ATHEISTS THINK THIS IS LOGICAL .....

Menashi

As simple as it goes, science is the logic atheists follow, but science controls our world and God believers believe in science too as long as it don't invade the religious zone with non sense. But just a question, isn't the creations of the world we are existing in too meticulous and super-exquisite to me the works of just a bunch of chemical reactions? We use physics to prove the way our world goes on Earth and we use chemistry to identify materials in our world and we use biology for all living things, but hell you're telling me it's the work of some particles and so the world started. How much time would it have taken then to create this masterpiece of universe we are in? It's just that I believe atheists are searching for an excuse for their atheism. However, most people are atheists for only one reason which is don't want to be ruled by religious restrictions and have to follow that for the r lives. In both cases, let me drop an unrelated question here: time travel nd parallel universes, do they exist? Science proves it is possible, but it haven't been physically practised, does that mean it's an aethiests theory? Well, I don't think so.

John_C_87

Dee said:

@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 

I have an answer. 
It is due to the truth of saying all facts can come from math. Sadly that the fact all truths come from math does not limit the idea of all lies also come from math. GOD the numbers 400, 11, 500, and last 89.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Why are you such a hypocrite to not see that your side has no more proof then anyone else. The difference?

Christians are not forcing immpressionable children to be indoctrinated by religion, but you Big Brother arrogant Leftists are forcing your theories of evolution and LGBT sexual orientations. Science is built around facts, not theory.

You would force our children to listen to your theory of how two men having a relationship is natural normal Biology.

STOP WITH YOUR THEORIES, and start respecting other's beliefs!

SCHOOL IS PLACE FOR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE BASICS!

NOT YOUR ANTI RELIGIOUS THEORIES!

Grafix

@RS_master - You wrote ...

@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.

What if I said to you that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang are concoctions devised by atheism to prove atheism?  You could say in reply, well Christ is a concoction to prove the religion of Christianity.  Then it gets down to who has the most evidence of their cliaims.  Right?  Christianity does by far.  Thousands of documents, relics, tombs, an empty tomb, a crucifixion, miracles and mysteries with eye-witness accounts outside of the Biblical texts.  What hard evidence is their to support a common ancestor, Evolution and the Big Bang?  

Christianity's hard evidence is Christ Himself. His obvious divinity observed in both his resurrection and his ascension with eye-witness accounts on the historical record outside of Biblical texts. The written record of the Governor, Pontius Pilate in his Acta Pilati, (Acts of Pilate). There's also a plethora of archaeological evidence which testifies to the accuracy of the Biblical texts.  What is on the historical record, with eye-witness accounts and archaeological evidence that the account you rely on even happened?  There's none.  It's all conjecture.  You then wrote ...

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.

Explain where DNA came from?  DNA, like the attributes I describe in my previous post, is information contained in protein chains.  No useful  cell can be formed without it.  Every cell has a function, which is its purpose for existing.  If it does not know what its function is, it cannot be formed in any way to be functional.  That is what DNA does - gives the knowledge to cell formation in order to determine that our hair is brown or blonde, eyes blue or brown, legs long or short, skin fair or dark, etc.  

Sure, we inherit our DNA from our parents, but remember DNA is never replicated by nature.  You cannot replicate something which is not physical. You can only copy it.  Before cells divide, they copy the DNA from the parent cell.  If they didn't the new cells would not form into functional cells.  So where did the DNA come from in the first male and female of each species?  Secondly, as we're clearly not exact replicas of our parents, and our DNA is different from theirs, because no two living things have identical DNA, where does the new DNA not inherited come from which makes each one of us unique?  Science acknowledges it is intelligent information.

.

Happy_Killbot

We_are_accountable said:

@Happy_Killbot

Why are you such a hypocrite to not see that your side has no more proof then anyone else. The difference?

Christians are not forcing immpressionable children to be indoctrinated by religion, but you Big Brother arrogant Leftists are forcing your theories of evolution and LGBT sexual orientations. Science is built around facts, not theory.

You would force our children to listen to your theory of how two men having a relationship is natural normal Biology.

STOP WITH YOUR THEORIES, and start respecting other's beliefs!

SCHOOL IS PLACE FOR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE BASICS!

NOT YOUR ANTI RELIGIOUS THEORIES!

@We_are_accountable
Our views are based on the evidence, your's are based on speculation, that is the difference.

Christianity is heritable, that is to say that the #1 thing that will determine if someone will be a particular religion, is if their parents are.

For example, you are pushing your bigoted anti-LGBTQ ideologies onto your children. That is why the Islamic faith is spreading so fast globally, because they have the most kids.

People who act the way you are acting are why nobody takes Christianity seriously anymore. It's not like schools are bringing in homosexuals to show everyone how to F*** in front of the class.

Grafix

@John_C_87 = LOL!  I hope you head is better.  

If the bang is required to be of such magnitude needed to create a universe, the heat it would necessarily generate would be so extreme, that it would vaporize everything in its path, in the same way the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima did.  That's the primary reason why I think the Big Bang theory is totally nuts and is an idea dreamt up by a bunch of fruitcakes to try to justify atheism and thereby dismiss and nullify Christianity.

xlJ_dolphin_473

We_are_accountable said:

@Happy_Killbot

Why are you such a hypocrite to not see that your side has no more proof then anyone else. The difference?

Christians are not forcing immpressionable children to be indoctrinated by religion, but you Big Brother arrogant Leftists are forcing your theories of evolution and LGBT sexual orientations. Science is built around facts, not theory.

You would force our children to listen to your theory of how two men having a relationship is natural normal Biology.

STOP WITH YOUR THEORIES, and start respecting other's beliefs!

SCHOOL IS PLACE FOR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE BASICS!

NOT YOUR ANTI RELIGIOUS THEORIES!

@We_are_accountable
 School is not the place for teaching religion either. At the school I went to, we occasionally sung hymns, but we also occasionally had debates about whether God exists. I believe this is the right way to teach children. Teach them: You're free to think whatever you like, but here are the most popular theories. Not: Learn this and this and this, as if it's a part of the curriculum and not a minority opinion. Also, go easy on the shouty caps.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

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.

The brain matter, including its cells and nervous system is a wonderful conveyor belt, a transport system, a storage house too for memory and information.  It is also a convener and an organiser.  A great big muscle with enormous capacity like a computer.  It's primary food is blood sugar.  The material flesh and blood just zooms everything along at lightning speeds via the use of neurons using energy, managing its transit via nerve cells in terms of reactions, messages and responses, also organizing where to place everything in separate compartments, like our front lobal compartment manages emotions and our sensory compartment is in the centre and our whatever else is at the rear, while our nervous system is the conduit and sends messages back and forth to the rest of our body.  it is like a brilliant processor. The "gifts" I speak of are analogous with the concept of DNA.

DNA similarly is not physical matter, although it is necessarily stored in physical matter, but it cannot be replicated by splitting it in two to duplicate it the way a cell self-multiplies.  It can't do that.  It is transported by first making copies of it taken from the parent cell just as the parent cell begins to divide, so that the new cell after the division has an identical copy  of the DNA .  I don't profess to know how all of this metaphysical stuff is stored like thoughts and emotions, logic and reasoning, wisdom and calculation or intent and knowledge, etc., but the understanding now of DNA proves that our bodies can house metaphysical information.  The brain muscle itself, the flesh and blood is a fantastic array of organizers in exactly the same way the protein chains organize the code and order of our DNA, which similarly is information.  

I guess we can perceive the metaphysical information of these "gifts", in the same way we perceive DNA, because their I.D. and inheritence comes from our DNA in the first place, but where does DNA come from in the first place?  The same source? Our Creator?  No-one knows, but science acknowledges that it is intelligent information and gives our cells the information on what each cell's function is.  Without it, a cell is not functional.

