frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





ATHEISTS THINK THIS IS LOGICAL .....

245



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    I still hold that had an explosion large enough to generate billions of stars and planets occurred, it would have been so hot that it would have vaporized EVERYTHING, just as the Hiroshima bomb did.  This is the canary in the coal  mine. It was Einstein's very own equation which provided the understanding and knowledge of how to create the bombs which were dropped on Japan in WWII.
    The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion of mass.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @John_C_87 -  In an earlier post you originally wrote -
    Christians legally change the name of Jesus to God, no offense meant.
    That's the sentence to which I was responding.  Christian linguists translated the Tetragrammaton from its Hebraic definition = Yahweh, into the Greek then to the Latin Vulgate and from that into English, which does translate to mean "God" from the original Hebraic texts.  I was merely addressing that last sentence of yours, to show that it was not Christians who "changed" the name of Jesus to "God", but that the Hebrews first described God and first described Jesus as God, because, according to the original texts, Christ also Himself claimed to be the Son of God.  The historical accounts even record that it is because Christ made that very claim, that they charged Him with heresy, the punishment for which was death in those days under Talmudic law.  The Sanhedrin High Priests, Saducees and Pharisees did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but many among the populace did.

    As for the algebraic values given to the Tetragrammaton with their corresponding numerals, I have read about this and accept that it is God's code for Himself.  However, because the numerical values for each letter in the Tetragrammaton were not conducive for the purposes of referencing God in that way in conversation, subsequently the word God was used in the spoken language for communication purposes.  Therefore it is logical to deduce that the word God came from the code itself, rather than the other way around.  If we accept this, then we can accept that our DNA is God's code also - is his imprint on the creation of every individual living being from insect, to fish, to bird, to mammal to human, etc.  It makes sense that he has a code for each of us, after all, our DNA is unique to each of us, while the "markers" in our DNA record our genealogy..
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - Christianity accepts that, but you don't explain who, or what is the source of the energy.  Further, it does not testify to unequivocal evidence that there was a Big Bang which began time, space and matter.  Logic tends to suggest that time, space and matter had to already exist for the explosion, described as the Big Bang, to be even possible.  Finally, given that there are trillions of stars and planets and even billions of galaxies, then an explosion of that magnitude would vaporize everything in its path, just as the Hiroshima bomb did.
      
    Einstein's equation gives a clue as to the magnitude of this energy, that it is of such magnificence it is beyond all possible comprehension of man and that such can only have been wrought by the hand of a much higher intelligence, which Einstein himself concedes, truthfully stating that it necessarily obliges us to accept a supernatural source.  Although he never worshipped any God, or personalised any God, his journey in the study to arrive at his famous equation brought him to conclude that atheism was not possible, that a greater wisdom, intelligence and supernatural existence had to  exist.  That led him to accept the religion known as Pantheism in his more mature years.

    If we look at his equation and how the letter "c" represents the speed and energy of light and square that, then already we are dealing in numbers incomprehensible to the human intellect, dealing with a force incomprehensible to man, which is precisely what led Einstein to accept the existence of a supernatural intelligence, his very own equation pointing to it.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - Christianity accepts that, but you don't explain who, or what is the source of the energy.
    There is no source of energy. The Universe started by a rapid expansion of mass. There is no point in asking what caused the beginning, because there is nothing before the beginning.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    Here are some more examples of Atheism's logic ...

    No, I don't believe what an outdated book says over the current best explanation of science.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - You posted I think, before I edited my post to include further text.  My amended post finally reads -
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - Christianity accepts that, but you don't explain who, or what is the source of the energy.  Further, it does not testify to unequivocal evidence that there was a Big Bang which began time, space and matter.  Logic tends to suggest that time, space and matter had to exist for the explosion, described as the Big Bang, for it to be even possible.  Finally, given that there are trillions of stars and planets and even billions of galaxies, then an explosion of that magnitude would vaporize everything in its path, just as the Hiroshima bomb did.
      
    Einstein's equation gives a clue as to the magnitude of this energy, that it is of such magnificence it is beyond all possible comprehension of man and that such can only have been wrought by the hand of a much higher intelligence, which Einstein himself concedes, truthfully stating that it necessarily obliges us to accept a supernatural source.  Although he never worshipped any God, or personalised any God, his journey in the study to arrive at his famous equation brought him to conclude that atheism was not possible, that a greater wisdom, intelligence and supernatural existence had to exist.  That led him to accept the religion known as Pantheism in his more mature years.

    If we look at his equation and how the letter "c" represents the speed and energy of light and square that, then already we are dealing in numbers incomprehensible to the human intellect, dealing with a force incomprehensible to man, which is precisely what led Einstein to accept the existence of a supernatural intelligence, his very own equation pointing to it.


    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - You posted I think, before I edited my post to include further text.  My amended post finally reads -
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - Christianity accepts that, but you don't explain who, or what is the source of the energy.  Further, it does not testify to unequivocal evidence that there was a Big Bang which began time, space and matter.  Logic tends to suggest that time, space and matter had to exist for the explosion, described as the Big Bang, for it to be even possible.  Finally, given that there are trillions of stars and planets and even billions of galaxies, then an explosion of that magnitude would vaporize everything in its path, just as the Hiroshima bomb did.
      
    Einstein's equation gives a clue as to the magnitude of this energy, that it is of such magnificence it is beyond all possible comprehension of man and that such can only have been wrought by the hand of a much higher intelligence, which Einstein himself concedes, truthfully stating that it necessarily obliges us to accept a supernatural source.  Although he never worshipped any God, or personalised any God, his journey in the study to arrive at his famous equation brought him to conclude that atheism was not possible, that a greater wisdom, intelligence and supernatural existence had to exist.  That led him to accept the religion known as Pantheism in his more mature years.

    If we look at his equation and how the letter "c" represents the speed and energy of light and square that, then already we are dealing in numbers incomprehensible to the human intellect, dealing with a force incomprehensible to man, which is precisely what led Einstein to accept the existence of a supernatural intelligence, his very own equation pointing to it.


    Einstein simply used the word 'God' to represent the laws of nature. And yes, there are many sub-theories. For example, my good friend @RS_master believes that there are two forces, a good force and a bad force, and without the bad force, there can be no good force. That is a belief, and I respect it. I also must draw your attention to the fact that the Big Bang was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion of mass. Yet, you said that the Big Bang would have vaporised everything in your most recent argument, even after I told you that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion. I am concerned that you did not read my argument.

    Your point of Einstein's equation is a valid one, so I will engage with it. I think he used the letter c because he did not know exactly what the number is, and it could be any number, and the equation would still work. I don't think he was saying that c represented God.

    In further posts, please remember that the Big Bang was not an explosion. You keep referring to an explosion of some sort. Fun fact: the Big Bang did not make a bang, as there was no atoms to carry the sound vibrations.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - No.  Einstein didn't use the term 'God' in that sense at all.  He specifically used terms like supernatural, meaning outside  of and beyond the laws of nature, a phrase he actually also used. You wrote ....
    There is no source of energy. The Universe started by a rapid expansion of mass. There is no point in asking what caused the beginning, because there is nothing before the beginning.

    Certainly expansion of the universe is a major part of the Big Bang theory, but that is the process which occurs subsequent  to the Big Bang (explosion) itself, which supposedly began it all.  I have never heard of someone who actually accepts the theory, deny the literal explosion.  That major magnitudinal explosion is at the heart  of the theory and because it is, I find it totally infeasible, given that the heat and energy that such an explosion would need to release in order to generate billions of stars and planets millions of miles apart, that amount of heat and energy would automatically vaporize everything in its path.  There seems to be no way to deny that. 

    If you search on the Internet for any accredited explanation of the Big Bang Theory, they all acknowledge that it begins with a massive explosion.  In this video below, made by a science teacher for students, he confirms both at the 1 minute mark and again at the 7 minute mark that the Big Bang Theory begins with a literal explosion and the graphics confirm that ....


