our mental capacity? You CAN'T. Your logic is bunk.


You replied with.


Originally posted by JPhish
I never claimed to know anything, nor did I defend G*d. I clearly said before my inference "I personally do not believe this to be true."


You said you personally did not believe MY definition of God to be true, however you made that refute based on the assumption that God is not a sinner, which is again in direct contradiction with you agreeing that God is all energy and omnipresent, thus taking part in and a part of all universal activities, even those concerning sin. Nonetheless you are still contradicting as your premise is that God is beyond Human capability of understanding.

You then posted this


Originally posted by JPhish
Do you think that what i personally believe means anything??? Because I certainly don't.


At which point you are again being oxymoronic and revealing that you are bringing into the debate irrelevant and unimportant information, and that everything you are saying and arguing for or about is essentially irrelevant. So you are saying belief in God means absoluting nothing. Thank you.


Originally posted by JPhish
Postdestination requires faith, faith in the possibility that something unknown can be realized.

...you can not prove the existence of G*d.


You then make an argument that defeats itself. While you were replying to me about my comment regarding the eternally unknowable and how I explained that it is disproved in relation to the physical and eternally knowable&tangible you made a huge fault. See below.


Faith-
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.


No where in the dictionary is faith defined as the possibility that something unknown can be realized.

Faith - Dictionary.com

Perhaps you could enlighten us to the other English langauge that you speak?


Originally posted by JPhish
Eternally unknowable? Tell me, what do you believe the word unknowable implies?

Unknowable Impossible to know, often because of being beyond human experience or understanding.


Something that is impossible to know, again because it is beyond Human scope, as you have stated already, is eternally unknowable. We, as Humans will never know it. Since we will NEVER know it: Something that can eternally not be proven to exist is completely irrelevant. By default of that line of logic we can conclude that this thing will never suffice evidence, EVER, therefore it does not exist and is only an invisible delusion of the mind.

Hold on... I've got a lot more for ya, buddy.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]




posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Yes, Undo, here is is quote regarding his religious stance that he has still yet to reply to me about.


Originally posted by JPhish
Well guess what? My family is atheist and I was raised atheist. I suppose I should have made my name DevilsAdvocate instead of JPhish?


He still has not explained what this means, rather he has said that I accepted this quote as ambiguous knowledge and made assumptions. I interpret that as "JPhish lied to you, you trusted what he was telling you in that lie and made an earnest evaluation of his religious character, and upon finding that he is lying, he will not admit such." But again, until he comes clean, I'll never know either way, and as I admitted to him, I can now only go off of my own presumptions since he doesn't wish to share. I don't like assuming.

Like I said, he has not and will not reveal his religious background, rather he makes insenuations about it, and half truths and lies and then blames the person he is supposed to be having a conversation with for not understanding his religious background even after repetitively asked, and uses that person's lack of knowledge about his religious background and consistent questions about it as some vacuous form of logical thwarting?

Makes no sense to me. Like I said, the guy is difficult to follow at best. He doesn't even follow himself.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I remember reading where JRR Tolkien (author of Lord of the Rings) had a conversation with his Oxford friend (who was an atheist) about the nature of and philosophy behind, the concept of God and even more precisely, Jesus. The atheist was C.S. Lewis. Apparently, after many hours (into the night) of debate and discussion, C.S. Lewis was no longer an atheist. I would dearly love to hear a replay of that conversation! I bet it was a doozy!

Sadly, I don't have the intellectual stamina or prowess to debate an oxford fellow, but I do have the sheer audacity to believe in something I can't prove exists.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
More Contradictions About Knowing the Unknowable


Originally posted by JPhish
If something is intangible, you can not touch it or necessarily even perceive it at all.


Well perfect. Then it can also not touch us or effect us in anyway. Therefore it's irrelevant. It will never interact with our physical reality. Furthermore let's see what you have to add to that which can not be touched, known, understood or perceived.