.

Grafix

@John_C_87 - You wrote ...

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.

I get how the expansive power of numbers makes it logical as the methodology to define infinity and therefore the concept of the Christian God, because he is defined as "intinite".  In all probability it will be the very definition of infinity itself in a mathematical equation which defines God.  Then you said ...

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.

But as you yourself said and I agree, that to start with the correct numbers, wouldn't the correct word for God's accurate name need to be the source of the numbers and not any translated names? ... otherwise surely the translated names would provide the wrong numbers and the wrong outcome.  Right?

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. 

Sure, we see life through the perspective or our own limited experience and understanding and I am no different, nevertheless, I am confused now, because I though we were in agreement when you were critical of Christians changing the name of God from Yahweh to God, for the reason the numbers would be changed and therefore the outcome from those numbers would be a "lie", because they were not derived from God's actual name in Hebrew..  .  Suddenly, I am confused, because you now seem to be saying the opposite via your comment below ...

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.

I'm far from a scholar of maths.  Any complex explanation of the maths itself will be out of my league.  I recall secants, but their significance I've forgotten - vaguely where two lines each intersect a circle, if you then draw lines from the intersecting points and create two triangles these are identical because the length of the arc between the two lines is the same in each and so therefore the angle is the same thus they are identical triangles,  All I do know is that numbers are involved in the I.D. of God and that suggests a mathematical equation could be capable of proving His existence.  Agreed? ... and the infinity of the circle is sure to be involved, because God is described as both "infinite" and "eternal" - infinite in time and has no beginning and no end - just like a circle.  Agreed?  But I am happy to let others do the maths and just use my common sense while waiting.  LOL!.

In the interim we have Einstein's theory which proves that mass can become invisible via velocity and force, and the relativity of that to everything else is key, so anything is possible.  Right?  Am still interested to know, though, what are the numbers you keep putting up for G, O, D.  Where did you source that information of those numbers for each letter from and what do they signify, i.e., what outcome if any, has been arrived at using them? 
. 

MayCaesar

Grafix said:

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

I think that what scientific evidence suggests is logical, while what human fantasies suggest is not. Scientific evidence does not suggest that "at the beginning there was nothing", so I fail to see what your first picture has to do with anything.

OK.  Well as you do not believe in a Creator of any kind, then explain where all the "stuff" came from, the rocks and gases, which caused the Big Bang?  Then you say ...

I also do not "believe" in what people say happened 4.5 billion years ago; I look at the evidence and see where it leads.

OK.  So what evidence of abiogenesis are you looking at?  I am not aware of any evidence of abiogenesis created by nature.  The top leading molecular scientist in the world, Dr. James Tour is not either.  I am aware of mere scientific extrapolations led in with words like it "may", or it "could, or "it's possible", or "perhaps" as the scientific logic of how life began, but there is no evidence of anything concerning abiogenesis, yet you claim you "look" at this non-existent "evidence" to "see where it leads"?  Isn't that a dishonest argument?  Then you in all the glory of atheist arrogance proclaim ....

I think people should, at least, spend a few minutes reading basic summary of what the science says, before trying to debunk one of the most solid theories in physics of all time with a couple of memes.

There it is, right there, the ridiculing of the memes I've used in this post.  Sure, I agree with no argument at all, that some memes are so reductionist that they are abjectly deceitful, unworthy of debate, but then again we have the very wise axiom that a picture tells a thousand words.  So do good memes very effectively imparting so much, much more than a thousand words.  But yet you happily demonstrate the archetypal smugness of the atheist, its flagship, by sneering at extremely accurate memes and pointing out that everyone else is irrational, uneducated, uninformed, complete dumbos, except atheists - according to atheists. 

I have just shown you how your arguments are powder puffs, based on nothing, based on falsely claimed evidence, which does not even exist, all made up from extrapolations, then morphed into fake "facts".  It is the biggest scandal in the history of mankind.  Why does the insecure and hopelessly inculcated establishment science still insist that Evolution is a viable theory?  It's been disproved.
.

I have no idea; perhaps even asking this question makes no sense and there is no "from". That is what the science is about: studying the world and slowly gaining knowledge about it. We do not claim to know things we do not know.

What does abiogenesis have to do with the age of Earth? It is not clear when exactly abiogenesis happened, or if it happened at all, but the age of Earth estimates are based off multiple different fields, such as nuclear physics or material science, and estimates made by various methods agree with each other quite well.

Why is it that you guys always try to show how our arguments are illogical with some lazy one-liners? We work our entire lives publishing sophisticated papers full of data and logic, and then comes someone like you, saying, "Where does all the stuff come from? Huh? Checkmate, atheists."
I am not smug; you are. I do not claim to know things I do not know, and I certainly am not going to try to dismiss centuries of work by millions people with lazy arguments. I do know something about the Big Bang in particular, because I am an astrophysicist and have read scientific books and papers on the subject. Your arguments, unfortunately, do not compare even to introduction chapters to introductory books on it.

If you want to put memes against thousands peer-reviewed publications, then you are going to lose, whether you are actually right or not.

MayCaesar

We_are_accountable said:

@Happy_Killbot

Why are you such a hypocrite to not see that your side has no more proof then anyone else. The difference?

Christians are not forcing immpressionable children to be indoctrinated by religion, but you Big Brother arrogant Leftists are forcing your theories of evolution and LGBT sexual orientations. Science is built around facts, not theory.

You would force our children to listen to your theory of how two men having a relationship is natural normal Biology.

STOP WITH YOUR THEORIES, and start respecting other's beliefs!

SCHOOL IS PLACE FOR CHILDREN TO LEARN THE BASICS!

NOT YOUR ANTI RELIGIOUS THEORIES!

It so happens that factual basics run contrary to religious theories. You have to choose: either your children study religious theories at schools, or they study factual sciences that will help them in life later with things such as employment and technology usage. They can study both, sure, but if you are just concerned with the basics, then teaching kids religious theories is not the way to go about it.

Scientific theories are based on facts. Facts and theories are not mutually contradictory. Accumulation and analysis of facts results in scientific theories, which are then used for producing functional technology. You do not refrain from driving your car simply because its engine is based on thermodynamics, which is a theory, do you?

For some reason people have problem with theories when they run contrary to the ideologies they follow, but have no trouble using the products of those theories in other areas of their life. This computer you are using to converse with me is partially based on quantum mechanics, which is a scientific theory (a fairly weird one as well; if you think that the Big Bang sounds crazy, then wait until you get into quantum mechanics). Would you rather use a computer based on a religious theory? You are welcome to show me one; as far as I know, it does not exist.

If you want to raise your kids on religious theories, that is fine, but do realise that they need a completely different type of ideas to function well in the real world, and you are setting them back by doing so. If you truly want to help your children, then get them some scientific and philosophical books and do away with all the ideological garbage.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Spew your pro LGBT theories in your own home. Keep your Big Brother indoctrination out of our schools. School is a place to teach our children the basics, not force feed them Left or Right wing propaganda.

What's so sick about people like you, is that you ca n not see how you would feel if the Right were pushing their beliefs onto your kids in public schools. We are not!

Hypocrite!

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable You go on like there is somehow a problem here, but you are wrong and you don't even know why.

Seriously, what is wrong with your kids finding out that homosexuals exist and it is perfectly normal that people be like that?

Right now I just think you are an unfit homophobic parent. I don't even know what this debate is about or how any of this is relevant or how it started. The only reason I talk to you is because you say things that are really funny and it feels good to know that I will never be that insecure.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - That is the quintessential cop out May, particularly after claiming you are not smug that I am, despite this statement below of yours which I called out. Atheists wear it like a badge ..