    This is standard classroom and university textbook teaching. 

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    **** he specifically used terms like supernatural

    No he didn’t you buffoon he didn’t believe in the supernatural 
    AlofRI
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -  
    Well Dee I gave you heaps of quotes elsewhere which prove he did reference that which was "super" natural, that which is beyond the natural laws of nature and frequently.  He discussed "religiosity" quite a bit too and explained what his own personal "religion" was.  It was the admiration and awe of the super, meaning beyond, natural forces which he realized that his own famous equation pointed to and readily acknowledged that the existence of such a super intellect, wisdom and knowledge able to command such a force and create such a speed had to exist.  I've already provided a number of quotes confirming it.  I can provide them again if you wish.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    **** Well Dee I gave you heaps of quotes elsewhere which prove he did reference that which was "super" natural, that which is beyond the natural laws of nature and frequently.

    Show me all these quotes where he mentioned the supernatural? Show me quotes where he said there was something supernatural beyond the  laws of nature , or are you just making stuff up again?


  • That's the sentence to which I was responding.  Christian linguists translated the Tetragrammaton from its Hebraic definition = Yahweh, into the Greek than to the Latin Vulgate and from that into English, which does translate to mean "God" from the original Hebraic texts

    Only if the meaning of the numbers written as a letter can be dictated by education to only be understood as letters so are interpretation can be used. No religion dictates that in their forms of education.

    Still, you say Christians legally change the name of these letters Yahweh to these numbers GOD. Does Hebrew have numbers even though it has no vows?


  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    No.  Einstein didn't use the term 'God' in that sense at all.  He specifically used terms like supernatural, meaning outside  of and beyond the laws of nature, a phrase he actually also used. You wrote ....
    There is no source of energy. The Universe started by a rapid expansion of mass. There is no point in asking what caused the beginning, because there is nothing before the beginning.

    Certainly expansion of the universe is a major part of the Big Bang theory, but that is the process which occurs subsequent  to the Big Bang (explosion) itself, which supposedly began it all.  I have never heard of someone who actually accepts the theory, deny the literal explosion.  That major magnitudinal explosion is at the heart  of the theory and because it is, I find it totally infeasible, given that the heat and energy that such an explosion would need to release in order to generate billions of stars and planets millions of miles apart, that amount of heat and energy would automatically vaporize everything in its path.  There seems to be no way to deny that. 

    If you search on the Internet for any accredited explanation of the Big Bang Theory, they all acknowledge that it begins with a massive explosion.  In this video below, made by a science teacher for students, he confirms both at the 1 minute mark and again at the 7 minute mark that the Big Bang Theory begins with a literal explosion and the graphics confirm that ....


    This is standard classroom and university textbook teaching. 

    That is incorrect. Einstein did not believe in the supernatural, and thus did not use that term. Now, onto the explosion thing. The Hiroshima bomb was a nuclear bomb. The Big Bang could not have been a nuclear explosion, because there were no atoms, and a nuclear explosion involves splitting atoms. Also, you can't really vaporise protons and neutrons. They're kind of fundamental. If you do split them apart, you get quarks and gluons, which are even more fundamental.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Dee - Very well, but you have already seen them, because you responded to them, elsewhere.  Einstein references his very own religiosity as being one who stands in awe of the "super" natural, of that which is beyond the laws of nature, meaning that which cannot be explained by nature and refers to its "mysticism", that its creation is being beyond the realms of the human intellect.  Christianity also stands in awe of the same, but unlike Einstein it "personalises" its God, which makes sense, given that Christianity's God personalised Himself in the Christ.  




    AlofRI
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    Very well, but you have already seen them, because you responded to them, elsewhere.  Einstein references his very own religiosity as being one who stands in awe of the "super" natural, of that which is beyond the laws of nature, meaning that which cannot be explained by nature and refers to its "mysticism", that its creation is being beyond the realms of the human intellect.  Christianity also stands in awe of the same, but unlike Einstein it "personalises" its God, which makes sense, given that Christianity's God personalised Himself in the Christ.  




    Are you talking to me?
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @John_C_87 - Your response in first quoting my sentence, namely ...
    Grafix said:

    Christian linguists translated the Tetragrammaton from its Hebraic definition = Yahweh, into the Greek than to the Latin Vulgate and from that into English, which does translate to mean "God" from the original Hebraic texts

    Then you responded to that with this ...

    Only if the meaning of the numbers written as a letter can be dictated by education to only be understood as letters so are interpretation can be used. No religion dictates that in their forms of education.
    Still, you say Christians legally change the name of these letters Yahweh to these numbers GOD. Does Hebrew have numbers even though it has no vows?
    Ah!  I think I see now, what you are getting at, that in the process of the translation from the Tetragrammaton, God's code has been lost from education, lost from the Christian faith.  I agree, this history of the Tetragrammaton and its code is not taught and is immediately lost with the translation into the word "God".  I don't believe that the current day Jewish alphabet is exactly the same as the old paleo-Hebrew alphabet, either, so given that, I think we can assume that today's Judaism has also lost the code, except among Jewish scholars.  Is that where your thinking is taking us?


    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - No.  My apologis, dolphin.  I was addressing that post to @Dee.  I've now edited it.  She requested that I provide quotes from Einstein to prove that he accepted there was a supernatural force or being behind creation with a supernatural intellect and wisdom far greater than our feeble minds.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - No.  My apologis, dolphin.  I was addressing that post to @Dee.  I've now edited it.  She requested that I provide quotes from Einstein to prove that he accepted there was a supernatural force or being behind creation with a supernatural intellect and wisdom far greater than our feeble minds.
    All right, but Einstein was not referring to a God. He simply was referring to the fact that there is an underlying pattern in the laws of nature.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @Grafix
    When you make a debate, could you please not type the title in SHOUTY CAPS? It will not make people pay more attention, it simply shows that you are cross/angry.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ...
    " ... but Einstein was not referring to a God. He simply was referring to the fact that there is an underlying pattern in the laws of nature."

    Clearly the above content in my post says otherwise.  Didn't you read them all?

    You also wrote ....

    When you make a debate, could you please not type the title in SHOUTY CAPS? It will not make people pay more attention, it simply shows that you are cross/angry.

    LOL!  No it doesn't convey that in a TITLE at all.  It only conveys that in the text of a conversation.  Many headlines, titles, headings etc., are fully capitlized in literature, scholarly papers, opinion pieces, dissertations laying out a concept, books, whatever, for example ...

    THESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

    Synopsis

    1. Blah, blah blah... etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........

    2. More blah blah blah ... etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........

    Introduction

    1. Blah, blah, blah ...  etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........

    2. Blah, blah, blah ...  etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........

    .

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • It is not the atheists fault any interpretation does not defend them by lack of allowing a display to be assembled of an Interpretation of GOD, and it is this lack of defense that creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned in the definition of atheism, they do not believe in a supreme power. . As far fetched as it may seem an extreme explosion in history is used as the only way the earth has to explain how an ultimate power can exist in the creation of all safely.

    However, the question of giving the atheist the power to describe GOD in a safe way that allows a separation of dependency to take place. Does the liberty of Independence taking place to create an ultimate power on their behalf?

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ...
    " ... but Einstein was not referring to a God. He simply was referring to the fact that there is an underlying pattern in the laws of nature."

    Clearly the above content in my post says otherwise.  Didn't you read them all?

    You also wrote ....

    When you make a debate, could you please not type the title in SHOUTY CAPS? It will not make people pay more attention, it simply shows that you are cross/angry.

    LOL!  No it doesn't convey that in a TITLE at all.  It only conveys that in the text of a conversation.  Many headlines, titles, headings etc., are fully capitlized in literature, scholarly papers, opinion pieces, dissertations laying out a concept, books, whatever, for example ...

    THESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

    Synopsis

    1. Blah, blah blah... etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........

    2. More blah blah blah ... etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........

    Introduction

    1. Blah, blah, blah ...  etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........

    2. Blah, blah, blah ...  etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........

    .

    I read them all, but I conclude from what I have read that Einstein was not referring to a God. 
    Also, supposing Einstein did believe in a God (which he did not), why should we believe in what Einstein has to say? Einstein was just a human, and although his scientific beliefs were later proven, his pantheistic views are unlikely to be true. The argument is illogical even if the evidence were correct.
    About the SHOUTY CAPS, it may be fairly standard in literature, but it is not the standard here on DebateIsland.com. Also, I think it would be the norm to see this:

    Thesis On The Origin Of The Universe

    as opposed to this:

    THESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE


  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @John_C_87 - With all due respect, John, I find your sentences very unclear about what you're trying to convey.  If English is your second language, I truly understand and am very patient.  So, I'll have to trouble you to clarify all in your last post.  I have no idea what you're trying to say.  The fault could be mine and if it is, I apologise. 

    Which interpretation do you mean?  An interpretation of the code behind God's Hebraic name, Yahweh?  If so, then I would venture that atheists aren't the only ones who are ignorant of it.  Very few Christians are even aware of it and the few who are, are predominantly scholars in Biblical history.  Then you write ... 

    " ... and it is this lack of defense that creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned in the definition of atheism ..."  What "defense" are you referring to? 

    Next, what do you mean by " ... creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned ..." .   I don't understand what you mean by a "... disbelief of the general welfare" ....  Whose disbelief in whose general welfare? And who are "those concerned in the definition of atheism"?
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Which interpretation do you mean?  An interpretation of the code behind God's Hebraic name, Yahweh? 

    In part what is meant to see in writing is the interpretation of the letters G,O,D to the letters Y,a,h,w,e,h.

    Next, what do you mean by " ... creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned ..." .   I don't understand what you mean by a "... the disbelief of the general welfare"...  Whose disbelief in whose general welfare?

    The general welfare is the basic wellbeing of all religion this is the creator of a united state which has a common stake.

    And who are "those concerned in the definition of atheism"?

    All those who question authority as a supreme power without the regulation of governing.

    If English is your second language, I truly understand and am very patient.  So, I'll have to trouble you to clarify all in your last post.  I have no idea what you're trying to say.  The fault could be mine and if it is, I apologize. 

    I am an American all language is a second language as a united state here. In part, it is the very nature of what the united states of America are about. All United states of law are kept constitutional to ensure understanding, the blame for misunderstanding is not ours alone to hold as a single purpose.

  • GailHunterGailHunter 17 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    you seem to be committing the appeal to ridicule fallacy. also, you are presenting this post as if most or all atheists believe that the universe arose from literally nothing. can you prove that most or all atheists hold this position?
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @John_C_87 - Hmm ....  What if I write what I think  you mean using completely different sentences and you just correct the points that are wrong?  Your own original statement is ...
    It is not the atheists fault any interpretation does not defend them by lack of allowing a display to be assembled of an Interpretation of GOD, and it is this lack of defense that creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned in the definition of atheism, they do not believe in a supreme power. . As far fetched as it may seem an extreme explosion in history is used as the only way the earth has to explain how an ultimate power can exist in the creation of all safely.

    However, the question of giving the atheist the power to describe GOD in a safe way that allows a separation of dependency to take place. Does the liberty of Independence taking place to create an ultimate power on their behalf?
    My interpretation of your meaning is this:
      
    It's not the fault of atheists when scholars translated the name  Y A H W E H  to the English name of  G O D,  that the primary definition, the original definition of Yahweh, (God) was immediately lost.  God's coded identity for Himself is in each letter of the name  Y A H W E H. Any culture which does not describe God that way immediately loses an accurate knowledge of God's primary definition of Himself, unless this code is taught to each subsequent generation.  Because no culture does teach it, then all have left themselves open to the risk of the rise of atheism with no defense against the rise of atheism.  Subsequently, in ignorance of the true definition of God, the atheists have invented a far-fetched definition, using a celestial explosion as a substitute for God's ultimate supreme power.  Those who believe in God's omnipotence, in the absence of the knowledge of His absolute definition of Himself, have left themselves open to well-deserved and self-inflicted ridicule, whenever attempting to explain Creation and how it all began, because they fail to teach God's code which identifies God Himself.

    If any part of this understanding of your intended meaning is not accurate, then perhaps deal with each part separately, quoting me.  If it is an accurate understanding of your opinion, I agree with you.

    In answer to your last question, I think you are asking

    "Does the absence of the knowledge, which is not being passed down, give atheists the liberty to create their own independent version of the events of Creation?"
     

    Yes I believe that is exactly the case. If I understand you correctly, you are basically saying Christianity alone, has itself to blame for making that possible !!!  It is a sad paradox, but certainly rings true.  The other great whacking paradox is that the only man who has come close to understanding the magnitude of the omnipotence of God, is a man who did not profess Christianity at all, but rather professed merely an abstract acknowledgement of "a God" and that man was Einstein, when he fell upon his famous equation of E=mc² . It doesn't explain God (Yahweh) Himself per se, but does provide evidence of the existence of a supreme power with supreme knowledge and wisdom, way beyond the comprehension of our feeble human minds.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @GailHunter - You wrote ...
    you seem to be committing the appeal to ridicule fallacy. also, you are presenting this post as if most or all atheists believe that the universe arose from literally nothing. can you prove that most or all atheists hold this position?

    To reverse the intent of your own phrase, I think everyone should ridicule fallacy.  It's dangerous. Can I prove  that all atheists believe that the universe arose from literally nothing?  I don't believe anyone can ever prove what others think. We cannot get inside their heads. I can only prove by the use of logic, that there's no other conclusion to draw concerning all those who accept the hypothesis of the Big Bang, atheists and non-atheists, alike.  If we accept the hypothesis of the Big Bang, then it stands to reason we accept that the universe arose from literally nothing.  The hypothesis itself states that, namely, that time, space and matter began with the Big Bang.

    It is an oxymoron, as time, space and matter had to exist before the Big Bang was even possible. Add to that the evidence we already have of the universe, namely, that it continues to expand without any great whacking Big Bang and which expansion science cannot explain.  Nevertheless, the undeniable fact remains that new celestial bodies are continually coming into existence, (expansion), with no need for a Big Bang.  Sure, stars and planets explode and may create the odd new planet, (not sure about that), but these individual explosions do not explain the ongoing expansion of the universe in the absence of a massive explosion like the Big Bang.

    Aside from that debate, there is still the question that surely an explosion of that magnitude would vaporize everything in its direct path, just as the Hiroshima bomb did. 

    .

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @GailHunter ; - In addition to my reply to you above, the observations of transponders and of evidence which still remains today after the Hiroshima bomb is really interesting.

    In Hiroshima buildings on the very outer rim of the force of the explosion were not completely vaporized in the way that those in its direct path were.  These ruins left some interesting evidence of objects of a lesser density having been vaporized, though. On the walls of those ruins are images or impressions of a dark shadow on the surface of their substrate, as though someone had painted onto the walls of these ruins, the impression of a shadow of an object positioned near them.  These impressions are darker than the rest of the substrate around it, as any substrate appears to be darker wherever a shadow falls.  

    These "shadows" are still there today on these sections of walls as if "frozen" in time.  Many depict the outline of a person as any normal shadow does, yet the object or person casting the shadow was vaporized, with no evidence of them remaining.  Scientists explain these shadows as real shadows which blocked the white light of the explosion - white light is the manifestation of extreme energy and force - taking us back to Einstein's equation.  

    The reason these shadows were "preserved", so to speak, is because the shadow of the object blocked the energy force of the white light from directly coming in contact with that surface area of the wall where the shadow was.  The colour of the surface area outside of the shadow was bleached by the energy of the white light, before the object casting the shadow was vaporized.  

