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: 29
43
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Explanation: Firstly Thanks for the kudo's.


You're welcome. Credit is earned where credit is due.


Please enlighten (provide proof) me to my ignorance or better still just point the way and I'll try get there myself.


It depends. I'd suggest doing a search on the electromagnetic wavelengths of light so that you understand where the color red comes from and how that all relates into red-shifting and CMB. The claim is that galaxies are moving away from us and we're moving away from galaxies or from some "center point" in the universe which causes light to stretch out into the red wavelength when perceived by us
(that's a laymen's analogy). Personal study and personal scrutiny always works the best. I wouldn't take another's word for anything, unless you were familiar with the knowledge and logic presented to you in it.


Next you state and I quote "I've read this many times. I don't see factual conclusion. I see a twisting of the facts to fit a preconceived agenda based on nothing but religious doctrines."


Read up on redshifting, then study the elctromagnetic spectrum. It should only take you a day or two to begin seeing things clearly.


Drop the word creationist from that sentence and it reads just as true or are you calling NASA creationist scientists?


Exactly. Regardless of where a scientist works or who for, if they are a proponent of creationism then they are a creationist scientist.


Again you refute with out qualifying it with WHY this is so or providing either Proof or directions to it! I encourage you to deny my ignorance with a bit more rigour and vigour.


I apologize. Sometimes repeating things as many times as I do becomes a set back. Often I find it easier to just say "this isn't true", then I become headached at the idea of having to explain everything again for another user. My weakness I should work on. Do a search of the spectrum of light and understand where red light waves come from and how, then read up on redshifting CMB and the big bang, as they all try to tie each other into a knot.


not just somewhere but Everywhere over the entire Observiverse as best our technologically enhanced senses will currently allow.


This is untrue.


I look forward to how you go about debunking this as it may earn you a nobel laureate and I would sure love to see that.


I doubt I'll ever win anything of that nature. I'm just a simple man.


Ah, sorry, I've gotta go. Friend just showed up to pick me up and go get down on some video games
Enjoy your day, I'll get back to the rest of your post(s) later.




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
rigor vigor

if it's eternal, it's had plenty of time to create a whole slew of "gods," either through some crazily elevated evolution, some extraordinary technology or other fancy schmancy dimensional stuff, but whatever the case may be, you ain't gonna convince me that your view is the correct view cause you can't prove a thing! mormons believe the universe is eternal AND they believe in gods. so now what? how you gonna prove 'em wrong? just cause you say so? well they say different and so do other people who believe in "God" or "gods" or simply ascended whatevers. sorry, eternal univese equals no atheism for you pal.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I apologize ahead of time.

Sorry undo, that was one of your less well constructed arguments yet, besides attempting to use your void of knowledge about shrodinger's cat. If you're not bright enough to understand it, you just never will. There's an axiom that comes with ignorance; it's miscomprehension.

P.s. I never claimed to be athiest. Maybe you should pay a bit more attention to the party(s) you are involved in discourse with. Otherwise I'm just as well off having a conversation with my front lawn.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
didn't actually refute this and actually agrees with what you are saying so no argument here except that I suggest that the subjective universe is also perfect.


Everything exists of perfection, yet people's ideas of it can be imperfect, or have a conviction that it is imperfect, when in fact this is false.


for example my thoughts and feelings are sometimes highly abstracted states of subjective perception based on the objective reality.


Sure, but I hope that you understand that your subjective perception of something will never change the way that it objectively behaves. For example: just because the majority of the world, at a time believed that the globe was flat, did not change the fact that the globe has always been spherical.


now lets say my abstract internal subjective state assumes a POV that is inconsistent with the objective reality state. then I still see it as Perfect in the sense of Perfectly wrong or Perfectly misguided but Perfect none the less!


Well, I agree. Perfection is the foundation of eternity/everything. Though becoming disconnected from this perfection causes what we diagnose as delusion, or schizophrenia. To persistently deny that one's very existence is perfect is a delusion.


I contend that there is no place in the universe/God state that is not inherently perfect at some level. Please dish up some of that flawless logic for me to choke on.


Everything is inherently perfect. The flaw is when we wish to deviate through use of our own subjective perception. Why do we do this? Why do people deny that perfection is omnipresent? I'm not religious, but most the definitions of God fo indeed fit the definition of the universe/energy smugly, yet they deny that the perfection of their "creator" is within their creation. How can this be if it is omnipresent? It can not be. They are lost. The perfection is eternally omnipresent.


I feel you were worn out when you posted your post and that's not a fair contest so I will let you rest up and get your endurance back up as I'm sure looking forward to round 2.


I'm still worn out! Yesterday was an exaggeratingly elongated day! *sigh*
Oh well, tough it out soldier!



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Sorry, i was unclear. I meant that no thing can have already existed for eternity.


So I suppose then that you do not believe in God.


As i think i was refering to your statement that the physical is eternal.


Yes, it is. Would you like to prove how no thing can have existed for eternity? When you do, you have the argument for athiesm. I'll be waiting.


Thus i have a problem with accepting that the universe has always existed and is eternal. However, if you can prove that the physical is eternal then my problem disappears.


Well if you would have spent more time reading my preoccupation on nothingness you'd understand why. Now you've just passed it up and not understood it. If I have to I will go back and copy it for you as many times as necessary, but it will always be there whenever you decide to read it and comprehend it.


While obviously my beliefs are not your concern, i would hope that your efforts to share on ATS are sincere and i would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the Second Law of Thermodynamics in regards to the entropy of energy, and thus matter. And how this logic relates to yours in relation to your beliefs.


Your beliefs are certainly my concern. It has everything to do with this debate and with fact vs opinion, subjective vs objective. I don't know where you are bestowed your notion of "obviously". Well equillibrium is already reached as seen and explained through the eternity of energy in physics through the foundation of perfection that is existence. If anything was objectively unbalanced or out of place equilibrium would not be. Thew continuum of perfection can only mean that all forces, laws and energetical principals are operating perfectly in sync with one another, always; there is no way to destroy existence, it is perfect, and energy can neither be created or destroyed: energy is existence/everything.