MayCaesar said: I think people should, at least, spend a few minutes reading basic summary of what the science says, before trying to debunk one of the most solid theories in physics of all time with a couple of memes. ....[AND then you added.] ...If you want to put memes against thousands peer-reviewed publications, then you are going to lose, whether you are actually right or not.

How can you lose if you're right???  LOL!  Happily admitted many memes are ridiculously reductionist, just plain false.  That doesn't discount those which speak a thousand words, just as pictures can, as we say.  These memes are extremely relevant and go straight to the issue.  Your own opening paragraph in the post I heavily criticized, endorses and reinforces the reasons why we say "checkmate" to the Big Bang theory, because it IS  illogical, because science IS  fibbing, when it speaks about "evidence", where there is none to be had, just as you did yourself, claiming that you "consult evidence" where we know there is none to consult. 

What you really mean is you consult scientific conjecture, extrapolations &c., appealing to that "authority" and never admit that is all it is. Fake science is paid NOT TO ADMIT IT  by vested interests, but to instead double down with vague, illogical justifications of BBT.  It is clear it is a furphy.  We have known since Hiroshima, that such velocity and force required of the BB to create the universe would vaporize all in its path. 

When the Big Bang theory itself claims its Big Bang is the beginning of matter, time and space, yet any Big Bang must be the explosion of matter, then it IS  logical to ask, how can it be the beginning of matter?  Also logical to ask, doesn't the theory itself defy its own claim because it uses matter? AND IF  if it is the beginning, logical to ask, where then did the matter which exploded come from?  Your reply says it all .... 

I have no idea; perhaps even asking this question makes no sense and there is no "from". That is what the science is about: studying the world and slowly gaining knowledge about it. We do not claim to know things we do not know.

I mean?????? There is absolutely not a vestige of logic or common sense in that response.  Even a brain-dead, half sucked acid drop can see that, yet you whine how dare we laugh at this science? Next ...

What does abiogenesis have to do with the age of Earth? It is not clear when exactly abiogenesis happened, or if it happened at all, but the age of Earth estimates are based off multiple different fields, such as nuclear physics or material science, and estimates made by various methods agree with each other quite well.

Where did I even mention the age of the earth?  I didn't.  Totally irrelevant.  I asked you to explain abiogenesis, though.  Didn't it begin in a primordial soup?  You're the ?scientist, yet don't know that ridiculous but stock answer science pretends to be real?.  Then you say maybe it didn't happen at all.  Really?  Well how did all of the life on earth arrive?  Starship Gallactica? 

First you claimed you worked at CERN, now you're suddenly an astrophysicist - at CERN, I presume.   Then you would know all about CERN and Block Chain Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum D-Wave technologies.  Right?  Not to mention the Mandela Effect, right?  I have to say I find it difficult to believe a CERN scientist spends every waking hour on a chat forum.
.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

What is smug about it? Is the statement wrong in any way?

It does not matter if your claim is right; what matters is whether you can logically support it, as far as debates go. Memes do not logically support anything.
I do not appeal to authority in any way; I have actually studied the subjects I am talking about professionally. You have failed to point out a single flaw in my argument, and your general objections come down to "I disagree with you, so you are wrong".

If you think your "common sense" surpasses formal data analysis in its validity, then that is your right, but that is not how scientists see it. Our "common sense" has been mistaken on countless occasions, especially when we talk about effects on the scale we do not deal with in our everyday lives.

I do not know how and when abiogenesis occurred, if at all; nobody knows.

I have worked both in particle physics and in astrophysics. CERN has been one of the organisations I have worked at for a couple of years back in my particle physics days. Now I am moving on to mathematical statistics; it is common for scientists to drift from field to field.
Are you going to ever respond to my actual arguments, or is talking about my persona your hobby? I am not romantically interested, sorry.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - May you give no facts, no logic, no argument, but zero, zilch, nada, zip in rebuttal, instead appealing to garbage "higher authority", the very "authority" I am calling out for its fakery and you double down and simply claim it is brilliant, without refuting my arguments against the garbage science that I point out.  Then you whine that I dare do so and mock the memes.  The memes speak to the issue.  There is no blanket, hard and fast rule that a meme can never be relevant or clever.  They are simply the online replacement for cartoons of print media.  You are just brainwashed by your Big Brother, Nanny State to parrot squawk that mindless response.

I have seen extremely clever cartoons that say a thousand words, much better than any eloquence of a gifted speaker.  Memes are the same.  No different, so quit hiding behind Nanny State aprons and propaganda and debate my points.  CERN  is drop-dead evil and into 4th dimension weird Satanic forces stuff.

John_C_87

@Grafix ;
Because you've written the word GOD, I assume the numbers correlate with the word "God" itself, 

No, it is, because I wrote the number 89 using the letters G, O, D you assume a word. Even after given clear instruction of an algebraic use of letters as numbers. No, it simply means GOD is creatable independent of any legal name translated in all other ways. In any other language, any Tetragrammaton with a tetragram has 5 points in two directions, not just one direction. 5 in and 5 outside the geometric shape. Frankly, the math as geometry was never completed much like Newton's laws of motion.

There is a complex mathematic principle behind an assignment of a numerical value to letters spanning a rather lager period of time. Cultures tend to build on each other's works. 
I have written an additional law of motion created by mathematics. Number do move so have a law of those movements. Gravity is elasticity, modulation, and reverberation. ( G = E+AM+RT)

OK, but what is the relevance of that in regards to the numbers behind the Tetragrammaton?  
The geometry connection made by a circle and scale as a basic tool of design. While realistically I am proving thanks to algebra there is no such thing as Atheism and this is not done with the Tetragrammaton.

I hope your head is better? 
Thank you, to date any periodic MRI came back A-okay.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

All I am saying is that you are not going to win a debate by going against serious science with memes. You can believe whatever you want, but the world works the way it does. I have already addressed the errors in your memes in my very first comment; they are not even based on what the science actually says. You do not understand the scientific stance on this subject, yet try to criticise it nonetheless.

We love it when our theories are criticised; we do this all the time ourselves. Having one's theory disproven by some prominent scientist is a badge of honor, in a way. You, however, do not offer any criticism of any substance. Is there data contradicting the Big Bang theory? Is there something we are doing consistently wrong when testing its predictions?
The answer to the first question is actually yes; there are some observations incompatible with the current outlook on the theory (for example, the inflation stage has some parameter value issues - calculations just do not work out with any of the currently proposed models). People are working on trying to remedy that by patching the theory up. Happens in science all the time. But you are not even aware of this work, are you? There are reasonable ways to criticise the Big Bang theory; you just do not seem to have enough knowledge on the subject to find them.

All you have is accusations of some grand conspiracy. You do not actually say anything about the theory itself; you do criticise its very straw-manned version, but that is something anyone can do.

You should learn to criticise the argument, not the person making it, if you are to learn anything about the world. Discussing people instead will leave you with the same set of unchallenged ideas which will hinder your life in many ways. In particular, on the job market potential employers are interested in what you can do in the real world, not in what you believe, and to be able to do something of substance in real world you need to understand how that world works.
You can believe in your ideas about how the world works however much you want; good luck converting them into high income though. As for me, I am getting paid handsomely for my work, and my career is on a strong upward spiral. Cannot complain!

Grafix

@MayCaesar - What do you mean, when you claim that you don't know if abiogenesis ever happened at all ??  I mean, that is just sheer lunacy.  I am speechless.  I would not be here talking to you, nor you to me if it never happened. 