    So what does that tell us?  It tells us that the energy travelled at an astronomical speed because when it vaporized the object casting the shadow, it had already hit the wall before that vaporization of the object casting the shadow had occurred.  If there were a fraction of a second delay between the vaporization of the object in front of the wall as the energy travelled the space between it and the wall behind, then the object's shadow would have disappeared off the wall before the energy hit the wall, leaving no impression of a shadow.  It is evidence of the speed of light squared,  as Einstein found it to be and also evidence of the relativity of energy and matter.

    .

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @xlJ_dolphin_473  - You wrote this ..
    I read them all, but I conclude from what I have read that Einstein was not referring to a God. 

    Also, supposing Einstein did believe in a God (which he did not), why should we believe in what Einstein has to say? Einstein was just a human, and although his scientific beliefs were later proven, his pantheistic views are unlikely to be true. The argument is illogical even if the evidence were correct.

    About the SHOUTY CAPS, it may be fairly standard in literature, but it is not the standard here on DebateIsland.com. Also, I think it would be the norm to see this:

    Thesis On The Origin Of The Universe
    as opposed to this:
    THESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
    Well, I can't argue with a choice, given that we all have the choice to believe whatever interpretation we choose to make.  I can only argue that I read a very different interpretation from Einstein's quotes, given he actually states that he does acknowledge the existence of a God manifested in a superior force of such superior knowledge, that it is beyond the comprehension of the "feeble" brain of humans.

    We don't appeal to what Einstein has to say isolated from what his equation has to say, though.  His equation as our evidence in that it provides evidence of the existence of a supreme power with supreme knowledge and wisdom.  The only reason we quote Einstein is to show that he himself said that is exactly what his own equation proved and which also explains the reason why he shifted his view away from atheism to Pantheism.

    You are right about what is the norm on DebateIsland.  I cannot argue with that, but there is no Rule which says I cannot use literary capitalization in my titles, which I prefer to utilize, particularly when I have a sub-title in the topic text, but not necessarily.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Grafix ;

    **** She requested that I provide quotes from Einstein to prove that he accepted there was a supernatural force or being behind creation with a supernatural intellect and wisdom far greater than our feeble minds.

    Yes something you’ve spectacularly failed to do as you stated Einstien believed in the supernatural and when asked to provide proof by quoting where Einstein ever used the term supernatural you couldn’t do so (as usual) , it’s the same with all your constant appeals to authority , when cornered you lie all because all your copy and pasted arguments are posted hastily without you ever actually researching them , this is why I mostly ignore your childish infantile postings because at this stage you’re not debating but merely preaching and that’s another thing you don’t do very well 
  • @Grafix ;
    You are not using his equation in a complete context to the mathematics. His equation is a mathematical theory that states a proclamation as a ratio. They are simply not the same thing and the only way this could be the principle of religion is if you are saying the well-educated lie a religious belief. E=Mc^2 is a generalization of the field equation of relativity. Therefore the lie takes place when the complete relativity formula is knowingly genericized to the state of theory.

    A ratio is a ration until it is a proximation, at which point it only becomes approximate to what may yet have been re-written to be a ratio. In other math principles, For all ratio created from a circumference of a circle with a value three or less using its diameter, there exists a  method of math the changes the length that was once a diameter in scale. (Right reserved on this proof.)
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
     @John_C_87 -  I don't think I said Einstein's equation is a "principle" of Christianity let alone have I heard anywhere that this is "an educated lie" promulgated by any religion.  I have never heard that it is even promulgated.  I merely said it proves the existence of a supernatural force and Christianity can rely on that science when pointing to evidence of a supernatural existence.   I would not go as far as to say it is a "principle" of any religion, though.  It does not prove Christianity's God at all.  It simply proves that a supernatural force with intelligence exists.   I then used quotes from Einstein to show that he acknowledged that as well.

    Before we go to Einstein, however, can we finish the first part of our discussion on the Tetragrammaton?  I am really interested in your comments on this, because you clearly know more about it than I do.  I have never studied or researched it.  My knowledge is limited to a very simple understanding of it, namely that the letters represent numerical values and that they define God and point to his infinity and his supernatural being.  Is that correct?  I have no idea of what those corresponding numbers are, or how they are read to mean anything.

    Then could you tell me whether or not, my translation of your original statement does or doesn't align with your meaning.  Much appreciated if you can do this.  I've put both of them below, for comparison, then you can point to any misalignments in my interpretation against your own text.

    You originally wrote ...
    It is not the atheists fault any interpretation does not defend them by lack of allowing a display to be assembled of an Interpretation of GOD, and it is this lack of defense that creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned in the definition of atheism, they do not believe in a supreme power. . As far fetched as it may seem an extreme explosion in history is used as the only way the earth has to explain how an ultimate power can exist in the creation of all safely.
    However, the question of giving the atheist the power to describe GOD in a safe way that allows a separation of dependency to take place. Does the liberty of Independence taking place to create an ultimate power on their behalf?
    I interpreted that to mean the following ....
    It's not the fault of atheists when scholars translated the name  Y A H W E H  to the English name of  G O D,  that the primary definition, the original definition of Yahweh, (God) was immediately lost.  God's coded identity for Himself is in each letter of the name  Y A H W E H. Any culture which does not describe God that way immediately loses an accurate knowledge of God's primary definition of Himself, unless this code is taught to each subsequent generation.  Because no culture does teach it, then all have left themselves open to the risk of the rise of atheism with no defense against the rise of atheism.  Subsequently, in ignorance of the true definition of God, the atheists have invented a far-fetched definition, using a celestial explosion as a substitute for God's ultimate supreme power.  Those who believe in God's omnipotence, in the absence of the knowledge of His absolute definition of Himself, have left themselves open to well-deserved and self-inflicted ridicule, whenever attempting to explain Creation and how it all began, because they fail to teach God's code which identifies God Himself. 
    In response to your very last paragraph, I interpreted it to mean the following ....
    "Does the absence of the knowledge, which is not being passed down, give atheists the liberty to create their own independent version of the events of Creation?" 
    Have I misinterpreted your meaning anywhere in either of these?
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473  - You wrote this ..
    I read them all, but I conclude from what I have read that Einstein was not referring to a God. 

    Also, supposing Einstein did believe in a God (which he did not), why should we believe in what Einstein has to say? Einstein was just a human, and although his scientific beliefs were later proven, his pantheistic views are unlikely to be true. The argument is illogical even if the evidence were correct.

    About the SHOUTY CAPS, it may be fairly standard in literature, but it is not the standard here on DebateIsland.com. Also, I think it would be the norm to see this:

    Thesis On The Origin Of The Universe
    as opposed to this:
    THESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
    Well, I can't argue with a choice, given that we all have the choice to believe whatever interpretation we choose to make.  I can only argue that I read a very different interpretation from Einstein's quotes, given he actually states that he does acknowledge the existence of a God manifested in a superior force of such superior knowledge, that it is beyond the comprehension of the "feeble" brain of humans.

    We don't appeal to what Einstein has to say isolated from what his equation has to say, though.  His equation as our evidence in that it provides evidence of the existence of a supreme power with supreme knowledge and wisdom.  The only reason we quote Einstein is to show that he himself said that is exactly what his own equation proved and which also explains the reason why he shifted his view away from atheism to Pantheism.

    You are right about what is the norm on DebateIsland.  I cannot argue with that, but there is no Rule which says I cannot use literary capitalization in my titles, which I prefer to utilize, particularly when I have a sub-title in the topic text, but not necessarily.
    .
    I fail to see how the fact that energy times mass equals the speed of light proves God.
    That is plainly illogical.
    I give up about the shouty caps. Write your title however you like.
  • Before we go to Einstein, however, can we finish the first part of our discussion on the Tetragrammaton? 

    The tera-gram has a different name in the Asian language I do not remember the name. However, we for all practical understanding for our talk simple call its geometry.