I suppose regarding entropy that you are referring to cosmology? Such as heat death? Well, it's quite obvious that the temperature of the universe varies from place to place is it not? But theoretically there is a mean temperature, though you could never figure out this temperature because the calculations (space/time) are infinite. All things are do work, all things are capable of work. Entropy is based on a closed system, I've never witnessed a closed system, nor can it be witnessed, such a thing doesn't exist.


I have not asked you to believe anything. Calling it a Scam is an opinion.


No, actually it's logic. To say that something that is invisible and unknowable eternally or even at the current moment and then attempting to say that you know what it is, is a LIE. L-I-E. It means you're just making stuff up. Invisible, intangible and unknowable. This means you can't know it, so by default it's invisible and intangibloe, and because of that, you can't know it! So, when you begin to explain what it is, you are LYING, SCAMMING.


Just claiming something has always existed as it is impossible for nothing to exist is a theory based on principle and not process and i would call that a scam. More opinion.


First off it's not a thoery, and yes it is based on the underlay of objective principle, physicality, and pretty much just common sense that every Human Being should have. When you bring me a cup of nothing I'll accept that what I say is mere opinion. Until that day I will with 100% certainty and absoluteness announce the eternity of the universe as evidenced by the definition of nothing.


There are many people that claim they do. You do not. That is your problem to resolve, which you have.


Here again you are factually flawed. You should go back and read my posts. You know it's one thing to just get a few facts wrongl, it's another to attempt to shove words in someone's mouth and tell them what their view is when they've already stated "my God is the objective universe" and "I know my God".

Your problem to resolve which you have is your lack of ability to discern.
A claim is one thing, certainty is another. I am certain that I know my God.


So here you are supposing to know that which you claim does not exist. Your supposition is proof that he does not exist.


No, actually what I was doing was saying that there is a book that states that the unknowable and invisible has attributes and it is claimed that this book is the word of God. If this is true, then God is a liar and a deceiver. Not hard to follow, atlas.


But others that suppose god reasoning or existence are debased as schizophrenic?


Yeah, you're starting to show signs of this. I can't carry conversations with someone that can't even read my texts and follow along. No where did I say that I have no God, and no where have I stated that I am capable of knowing the unknowable, I have only stated that by its definition it can not be known and that is all that I can know about it because that's what I've been given as the definition for that God as presented by JPhish and defended by various posters including, it appears, also by yourself.


Here is your problem. People are liars and scammers. Where does God say "lie and scam".


I don't have a problem
If you were following my post you'd realize that I was assessing the definition of God given to me through the Bible and by the formerly mentioned users. A thing can't be claimed to be simultaneously omnipresent and unknowable. If it is omnipresent then we certainly know something about it. Therefore it is knowable.


Where does religious doctrine inspire"lying and scamming" in the name of GOD. Can you please show me. Are lying and scamming isolated only to religious people who believe in a god or other form thereof. Your view is limited and not based on fact or logic.


It is based in fact and logic. Religious people have many doctrines from a multitude of religions through which they defend to the death that have absolutely no connection to physical reality and no soundness in logic. For example the chakras are one, the unknowable invisible God with attributes is another, reincarnation is another, souls is another, heaven and hell after death is another. Just fear tactics, manipulation and scam, based on no credible evidence, not even sound logic.


But we cannot observe this, it is outside of our reception, our limitations. Can we see in every spectrum. Can we hear every frequency.


Yes, with technology. We didn't imagine outside of these limitations, we observed with what we naturally had, we used the physical universe tyo enhance our senses. It had nothing to do with imagination and everything to do with a gathering of facts and then construction of mechanisms with those facts and on rare occasions utter accidents. Imagination goes no where but into a psyche ward without the knowledge and abilities of physical reality to impliment it into physical reality.


Therefore why should we limit ourselves looking outside these limitations.


These things are still not outside of our limitations. They are still things that can be seen, heard, tasted, felt and smelt, just extensions of those senses.


No. Einstein Imagined he could and what do you know......Theory of General Relativity.


How did Einstein ever imagine such things? Imagination is reliant on knowledge. He had to have the knowledge of the speed of light to ever even think of going faster than it. How did he access this knowledge and how was this knowledge accessed? Through the senses. He didn't just imagine it, he had to put together and formulate flawless mathematical equations based on other mathematical equations.


God is obviously outside of my limitations. But this is not proof that he does not exist or a reason not to continue to believe in the idea of a God or a search for God's presence.


Here comes your delusion, AGAIN. Contradiction ferris wheel started up. You must be this ignorant and believe in this many dieties to ride. If something is outside of your limitations then you can never know it. Also, I don't know what God you subscribe to, but if it's the ne that is said to be omnipresent and here you're claiming that it's outside of your limitations, then you fall straight into the lying, scamming, confused type.


Some of the laws you talk about contradict your belief that energy and matter are eternal and have always existed.


Actually none do, and they aren't allowed to. Any that state such are flawed, and I'd like to be point. One of the basic principals of physics, since you used Einstein you should be familiar with this, unless you just pick and choose at random what you want to use disregarding everything else he said, is that energy can neither be created or destroyed. BASIC PHYSICS, one of the first things that you learn. Could you now please represent your claim with the law that contradicts eternal energy and disect it well?

P.s. I don't have beliefs.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
There is no doubt that we are all made of the same energy. You believe it is eternal and has always existed. Eternal Consciousness.


It is not my belief that it is eternal. It is physical fact. You can not destroy energy and you can not create it.


This is how god is described in religious dogma. You say you have no belief, yet offer a consciousness now that is eternal. This is metaphysical. Or Scientism. Astrology and religious dogma. Take your pick.


No, sir. I don't have beliefs. This is not metaphysical. The universe is objectively perfect. We are a part of this objectivism. Do you not consider yourself conscious? Do you not consider yourself energy? If energy is eternal, energy makes you up and you are conscious, then put it together.


This a clever way you can make your peace with that which you do not know as you accept it is always there and within you.


No. This is how the universe is. Not a "clever way to make peace with that which I do not know", because I certainly know this, it is not an unknown. I won't sit here and lie to you and tell you that I know the unknowable and that I know what it wants, and you must all listen to me and bow before me! I am the light and the way!
C'mon...
Be real.


Which then lends you the arrogance to dismiss all other beliefs as stupid and/or delusional mental illness, which you constantly do. Your hypocracy is manifest.