This is precisely what I mean.  So smug yet so .....  ????   You are way out of your depth.  Please don't make that statement again, it is too embarrassing.  Better to edit it out of your post, I think.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

We have no direct evidence of it happening, and our assumption that it did happen is based on inductive reasoning. There are, in principle, other possibilities of emergence of life on Earth. Perhaps abiogenesis happened somewhere else, and then proto-life was dropped on Earth by meteorites - quite a popular theory, by the way, especially in light of the recent discoveries of organic matter on extraterrestrial objects. Or perhaps other sentient beings synthesised life on Earth, which we do not have any evidence of, but which in theory is possible. 

Abiogenesis almost certainly did need to happen somewhere in order for life to emerge in the first place, but, in principle, it did not have to be Earth - although, most likely, it did. I can also think of ways how life could emerge without any intervention with no abiogenesis, although those would be quite fringe theories.

I am smug in what way? I am stating simple logical conjectures. You are the one trying to prescribe some attitude to me, but I am actually emotionally completely detached as I post these things. Which is why I do not react on your aggressive language and stay cool.
I get enough validation in many areas of my life to not need it from random people on the Internet. I am on this website because I like logical debates, not because I have some need to feel good at the expense of others.

I am also not afraid of stating unpopular claims, if I truly think they are logical. You wrote multiple essays about the error of appealing to authority, yet here you are, saying that I should be embarrassed about my statements. Embarrassed in front of whom? Who is the authority I should be ashamed of enveloping my thoughts before?

Grafix

@John_C_87 - So sorry, John, but I scrubbed the post you have responded to over two hours ago and re-wrote a completely new post in the same reply box.  You probably haven't updated your page, so you could only see the old post that I edited out..  Click on the refresh button so you can see the new post I replaced it with.  The reason I rewrote it is because I only saw your later post after I had written my reply, so I edited it out and re-wrote a completely different reply..  I am so sorry, but you do answer one of my questions, which is great.  Sorry about that.  Don't feel any need to reply now.  Whenever you can find the time later.   I will be grateful if you can reply just whenever convenient to you.  It is about eight posts above this one, I think..

I wasn't assuming the word, "God" would be arrived at after you have the numbers to work with.  I was assuming that after you obtained the numbers from the letters G, O, D,  then they would maybe produce a mathematical equation which defines God, something like Einstein's equation, for example.  That is what I still understand.  Is that correct or not?

If you go back to the post I re-wrote a couple of hours ago, you will see that I state that I believe the correct numbers will lead to an equation which will define "infinity", because God is defined by the Christian faith as both "eternal" and  "infinite".  I state that i believe the circle will be represented, having no end and no beginning, like eternity and infinity. .However, I don't think I shall ever understand why the Tetragrammaton won't be the word which provides the accurate numbers for the equation to define God, for the reason that Gematria was used by the ancient Hebrews in their Book of Creation, which assigned numbers to letters and that is why it is believed that the Tetragrammaton is the correct name for God in paleo-Hebrew, due to this system of assigning numbers to letters.  However the Tetragrammaton is not "Yahweh".  It is YHWH in Hebrew, because vowels are not written in Hebrew text.

It is really interesting that these letters appear in your equation ,,,,, 

( G = E+AM+RT)

The word Gematria is the name which the Hebrews gave to  the very thing we are discussing here - the assigning of numbers to letters in their alphabet.  It is not exactly the same as the equation, but is close..

Grafix

@MayCaesar - May, quite honestly, I only read the first line because this kind of nonsense about extra-terrestrial origins is just kicking the can down the road.  There STILL has to be a ...

B E G I N N I N G   T O   T H E M

an abiogenesis of their species,  just like there has to be of ours, so whether we talk about their abiogenesis or ours, it still requires an abiogenesis of

A L L   O F   U S

So who, or what created them?  Co-opting the Dawk Dawkins answer is not an answer.  It is just kicking the can down the road.  I have to go.  I have had enough of this lowgrade idiocracy.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

I could elaborate on the possibilities of life emergence in the lack of either abiogenesis (at least as it is commonly theorised to take place) or intelligent agent intervention; those are quite interesting possibilities which you might not think of right off the bat. But you obviously are not interested in seriously considering anything that does not align with your preconceptions, based on your hostility, so I will pass.

Scientists are not just concerned with how in principle likely something is; we also like to consider very seemingly unlikely theories, both to test the reasoning behind our stances on them and to hope to come up with something novel by considering unorthodox claims. I have read an article by a guy, for example, who investigated how likely it is that there were civilisations on Earth before humans, and he studied such questions as, "Assuming a civilisation of the level comparable to ours existed at some point, how long would it take for the nature to virtually erase the traces of their existence?"

What I take from this conversation is that you have very little idea of what science is. In science we do not dismiss things that sound strange as "nonsense"; in science we test hypotheses and see where logical reasoning leads. It is unfortunate that you do not appreciate the beauty of this process and choose to take the lazy way out by just sticking with your small box of preconceptions.

piloteer

Grafix said:

Here are some more examples of Atheism's logic ...

So I guess you're claiming God IS real because you can't see him?!?!? Did you think before you posted that?

piloteer

Just so others know, I see no reason to mark a trolls post as funny and give them a point for a post that only demonstrated they're missing a chromosome. The funny icon should probably only be used for "funny ha ha" posts, not for "boy that was a train wreck of a post". Their kind do not deserve points.  

piloteer

@Menashi

Since when did science prove time travel was possible? There's no definitive scientific proof that time really exists, so how could science have proven time travel is possible? It obviously is not possible. If time travel existed, it would not be daft to assume somebody would have traveled to the past. If somebody traveled to the past, then time travel would have existed in the past, but it did not. Therefore time travel doesn't exist.   

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

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.

The brain matter, including its cells and nervous system is a wonderful conveyor belt, a transport system, a storage house too for memory and information.  It is also a convener and an organiser.  A great big muscle with enormous capacity like a computer.  It's primary food is blood sugar.  The material flesh and blood just zooms everything along at lightning speeds via the use of neurons using energy, managing its transit via nerve cells in terms of reactions, messages and responses, also organizing where to place everything in separate compartments, like our front lobal compartment manages emotions and our sensory compartment is in the centre and our whatever else is at the rear, while our nervous system is the conduit and sends messages back and forth to the rest of our body.  it is like a brilliant processor. The "gifts" I speak of are analogous with the concept of DNA.

DNA similarly is not physical matter, although it is necessarily stored in physical matter, but it cannot be replicated by splitting it in two to duplicate it the way a cell self-multiplies.  It can't do that.  It is transported by first making copies of it taken from the parent cell just as the parent cell begins to divide, so that the new cell after the division has an identical copy  of the DNA .  I don't profess to know how all of this metaphysical stuff is stored like thoughts and emotions, logic and reasoning, wisdom and calculation or intent and knowledge, etc., but the understanding now of DNA proves that our bodies can house metaphysical information.  The brain muscle itself, the flesh and blood is a fantastic array of organizers in exactly the same way the protein chains organize the code and order of our DNA, which similarly is information.  

I guess we can perceive the metaphysical information of these "gifts", in the same way we perceive DNA, because their I.D. and inheritence comes from our DNA in the first place, but where does DNA come from in the first place?  The same source? Our Creator?  No-one knows, but science acknowledges that it is intelligent information and gives our cells the information on what each cell's function is.  Without it, a cell is not functional.

.

We have no example of thoughts and emotions, logic and reasoning, wisdom and calculation, intent and knowledge sans a physical brain.  To conclude that these things are not from anything material (or contingent on the material) is a view not supported by evidence.   

Grafix

@xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ...

Yes, you can be an atheist and not 'bash' religion. That is fine. But, as I believe that religion is illogical, I choose to debate against theists. Not everyone does. But I choose to. That is also fine.