     I am really interested in your comments on this because you clearly know more about it than I do.  I have never studied or researched it.  My knowledge is limited to a very simple understanding of it, namely that the letters represent numerical values and that they define God and point to his infinity and his supernatural being.  Is that correct? 

    My original connection to the tera-gram had been made with a strict religious occult type scenario by kids mocking satanic ideas. This changed to a much deeper understanding of geometry in shading, rendering and wireframe construction for 3-D modeling in the early ’80s. At the time part of the Amiga operation window. Having been exposed to information by programmers outside of Amiga Corp about some program issues that might come up.

     I have no idea of what those corresponding numbers are, or how they are read to mean anything.

    Yes. You now, in fact, we do know at least one thing the numbers correspond with and that is a possible solution to a math equation containing the numbers 400, 11, 500. So together we can take the accusation created by the word atheist and abolish it by telling a person they do not believe in GOD as something tangent, real. Also, the equation can be used to describe a right and wrong as there are two answers. One of the obvious answers and two the correct answer found by the principle that comes by the education of the mathematics behind the foundation of the equation GOD. 

  • Grafix said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473  - You wrote this ..
    I read them all, but I conclude from what I have read that Einstein was not referring to a God. 

    Also, supposing Einstein did believe in a God (which he did not), why should we believe in what Einstein has to say? Einstein was just a human, and although his scientific beliefs were later proven, his pantheistic views are unlikely to be true. The argument is illogical even if the evidence were correct.

    About the SHOUTY CAPS, it may be fairly standard in literature, but it is not the standard here on DebateIsland.com. Also, I think it would be the norm to see this:

    Thesis On The Origin Of The Universe
    as opposed to this:
    THESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
    Well, I can't argue with a choice, given that we all have the choice to believe whatever interpretation we choose to make.  I can only argue that I read a very different interpretation from Einstein's quotes, given he actually states that he does acknowledge the existence of a God manifested in a superior force of such superior knowledge, that it is beyond the comprehension of the "feeble" brain of humans.

    We don't appeal to what Einstein has to say isolated from what his equation has to say, though.  His equation as our evidence in that it provides evidence of the existence of a supreme power with supreme knowledge and wisdom.  The only reason we quote Einstein is to show that he himself said that is exactly what his own equation proved and which also explains the reason why he shifted his view away from atheism to Pantheism.

    You are right about what is the norm on DebateIsland.  I cannot argue with that, but there is no Rule which says I cannot use literary capitalization in my titles, which I prefer to utilize, particularly when I have a sub-title in the topic text, but not necessarily.
    .
    I fail to see how the fact that energy times mass equals the speed of light proves God.
    That is plainly illogical.
    I give up about the shouty caps. Write your title however you like.
    Energy equals Mass times the Speed of Light squared ( Velocity) established an irrational state of expansion due to the infraction of math created by Pi in its field documentation.  This is why when someone who holds a principle that a single God is created by an ultimate power, General relativity would offer a reason to believe so, a proximation is said to exist were a ratio should be. General Relativity is the approximation. Be back later...
    Grafix
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:
    @Grafix You say that if atheists do not believe in the big bang what will they believe in, they could believe in two forces, negative and positive. There are plenty of small theories.
    You also refer the big bang as a myth or a bigger myth than god. Why is this?The chance of the big bang is way more than god.




    @Grafix Should I believe in what people believe 2, 000 years ago or the big bang which the scientists have been working there sweat off for the last century.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @John_C_87 - You wrote ....
    The tera-gram has a different name in the Asian language I do not remember the name. However, we for all practical understanding for our talk simple call its geometry.

    AND you also wrote ...

    "... we do know at least one thing the numbers correspond with and that is a possible solution to a math equation containing the numbers 400, 11, 500. So together we can take the accusation created by the word atheist and abolish it by telling a person they do not believe in GOD as something tangent, real. Also, the equation can be used to describe a right and wrong as there are two answers. One of the obvious answers and two the correct answer found by the principle that comes by the education of the mathematics behind the foundation of the equation GOD. 

    Are you referencing something like the following ...


    One could do exactly the same thing with the Star of David using a different math.  There are all sorts of quackery going on with the math regarding the Tetragrammaton, although I am not saying there isn't a correct equation.  I believe there is.  After all everything that involves mass and matter, including energy, can be explained by mathematics.  Obviously the intelligence of God invented the concept of  mathematics and man then discovered it.  The image below, uses the pentagram again, (said to be the symbol of Satan), but it is interesting how it also depicts the Star of David in a circle to the left of the pentagram.  You mentioned pi earlier. There are various ways to calculate it and the Nilakantha accelerated series for pi is perpetual and goes on into infinity.  Note too the Greek letter Omega at the base of the pentagram.  Christ said "I am the Aalpha and the Omega", (as translated in the Greek Septuagint from the Hebrew), the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and stated as the titles of Christ and of God, as recorded in the Book of Revelation, but the question is what are their transliterations in literal Aramaic letters from the Aramaic alphabet? Surely that would have been the alphabet letters He would have actually referred to, don't you think?



    Anyone who knows a little about the syntax of the Hebrew language knows that it has no letter "J" when transliterated into English, that the name "Jesus" for example is translated correctly from the Hebrew as Iesus or IHS,  However the Greek transliteration for YHWH is sometimes claimed to be "IHWH" but is incorrect.  From the Greek into English it is IEUE. as there is no equivalent for the letter "H" in the Greek Alphabet.  It's easy to see with the different alphabets involved, why we really do have to always go back to the source, the Hebrew for answers.  Jesus was a Hebrew and often endorsed the Old Testament, quoting it.  You also wrote ....

    My original connection to the tera-gram had been made with a strict religious occult type scenario by kids mocking satanic ideas. This changed to a much deeper understanding of geometry in shading, rendering and wireframe construction for 3-D modeling in the early ’80s. At the time part of the Amiga operation window. Having been exposed to information by programmers outside of Amiga Corp about some program issues that might come up.

    Interesting you worked for the Amiga Corp.  I seem to remember that was a group who defected from Atari.  Did you work for the company before or after Commodore acquired it?  The reason I say it is interesting is because wasn't it Amiga which developed something called "Logos"?  Am wondering if that is the "information" you were "exposed" to?

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Are you referencing something like the following ...

    John_C _ No, something like this use of Roman Numerals, notice how some numbers such as 100 are written with one letter at a ratio of 1-3 and numbers such as 1,000 are written with just one letter at a ratio of 1 - 4. A number like VIII takes four letters to be written a number 8 by a ratio of 4-1.

    http://romannumerals.babuo.com/roman-numerals-1-5000

    I will finish answering when I get done work...was in a rush sorry if I made mistakes.

    Grafix
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Dee

    Where is your said evidence at, to support you claim? 

    (Maybe from YouTube, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, OAN, WHRO, PBS, and so on?)

    "We have mountains of evidence for Evolution and we are all still waiting on even one peer approved paper disputing such and as yet, Nada , ZIP , Zilch , Zero......."

    I Googled "Evolution," and these Scientists were mentioned:


    Evolution
    VIDEOSPEOPLE ALSO SEARCH FOR
    Charles Darwin
    Alfred Russel Wallace
    Richard Dawkins
    Stephen Jay Gould
    Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
    Theodosius Dobzhansky
    Gregor Mendel
    Ernst Mayr
    Charles Lyell
    Thomas Henry Huxley
    Erasmus Darwin
    Georges Cuvier


    @Dee
    Can you derive any Evolution supporting evidence from those Scientists, and link or share your findings with this forum? 


    Or maybe the below could be of some assistance to you, as well?

    https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-evolution


      

    What is evolution?

    In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.

    • The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species? are related and gradually change over time.
    • Evolution relies on there being genetic variation? in a population which affects the physical characteristics (phenotype) of an organism.
    • Some of these characteristics may give the individual an advantage over other individuals which they can then pass on to their offspring. 

    What is natural selection?

    • Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural selection.
    • Individuals in a species show variation in physical characteristics. This variation is because of differences in their genes?.
    • Individuals with characteristics best suited to their environment are more likely to survive, finding food, avoiding predators and resisting disease. These individuals are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to their children.
    • Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore their genes are less likely to be passed on to the next generation.
    • As a consequence those individuals most suited to their environment survive and, given enough time, the species will gradually evolve. 
    Grafix
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @TKDB

    Evolution is FACT get over it you ignoramus 
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    @AlofRI

    @Plaffelvohfen

    @DustinPfeifer

    https://evolution-institute.org/darwin-wallace-evolution-and-atheism/

    RELIGION

    Darwin, Wallace, Evolution, and Atheism

    Originally posted at From Starts to Stalagmites

    "Peter Hitchens, younger brother of the late Christopher, says in the notorious London Daily Mail that the implication of evolution “is plainly atheistical, and if its truth could be proved, then the truth of atheism could be proved. I believe that is its purpose, and that it is silly to pretend otherwise.” Pat Robertson claims that “the evolutionists worship atheism.” Richard Dawkins tells us that he lost his faith in God when he learned about evolution, the claim that evolution is intrinsically atheistical is used repeatedly by advocates of creationism, including that bizarre oxymoron, “scientific creationism”, and the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document describes it as part of a malignant materialism that debunks traditional views of both God and man. Discovery Institute fellows also coached Ann Coulter, who went on to tell us that evolution is itself a discredited religion, related to the mental disorders of liberalism and godlessness."


    The article is both enlightening and educational.

    It entails the conversations in regards to Evolution and Atheism.




    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473Grafix
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Dee

    Prove it, instead of easily calling people names Dee? 

    "Evolution is FACT get over it you ignoramus."


    @Dee

    It's fact based on who's own words?

    I shared and linked information to you in front of the entire forum, and you apparently spat on it with this non response?

    "1.1?"

    @Dee if you refuse to debate equally and fairly, then how about taking up your grievances with Aarong?


    Grafix
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @TKDB

    **** Prove it, instead of easily calling people names Dee? 

    It has been proven and accepted as fact except to assorted American religious nuts and assorted religious nuts across the globe.

    I haven’t called you names I’ve called you ignorant and that you are as you deny Evolution is fact 



    ****It's fact based on who's own words?

    Fact is based on evidence for which Evolution has in abundance 

    ******I shared and linked information to you in front of the entire forum, and you apparently spat on it with this non response?

    No one asked you for “information “ I know all about Evolution all you’re doing is trolling , if you can disprove Evolution you go for that there’s a Nobel prize awaiting you 

    ****if you refuse to debate equally and fairly, then how about taking up your grievances with Aarong?

    I debate fairly , I called you ignorant you are indeed ignorant as your denial of fact demonstrates , how about taking up your grievances with Aarong?
    AlofRI
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @TKDB There is lots of evidence to prove evolution. There is, however, not one bit of evidence to prove God. Evolution is universally accepted as the standard theory of life, and is rejected by few. Besides, God is illogically, while evolution makes perfect logical sense.
    AlofRI
  • @Grafix ;

    The relevance is in the easy at which a definition of God can be made simpler and in a much larger base by using numbers for an equation, not a letter for creation of the word. Here the numbers form the words and the solution to the numbers forms the one word as an answer.

    We do not address the interpretations made from the wording in a language to another language it is the numbers that once addressed from each language, any language holds a form of a number and all interpretation as value then can be directly based on that principle of translation.

    A person who does not have a clear grasp of relationships is only limited in the connection of crimes against them not learning, therefore and so on. So, dismissing the principle is not required as by saying it is not relevant, we describe something as only not understood to its inability to understood and wait for the way it can be understood. 

    The Tetragram inside the circle shown here in the drawling is demonstrating by principle the idea of secant can be held inside a circle without becoming a diameter. Those secants can be strung together in a line from degree as a triangle and circle share the principle of degrees. Much like Time and a circle share the principle of secant and second though there is a difference in spelling.



  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @SkepticalOne + @Happy_Killbot@Plaffelvohfen + @AlofRI@TKDB + @xlJ_dolphin_473 + @Dee + @John_C_87 + @RS_master ;

    GIFTS FROM GOD

    Intellect, intent, knowledge, logic understanding, memory, learning, experience, confidence, reason, courage, trust, belief, wisdom, spirituality.  Without these we are incomplete, are worthless blobs of flesh and bone.

    Take a look at the ability to balance our torso in all sorts of ways as we move about.  We do this automatically, or at least what seems to us as automatic.  It isn't really, though.  Every time we need to balance our bodies, whether we are running, skipping, jumping, stretching, leaning or reaching over, there is a process going through our brain at the speed of light squared, so fast that it is virtually simultaneous with the impulse to act.  The speed of the process is so fast, it merely appears  to us to be simultaneous, which is why we think it is automatic, yet, it isn't automatic.  If it were, then there would be no process.

    So, what is that process?  It proceeds in very well-defined steps, but first the thought of the intent must begin the process which proceeds as follows....

    PROCESSING THE PROCESS

    1.  I need that cup on the top shelf in order for me to enjoy my usual morning cup of coffee. Demonstrating intent.

    2.  I know that If I lean across the bench top, stretch my arm and open my palm I can grasp the cup in my hand, demonstrating knowledge.

    3.  I know that I must stand on my tippy toes, lean across to reach for it, that I must open the palm of my hand and use my fingers to grasp it, all at the same time, demonstrating logic.

    4.  I also know that I must already know how to keep my balance at the same time, otherwise I would fall over, demonstrating intelligence.

    5.  I know as well, that this necessarily requires  a knowledge of how to distribute my weight with an exactness  over my centre of gravity, aka my fulcrum, demonstrating reason.

    6.  I know it is possible and easy to do this, because I have done it a thousand times before without even thinking about it, demonstrating experience.

    7.  I know that I have the knowledge to know it is possible, because I have committed that knowledge to memory and already used it before, demonstrating the use of memory.

    8.  I know that I must have a memory, even though I can't see it, because I've used it before to do this same action every morning, every day, over and over flawlessly, demonstrating understanding.

    9.  I even know that I also have the ability to learn from experience, through doing other different actions over and over, equally as flawlessly with exactly the same ease and confidence, which is a willingness to explore and to test our knowledge further, to test our experience further and to test our understanding of new knowledge, in order to learn an even greater understanding of the world we live in, demonstrating courage.

    CONCLUSIONS:  

    1.  That I have an intellect and use it to exercise intelligence.

    2.  That I have knowledge.

    3.  That I have a memory 

    4.  That I have intelligence, because I can reach conclusions.

    5.  That I have the capacity to learn. 

    6.  That I have the capacity to teach, by using experience and to learn from new experiences from which I can learn and then impart that knowledge to others.

    7.  That I have understanding, demonstrating wisdom.

    8.  That I can know wisdom comes from knowledge, that knowledge comes from learning, learning comes from experience, experience comes from courage and courage comes from a  trust in all of these.

    9.  That all of the attributes in Step 8 give me self-confidence to reach for the cup flawlessly without even hesitating.

    10.  That all of the attributes noted in Steps 1 to 9 did not come from any material thing, that all are metaphysical attributes, which nature cannot produce or replicate, demonstrating wisdom again.

    11. That this conclusion begs the ultimate question - Then where did all of these metaphysical attributes come from?  That requires intelligence.

    ANALYSIS:

    How long did it take you to read all of the above and to absorb it properly?  Longer than it would have taken you to reach for the cup 20 times without falling over.  So how fast then do we process all of the above steps up to and including Step 9, which steps are all necessary in order to execute the process of getting the cup with ease and confidence? The answer is at the speed of light squared, because ALL  energy travels at the speed of light squared.  The process of thought uses energy.  Our supply of energy directly governs how well we can think clearly and how quickly we can think.  There is much truth in the old adage, "A healthy body, a healthy mind."  However, our ability to reason is not only  energy-based.  The depth of that capacity is inherited through our genes and cannot be "schooled", because it is a gift; just like all of our talents are gifts, the reason we say some are gifted in music, some gifted in athleticism, some gifted in mathematics, some gifted in drawing and illustration, some gifted in writing or in some other craft and so on.