Originally posted by JPhish
Actually, the “definition” of what sin is, seems to state that G*d is incapable of sin, because the act of sinning, is deviation to G*ds will.



Originally posted by JPhish
I never said that there was an eternal lack of evidence for G*d. Nor did I say that G*d is eternally unknowable.


Well, if it's beyond Human comprehension and not physically tangible, then it will never be known! That makes it eternally unknowable.


Originally posted by JPhish
Are you only now beginning to realize that this is a game and you’ve essentially been arguing with yourself? I would hope that in retrospect it is evident that I’ve followed your rational. Questioning someone’s logic does not entail that one must agree or disagree with it.


So you're admitting that you're a deceptive, manipulative, baiting troll that lies and moves the goal posts? You're purposely being inconsistent, irrational and illogical to prove a point? Not quite sir. What's actually going on here in this quote is that you are completely being smashed and you are atempting to find a way out by making up lies. You can only not agree or disagree with someone's logic if you are questioning someone's logic without the intent of understanding how their logic applies. You ask questions just to get people to talk and then turn your head and plug your ears? Real smart. Sounds like you've not matured a bit since age 3.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Well I've shown that I've broken the back of the intangible.

Originally posted by JPhish
I rest my case . . . you’ve just declared that you’ve broken something that you claim yourself does not exist in reality.


You claimed it had a back! If it did, I either broke its hypothetical back or made it disappear from whence it never came!


When you admit that something is eternally unknowable and eternally intangible relative to a physical existence (thus you are claiming that it is non-physical), you have just submitted and defined the exact definition of non-existence.

You also don't seem to understand the immeasurable presence of absence that I nicely explained for you. You know I don't have to give this stuff out for free, but I do.

Energetical absence is impossible. EVERYTHING is energy, everything is fabric of space time. Energy is existence. There is no space devoid or absent of existence in existence (contradiction), obviously. Because of this we must now ask ourselves then.... what truly is absence in relation to energy that can not be destroyed or created?

Well, what defines absence? Immeasurable? Yes. Is eternity immeasurable? Yes. Does absence have a beginning or end? No. WHY? Because we can not measure it! It doesn't exist!

Wait a second... eternity and absence are the same thing! Absence is therefore the immeasurable presence if it wishes to explain how its concept energetically exists.

The immeasurable presence is both eternity and absence. Absence, to exist as a concept in presence, must have some existence by default of its existing concept. The piont was and driving force is... what is the relation?

The relation is eventually to be discovered that they are indeed an eternal unity, as is everything.

There's still a lot more quotes and work I could do. Shall I continue, JPhish? Because I've been taking it as easy and as nicely as possible. Your games don't enthuse me nor do they encourage me to continue giving you respect.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
but I do have the sheer audacity to believe in something I can't prove exists.


I'm the complete opposite. Something that I can't prove I won't believe in until I can figure out how it exsts and why it exists. If something is said to never exist then I have no reason to believe in it as being a thing, because it isn't. It is non-existent.

Now, if you can prove to me logically that the non-existent is parallel to the existent, then there is no reason for me to deny it. Unfortunately in doing so you have made the non-existent, exist, and it is no longer truly non-existent and non-physical, rather it is known to be the same as existence.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Well it is quite difficult to prove personal experience. Therefore, most debate of this nature requires a common frame of reference. If neither or none of the participants share a commonality, communication breaks down. It's difficult for me, as an average american housewife, to describe to you (not sure what your lifestyle or experiences are) my personal experiences in a way that you would find meaningful or convincing. Afterall, I might be extremely impressed by things you might find mundane and vice-a-versa.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Well it is quite difficult to prove personal experience.


I can agree with that, but not when 6 billion people believe it is their simultaneous personal experience and it can never be proven. Now we've got a problem.


Therefore, most debate of this nature requires a common frame of reference. If neither or none of the participants share a commonality, communication breaks down.


Well, we always share commonality, even through our differences. Our differences are what most of us have in common. What this is, is an excuse to face each other truthfully and face existence truthfully, so there is an attempt at division and separation so that we can segregate ourselves into our own little boxes instead of accepting that we are eternally one together; physically, existentially, logically etc.


It's difficult for me, as an average american housewife, to describe to you (not sure what your lifestyle or experiences are) my personal experiences in a way that you would find meaningful or convincing. Afterall, I might be extremely impressed by things you might find mundane and vice-a-versa.


Well, so far very little about this place and most of these people has impressed me. I live on a polluted rock mostly full of war mongering idiots that value a slice of thin wood with coloring and a number on it and these institutions that they've created called religions that all serve a different God, a different idea of that God, and a different idea of how that God came to be on Earth, fight for imaginary borders, fly pieces of rags on them with colors representing these invisible borders, take part in genocide on each other and on their wild life, slaughter their animals and their fellows,... all more than they value each other... and yet they've somehow found in the midst of all this that outlawing homosexuality will make the world a better place.

I guess I'm impressed by the abundance of stupidity.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Are you female?
Have you ever given birth? Menustrated? Had cramps? Zits?
Gone through menopause? Been raped? Beaten?
Had Addictions? Close encounters with death? Unexplainable
experiences? Spiritual transformation? Met a ghost? Had a UFO
encounter? Painted a picture? Played a musical instrument?
Wrote a poem? Had an allergy? Ever been stalked? Robbed?
Divorced? Married? Had children?
Do you know the devastation of sickness and/or poverty?
Our everyday experiences and personal histories, vary wildly.
All these things accumulate to make us who we are. And they
color our decision making processes, our ability to understand
our own shortcomings and strengths and the source of our
strengths.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Our everyday experiences and personal histories, vary wildly.
All these things accumulate to make us who we are. And they
color our decision making processes, our ability to understand
our own shortcomings and strengths and the source of our
strengths.


Yeah, they will always be a part of our resulting current, but it doesn't always pan out the same for everyone. There are many people that have come from being raped, beaten, abused, poverty and sickness and made a great thing of theirselves instead of sitting around and complaining. In fact most all people experience some of this.

My history isn't perfect, no one's is. The difference is some people use it as an excuse to continue on the same path and others use it as fuel to become better.

I have strength within me, nothing can ever bring me down, and I've been through a lot... and for me it's only just beginning.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


So you agree that because of these differences, it's not going to be easy to describe to you my personal experiences in a way that would convince you that God is real. Instead, you would conjure in your mind reasons for why I might believe it that have nothing to do with my actual experiences, because that is your experience. How can those two things ever reach an agreement? Until you have an experience of your own, they never will.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
So you agree that because of these differences, it's not going to be easy to describe to you my personal experiences in a way that would convince you that God is real. Instead, you would conjure in your mind reasons for why I might believe it that have nothing to do with my actual experiences, because that is your experience.


Because as I stated: We are energetically an eternal one and our objective and material experience is the same. We exist of a physical reality. The non-physical and magical man making miracles up in heaven isn't happening. What is happening is real, physical, tangible and explainable. Just because you can't currently explain it due to a lack of material knowledge doesn't mean that it is coming from an invisible, unknowable source outside of the universe (there is no outside of the universe, timespace is eternal), although it IS true that because of your lack of material knowledge your experience is subjectively coming from a currently invisible and unknowable source to you... that currently invisible source is the objective physical/material knowledge of the universe that you are lacking about the situations that you have experienced, therefore you can not explain them and you have no material knowledge of what happened... so you say the invisible did it, which is only true in your mind. The invisible in this case is your lack of material knowledge to explain what has happened.


How can those two things ever reach an agreement? Until you have an experience of your own, they never will.


I have experiences every day. I understand them, seek to understand them to no end, and have knowledge of why things currently are they way that they are and why things currently hapen the way that they happen.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
If you're earnestly seeking knowledge, I suggest tapping into your spiritual side as well. Because until you experience it, you have no foundation to criticize it or to discuss it. Let me give you an example:

One day I decide to attend a college class on the subject of string theory. Before i've even opened the book or learned a single thing about it, I stand up and tell the teacher he's full of it, and walk out. I do this because it has not been my experience that string theory is even a necessary thing to learn in the first place. (this is regardless of whether or not you believe in string theory and is merely an example of how your perspective and depth of knowledge, changes everything).