If that were ALL you did, then I would have no beef with your attitude, but it is NOT all that you do at all.  Reference the discussion we are having in another topic wherein you accused Christianity of not being a peaceful religion, of slaughtering pagans for their religion and accused Christianity of being as follows ...

The monotheistic theists, however, killed all those who worshipped different gods, which I'm sure we can all agree is not very peaceful. So, I would say that the pagans would have been more peaceful.

Remember?  i then responded with this ....

I remind you, that Christianity was not even in existence during that era.  Also you persist with the same, same, same misconception which all Atheists peddle in their attacks upon Christianity.  Why they even need to attack it is telling.  Christianity is not a material entity.  It is a metaphysical philosophy.  How can it go out and slaughter people?  If I have said it once, I have said it a dozen times in this forum, those who would defy the moral principles, the Christian precepts taught by Christ, those who defy its doctrinal Canon of teachings are not acting according to the Christian moral code at all.  They defy it.  Quote a passage to me from the Christian Gospels, the teachings of Christ, where He advocates the slaughter of anyone?  He gave Christianity the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill".  L E T   T H A T   S I N K    I N .  Meanwhile, Islam is slaughtering Christians daily, to this day, with no need to go back eight thousand years, but you are silent against them.  Say nothing and look the other way.

It is interesting how Atheists attack only  Christianity, accuse it of that which it has never  accepted and which its own laws prohibit, while these same accusers turn a blind eye to those who are  committing atrocities, more pointedly committing them against Christians - the governments in China and North Korea and the Jihadists in Islam, all persecuting, incarcerating, slaughtering and oppressing Christians daily to this day,  with no need to go back eight thousand years, yet you are silent on it, never attacking those  cultures.  Why not?  What's wrong with you?  There's something insidiously evil in that - inherently unbalanced. Maybe you need psychiatric help.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Grafix said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ...

Yes, you can be an atheist and not 'bash' religion. That is fine. But, as I believe that religion is illogical, I choose to debate against theists. Not everyone does. But I choose to. That is also fine.

If that were ALL you did, then I would have no beef with your attitude, but it is NOT all that you do at all.  Reference the discussion we are having in another topic wherein you accused Christianity of not being a peaceful religion, of slaughtering pagans for their religion and accused Christianity of being as follows ...

The monotheistic theists, however, killed all those who worshipped different gods, which I'm sure we can all agree is not very peaceful. So, I would say that the pagans would have been more peaceful.

Remember?  i then responded with this ....

I remind you, that Christianity was not even in existence during that era.  Also you persist with the same, same, same misconception which all Atheists peddle in their attacks upon Christianity.  Why they even need to attack it is telling.  Christianity is not a material entity.  It is a metaphysical philosophy.  How can it go out and slaughter people?  If I have said it once, I have said it a dozen times in this forum, those who would defy the moral principles, the Christian precepts taught by Christ, those who defy its doctrinal Canon of teachings are not acting according to the Christian moral code at all.  They defy it.  Quote a passage to me from the Christian Gospels, the teachings of Christ, where He advocates the slaughter of anyone?  He gave Christianity the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill".  L E T   T H A T   S I N K    I N .  Meanwhile, Islam is slaughtering Christians daily, to this day, with no need to go back eight thousand years, but you are silent against them.  Say nothing and look the other way.

It is interesting how Atheists attack only  Christianity, accuse it of that which it has never  accepted and which its own laws prohibit, while these same accusers turn a blind eye to those who are  committing atrocities, more pointedly committing them against Christians - the governments in China and North Korea and the Jihadists in Islam, all persecuting, incarcerating, slaughtering and oppressing Christians daily to this day,  with no need to go back eight thousand years, yet you are silent on it, never attacking those  cultures.  Why not?  What's wrong with you?  There's something insidiously evil in that - inherently unbalanced. Maybe you need psychiatric help.

I never specifically mentioned Christianity. I just said that monotheistic religions are inherently less peaceful than pagan religions. I never said anything specifically about Christianity. You have misinterpreted my argument and taken it as an attack on Christianity. I'm sorry if you are offended, but I stand by the position that I never said anything to bash Christianity in particular, or any more than any other religion. Please do not reference comments from other discussions, this is a discussion about atheists' logic and atheists' logic only. If you insult me by telling me I need 'psychiatric help', you may be blocked.

John_C_87

@Grafix ;

If you go back to the post I re-wrote a couple of hours ago, you will see that I state that I believe the correct numbers will lead to an equation which will define "infinity", because God is defined by the Christian faith as both "eternal" and  "infinite". 

Again, The intention of this suggestion of evidence is to abolish the basic principle of atheism, the inability for a reasonable person to have and to hold solid understanding directly to numbers as letters.  Numbers do go on forever, the numbers do exist, and numbers as count are eternal. 

( G = E+AM+RT)

The word Gematria is the name which the Hebrews gave to the very thing we are discussing here - the assigning of numbers to letters in their alphabet.  It is not exactly the same as the equation but is close.

Not surprised that it is. I didn't write the formula incorrectly simply in general idea from a possible suggestion and speed in the translation of mathematic symbols. I can see why others would do the same. The mathematical proof of motion as the law written.  For all Elasticity, modulation, and reverberation there exists gravity. 
So, what my proof is stating is. That for all elasticity of number and numbers, that share a modulation within the numbers or number, that is reverberating on a number or numbers, creates an attraction to a number, or those numbers. Gravity. This is a true proof of relationship ratio over-approximation.


Forgive me if this is not easy to understand.

RS_master

Grafix said:

@RS_master - You wrote ...

@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.

What if I said to you that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang are concoctions devised by atheism to prove atheism?  You could say in reply, well Christ is a concoction to prove the religion of Christianity.  Then it gets down to who has the most evidence of their cliaims.  Right?  Christianity does by far.  Thousands of documents, relics, tombs, an empty tomb, a crucifixion, miracles and mysteries with eye-witness accounts outside of the Biblical texts.  What hard evidence is their to support a common ancestor, Evolution and the Big Bang?  

Christianity's hard evidence is Christ Himself. His obvious divinity observed in both his resurrection and his ascension with eye-witness accounts on the historical record outside of Biblical texts. The written record of the Governor, Pontius Pilate in his Acta Pilati, (Acts of Pilate). There's also a plethora of archaeological evidence which testifies to the accuracy of the Biblical texts.  What is on the historical record, with eye-witness accounts and archaeological evidence that the account you rely on even happened?  There's none.  It's all conjecture.  You then wrote ...

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.

Explain where DNA came from?  DNA, like the attributes I describe in my previous post, is information contained in protein chains.  No useful  cell can be formed without it.  Every cell has a function, which is its purpose for existing.  If it does not know what its function is, it cannot be formed in any way to be functional.  That is what DNA does - gives the knowledge to cell formation in order to determine that our hair is brown or blonde, eyes blue or brown, legs long or short, skin fair or dark, etc.  

Sure, we inherit our DNA from our parents, but remember DNA is never replicated by nature.  You cannot replicate something which is not physical. You can only copy it.  Before cells divide, they copy the DNA from the parent cell.  If they didn't the new cells would not form into functional cells.  So where did the DNA come from in the first male and female of each species?  Secondly, as we're clearly not exact replicas of our parents, and our DNA is different from theirs, because no two living things have identical DNA, where does the new DNA not inherited come from which makes each one of us unique?  Science acknowledges it is intelligent information.

.

@Grafix You are right but you have one thing missing, proof. Proof is evidence. Evidence drives belief. Proof drives belief so I need proof. Where is Cristianity`s proof? The creator. Where is the big bang proof? From telescopes and mathematical analasys. Obviously, the mathematical analysis is more convincing as proof so the I believe in the big bang.