    MORAL OF THE STORY:

    As wisdom can only come from a trust in all of those attributes, those attributes must  therefore be founded in truths before they are trust-worthy, so from where do those truths come? All truths come from God.  He gives us the truths in the first place that we may have trust in these attributes upon which we rely for our wisdom, in order that we may be self-reliant.  All of the above attributes are therefore reliant on truths and each truth is a gift from God, because nature cannot produce or replicate either truths nor any of these attributes.  All of them ultimately come full circle to culminate in a single gift - the gift of trust - the same trust from which we derive our wisdom.  Trust is the pen-ultimate wisdom, a  trust in God's gifts, a trust in our very own attributes, which is ultimately the wisdom to commit to the ultimate trust - a trust in God.  After all, He gifted them to us. Without them, remember, we would be merely unintelligent, worthless blobs of flesh and bone.

    OUR ULTIMATE COMPLETENESS:

    Completeness is this absolute and quintessential circularity, which also epitomizes the circular process of life, the circular function of simply being.  The entire process itself is circular, a never-ending process of circularity, just like the process of human existence is circular.  We came from dust.  We are returned to dust.  Everything in the universe is also circular - global - including the orbits of each globe.  Knowledge and wisdom are also circular.  Even the face of the globe we live upon is circular and the source of energy we obtain from the circular orb of the sun is also circular.  Everything is circular and everything is balanced.  Every opposite has its opposite - life/death, wet/dry, hot/cold, strong/weak, open/shut, etc.  These are the wisdoms and these wisdoms expose the perfection in the balance  of God's entire Creation. It is perfection itself in its completeness.

    So, a trust in God, in Him, in all that He knows, in His wisdom, in His teachings is our completeness.  Name any one of those attributes listed above, which you think a Big Bang could gift to us?
    .
    RS_masterAlofRI
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne + @Happy_Killbot@Plaffelvohfen + @AlofRI@TKDB + @xlJ_dolphin_473 + @Dee + @John_C_87 + @RS_master ;

    GIFTS FROM GOD

    Intellect, intent, knowledge, understanding, memory, learning, experience, confidence, reason, courage, trust, belief, wisdom, spirituality.  Without these we are incomplete, are worthless blobs of flesh and bone.

    Take a look at the ability to balance our torso in all sorts of ways as we move about.  We do this automatically, or at least what seems to us as automatic.  It isn't really, though.  Every time we need to balance our bodies, whether we are running, skipping, jumping, stretching, leaning or reaching over, there is a process going through our brain at the speed of light squared, so fast that it is virtually simultaneous with the impulse to act.  The speed of the process is so fast, it merely appears  to us to be simultaneous, which is why we think it is automatic, yet, it isn't automatic.  If it were, then there would be no process.

    So, what is that process?  It proceeds in very well-defined steps, but first the thought of the intent must begin the process which proceeds as follows....

    PROCESSING THE PROCESS

    1.  I need that cup on the top shelf in order for me to enjoy my usual morning cup of coffee. Demonstrating intent.

    2.  I know that If I lean across the bench top, stretch my arm and open my palm I can grasp the cup in my hand, demonstrating knowledge.

    3.  I know that I must stand on my tippy toes, lean across to reach for it, that I must open the palm of my hand and use my fingers to grasp it, all at the same time, demonstrating logic.

    4.  I also know that I must already know how to keep my balance at the same time, otherwise I would fall over, demonstrating intelligence.

    5.  I know as well, that this necessarily requires  a knowledge of how to distribute my weight with an exactness  over my centre of gravity, aka my fulcrum, demonstrating reason.

    6.  I know it is possible and easy to do this, because I have done it a thousand times before without even thinking about it, demonstrating experience.

    7.  I know that I have the knowledge to know it is possible, because I have committed that knowledge to memory and already used it before, demonstrating the use of memory.

    8.  I know that I must have a memory, even though I can't see it, because I've used it before to do this same action every morning, every day, over and over flawlessly, demonstrating understanding.

    9.  I even know that I also have the ability to learn from experience, through doing other different actions over and over, equally as flawlessly with exactly the same ease and confidence, which is a willingness to explore and to test our knowledge further, to test our experience further and to test our understanding of new knowledge, in order to learn an even greater understanding of the world we live in, demonstrating courage.

    CONCLUSIONS:  

    1.  That I have an intellect and use it to exercise intelligence.

    2.  That I have knowledge.

    3.  That I have a memory 

    4.  That I have intelligence, because I can reach conclusions.

    5.  That I have the capacity to learn. 

    6.  That I have the capacity to teach, by using experience and to learn from new experiences from which I can learn and then impart that knowledge to others.

    7.  That I have understanding, demonstrating wisdom.

    8.  That I can know wisdom comes from knowledge, that knowledge comes from learning, learning comes from experience, experience comes from courage and courage comes from a  trust in all of these.

    9.  That all of the attributes in Step 8 give me self-confidence to reach for the cup flawlessly without even hesitating.

    10.  That all of the attributes noted in Steps 1 to 9 did not come from any material thing, that all are metaphysical attributes, which nature cannot produce or replicate, demonstrating wisdom again.

    11. That this conclusion begs the ultimate question - Then where did all of these metaphysical attributes come from?  That requires intelligence.

    ANALYSIS:

    How long did it take you to read all of the above and to absorb it properly?  Longer than it would have taken you to reach for the cup 20 times without falling over.  So how fast then do we process all of the above steps up to and including Step 9, which steps are all necessary in order to execute the process of getting the cup with ease and confidence? The answer is at the speed of light squared, because ALL  energy travels at the speed of light squared.  The process of thought uses energy.  Our supply of energy directly governs how well we can think clearly and how quickly we can think.  There is much truth in the old adage, "A healthy body, a healthy mind."  However, our ability to reason is not only  energy-based.  The depth of that capacity is inherited through our genes and cannot be "schooled", because it is a gift; just like all of our talents are gifts, the reason we say some are gifted in music, some gifted in athleticism, some gifted in mathematics, some gifted in drawing and illustration, some gifted in writing or in some other craft and so on.

    MORAL OF THE STORY:

    As wisdom can only come from a trust in all of those attributes, those attributes must  therefore be founded in truths before they are trust-worthy, so from where do those truths come? All truths come from God.  He gives us the truths in the first place that we may have trust in these attributes upon which we rely for our wisdom, in order that we may be self-reliant.  All of the above attributes are therefore reliant on truths and each truth is a gift from God, because nature cannot produce or replicate either truths nor any of these attributes.  All of them ultimately come full circle to culminate in a single gift - the gift of trust - the same trust from which we derive our wisdom.  Trust is the pen-ultimate wisdom, a  trust in God's gifts, a trust in our very own attributes, which is ultimately the wisdom to commit to the ultimate trust - a trust in God.  After all, He gifted them to us. Without them, remember, we would be merely unintelligent, worthless blobs of flesh and bone.

    OUR ULTIMATE COMPLETENESS:

    Completeness is this absolute and quintessential circularity, which also epitomizes the circular process of life, the circular function of simply being.  The entire process itself is circular, a never-ending process of circularity, just like the process of human existence is circular.  We came from dust.  We are returned to dust.  Everything in the universe is also circular - global - including the orbits of each globe.  Knowledge and wisdom are also circular.  Even the face of the globe we live upon is circular and the source of energy we obtain from the circular orb of the sun is also circular.  Everything is circular and everything is balanced.  Every opposite has its opposite - life/death, wet/dry, hot/cold, strong/weak, open/shut, etc.  These are the wisdoms and these wisdoms expose the perfection in the balance  of God's entire Creation. It is perfection itself in its completeness.