You're a terrible debater. Your logic is horrendous and how you make these jumps to these conclusions that you do, dumbfounds me because I am founded in dumb dumb when I am finished reading it.

So first you make the assertion that I know the unknowable and am cleverly making peace with it, which is a flat out lie because it goes against what I have stated multiple times such as "I know my God" and "my God is not unknowable" and "my God is the universe", then through this lie you jump to the conclusion that I am a hypocrite.


It's all in your head dear sir. May you find clarity.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: Thanks for directing me and here is what I have found in just a cursory glance....

From here I got....

"Discovery

A decade before Hubble made his observations, a number of physicists and mathematicians had established a consistent theory of the relationship between space and time by using Einstein's field equations of general relativity. Applying the most general principles to the nature of the universe yielded a dynamic solution that conflicted with the then prevailing notion
of a static universe."

"The cosmological constant abandoned After Hubble's discovery was published, Albert Einstein abandoned his work on the cosmological constant (which he had designed to allow for a static solution to his equations). He later termed this work his "greatest blunder" since the assumption of a static universe had prevented him from predicting the expanding universe. Einstein made a famous trip to Mount Wilson in 1931 to thank Hubble for providing the observational basis for modern cosmology."

"Olbers' paradox

Main article: Olbers' paradox

The expansion of space summarized by the Big Bang interpretation of Hubble's Law is relevant to the old conundrum known as Olbers' paradox: if the universe were infinite, static, and filled with a uniform distribution of stars (notice that this also requires an infinite number of stars), then every line of sight in the sky would end on a star, and the sky would be as bright as the surface of a star. However, the night sky is largely dark. Since the 1600s, astronomers and other thinkers have proposed many possible ways to resolve this paradox, but the currently accepted resolution depends in part upon the Big Bang theory and in part upon the Hubble expansion. In a universe that exists for a finite amount of time, only the light of finitely many stars has had a chance to reach us yet, and the paradox is resolved. Additionally, in an expanding universe distant objects recede from us, which causes the light emanating from them to be redshifted and diminished in brightness. Although both effects contribute, the redshift is the less important of the two; remember the original paradox was couched in terms of a static universe.[5]"

And I direct you to the ^CDM model and the three experiments perfomed by different apparatus that confirm its accuracy!

and From hereI got ....

"Expansion of space

Main article: Metric expansion of space" and I'll just quote the impotant bits...

"Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space.[16] As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift."

"This type of redshift is called the cosmological redshift or Hubble redshift. If the universe were contracting instead of expanding, we would see distant galaxies blue shifted by an amount proportional to their distance instead of redshifted."

"As a consequence, popular literature often uses the expression "Doppler redshift" instead of "cosmological redshift" to describe the motion of galaxies dominated by the expansion of spacetime, despite the fact that a "cosmological recessional speed" when calculated will not equal the velocity in the relativistic Doppler equation.[27] In particular, Doppler redshift is bound by special relativity; thus v > c is impossible while, in contrast, v > c is possible for cosmological redshift because the space which separates the objects (e.g., a quasar from the Earth) can expand faster than the speed of light."

And from same web page but under topic of ExtraGalactic Observations I got...

"The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang."

and From here I got ....

"Whenever light waves (and other electromagnetic waves) exist in a medium (matter), their wavelength is decreased." (redshifted twice I pressume! once via doppler effect and 2nd via cosmic expansion redshifting!)

Personal Disclosure: What you directed me to confirms my hypothesis and deny's yours. please direct me to somewhere that confirms your POV!

P.s. post continued below to address your other comments me.

Become totally disillusioned and finally see everything for real. Think Globally Act Locally Feel Internally.DENY IGNORANCE 1st.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 

Post Continued from above.

You reply "Exactly. Regardless of where a scientist works or who for, if they are a proponent of creationism then they are a creationist scientist." And I fully agree but suggest that they are not creationists in a RELIGIOUS sense!

Then you state "then read up on redshifting CMB and the big bang, as they all try to tie each other into a knot." and I suggest you re-evaluate that knot and consider it as a pretty tied Bow!!! Unity is more wholistic than Division. Please try to see how we can unify our various POV under a Common POV without denying thier inherent perfection. My POV is perfect for me just as I'm sure your POV is perfect for you. I suggest again that we can both have our cake and eat it too and direct you to read that post of mine again!


You then state "This is untrue." in reference to what said and I quote myself "not just somewhere but Everywhere over the entire Observiverse as best our technologically enhanced senses will currently allow." and you don't qualify why or provide any evidence to the contrary where as I am able to direct you (again!) to the ^CDM model and the three experiments performed
by different apparatus that confirm its accuracy! (found here). Care to refute with more Rigor and Vigor?

Your next post to me then states "Everything exists of perfection," (I fully agree and yet..)" yet people's ideas of it can be imperfect, or have a conviction that it is imperfect, when in fact this is false." and I suggest you are perfectly deluding yourself and ignoring the full implications of your 1st statement "Everything exists of perfection," which is proof that all ideas and illusions are perfect as well (not imperfect as there is no such state but only the perfect illusion of a moral right and wrong). If you are seeking unity of all consiousnesses then I suggest you stop trying to find so many divisions in
other consiousnesses(peoples) perceptions by qualifying them to yourself as imperfect and seek a POV that allows both theirs and your POV to coexist in harmony.

Then you state and I quote "Sure, but I hope that you understand that your subjective perception of something will never change the way that it objectively behaves. For example: just because the majority of the world, at a time believed that the globe was flat, did not change the fact that the globe has always been spherical." and thats clearly BULL$#!@ because my
Subjective perception changes the way I Objectively behave and I Exist! Ever heard of psychosomatic response under deep hypnosis where blisters can appear when a non-hot pencil rubber is held to the skin and the entranced subject is told it is a lit cigarette or red hot metal rod. 2ndly if I am subjectively primed for fear or confidence then that will condition my
whole Objective bodies physiological responses. You can NOT Divorce MIND FROM BODY!!! Care to refute?

Next you state "Well, I agree. Perfection is the foundation of eternity/everything. Though becoming disconnected from this perfection causes what we diagnose as delusion, or schizophrenia. To persistently deny that one's very existence is perfect is a delusion." and this goes to my argument against your "This is untrue." statement and I suggest that as you persistently Deny it and then contradict yourself on this matter that you are then Perfectly deluded in this area of your POV. But no matter as your now part of that 90% schitzo majority.