RS_master

@Grafix You also said "Christianity's hard evidence is Christ Himself. His obvious divinity observed in both his resurrection and his ascension with eye-witness accounts on the historical record outside of Biblical texts. "

How do you know this? You were not alive at 0. You only know it by the book from the creator whereas:

The big bang has proof
the big bang knows it all
When it comes to proof
the big bang stands tall

The proof is important
proof is in evolution
proof wise and reliance wise
evolution is also the solution.

Grafix

@MayCaesar -  In response to my post which said this ....

Grafix said:

@MayCaesar - May, quite honestly, I only read the first line because this kind of nonsense about extra-terrestrial origins is just kicking the can down the road.  There STILL has to be a ...

B E G I N N I N G   T O   T H E M

an abiogenesis of their species,  just like there has to be of ours, so whether we talk about their abiogenesis or ours, it still requires an abiogenesis of

A L L   O F   U S

So who, or what created them?  Co-opting the Dawk Dawkins answer is not an answer.  It is just kicking the can down the road.  I have to go.  I have had enough of this lowgrade idiocracy.

..... you see fit to reply with this ....@MayCaesar said:

@Grafix

I could elaborate on the possibilities of life emergence in the lack of either abiogenesis (at least as it is commonly theorised to take place) or intelligent agent intervention; those are quite interesting possibilities which you might not think of right off the bat. But you obviously are not interested in seriously considering anything that does not align with your preconceptions, based on your hostility, so I will pass.

What?  Show me where in that copy of my post, I would reject a sensible proposition?  You can't, because that is not what my post says.  It says that resorting to the Dawk Dawkins response that DNA came from extra-terrestrials answers nothing, because they TOO would have had to have gotten their  DNA from somewhere.  They like us, from all reports are presumed to be MATERIAL BEINGS and not supernatural, invisible beings, given that people claim to have seen them and to have had experiences with them.  From what did they come then?  What was their abiogenesis?  It IS kicking the can down the road to pretend they are a viable answer.  They aren't.  The problem we have in explaining our own existence and consciousness also applies to theirs.  So No, you cannot assume I am "not interested in seriously considering" other solutions at all.  I am simply not interested in discussing dippy daft ones.

Then you waffle aimlessly about notions which science likes to explore as though it is somehow relevant to this discussion.  I never said it should or shouldn't.  I simply do not accept stuff that is clearly not an explanation, so shoot me.  Then after that you just double down reiterating the same non-reply and re-asserting your smugness, that everyone else is dumb.  Yeah right.  When you can suggest a proposition that is anything but dumb, then I will not need to call your answers dumb, will I?  Waffling on about the rigors of scientific testing, hardly makes your reply any the less dumb, now does it?  Nor does it prove what you claim.
.

Grafix

@piloteer - Not the sharpest tool in the drawer are we, piloteer?  I think you know very well that is not what the meme says, however.  It appears I need to state the obvious.  Atheists deny the existence of God because they claim there is no visible, material evidence of Him.  The meme counters with the appropriate silver bullet of, ...  Well, why then do you believe in the Big Bang, Evolution and a Common Ancestor, for which there is ALSO  no visible, material evidence.  But I think you knew that.  Smart-arsed, unintelligent replies are not always the best form of rebuttal, Einstein.

So the band plays on and the Fat Lady keeps singing, while I wait for some scholarly, salient rebuttals to all those things which Atheists just have no rebuttal for, but in their dulled stupidity, they never give up trying.
.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ...

We have no example of thoughts and emotions, logic and reasoning, wisdom and calculation, intent and knowledge sans a physical brain.  To conclude that these things are not from anything material (or contingent on the material) is a view not supported by evidence.   

It IS  supported by science as a very likely probable, which is all that I have claimed, based on the evidence that our bodies can and actually do house intelligent information, which is neither spawned from nature, nor visible, nor material.  That information is DNA and that was the point of my post.  It is logical to assume the possibility therefore, that if our bodies can house DNA, then they too can house separately from matter other information, in the same way that DNA is housed, information such as thoughts, knowledge, wisdom, memories, emotions, understanding, reason, logic, conclusions, maths and calculations, etc.  The brain matter itself, is clearly just a massively sophisticated computer and processes and stores information.

It is the only logical conclusion, even if an assumption, but.drawn from the laws of probability, based on other evidence demonstrating it, i.e. the storage and utility of DNA information.

.

digitalphotosolution

UNHRC Should Ensure That OIC Members Implement Provisions Of Human Rights Charter, Founder-Editor, New Age Islam, Sultan Shahin Addresses Its 43rd Session In Geneva https://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-human-rights/sultan-shahin,-founder-editor,-new-age-islam/unhrc-should-ensure-that-oic-members-implement-provisions-of-human-rights-charter,-founder-editor,-new-age-islam,-sultan-shahin-addresses-its-43rd-session-in-geneva/d/121242

Grafix

@xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ....

I never specifically mentioned Christianity. I just said that monotheistic religions are inherently less peaceful than pagan religions. I never said anything specifically about Christianity. You have misinterpreted my argument and taken it as an attack on Christianity. I'm sorry if you are offended, but I stand by the position that I never said anything to bash Christianity in particular, or any more than any other religion.

What??  Let me get this straight.  Are you saying or aren't you that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion?  Because if you contend that it is not, then that would be a lie.  If you accept that it is a monotheistic religion, then it definitely has to be included in your accusation, along with the only other two monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism.  Here's your comment again ...

The monotheistic theists, however, killed all those who worshipped different gods, which I'm sure we can all agree is not very peaceful. So, I would say that the pagans would have been more peaceful.

The statement is so false in many ways.  Firstly, the Islamic extremists have been trying to kill off Christians for centuries and have failed miserably, yet they claim to worship the same God, not "different Gods", in spite of your claim and your past tense of "killed off" is also not true in that case.  There are approx. three billion Christians still alive.. Secondly, the Christian theists have never formed armies EVER to kill anyone, let alone to "kill all those who worshipped different gods", as you put it. The only monotheists who have ever done that are the Islamic extremists, still doing so to this day.  The early Hebrews thousands of years ago did to conquer Palestine. 

The Christian theists for a brief period in their history staged inquisitions to establish who were heretics within their own faith  and burnt them at the stake. Thirdly, although I agree these actions were hardly peaceful, they were hardly representative of the faith they claimed.  So what is your point?  That a bunch of wicked and evil power-brokers centuries ago, defied everything that Christianity upholds and teaches, that they broke its laws of "Thou shalt not kill" and to "Love thy neighbour as thyself"?  So?  Who's claiming there were no barbarians in history?  No-one. Add insult to injury, the Romans and the Hordes of the Dark Ages killed far more people than Christians ever have.  Christians have killed less people than any other demographic engaged in any kind of State-sponsored conflict in the history of mankind. Think Hannibal, Mongols, Stalin, Mao, Khmer Rouge, etc.

I have said this a thousand times over and over.  The actions of flawed men, which directly repudiate a religion, can hardly be said to be representative of that religion, let lone of the very doctrines, laws and philosophies which they are clearly repudiating by their own actions.  Why can't you atheists grasp that very obvious fact?  Because you don't want to.  Because you have an unhinged neediness to bash Christianity.  It's almost as if you believe by bashing Christianity that will somehow justify the idiocracy of atheism.  It just doesn't.  All it does is show you up as intolerant, belligerent, maladjusted bigots.
.  

Grafix

@RS_master - LOL!  I think you just proved my meme beautifully with those arguments.  Firstly, you question this comment of mine ....

@Grafix You also said "Christianity's hard evidence is Christ Himself. His obvious divinity observed in both his resurrection and his ascension with eye-witness accounts on the historical record outside of Biblical texts. "

Then quoting your next remark, you ask me this ...

How do you know this? You were not alive at 0. You only know it by the book from the creator

You also claim this ....

@Grafix - Where is the big bang proof? From telescopes and mathematical analasys. Obviously, the mathematical analysis is more convincing as proof so the I believe in the big bang.

Telescopes?  Observing what?  The sky 4 + billion years later?  Mathematical analysis?  Of what?  The sky 4 + billion years later? These are still conjecture. LOL!  Your claiming these things is not evidence.  Cite them..



You finished that claim with ...

" .... whereas ....
The big bang has proof
the big bang knows it all
When it comes to proof
the big bang stands tall
The proof is important
proof is in evolution
proof wise and reliance wise
evolution is also the solution.

LOL!  How do you know the Big Bang happened at all?  Were you there? There is no hard evidence to prove any of it, only extrapolations and conjecture made by scientists who dishonestly teach these things as "facts" to innocent kids in classrooms, who grow up like you and then can't turn their brain around to look critically at what they were told.  It is a massive scandal against humanity and the biggest lie of all time, as is the Theory of Evolution and also the Theory of a Common Ancestor.  Were you there for those?  Was anybody?  

There is zero hard  evidence to corroborate any of these three..  Z  E  R  O .  .You all keep claiming there's evidence, but never produce any.  Not one of you, not a single solitary one, has cited that evidence.  A blank page.  You all just declare "There is evidence" and leave it at that.  Well ...?  What IS IT ????  Then you have the cheek to accuse Christians of believing in myths. At least we confine it to just one.  You lot have THREE big fat myths with zero, nada, zilch to prove any of them  It's all conjecture.  At least Christianity has SOLID evidence, even if we just take the testimony of the Roman soldiers, pagans, who guarded Christ's tomb, saying He is gone - it's empty !

The historical record of Christianity, outside of the Biblical Texts, regarding what went on in Palestine is huge, written not only by the Roman Governor in Palestine, Pontius Pilate, as recorded in his Acta Pilati, (Acts of Pilate) attesting to Christ's miracles and in letters to the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, but in the writings of the two ancient historians, Tacitus and Josephus Flavius, all evidence of Christ's miracles, His empty tomb and trial, His resurrection, and the official record of His crucifixion. Then the record of eye-witnesses, including the 500 who Christ gave a sermon to after  His resurrection, who saw His wounds + the record of His ascension.

As well, archaeology over the decades just keeps on digging up more and more proofs of the accuracy  of the historicity  of the Biblical Texts, evidence outside of those texts on the Sumerian clay tablets written in cunieform, signed by Adam through to Jacob, letters, manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, artefacts, ruins, relics, ancient cities unearthed with inscriptions, stele also with inscriptions, you name it. The evidence is undeniable.  If you pretend that an historical record has no value, just because we weren't there.at the time, then every generation's history over thousands of years would have to be discounted, including your Bib Bang, Evolution, the Common Ancestor myths - that is according to you.  See how foolish that claim is?  

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ...

We have no example of thoughts and emotions, logic and reasoning, wisdom and calculation, intent and knowledge sans a physical brain.  To conclude that these things are not from anything material (or contingent on the material) is a view not supported by evidence.   

It IS  supported by science as a very likely probable, which is all that I have claimed, based on the evidence that our bodies can and actually do house intelligent information, which is neither spawned from nature, nor visible, nor material.  That information is DNA and that was the point of my post.  It is logical to assume the possibility therefore, that if our bodies can house DNA, then they too can house separately from matter other information, in the same way that DNA is housed, information such as thoughts, knowledge, wisdom, memories, emotions, understanding, reason, logic, conclusions, maths and calculations, etc.  The brain matter itself, is clearly just a massively sophisticated computer and processes and stores information.

It is the only logical conclusion, even if an assumption, but.drawn from the laws of probability, based on other evidence demonstrating it, i.e. the storage and utility of DNA information.

.

Show an example of thought, emotion, logic, reasoning, wisdom, calculation, intent or knowledge in the absence of a brain (organic or otherwise). Without this, there is no evidence and no demonstration of your conclusions.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

Show an example of thought, emotion, logic, reasoning, wisdom, calculation, intent or knowledge in the absence of a brain (organic or otherwise). Without this, there is no evidence and no demonstration of your conclusions.

Why do I need to do that?  Do I claim these are possible in the absence of a brain?  No.  Is it possible for the information stored in a computer to be saved without the computer?  No.  It is the same thing.  There is a demonstration of bodily cells storing information.  You just won't accept it.  What is DNA?  Information.  Where is it stored?  In cells.  Same scenario which demonstrates the conclusion.

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

Show an example of thought, emotion, logic, reasoning, wisdom, calculation, intent or knowledge in the absence of a brain (organic or otherwise). Without this, there is no evidence and no demonstration of your conclusions.

Why do I need to do that?  Do I claim these are possible in the absence of a brain?  No.  Is it possible for the information stored in a computer to be saved without the computer?  No.  It is the same thing.  There is a demonstration of bodily cells storing information.  You just won't accept it.  What is DNA?  Information.  Where is it stored?  In cells.  Same scenario which demonstrates the conclusion.

Would I be wrong if I described your view of the brain as a reciever rather that the basis of these attributes? If so, pointing to attributes undeniably linked to a physical brain doesn't support the argument. 

JGXdebatePRO

The very belief in god denies science. Science has been rigorously tested and proven whereas religion was made up by sone money laundering con man and you all are advocating, no, preaching about nonsense that flies in the face of the scientific foundation of our society.

HowardChance

Grafix said:

 .... WHILE CHRISTIANS THINK THIS IS LOGICAL ....

......  SO, WHO IS THE MOST LOGICAL?  ATHEISTS OR CHRISTIANS?

HowardChance1

Yeah we could just let you run the country like a Christian theocracy as well couldn't we?@Grafix

HowardChance1

You could keep your faith out of my life... That would be nice... we have a president of the United States that you Christians by and large elected.
Everything his presidency is based on is a lie ... He told you what you wanted to hear and you voted for him...
 The most ignorant uneducated  non-productive unprofitable States that have the most unemployment and entitlements handed out every year was carried by Donald Trump..

 All those States happen to have the most churches in them as well per capita... 
 The city I live in has the 2nd most churches per capita in the world and our government just made it legal on a state level 2 gerrymander as you see fit.
 The courts have overthrown elections in my state all going Republican and Christian
The federal government has had two presidents now That we're Not elected by the popular vote one of which elections was decided by the supreme Court...
  Christians have allowed a Russian puppet to be the president of the United States with evidence of Russian interference in our elections..just two elections after they put our ballot on servers an  eight-year-old can hack..
The federal government and said President Donald Trump just made it legal 4 religious leaders like Christian preachers 2 endorse politicians from the pulpit despite the constitutional amendment against that extremely difficult and dangerous permission in the first constitutional amendment .. that church and state must remain separate...
  So if u think I am a little gruff with you that is because you don't realize that your life and your belief system holds dominion over mine...
  If you do realize that your belief system holds dominion over mine and see no wrong with it then I will point you to the American revolution And the secular document that is called the Constitution that came out of it..
 Let's talk about the civil war and slavery and how every bit of the argument to preserve slavery was in fact biblical..
 Jesus's sermon on the Mount tells slaves to obey their masters even the bad ones..
Don't whine to me Christian..

If you hear a rough word on occasion perhaps you should look within and wonder what you would do if you were me..

xlJ_dolphin_473

Grafix said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ....

