Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: glend

Doesn't it surprize you that science can mathematically explain a black hole but when it comes to consciousness they at a complete loss

Not surprised at all. We have to tools to explain a black hole now. We currently don’t have to the tools to explain consciousness (that I’m aware of), yet.

We’ll find out when we find out. No need for god or gods to be inserted, like Thor was when we didn’t know what thunder was.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Terry posted on Jan, 28 2021 @ 10:36 AM
a reply to: Pachomius: " without bringing up dictionaries"



Please do! Books scary! Aaaaaaah!

(Still waiting for you to prove your premises. I know you won’t, because you can’t)


========================================================
edit on 2712021 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)

Dear Terry, you want to play the game of me afraid of books, and I want you to do your own thinking with your own database, do you have any database at all?

Okay, you want me to prove my premises, suppose you bring up one, and we will go into it, you see I put forth the whole explanation and expect my readers to fill in with their honest intelligent productive thinking, but you it seems refuse to do thinking, except to what?

To go to books, to drop names and links, in which case you are no longer into thinking for yourself, and that is nothing to be confident about, you remind me of folks who feel themselves to so bookish and thus so what?

Learned? That kind of learning is not different from robotic learning, and that is why there is the word, rote, as in rote learning.

Okay, bring up just one premise from me, and we will work together so that I will show you that it is irrefutable, but if you just want to play silly games, then please go away.

.

a reply to: Pachomius

you want me to prove my premises, suppose you bring up one

I did. Twice.
But you ignored it. Twice.
You even quoted the reply. Twice.
Try reading the replies before you respond to them.

The rest of your post is nonsensical.

a reply to: glend

Dear Glend, that is very good, thanks I have learned from you.

Glend posted on Jan, 28 2021 @ 11:33 AM
a reply to: TerryDon79 - All that’s proves is we haven’t discovered what/where consciousness is. -Terry



Doesn't it surprize you that science can mathematically explain a black hole but when it comes to consciousness they at a complete loss. Thats because science expresses findings in the language of mathematics. They have tied their hands by their own methodology.

The link I gave you infers that people have ability to exist outside the 5 senses.
If you prefer to infer that the label of God is defined as a 6th sense. Then that be God.

==============================================
edit on 27-1-2021 by glend because: (no reason given)

.

.

a reply to: TerryDon79

No comment.

.

originally posted by: Pachomius
a reply to: TerryDon79

No comment.

.

I just realised your problem. You’re not scared of books. You’re scared of reading.

So much for “Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.”

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

Rings posted on Jan, 28 2021 @ 10:30 AM

originally posted by: Pachomius:
Dear Rings, please don’t conduct yourself as infallible, you say, “Nowhere. It (matter and energy) has always existed and always will... its a law of physics that it can never be created or destroyed...”

Prove that matter and energy has always existed and always will.
.

Take a physics class. It has been proven. -Rings

'

Dear Rings, that is what I expect you to be able to write here, your own thinking, not that I should attend a physics class.

You say matter and energy has been proven to be not created and not ever to be destroyed, is that correct?

From my stock knowledge, matter and energy, that phrase is from you, what do you say, can you factor in the idea that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?

So, matter and energy, that phrase from you, have a beginning with the beginning of the universe, yes or no?
.

a reply to: TerryDon79

No comment.

.

Some things are not worth replying to and repeating on, though I give it some attention, but it is not worth replying to and repeating it.

On the other hand, I must confess that I see myself to be self-grandiose and a narcissist.


(Softly) Hehehehehehehe.

.

a reply to: Pachomius

Some things are not worth replying to and repeating on

Right?
Who needs to prove their premises in their own thread trying to prove god exists?

Silly me!

a reply to: TerryDon79

Much akin to modern science really then. Specifically Astrophysics and cosmology, both of which depend on many aspects of faith.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Really, please explain the physics beyond the event horizon of a theoretical black hole. You know it’s called a black hole because we can’t directly observe it?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Can you point me in the direction of who published your reference material on being a condescending, patronising fool?

Your attitude and behaviour hardly constitutes that of the informed scholar you claim to be. I’ve yet to see you provide a single source for anything you’ve said, simply attacking the opinions of others in this thread isn’t productive, honest or intelligent.

I’ve sat back and listened to your vitriol too long, I’d also hedge my bets that my reference library exceeds your own so let’s delve into a constructive debate shall we? Please enlighten me o wise one.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear Rings, that is what I expect you to be able to write here, your own thinking, not that I should attend a physics class.

You say matter and energy has been proven to be not created and not ever to be destroyed, is that correct?

From my stock knowledge, matter and energy, that phrase is from you, what do you say, can you factor in the idea that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?

So, matter and energy, that phrase from you, have a beginning with the beginning of the universe, yes or no?

Physics does not say matter and energy was ever created or that it ever didnt exist, just that it was once in the form of a tiny indredibly dense singularity. You dont understand basic science. Your logic is embarrassingly bad.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777



No comment.

.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

What was the catalyst for expansion I wonder?

Okay, everyone, with honest intelligent productive thinking, here is again my explanation for the existence of God, I will just now concentrate on num 1, please everyone stick to num 1, forgive me but I will not reply to you if you go beyond num 1.

I will ask for definition of words you use in your comments, and you can also ask me for definition of words.

We will go to num 2 when we are through with num 1.

1. There has always been existence, this is intrinsically irrefutable.



Appendix

Pachomius posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 01:33 AM

Now, all ye readers here, this as follows here is again another ultimate proof - this time shorter, for the existence of God:

1. There has always been existence, this is intrinsically irrefutable.

2. There are transient beings, like us humans, we have a beginning and an ending, that is an intrinsically irrefutable fact.

3. From num 1 and num 2 it follows that there is at least one permanent self-existent entity, and all the rest in existence are transient entities created and kept in existence by that one permanent and self-existent entity. This is an intrinsically irrefutable logical conclusion.

4. There, in nums 1 and 2 and 3 is the how and why everyone with honest intelligent and productive thinking accepts as a fact that is irrefutable, namely:

5. God exists in concept as the permanent self-existent creator of everything that is transient or that is not God Himself.

.

Dear everyone, see if you can show that the above explanation for God's existence is founded on the fallacies of begging the question and circular reasoning.

.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

What was the catalyst for expansion I wonder?

Tell us what you think.

Let me guess.. "I dont understand gotta be god."

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

It’s an unknown mystery with no real convincing hypothesis and so I wouldn’t like to speculate. It certainly opens up the floor to many possibilities, including conscious interference rather than natural evolution.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

You guessed wrong, no need for the attitude, I was genuinely interested in a constructive conversation although I’m starting to rethink that position.