Then you state "Everything is inherently perfect. The flaw is when we wish to deviate through use of our own subjective perception. Why do we do this? Why do people deny that perfection is omnipresent? I'm not religious, but most the definitions of God fo indeed fit the definition of the universe/energy smugly, yet they deny that the perfection of their "creator" is within their creation. How can this be if it is omnipresent? It can not be. They are lost. The perfection is eternally omnipresent."... and I'm not arguing with you but just as above showing you that you hold a perfect delusion my fellow schitzo (I too am part of that 90% but I'm a Consumate Professional and its my been my JOB since I was diagnosed as a teenager! and have Goverment backed qualifications to PROVE IT! Besides if I wasn't crazy someone else would have to be as there is only so much perfect insanity available and all available insainity must be housed in all applicable and viable consiousnesses!) as you post the word "Flaw" exactly ONE FULLSTOP AND ONE WORD away from the words "inherently perfect". Either your schitzo or your promoting ignorance! Please qualify which one you are so I can treat you appropriately! because and I would like to quote atlasastro who states and I quote "Which then lends you the arrogance to dismiss all other beliefs
as stupid and/or delusional mental illness, which you constantly do. Your hypocracy is manifest." and I agree with him. Care to refute?


Personal Disclosure: 2nd round down and I'm looking pretty so far but some of your Memetic structure looks leaky. Please rest up good so as to be in your best debating shape for round three. May you find clarity


Become totally disillusioned and finally see everything for real. Think Globally Act Locally Feel Internally.DENY IGNORANCE 1st.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Personal Disclosure: 2nd round down and I'm looking pretty so far but some of your Memetic structure looks leaky. Please rest up good so as to be in your best debating shape for round three. May you find clarity


Become totally disillusioned and finally see everything for real. Think Globally Act Locally Feel Internally.DENY IGNORANCE 1st.


Actually, it's all in your head too. Your delusionaol megalomania has you thinking that you are looking pretty because you just copied a whole bunch of information from various websites which I will gladly debunk since you didn't care to do the research on your own as I had suggested and as you had asked for and instead reported back to me and want me to do all the revealing and debunking for you. If only people could use their own heads I'd have more time for my own. My meme can't have unwanted leaks, it inherently overflows and spills onto everything and is everywhere already.

P.s. The may you find clarity quote was not even directed at you, but since you're now appearing ever increasingly lost and illogically provocative, may you find clarity, dear sir.

Your subjectivism is all in your head, it has nothing to do with objectivism. I can tell you that the purple dinosaur in candy cane land created the universe and rules all life, fortunately I should end up in a medical center and be psychologically evaluated for my lack of objective knowledge if I was to attempt to spread this non-sense, but for others they get a religion named after them and are deemed rightous.

I'll get back to the rest of your post(s) later. I've got more important things to do at the moment than think for other people's lack of thinking.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: In Your reply you start of with "Actually, it's all in your head too." and I don't deny this at all.


Then you state and I quote "Your delusionaol megalomania has you thinking that you are looking pretty because you just copied a whole bunch of information from various websites which I will gladly debunk since you didn't care to do the research on your own as I had suggested and as you had asked for and instead reported back to me and want me to do all the revealing and debunking for you." and like I said in my post and I quote "Thanks for directing me and here is what I have found in just a CURSORY GLANCE...." (Captilized emphasis mine!) which I consider to be the begining of research (care to refute) and this Cursory glance of mine at the information YOU directed me to ie Electromagnetic spectrum, and Red shifting which led me to Hubbles Law which I show in my quotes directly from the websites where I got my information (cursory glance or not) which led
me to logically conclude and I quote myself "Personal Disclosure: What you directed me to confirms my hypothesis and deny's yours. please direct me to somewhere that confirms your POV!". Note I myself do NOT deny your POV on reality as it is the information from those sites that seem to deny it( see my post on having our cake and eating it too!). But I actually believe
(there's my faith showing) both POV's can be accommidated in some reasonable fashion!

Yes I'm delusional as I clearly disclaimed it in my last post to you here "(I too am part of that 90% but I'm a Consumate Professional and its my been my JOB since I was diagnosed as a teenager! and have Goverment backed qualifications to PROVE IT! Besides if I wasn't crazy someone else would have to be as there is only so much perfect insanity available and all
available insainity must be housed in all applicable and viable consiousnesses!)" so you are preaching to the converted! Btw Im certainly Crazy but can you show me to be stupid or promoting ignorance?

Then in your P.S. you say "The may you find clarity quote was not even directed at you, but since you're now appearing ever increasingly lost and illogically provocative, may you find clarity, dear sir." May I find it indeed!
and as I appear "increasingly lost and illogically provocative" could you please point the way (ie provide proof for your arguments) and show
me where my logic fails. As to being provocative well we both are being provocative as thats what debating is all about. Both of us putting forward provocative arguments and testing their Memetic robustness.

Finally I'd like to quote you again for your own enlightenment "The fact that I have to go back 10 pages and copy things I've already said and re-explain them, and then copy things that opposing posters have said and re-explain them, is a daft drag... but... someone's gotta do it or they'll never learn how to debate or understand anything." in reference to your comment "I've
got more important things to do at the moment than think for other people's lack of thinking." So where do you really stand? Are you a Ignorance Denying Enlightening Teacher or Proof Dodging Ignorance Promoter?

Personal Disclosure: I am now disillusioned by you to a sufficent enough degree to say I'm thinking the later rather than the former. But haven't made my mind up and I'm hoping you'll be able to change this perception that I'm holding.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 

You and LastVoiceOutfiniteEternal were made for each other.

I predict this will run and run.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
simple responses are best, i think. otherwise, there are too many points to argue on.
at least, for this particular conversation.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 



Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by atlasastro
Sorry, i was unclear. I meant that no thing can have already existed for eternity.


So I suppose then that you do not believe in God.
The question i originally asked was that no thing as in matter or energy, the universe can exist for eternity. Thanks for avoiding the question with your own. Where i have i stated my explanation for God. Where have i stated that i can prove god my exists. I haven't. You have. Can you show me the Universe is eternal, other than simply saying that it is because you exist. Can you please point in the direction of the irrefutable proof that supports your beliefs.



As i think i was refering to your statement that the physical is eternal.


Yes, it is. Would you like to prove how no thing can have existed for eternity? When you do, you have the argument for athiesm. I'll be waiting.
I thought that was your job. I believe in the big bang theory.


Thus i have a problem with accepting that the universe has always existed and is eternal. However, if you can prove that the physical is eternal then my problem disappears.



Well if you would have spent more time reading my preoccupation on nothingness you'd understand why. Now you've just passed it up and not understood it. If I have to I will go back and copy it for you as many times as necessary, but it will always be there whenever you decide to read it and comprehend it.
As i said, i understand what you are saying. As i am sure you understand the religious dogma that says God exists. To understand some point of view and accept it as truth are two different things. I think it is obvious that if you accept it as truth you believe everyone else has to, just because you have expressed it. Otherwise you would not feel the need to constantly question the sanity of those that do not accept it. My beliefs are not reliant on your POV that existence is eternal as it is impossible for nothing to exist. We do not observe an eternal universe. For me to believe it, i would like it shown. Does this sound familiar.




Your beliefs are certainly my concern. It has everything to do with this debate and with fact vs opinion, subjective vs objective. I don't know where you are bestowed your notion of "obviously".

This is where.....

originally posted by LastOutInfinitevoiveEternal
I take much joy in watching the religious squirm, run and grab for whatever lies they can make up to save theirselves. It has me immersed in a constant frenzy of laughter at their deception and desparity.
So if you see me around you should think twice about becoming the nail while discussing with me if you want your ridiculous unevidential p.o.v.'s

www.belowtopsecret.com...
Hardly words of concern. I think that justifies the "obviously".


Well equillibrium is already reached as seen and explained through the eternity of energy in physics through the foundation of perfection that is existence.
If anything was objectively unbalanced or out of place equilibrium would not be. Thew continuum of perfection can only mean that all forces, laws and energetical principals are operating perfectly in sync with one another, always; there is no way to destroy existence, it is perfect, and energy can neither be created or destroyed: energy is existence/everything.
This is your explanation of an eternal universe. I understand. Ok. I agree with you that this is your explanation of how it works.


I suppose regarding entropy that you are referring to cosmology? Such as heat death? Well, it's quite obvious that the temperature of the universe varies from place to place is it not? But theoretically there is a mean temperature, though you could never figure out this temperature because the calculations (space/time) are infinite. All things are do work, all things are capable of work. Entropy is based on a closed system, I've never witnessed a closed system, nor can it be witnessed, such a thing doesn't exist.
Yes i was asking along the lines of the law in an eternal universe would see energy dissipate over eternity resulting in a uniform temperature of absolute zero. And as per the Third law matter would not exist at a molecular level. I guess i was curious to know how in the finite universe(closed system) this law would apply to your infinite universe, but obviously this law must not apply, or that it just exists and thus works and is perfect. Maybe, A religious God made it that way as he is eternal, And as a religious God is nothing, it is impossible to imagine no God, so he exists, as eternal god. I get it now. Maybe its all just Specious Present. All nothing. LOL.


I have not asked you to believe anything. Calling it a Scam is an opinion.



No, actually it's logic. To say that something that is invisible and unknowable eternally
As i have said before. It is you who does not know the God of Abraham etc. You believe you have an explanation for existence. An existence that has been rationalised since (eternity....hehe) the creation of humanity. All you offer is a paradox. As i have said before, others believe they do know the God of christianity etc, Just not the way that you require them to know it. Just like you know that The Universe is eternal. Is Logic perfect. Is there only one type of Logic. Did logic always exist. Paradoxes of existence is what we have. Let me make sure i understand you. To you there is nothing to be found, believed in, defer to( ie Religion, God), just experienced as existence. All you have to justify this is that you exist, that the universe exists and therefore people should not search for, believe in, or question anything on that matter. But you want them to ignore the paradoxes that are obvious to that existence and limit the way in which they approach these paradoxes. By limit i mean call them insane or stupid, that you want to metaphorically hammer them like a nail and watch them squirm so you can exist in a momentary state of laughter. Is that what you mean by logic.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Or even at the current moment and then attempting to say that you know what it is, is a LIE. L-I-E. It means you're just making stuff up. Invisible, intangible and unknowable.
You mean like an infinite universe.


when you begin to explain what it is, you are LYING, SCAMMING.
Stop trying to scam me on the eternal universe and your perfection then. Please.



Just claiming something has always existed as it is impossible for nothing to exist is a theory based on principle and not process and i would call that a scam. More opinion.


First off it's not a thoery, and yes it is based on the underlay of objective principle, physicality, and pretty much just common sense that every Human Being should have.

Lol, yeah, my comment is pretty funny. Ok. I will learn from that. You can't say i never tried to help your argument. I think i'll just cop this one on the chin. put the hammer down....please.



There are many people that claim they do. You do not. That is your problem to resolve, which you have.


Here again you are factually flawed. You should go back and read my posts. You know it's one thing to just get a few facts wrongl, it's another to attempt to shove words in someone's mouth and tell them what their view is when they've already stated "my God is the objective universe" and "I know my God".
I think it would be fair to say you could have used your logic to conclude that i was meaning the God of mainstream religions. The one inspired by Dogma. I am pretty sure you refuse to accept that version of God. When i say that is "your problem to deal with and that you did" ii believed it would be obvious that i am aware of "your god" which you "know". Sorry for not being clear enough for you. Maybe i need a bigger shovel.



Your problem to resolve which you have is your lack of ability to discern.
A claim is one thing, certainty is another. I am certain that I know my God.
people are certain God(the one that is not yours) exists. You claim God(the one that is not yours) does not exist. Pretty simple. Can i make you uncertain of your. Not a chance in Hell(opps no pun intended.) Can you make me uncertain in Mine.(No.... i hope not as i may end up in hell....hehe....ok, pun intended.)



So here you are supposing to know that which you claim does not exist. Your supposition is proof that he does not exist.


No, actually what I was doing was saying that there is a book that states that the unknowable and invisible has attributes and it is claimed that this book is the word of God. If this is true, then God is a liar and a deceiver. Not hard to follow, atlas.
But if people accept that they were created by God, is that not an attribute of god. God is what he is. It is up to humans to decide how they will accept this. Does ones belief in God only rely on the biblical version. Is the idea of a creator or divine being limited to One human population. Are there not many Scientific views on the universe. You choose one over another. Are you only familiar with only one scientific or observable explanation. i think not.



But others that suppose god reasoning or existence are debased as schizophrenic?


Yeah, you're starting to show signs of this. I can't carry conversations with someone that can't even read my texts and follow along. No where did I say that I have no God, and no where have I stated that I am capable of knowing the unknowable, I have only stated that by its definition it can not be known and that is all that I can know about it because that's what I've been given as the definition for that God as presented by JPhish and defended by various posters including, it appears, also by yourself.
.
Well, speaking of reading your posts, lets have a look at this. If by "follow on" you mean, Just accept what ever you say and not question the paradox of existence. then by all means stop talking. It is pretty obvious you cannot. In fact you need to constantly repeat the same thing over and over again in the hope it will prove what you say is true.


originally posted by LastOutInfiniteVoiceeternal
As I said, for some odd reason (schizophrenia) think that saying something over and over again will change the facts AND the language.

They do. It's not an assertion sir, it's a validated fact. 90% of this planet's inhabitants or more have this schizophrenia.

People's shizophrenia and imaginary friend delusions

over and over again.
by the way can you show me the fats that say 90% of the population has Schizophrenia.

And while you are at it, see what the percentage of paranoid delusions are.

People's shizophrenia and imaginary friend delusions won't persuade me into their cults.
whatch out dude, they are after you. Those finite universe believers, the religious cults, the humble.

I am going to end my post on something great that you have posted on your God(the infinite universe).

originally posted by LastOutInfiniteVoiceEternal
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.what you say.

To think that people that believe in god(that is not yours) cannot do this, cannot or do not live this way is wrong. In fact i could argue that this is the way i strive to live my life, as many ,many others would to. It is just that i do it while believing something that you do not. To be fair i will point out that some people will say that you can only live this way if you believe what they do, which i believe is wrong. The question is. Are we people like that. I know i will answer no. As it is obvious to me that both you and I seem to want to experience life similarly while believing differently, i hope you would answer no too.

Also, I'm to tired to reply to the rest of your post as i have futsal tomorrow night and i really want to have an excellent experience ie. Win. I am dead tired. need sleep.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
The expansion of space summarized by the Big Bang interpretation of Hubble's Law is relevant to the old conundrum known as Olbers' paradox: if the universe were infinite, static, and filled with a uniform distribution of stars (notice that this also requires an infinite number of stars),
then every line of sight in the sky would end on a star, and the sky would be as bright as the surface of a star.


Oh God, what stupidity. This is the dumbest theory I've ever heard. We can look with telescopes over 20 billion light years away (and btw, still no sign of the universe ending
), but we still can't see that light with the naked eye here on Earth even though it has obviously already reached us because we can see it through the telescope and that light is making contact with the telescope's lens (Namely... HUBBLE).

It's quite easy to explain why the entire sky isn't lit up like the surface of a star
For one they're much too far away and much too small in the sky relative to where we are at, for two there are many other forces and objects in play in the universe that suck light, such as black holes. It's funny how Hubble's telescope will be the ultimate downfall of his theories.

OMG, so this is why the bottom of the ocean isn't lit up in broad daytime! It's because space is expanding at faster than the speed of light between the surface of the ocean and its base!
If I took a 2 mile long cup of sea water that shared the same radius as the flashlight I'm using, turned the flashlight on at one end and looked through the other... I wouldn't see light... not because space is expanding at faster than the velocity of light... but because light is so easily blocked by material components among other forces.


However, the night sky is largely dark. Since the 1600s, astronomers and other thinkers have proposed many possible ways to resolve this paradox, but the currently accepted resolution depends in part upon the Big Bang theory and in part upon the Hubble expansion.


Yeah, no duh it's dark. This is like caveman cosmology that I'm reading. It's dark because the Earth turns and the sun is on the other side, all that is left is stars that are much too far away to have any real luminal effect.


In a universe that exists for a finite amount of time, only the light of finitely many stars has had a chance to reach us yet, and the paradox is resolved. Additionally, in an expanding universe distant objects recede from us, which causes the light emanating from them to be redshifted and diminished in brightness. Although both effects contribute, the redshift is the less important of the two; remember the original paradox was couched in terms of a static universe.[5]"


Well actually the universe isn't finite and we're still not lit up like a christmas tree! That doesn't resolve a paradox, it just creates a problem. It's like that commercial where there's a hole in the dam wall and the guy just takes a piece of gum out of his mouth and patches it, walks away and the gum gets thrown off because of the pressure of the water and the spout becomes even larger. Now the funny part is watching scientists cling to the big bang, which has no authenticity whasoever in mathematics nor in logic or physics. You're much less educated than I originally thought you would be. You probably have no idea what you're typing or what you're copying from other web sites, and it would make absolutely no sense for me to explain to an ant the workings of the universe.


"Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space.[16] As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift."


Ehhhhh! Huge error. Space doesn't "stretch", unless we're talking about silly puddy.


"This type of redshift is called the cosmological redshift or Hubble redshift. If the universe were contracting instead of expanding, we would see distant galaxies blue shifted by an amount proportional to their distance instead of redshifted."


We don't see galaxies redshifted! Only a select few are taken, that do indeed redshift, because they are moving away from us and then they are used to support the theory, when in fact there are blueshifts, redshifts and the whole deal taking place. There are galaxies moving towards us, away from us, all different directions.


can expand faster than the speed of light.


That's always a funny one.


(z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang."


Riiiiiight, that's funny. Unfortunately the Hubble has already peeked further back that 13.7 billion light years since this article... RUBBISH.


"Whenever light waves (and other electromagnetic waves) exist in a medium (matter), their wavelength is decreased." (redshifted twice I pressume! once via doppler effect and 2nd via cosmic expansion redshifting!)


No, that's because matter is more dense than a vacuum.
So of course the wavelength of light will slow down, it does the same thing in water.


What you directed me to confirms my hypothesis and deny's yours. please direct me to somewhere that confirms your POV!


You're already here, buddy. You're just brainwashed. It's called the eternal singularity, or what you refer to as the universe.

P.s. I don't have a hypothesis, nor do I have beliefs. Pay attention, pls. It's all that I ask.

The whole point of me directing you to those references was because you asked. I then asked you to study the actual work done and the physics involved along with logic... you failed to do so because you don't have any wit, then you reported back to me with quotes from the site
Next time let's at least try to stay in line, or let me know when you are beginning to deviate.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
You reply "Exactly. Regardless of where a scientist works or who for, if they are a proponent of creationism then they are a creationist scientist." And I fully agree but suggest that they are not creationists in a RELIGIOUS sense!


Yep, it does. The idea of the universe being created is a religious notion, not found to be sound in science or in logic. Your suggestions mean nothing. Do the research and deal with the facts, but I've come to know that you lack this ability as well.


Please try to see how we can unify our various POV under a Common POV without denying thier inherent perfection. My POV is perfect for me just as I'm sure your POV is perfect for you.


I have tried to do this, it's what ultimately always leads me to see that yours is wrong and mine is right. Subjective views won't change the way of things, as I've said before. My POV is not solely subjective, it is grounded in objectivism, i.e. the truth of the universe.


I suggest again that we can both have our cake and eat it too and direct you to read that post of mine again!


Nope.


Care to refute with more Rigor and Vigor?


It's pretty simple, really. It's the same as trying to bring something out of nothing. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, all of these hypothesis contradict the main principals of physics. From there on out it's just a bunch of guess work and quantumly entangled delusion.


and I suggest you are perfectly deluding yourself and ignoring the full implications of your 1st statement "Everything exists of perfection," which is proof that all ideas and illusions are perfect as well (not imperfect as there is no such state but only the perfect illusion of a moral right and wrong).


Relativity my dear friend, and psychology. As I said, your suggestions mean nothing. Yes, everything exists perfectly. However denying perfection is akin to deviating from the principals of mathematics and attempting to make 2+2=5 a correct answer where the symbols represent their inherent values and there are no tricks to the equation.

They exist of perfection, but are not perfect relative to objective perfection. As I said; I can tell you that the Earth is flat, it is simply wrong. I can tell you that space is only 2d, it is simply wrong and flawed relative to the truth of existence.

It is only proof that all things exist through perfection (that we are allowed to make subjective mistakes), but that all ideas and hypothesis of perfection can be flawed relative to what perfection objectively is.


If you are seeking unity of all consiousnesses then I suggest you stop trying to find so many divisions in
other consiousnesses(peoples) perceptions by qualifying them to yourself as imperfect and seek a POV that allows both theirs and your POV to coexist in harmony.


As I said, your suggestions mean nothing. I am not seeking unity, I've already found it. Every great mind has found the divisions of their discovered truth relative to the imperfect ideas of others. Your p.o.v. already co-exists in harmony with the truth. Everything exists through and of perfection, even the ideas of imperfection, even the ignorance of perfection.


whole Objective bodies physiological responses. You can NOT Divorce MIND FROM BODY!!! Care to refute?


I did not divorce mind from body, I divorced lie from truth. Your mind can certainly play tricks on your own body, but it can never cause you to render the Earth flat through hypnosis. I have no evidence that psychosomatics is true. I've seen no real footage and read no explanation, but for the sake of argument it still does not contest to the subject at hand. The Earth is not flat and never has been since it's been spherical, nor has the universe ever revolved around the Earth. Just because the majority or even the entire world believed that it was, it didn't make it so. There are objective truths to the principals and laws of the universe that will always be regardless of what one believes.


But no matter as your now part of that 90% schitzo majority.


Not quite. Your leaps of illogic are facetiously entertaining though.


word "Flaw" exactly ONE FULLSTOP AND ONE WORD away from the words "inherently perfect".


Right. We know that 2 things add two things is 4. It's a flaw to call it 5. It's pretty simple Mr. over complication and spaz out.



as stupid and/or delusional mental illness, which you constantly do. Your hypocracy is manifest." and I agree with him. Care to refute?


Of course you agree with him. You can't use logic either, if you read his whole response to me you'd see that what he postulated was based on false presumptions and ignorance. Care to refute? You refute yourself by agreeing with him, read my response to his post.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Explanation: In Your reply you start of with "Actually, it's all in your head too." and I don't deny this at all.


Good, then you admit to your ignorance of objectivity and thus by default submit to your faith in disconnected subjectivity.


What you directed me to confirms my hypothesis and deny's yours. please direct me to somewhere that confirms your POV!".


Exactly, and like I said; if you were able to logically conclude this, then you obviously didn't study anything that I asked you to study. You simply read, copied and posted. No logic or study involved.


But I actually believe
(there's my faith showing) both POV's can be accommidated in some reasonable fashion!


Right, and faith does nothing to solve anything. They can not be accomodated as subjective vs objective, as one is evidentially true (objective) and the other is mental illusion and delusion (subjective). I don't care what you believe, when you prove something soundly that you believe in, then we can talk.


so you are preaching to the converted! Btw Im certainly Crazy but can you show me to be stupid or promoting ignorance?


At least you admit your delusion and schizophrenia, though it doesn't help your cause. This whole thread consists of me showing you to be stupid and promoting ignorance.


As to being provocative well we both are being provocative as thats what debating is all about. Both of us putting forward provocative arguments and testing their Memetic robustness.


No, mutual conversations can be carried out in a much more professional and mature manner, unfortantely I find few people on this site capable of such. You're not testing anything. All I see is that you are more interested in replying as fast as you can rather than doing thorough research and coming back with flawless and irrefutable statements.


"The fact that I have to go back 10 pages and copy things I've already said and re-explain them, and then copy things that opposing posters have said and re-explain them, is a daft drag... but... someone's gotta do it or they'll never learn how to debate or understand anything." in reference to your comment "I've
got more important things to do at the moment than think for other people's lack of thinking."


Is this really your petty attempt at trying to make me a hypocrite or contradictive? Can you not read that I said "at the moment"? That means that I have other things in my life that require tending at the time.


I am now disillusioned by you to a sufficent enough degree to say I'm thinking the later rather than the former. But haven't made my mind up and I'm hoping you'll be able to change this perception that I'm holding.





posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Your judgement and observational skills are poorer than I once thought after that comment, Astyanax.

I'm hoping deep inside that it was sarcasm. Afterall, I am typing in the thread that is desperately crying about how creationists will destroy ATS through attempting to appeal to the owners and moderators of the site by some pseudo-intellectual user and I'm the one actually doing something about it, not whining and complaining. If you don't got the eggs to stick it out, then go cry in a corner. You know what I'm saying?

Creationists won't destroy ATS, people that roll over and want Daddy and Mommy to take care of all of their creationist problems for them are the ones who will destroy ATS.

If you've got a problem with creationists then jump into the lion's din and have a go, unless you don't have the interlocutive stamina.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
The question i originally asked was that no thing as in matter or energy, the universe can exist for eternity. Thanks for avoiding the question with your own. Where i have i stated my explanation for God.


You didn't. I concluded that since you don't believe a thing can have existed for eternity that you must not believe in an eternal God.


Can you show me the Universe is eternal, other than simply saying that it is because you exist. Can you please point in the direction of the irrefutable proof that supports your beliefs.


Remember my preoccupation with nothing? Go back and read it for once, or do I have to copy and paste it all over again?


I thought that was your job. I believe in the big bang theory.


Well, then provide evidence that a thing can spontaneously pop into existence. I've already shown you that it can't, I've already shown you that existence is eternal, that there is no outside, no beginning and edge/end.


As i am sure you understand the religious dogma that says God exists.


It is not religious dogma to say God exists. It is religious dogma to say that God exists, is omnipresent, yet intangible, unknowable, invisible... yet has attributes... and these attributes that are given to it are of course... TA DA! Meant to control your life. Why? But of course, because you can't refute something that is invisible, unknowable, intangible... yet speaks through select "leaders" and "prophets"...
The biggest scam of all time.


For me to believe it, i would like it shown. Does this sound familiar.


It is not my belief nor my P.O.V. Yes, it sounds very familiar... like in my description of nothing when I asked you to imagine it and to touch it. I've already admitted that you can't (axiom of nothing), therefore there is no barrier to the universe because nothing doesn't exist as a physical something to ever act as a border around it or outside of it.


Hardly words of concern. I think that justifies the "obviously".


Your beliefs mean nothing relative to physically objective fact and logic, but as far as this debate goes they are certainly thus far a "concern".


Yes i was asking along the lines of the law in an eternal universe would see energy dissipate over eternity resulting in a uniform temperature of absolute zero.


This can't be, because eternity has no frame of reference from start to end. It's eternity now and always. Energy does not dissipated nor does it decay. It's only transmorphs and transmutates.


Maybe it's all just Specious Present. All nothing. LOL.


Yes, the immeasurable presence. There is no such thing as energetical absence, only immeasurable presence, which would equate to the definition of absence (or nothing). Absence is present.


I have not asked you to believe anything. Calling it a Scam is an opinion.



Is Logic perfect. Is there only one type of Logic. Did logic always exist.


Yes, the eternal Being (the universe) is a highly logical, perfectly logical being. Its energy is eternal therefore the knowledge objectively derived from it is transcendent.


To you there is nothing to be found,


EXXXAAACCTTTLLLYYY. Find nothing and you have found eternity. Then you have nothing to be found, only everything to reconnect with, re-member and dis(un)cover


believed in, defer to( ie Religion, God), just experienced as existence. All you have to justify this is that you exist, that the universe exists and therefore people should not search for, believe in, or question anything on that matter.


Is that not enough? I exist. To question my existence is an oxymoronic self evidential tautology, is it not? How can I question my existence if I did not exist? I don't need to go any further than that. Now I acclimate with my existence and its surroundings.


But you want them to ignore the paradoxes that are obvious to that existence and limit the way in which they approach these paradoxes. By limit i mean call them insane or stupid, that you want to metaphorically hammer them like a nail and watch them squirm so you can exist in a momentary state of laughter. Is that what you mean by logic.


Natural selection... only the strong and most adept survive. And oh yes, it's quite funny... but I'll have the last laugh... whether I'm here to see it or not. My legacy will live, this I'm already sure of.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
You mean like an infinite universe.


No, an infinite universe is tangible, knowable, logically provable and does have attributes.


Stop trying to scam me on the eternal universe and your perfection then. Please.


When you can prove this is a scam other than vacuous assertions, then you've got a case.


put the hammer down....please.





I "your problem to deal with and that you did" ii believed it would be obvious that i am aware of "your god" which you "know".


Ah, okay. I get ya. Understood.


people are certain God(the one that is not yours) exists.


With the evidence that they have, which is none. Upon being made aware of this they become delusional... it is a phase of letting go of the lies and accepting the truth. People were certain the Earth was flat, until someone said "hey... this doesn't make sense... all these people are deranged... how did I land on this rock with these idiots?"


But if people accept that they were created by God, is that not an attribute of god. God is what he is.


How do you know God is a he? And if Gos is unknowable, invisible and intangible (physically non-existent)... then how did it create us? It didn't, but the universe did. That's why it's my knowable creator, simultaneously the creation.


Are you only familiar with only one scientific or observable explanation. i think not.


Yeah, I am. Only one that is eternal.


In fact you need to constantly repeat the same thing over and over again in the hope it will prove what you say is true.


No, I repeat it over and over again because you don't understand it. There is no paradox of existence!


over and over again.
by the way can you show me the fats that say 90% of the population has Schizophrenia.


Yeah it's the same one that says 90% of the population is religious and that the man God talks to them and believe in the big bang.


whatch out dude, they are after you. Those finite universe believers, the religious cults, the humble.


Humble? They are after me... it's inherent though and probably not noticed by them. It's a battle between ignorance and awareness.


To be fair i will point out that some people will say that you can only live this way if you believe what they do, which i believe is wrong. The question is. Are we people like that. I know i will answer no. As it is obvious to me that both you and I seem to want to experience life similarly while believing differently, i hope you would answer no too.


This isn't true. When I'm told that God is intangible, invisible and unknowable... then how can you touch it, feel it, smell it, see it, hear it, taste it? You can't by this very definition. I don't believe differently than you because I don't have beliefs.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join