I never specifically mentioned Christianity. I just said that monotheistic religions are inherently less peaceful than pagan religions. I never said anything specifically about Christianity. You have misinterpreted my argument and taken it as an attack on Christianity. I'm sorry if you are offended, but I stand by the position that I never said anything to bash Christianity in particular, or any more than any other religion.

What??  Let me get this straight.  Are you saying or aren't you that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion?  Because if you contend that it is not, then that would be a lie.  If you accept that it is a monotheistic religion, then it definitely has to be included in your accusation, along with the only other two monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism.  Here's your comment again ...

The monotheistic theists, however, killed all those who worshipped different gods, which I'm sure we can all agree is not very peaceful. So, I would say that the pagans would have been more peaceful.

The statement is so false in many ways.  Firstly, the Islamic extremists have been trying to kill off Christians for centuries and have failed miserably, yet they claim to worship the same God, not "different Gods", in spite of your claim and your past tense of "killed off" is also not true in that case.  There are approx. three billion Christians still alive.. Secondly, the Christian theists have never formed armies EVER to kill anyone, let alone to "kill all those who worshipped different gods", as you put it. The only monotheists who have ever done that are the Islamic extremists, still doing so to this day.  The early Hebrews thousands of years ago did to conquer Palestine. 

The Christian theists for a brief period in their history staged inquisitions to establish who were heretics within their own faith  and burnt them at the stake. Thirdly, although I agree these actions were hardly peaceful, they were hardly representative of the faith they claimed.  So what is your point?  That a bunch of wicked and evil power-brokers centuries ago, defied everything that Christianity upholds and teaches, that they broke its laws of "Thou shalt not kill" and to "Love thy neighbour as thyself"?  So?  Who's claiming there were no barbarians in history?  No-one. Add insult to injury, the Romans and the Hordes of the Dark Ages killed far more people than Christians ever have.  Christians have killed less people than any other demographic engaged in any kind of State-sponsored conflict in the history of mankind. Think Hannibal, Mongols, Stalin, Mao, Khmer Rouge, etc.

I have said this a thousand times over and over.  The actions of flawed men, which directly repudiate a religion, can hardly be said to be representative of that religion, let lone of the very doctrines, laws and philosophies which they are clearly repudiating by their own actions.  Why can't you atheists grasp that very obvious fact?  Because you don't want to.  Because you have an unhinged neediness to bash Christianity.  It's almost as if you believe by bashing Christianity that will somehow justify the idiocracy of atheism.  It just doesn't.  All it does is show you up as intolerant, belligerent, maladjusted bigots.
.  

I never specifically mentioned Christianity. I was referring to all monotheistic religions in my post, and not targeting Christianity alone. I do not need to bash religion. 

Yes, you are right that it is not the religion itself that was historically less peaceful, but it’s followers.

But I choose to. I try. Again, if you choose to insult me by calling me an ‘intolerant, belligerent, maladjusted bigot’ you may end up being blocked or reported.

xlJ_dolphin_473

@Grafix

RS_master

Grafix said:

@RS_master - LOL!  I think you just proved my meme beautifully with those arguments.  Firstly, you question this comment of mine ....

@Grafix You also said "Christianity's hard evidence is Christ Himself. His obvious divinity observed in both his resurrection and his ascension with eye-witness accounts on the historical record outside of Biblical texts. "

Then quoting your next remark, you ask me this ...

How do you know this? You were not alive at 0. You only know it by the book from the creator

You also claim this ....

@Grafix - Where is the big bang proof? From telescopes and mathematical analasys. Obviously, the mathematical analysis is more convincing as proof so the I believe in the big bang.

Telescopes?  Observing what?  The sky 4 + billion years later?  Mathematical analysis?  Of what?  The sky 4 + billion years later? These are still conjecture. LOL!  Your claiming these things is not evidence.  Cite them..



You finished that claim with ...

" .... whereas ....
The big bang has proof
the big bang knows it all
When it comes to proof
the big bang stands tall
The proof is important
proof is in evolution
proof wise and reliance wise
evolution is also the solution.

LOL!  How do you know the Big Bang happened at all?  Were you there? There is no hard evidence to prove any of it, only extrapolations and conjecture made by scientists who dishonestly teach these things as "facts" to innocent kids in classrooms, who grow up like you and then can't turn their brain around to look critically at what they were told.  It is a massive scandal against humanity and the biggest lie of all time, as is the Theory of Evolution and also the Theory of a Common Ancestor.  Were you there for those?  Was anybody?  

There is zero hard  evidence to corroborate any of these three..  Z  E  R  O .  .You all keep claiming there's evidence, but never produce any.  Not one of you, not a single solitary one, has cited that evidence.  A blank page.  You all just declare "There is evidence" and leave it at that.  Well ...?  What IS IT ????  Then you have the cheek to accuse Christians of believing in myths. At least we confine it to just one.  You lot have THREE big fat myths with zero, nada, zilch to prove any of them  It's all conjecture.  At least Christianity has SOLID evidence, even if we just take the testimony of the Roman soldiers, pagans, who guarded Christ's tomb, saying He is gone - it's empty !

The historical record of Christianity, outside of the Biblical Texts, regarding what went on in Palestine is huge, written not only by the Roman Governor in Palestine, Pontius Pilate, as recorded in his Acta Pilati, (Acts of Pilate) attesting to Christ's miracles and in letters to the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, but in the writings of the two ancient historians, Tacitus and Josephus Flavius, all evidence of Christ's miracles, His empty tomb and trial, His resurrection, and the official record of His crucifixion. Then the record of eye-witnesses, including the 500 who Christ gave a sermon to after  His resurrection, who saw His wounds + the record of His ascension.

As well, archaeology over the decades just keeps on digging up more and more proofs of the accuracy  of the historicity  of the Biblical Texts, evidence outside of those texts on the Sumerian clay tablets written in cunieform, signed by Adam through to Jacob, letters, manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, artefacts, ruins, relics, ancient cities unearthed with inscriptions, stele also with inscriptions, you name it. The evidence is undeniable.  If you pretend that an historical record has no value, just because we weren't there.at the time, then every generation's history over thousands of years would have to be discounted, including your Bib Bang, Evolution, the Common Ancestor myths - that is according to you.  See how foolish that claim is?  

@Grafix I said the big bang has the proof which means belief. I would believe in the most recent works of a scientist way more than 2 outdated books which have no sense and which contradict each other. One says if someone slaps you n a cheek you slap them back: the other says you give them another cheek to slap. Another flaw is that the big bang did not happen 4.5 billion years ago, your stats are flawed. Finally, the light from 13.5(13.7/8 billion years ago there was no light) billion light years away which has reached earth is still the oldest light can see which is from around the big bangs time. 

onethinhandle56

 

Grafix

@onethinhandle56 - You are right and Einstein's equation E-mc² proved that energy travels at the speed of light squared and that depending upon the mass, the force is commensurate with that volume of mass . Einstein was himself so gobsmacked by what he had discovered that his conviction in atheism went out the window and he admitted that there had to be a super, super intelligent force behind the whole creation thing and so, although he never worshipped any God or personalised God as an entity, he admitted in his own writings, that there had to be a superior intelligent force, due to the sheer question of relativity.  

The other factor is that the Big Bang Theory just cannot stand up.  Now with an understanding of the effects of an atomic explosion after witnessing the devastation of Hiroshima when they dropped the atomic bomb on it and how the sheer force of it simply vaporized the mass of all objects in its direct path, we can logically deduce that a Big Bang sufficient to supposedly fling planets for millions of miles out into space would vaporize them before they got a split second's traction.  The whole thing is ridiculous, according to the law of physics.