An alternative approach is, i read a book criticizing string theory. I take a college course in it, but before the teacher can finish a single lecture, I'm already pointing out the flaws in string theory even though I've not opened the book on the subject or tried to understand it from the teacher's perspective.

And yet a third approach is, I attend a class on string theory. I half-heartedly read the book, barely pass the tests and get a marginal grade for the semester. Then I go out and get a book criticizing string theory, read it, decide it is right and toss out string theory entirely. HOWEVER, I still take yet another class in string theory, just so I can criticize the professor.

And finally, I attend a class on string theory. I get really good grades and pass the course with flying colors. I join a debate society and debate string theory with other scientists, one of which completely convinces me that the idea is full of errors. (it is irrelevant whether it's true or not, the idea is to follow the bouncing ball that is the human being's decision making process. where the break down in learning occurs and how it impacts your entire life). So I toss it all out and become a vehement opponent of string theory (cause I never do anything half way!). It doesn't matter if string theory is not wrong or is only marginally wrong, only that I am now convinced, due to my experience, that it is wrong and woe to the inhabitants of string theory classes everywhere!







[edit on 14-6-2008 by undo]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
If you're earnestly seeking knowledge, I suggest tapping into your spiritual side as well. Because until you experience it, you have no foundation to criticize it or to discuss it. Let me give you an example:


No, undo. My spiritual side is the physical realm. My spiritual side is always tapped into.


One day I decide to attend a college class on the subject of string theory. Before i've even opened the book or learned a single thing about it, I stand up and tell the teacher he's full of it, and walk out.


I know this is regardless of whether I believe in string theory or not. But I wanna make it clear that I do not believe it.


I still take yet another class in string theory, just so I can criticize the professor.





And finally, I attend a class on string theory. I get really good grades and pass the course with flying colors. I join a debate society and debate string theory with other scientists, one of which completely convinces me that the idea is full of errors. (it is irrelevant whether it's true or not, the idea is to follow the bouncing ball that is the human being's decision making process. where the break down in learning occurs and how it impacts your entire life). So I toss it all out and become a vehement opponent of string theory (cause I never do anything half way!). It doesn't matter if string theory is not wrong or is only marginally wrong, only that I am now convinced, due to my experience, that it is wrong and woe to the inhabitants of string theory classes everywhere!


Why not, after all of this... write a book presenting the errors of string theory to everyone and publish a scientific paper for peer review?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   


Why not, after all of this... write a book presenting the errors of string theory to everyone and publish a scientific paper for peer review?


You could do that! Or you could keep debating it, just in case your experience with that single opponent was a fluke. Even people of faith have done this step. You never initially go willingly into the idea that you're a walking disaster area or that there might be a world and existence beyond your 5 flesh senses. It's a struggle against your flesh brain and your spiritual body.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
You could do that! Or you could keep debating it, just in case your experience with that single opponent was a fluke.


What single opponent? We're talking about going through debate classes and taking classes and reading books and coming away knowing for certain that string theory is flawed, right? If still in doubt then don't write a book.


Even people of faith have done this step.


Well they should. Faith is belief without evidence. If there's no evidence then you'd better take another step to be sure you can prove what you're about to present.


You never initially go willingly into the idea that you're a walking disaster area or that there might be a world and existence beyond your 5 flesh senses. It's a struggle against your flesh brain and your spiritual body.


What? My brain is spiritual, my body is spiritual. As I said, my God is everything and everywhere, here and now and eternally in the past and future. The spirit is within me always and within everything else, always. There is no separation.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   


What? My brain is spiritual, my body is spiritual. As I said, my God is everything and everywhere, here and now and eternally in the past and future. The spirit is within me always and within everything else, always. There is no separation.


Ok. That's step 1.
Step 2: Ever tried to communicate with God? What if it's sentient?

[edit on 14-6-2008 by undo]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Ok. That's step 1.
Step 2: Ever tried to communicate with God? What if it's sentient?


Well I'm glad we're making progress, someone is actually interested in what my unbiased and perfect God is rather than me always discussing the illogicalities and flaws of their own imperfect God which seems to always be a subjective reflection of who they really are.

My God is certainly sentient, I communicate with God every day. My God is the universe, the universe is conscious and alive and speaking in many ways, not only through its laws and principals and it's beautiful scenery, but through voices and thoughts of other Human beings. My God is everything. My God is sentient.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Would you do me a favor and do a comparative analysis on your two paragraphs above? Ask yourself what's different about them and try to put yourself in the shoes of your reading audience.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Well I'm glad we're making progress, someone is actually interested in what my unbiased and perfect God is rather than me always discussing the illogicalities and flaws of their own imperfect God which seems to always be a subjective reflection of who they really are.


Okay. So above I am talking about the perfection of the God that I have come to know, which is everywhere and everything, and this God that I know relative to the imperfection and illogicalities of the mere ideas of other Gods currently residing on this Earth


My God is certainly sentient, I communicate with God every day. My God is the universe, the universe is conscious and alive and speaking in many ways, not only through its laws and principals and it's beautiful scenery, but through voices and thoughts of other Human beings. My God is everything. My God is sentient.


Yes. My God is known through me and I spread the perfection of this God to others through showing that their current idea of God is indeed not perfect and they have been mislead into believing in an idea of God that isn't true. I have been blessed from God (the universe, existence, energy) with this knowledge of which I have to spread. My God is impermeable, inextirpable, indestructable and flawless in all of its ways. The ideas of God that are not like this, are not the true God.

God doesn't want you to have faith in the unknowable; the unknowable manipulates and decieves. God wants you to know it, to touch it, to feel it, to taste it, to smell it, to see its beauty and its awe, its simplicities and its complexities, to hear it, to experience it emotionally and to relish in its sempiternal existence with it and as it. Your heaven and your hell are here. They are what you create now.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
You know, I actually liked your theories a lot better when I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that you didn't believe in God. Now that you're slapping the God label on your ideas, I can't really get into it anymore. I would gladly believe all this stuff about energy, logic, and everything else you've been describing. But once you start calling it God(even if it's for a lack of a better word), start talking about priveledged knowledge, and your duty to spread it, it just reeks of the same ol same ol.

Let's go back to the unknowable for just a second. When talking about the elephant seal or whatever, you concluded that in all likelihood we would discover it's manner of operation,despite the other gentlemans assertion that it was unknowable. This is a safe bet, that we would determine it's ways of existing. The same logic applies to all things though. While we may not have evidence or proof of God now, there's no telling if it will be forthcoming in the future. There's no telling that it hasn't already been made available, and we are just ignorant of it. The point is, we can't logically say anything is unknowable, and we certainly can't say anything is eternally unknowable.

Which brings me to my main complaint against your theories. I don't think you can safely say your logic or information is perfect or flawless. The only way someone could make this assertion is if they knew EVERYTHING in all time frames. Somewhere along the lines of your theories there is something you don't know, or something you are mistaken about. In dealing with people who know even less, your logic may appear perfect because they are unable split hairs finely enough to expose your ignorance about something. And believe me you are ignorant about something, everyone is.

The point is, I sincerely doubt you KNOW for a FACT that every element of your hypothesis is true. You may believe it to be true because, according to your own logic(which is most certainly subject to some kind of bias) it all makes sense.

And might I add, if you're going to be spreading "knowledge" people may be more receptive if you refrain from asserting they have a psychological malady. Going around insulting people and giving yourself pats on the back is not exactly the model of mental or psychological excellence.




[edit on 14-6-2008 by Gigatronix]




top topics



 
43
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join