    So, a trust in God, in Him, in all that He knows, in His wisdom, in His teachings is our completeness.  Name any one of those attributes listed above, which you think a Big Bang could gift to us?
    .
    @Grafix How do you know all the truths are from god. There is no evidence. The story goes...
    A densely packed dot exploding(2nd law of thermodynamics) and as it explodes the dot gets less densely packed and larger and more spread out.
    Eventually some gas(still mass) settled together to form planets and stars and after 8.5 billion years the solar system formed. This is where evolution starts. All the molecules kept joining with different ones to get more complicated molecules. Eventually, DNA was made. That DNA became more complicated to make simple life cells. By accident one may have been a bit different and the others died out because they could not survive. This is called natural selection. It kept happening making more complicated life.Eventually humans formed. Because they are so complicated they can decide, invent and use. By doing that we came with laws and values so god did not have to interfere. There are other theories each one minimising god existance chances.
    AlofRI
  • @Grafix ;

    Wisdom.....
    I always feel a little wiser after banging my head. Mainly due to the pain and the desire for it not to happen again.
    Just for the record if a bang takes place before all others, it will always the biggest of its time. No matter its relative size to the others that came after.  
    Grafix
  • Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne + @Happy_Killbot@Plaffelvohfen + @AlofRI@TKDB + @xlJ_dolphin_473 + @Dee + @John_C_87 + @RS_master ;

    GIFTS FROM GOD

    Intellect, intent, knowledge, understanding, memory, learning, experience, confidence, reason, courage, trust, belief, wisdom, spirituality.  Without these we are incomplete, are worthless blobs of flesh and bone.

    Take a look at the ability to balance our torso in all sorts of ways as we move about.  We do this automatically, or at least what seems to us as automatic.  It isn't really, though.  Every time we need to balance our bodies, whether we are running, skipping, jumping, stretching, leaning or reaching over, there is a process going through our brain at the speed of light squared, so fast that it is virtually simultaneous with the impulse to act.  The speed of the process is so fast, it merely appears  to us to be simultaneous, which is why we think it is automatic, yet, it isn't automatic.  If it were, then there would be no process.

    So, what is that process?  It proceeds in very well-defined steps, but first the thought of the intent must begin the process which proceeds as follows....

    PROCESSING THE PROCESS

    1.  I need that cup on the top shelf in order for me to enjoy my usual morning cup of coffee. Demonstrating intent.

    2.  I know that If I lean across the bench top, stretch my arm and open my palm I can grasp the cup in my hand, demonstrating knowledge.

    3.  I know that I must stand on my tippy toes, lean across to reach for it, that I must open the palm of my hand and use my fingers to grasp it, all at the same time, demonstrating logic.

    4.  I also know that I must already know how to keep my balance at the same time, otherwise I would fall over, demonstrating intelligence.

    5.  I know as well, that this necessarily requires  a knowledge of how to distribute my weight with an exactness  over my centre of gravity, aka my fulcrum, demonstrating reason.

    6.  I know it is possible and easy to do this, because I have done it a thousand times before without even thinking about it, demonstrating experience.

    7.  I know that I have the knowledge to know it is possible, because I have committed that knowledge to memory and already used it before, demonstrating the use of memory.

    8.  I know that I must have a memory, even though I can't see it, because I've used it before to do this same action every morning, every day, over and over flawlessly, demonstrating understanding.

    9.  I even know that I also have the ability to learn from experience, through doing other different actions over and over, equally as flawlessly with exactly the same ease and confidence, which is a willingness to explore and to test our knowledge further, to test our experience further and to test our understanding of new knowledge, in order to learn an even greater understanding of the world we live in, demonstrating courage.

    CONCLUSIONS:  

    1.  That I have an intellect and use it to exercise intelligence.

    2.  That I have knowledge.

    3.  That I have a memory 

    4.  That I have intelligence, because I can reach conclusions.

    5.  That I have the capacity to learn. 

    6.  That I have the capacity to teach, by using experience and to learn from new experiences from which I can learn and then impart that knowledge to others.

    7.  That I have understanding, demonstrating wisdom.

    8.  That I can know wisdom comes from knowledge, that knowledge comes from learning, learning comes from experience, experience comes from courage and courage comes from a  trust in all of these.

    9.  That all of the attributes in Step 8 give me self-confidence to reach for the cup flawlessly without even hesitating.

    10.  That all of the attributes noted in Steps 1 to 9 did not come from any material thing, that all are metaphysical attributes, which nature cannot produce or replicate, demonstrating wisdom again.

    11. That this conclusion begs the ultimate question - Then where did all of these metaphysical attributes come from?  That requires intelligence.

    ANALYSIS:

    How long did it take you to read all of the above and to absorb it properly?  Longer than it would have taken you to reach for the cup 20 times without falling over.  So how fast then do we process all of the above steps up to and including Step 9, which steps are all necessary in order to execute the process of getting the cup with ease and confidence? The answer is at the speed of light squared, because ALL  energy travels at the speed of light squared.  The process of thought uses energy.  Our supply of energy directly governs how well we can think clearly and how quickly we can think.  There is much truth in the old adage, "A healthy body, a healthy mind."  However, our ability to reason is not only  energy-based.  The depth of that capacity is inherited through our genes and cannot be "schooled", because it is a gift; just like all of our talents are gifts, the reason we say some are gifted in music, some gifted in athleticism, some gifted in mathematics, some gifted in drawing and illustration, some gifted in writing or in some other craft and so on.

    MORAL OF THE STORY:

    As wisdom can only come from a trust in all of those attributes, those attributes must  therefore be founded in truths before they are trust-worthy, so from where do those truths come? All truths come from God.  He gives us the truths in the first place that we may have trust in these attributes upon which we rely for our wisdom, in order that we may be self-reliant.  All of the above attributes are therefore reliant on truths and each truth is a gift from God, because nature cannot produce or replicate either truths nor any of these attributes.  All of them ultimately come full circle to culminate in a single gift - the gift of trust - the same trust from which we derive our wisdom.  Trust is the pen-ultimate wisdom, a  trust in God's gifts, a trust in our very own attributes, which is ultimately the wisdom to commit to the ultimate trust - a trust in God.  After all, He gifted them to us. Without them, remember, we would be merely unintelligent, worthless blobs of flesh and bone.

    OUR ULTIMATE COMPLETENESS:

    Completeness is this absolute and quintessential circularity, which also epitomizes the circular process of life, the circular function of simply being.  The entire process itself is circular, a never-ending process of circularity, just like the process of human existence is circular.  We came from dust.  We are returned to dust.  Everything in the universe is also circular - global - including the orbits of each globe.  Knowledge and wisdom are also circular.  Even the face of the globe we live upon is circular and the source of energy we obtain from the circular orb of the sun is also circular.  Everything is circular and everything is balanced.  Every opposite has its opposite - life/death, wet/dry, hot/cold, strong/weak, open/shut, etc.  These are the wisdoms and these wisdoms expose the perfection in the balance  of God's entire Creation. It is perfection itself in its completeness.

    So, a trust in God, in Him, in all that He knows, in His wisdom, in His teachings is our completeness.  Name any one of those attributes listed above, which you think a Big Bang could gift to us?
    .
    You lost me at #10. I'm not certain how you've concluded "all of the attributes noted in Steps 1 to 9 did not come from any material thing, that are all metaphysical attributes, which nature cannot produce or replicate [...]" while pointing to a part of nature (ie. the brain). This does not follow.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIxlJ_dolphin_473Happy_Killbot
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Grafix

    Unfortunately for me I just read through this ( as usual ) long winded pile of just to get to your point which is ..... All truths come from God. ...... Why do you write page upon page of unintelligent tripe just to assert there’s a god every argument you make is circular and void of implication , thankfully I can go back to ignoring you 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch