Religion or Atheism Which is better?

RollTide420

@Coveny

Coveny said:

Well that's an interesting article... 

http://www.therealafrican.com/2017/07/ancient-confession-found-we-invented-jesus-christ-to-brainwash-and-dominate-africans/

WOW! An article where some guy claims, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of scholars, that Jesus was made up to enslave Africans with no evidence to back this claim. EVERYONE READING PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE to see how little evidence it presents to make its case. Are you going to make arguments, or direct me to articles where some they talk about some guy who told them what he though  without going into much detail why? If There is no God address these actual facts regarding the matter.

RollTide420 said:

 

RollTide420 said:

There is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.

Coveny said:

Look logic and intelligence aren't your strong suit, that's why you're a theist,

I came up with this argument myself, its not an article, so address it yourself, with facts and logic. Are you going to back up your words or not?

Coveny

@RollTide420 There is zero “proof” of a being that exists outside our universe. 

No all modern physics is not based upon the principle of universal causation.

The definition of universal causation is:

Free dictionary - the theoretical or asserted law that every event or phenomenon results from, or is the sequel of, some previous event or phenomenon, which being present, the other is certain to take place.

Webster - the theoretical or asserted law that every event or phenomenon results from, or is the sequel of, some previous event or phenomenon, which being present, the other is certain to take place.

You can move 20lb weight with 10lbs of force, you can move it with far less than that without a problem.

Prove that we get a paradox. Because we could be a self-contained universe that has always existed. Also if we go with your then your god must have a “cause” and the backwards to time infinitely as you mention, and given your “c” that cause for god must be VERY powerful.

Oh look a false dichotomy where there are only two mutually exclusive options for me to choose from. 

I would say that we don’t do a very good job measuring time, but sure we can observe and measure it somewhat. Again, time could be infinite, and we are done. Also, there is a whole murky area on what is the effects of time? We blame time, but it’s not really time that’s “causing” the problem now is it, so time isn’t the effect. So you’ll need to prove time effected something, rather than the effect not being from another source, and given our small understanding of time I don’t foresee you being able to do that.

Negatives can be physically expressed. You are using math not physical expressed. Magnetics and electricity have a negative physical expression amongst other things. 

Time is not physical, and time doesn’t always follow those rules. Not to mention that have proven it’s possible to go forward in time with light. 

I don’t think you understand the concept of infinity. There isn’t a beginning, and there isn’t an end. You don’t “reach” infinity because you don’t reach the beginning or end. There are many mathematical graphs that show infinite beginning and infinite ending as they get closer and closer to 0, so all your math talk proves nothing. Also all that stuff is math, which is an abstract of the physical world. I can take a car go negative, then go positive and pass across zero without any problems or issues. You can measure, calculate, and whatever else you like to my car while I do it without issues, or problems as I cross zero. If time was that simplistic that would be your answer. It’s actually more like what the doctor said “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.”

Again, if something outside our universe must “start” the chain, then the infinity backwards apply to that just as it applies to the rest. You disprove yourself.

Science is more than the study of the observable universe, and you can’t prove a negative. Science (or anything else for that matter) can’t state that something doesn’t exist. As far as proving god’s existence, science believes the person making the claim has the burden of proof. The bigger the claim the bigger the burden, so don’t blame science, it’s your responsibility to proof what you believe.  (which after 1,000 of years none of you theists have been successful in doing) 

You have stated many falsehoods as facts. You’ve broken your own scenario’s rules. And you have shown ZERO facts. You want to try that again?

Coveny

RollTide420 said:

@Coveny
WOW! An article where some guy claims, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of scholars, that Jesus was made up to enslave Africans with no evidence to back this claim. EVERYONE READING PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE to see how little evidence it presents to make its case. Are you going to make arguments, or direct me to articles where some they talk about some guy who told them what he though  without going into much detail why? If There is no God address these actual facts regarding the matter.

I came up with this argument myself, its not an article, so address it yourself, with facts and logic. Are you going to back up your words or not?

I don't remember tagging you when I posted that article almost like it wasn't directed to you. But hey if the shoe fits wear it. I guess you are back to smack talk now. (that didn't take long) When you present facts I'll address them. Thus far all you've done is present opinions, and a logical scenario that defeats itself. So when you come up with an argument you let me know, and I'll address it myself with facts and logic. No I'm not going back on my words, but ... and this may hurt your feelings... I'm not a monogamous debater. I talk to other people. Boy you must have gotten really excited when you thought you "got me". ROFL Like F***** christmas at the tide house or some such s***.

Evidence

RollTide420 said:

@Evidence My point in sayin God is outside of science is not to claim that there is not scientific evidence for him, but that his existence goes beyond what science covers I consider "true science", or "hard science," to be things which can be reproduced in a lab God cannot be reproduced in a lab. Things in science are bound by the laws of physics, God is not. Science is the study of God's creation. God is not the creation but the Creator. He exists beyond the natural realm covered by science. This is not to say there is no say that science doesn't demonstrate his existence, but that he himself, his true essence, exists beyond what we can the observable universe covered by the study of science.

Also, in regard to your point about infinity, I understand the difference between "infinite" and "going into infinity", but I don't see the difference in infinite and infinity themselves except one is an adjective and the other is a noun. Also, I wouldn't say infinite and God are the same in meaning, although I will agree that God is the only being which is infinite, or in other words he is the only being which possesses that quality.

In fact this is an important point I've made. If there were two beings of infinite power, then one could limit the others power. If you said he can't that would be a limit and therefore he isn't infinite. But if you say he can, then the other isn't infinite. We have a paradox, and so there can only be one infinite.

Ah, I just love you @RollTide420 so far you are the ONLY person to have come this far with me on this, and you are even pointing out legitimate fallacies, just wonderful, I thank God.

You are absolutely right, science by definition cannot cover God/Infinite, because as you said, science is observing the world around us, finite created things, and because God is Infinite/Spirit, He cannot be observed. Now here is where I stopped also, years ago, .. but, I was still able to observe God.

I could see and understand Infinite, and since Infinite is invisible as God is, how is it that I not only understand, but I tell you, I see God, but not in a physical sense,. Now how could I explain this?

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[f] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

How can Jesus declare that which he cannot see?

I read a little about this philosopher Tillich, he said: "God is not a being, but the ground of being" what else can be the "ground of Being" other than Infinite, which is God?

Then I got into reading about the "Blue Brain project" and what they were doing? I then realized that just as they are hiding the Flat Earth from us, they are also hiding God/Infinite from us.

Go and Google something about Infinite, and you will be shocked, well I was: I asked "Does Infinite exist scientifically?"

The answer?

'0', as if Infinite didn't exist.

Google asked me - "Did you mean: Does infinity exist scientifically?"

Well no Google, I meant "does Infinite" exist scientifically?" And to my shock, Google did not have any info on Infinite, only "infinity", so I figured, OK Google, so tell me if infinity exists or not?

https://plus.maths.org/content/science-fiction-science-fact-does-infinity-exist

- Does infinity exist? In the latest online poll of our Science fiction, science fact project you told us that you'd like an answer to this question. So we went to speak to cosmologist John D. Barrow to find out more. We also bring you a range of other Plus articles on the subject of infinity, as well as an article from FQXi who are our partners on this project. Happy reading!

Wait a minute, where did they go to seek answers to Infinity? To a "cosmologist"? Where the vacuum of space is full of imaginary planets and alien worlds, where science meets science fiction, and where science is "Left Behind", and science fiction takes over?

Yes, cosmology is science-fiction (even the article mentions it) and they took over science, they tell us what is real, and what is not, and if it comes to God, it is claimed as non-existent.

Our body is not just a machine that does work and reproduce, it is also the most delicate scientific sensing instrument in earths creation. Hearing, smell, touch, taste and most importantly seeing with the eyes.

Now what do these senses do? They send digital messages through the nervous system to the brain, which then sends all this up to, ... to where?

To the brain? If its already in the brain, what is it that we see with fMRI above the brain? Why would the brain send all this up above itself, if the brain is the final stop?

I tell you where it sends it, and to whom, the brain sends the information to, through the brain, up to us, the spirit/mind, which, or more properly, "who" reads all this information and acts upon it. Or doesn't act, we the mind decide what to do with the information.

No one, that is no scientific experiment has ever detected the mind, I read a long time ago in a science magazine that "dreams seem to come out of nowhere?"  of course it seems to come out of nowhere, because you cannot see the mind/spirit of man. But of course they would never admit that it is from the mind/spirit of man, .. but I'm telling you, they KNOW it is there, just like they knew the earth is flat, that there is a dome above us and they cant go beyond it. They know Devils Tower is what's left over of a giant tree. They know that mountain climbers have found Noah's Ark, the know all this, and I know they know from the clues they leave behind.

So how do I know that they know? Look:



Like I said above, if the brain is it, that all the sensors (eyes, ears, tongue, nose etc.) send information "into" the brain, why would the brain send all this info out, and it IS sending it out because as you see with fMRI they can see it and even read it! Actually all they are doing is figuring out what commend we send goes where! With all that monitors on his head, they ask the guy to lift his arm, and watch where that information is being sent, that's it

This would make no sense if all the info just went to the brain, and the brain is what figures out what to do with it, we would not see it spill out like that.

Not only that, but the opposite is true too, that they can see thoughts, like Michio Kaku said, that they can see the info going into the brain, and they read this, and knowing which part of the brain then what body part that signal actually goes to, and record this info, which later they can send it to a computer, or even control the computer, or a wheelchair.
This information is not coming from the brain, but from the mind into the brain, and the brain sends the signals to the parts of the body it was intended to send it to.

I'm sure you've seen how hey can even touch tat part of the brain with an electrode, and make your hand raise up. This is another proof that our mind is above the brain, creating, then sending electrical signals to the desired places in the brain, which then shoots it to the rest of the body part through the nervous system that the mind wants to move.

It's from here, knowing there is a spirit/mind outside the brain, in the body that is not detectable until it sends the info to the brain, or receives the info from the brain, is when we can start to understand God.

Have you seen the movie CHAPPiE?

@Rooltide420 Also, in regard to your point about infinity, I understand the difference between "infinite" and "going into infinity", but I don't see the difference in infinite and infinity themselves except one is an adjective and the other is a noun.

Look, like "flying in the air", and "air"
"Going into to infinity" and "Infinite"

This is critical to understanding Infinite/God:
"Just as all things are IN God, all things are in Infinite.

RollTide420 - Also, I wouldn't say infinite and God are the same in meaning, although I will agree that God is the only being which is infinite, or in other words he is the only being which possesses that quality.

Oh Lord, you're almost there, we've moved enough dirt through science out of the way where you can see the tip of a very large "spiritual iceberg" You are now leaving the physical and beginning to see the spiritual, for God is Spirit, only those in the spirit can see God.!

existence:
Only finite can exist, that is; whatever exists is finite, and it was created.

God/Infinite
God/Infinite is NOT "existence", nor a "being", God/Infinite is the Ground of Being, the ground of existence.

Remember,  don't conflate infinity with Infinite, this is why they hid "Infinite" from us, as if it doesn't even exist, right? Look it up yourself. They are Hiding God from us.

Remember Moses asking "Who God was?"
God said "I AM Who I Am, .. tell them "I Am" has sent me to you!"

Let's not put God with the gods. Remember no one seen God!

So who was Moses talking to then? He said: "I have seen God and lived", that standing there in the presence of God, he trembled, fell on his face.

Here is the next step which you must understand: Moses was talking to an Angel. A Fiery Angel. Why? Didn't he say I have seen God with his own eyes? That he was in the presence of God?

God is Spirit, He takes on any created form He chooses, and speaks through whomever, or whatever He chooses, the whispering wind, a yell of thunder, Angels, and even once He made a form of a man, and wrestled with Jacob with it, remember?

God can take any form He chooses, but He put a bit of Himself in one form, made from the dust of the earth. It is His Breath/Spirit that He put into that dust, (more like a masterpiece than a pile of duts) and this is what makes us individuals, all children of God.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

So just as Infinite God needs to take something finite to communicate through with us finite, the spirit in us God put in a body which we ourselves speak through, do things with, its just a temple, a vehicle, but it forms Gods Spirit to a complete individual, which can choose to even disobey God, just as the verse above warns us not to.

OK, see where we at so far?

God bless us all.

RollTide420

@Coveny

Coveny said:

@RollTide420 ; 

No all modern physics is not based upon the principle of universal causation.

Actually science period depends on the universal causation. This isn't the first time I've had to tell an atheist about their religion. Pull up a chair. Science is based on the scientific method. The scientific method is a means of determining the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. This relationship is a causal one. The independent variable causes the dependent variable. All science is based on determining causal relationships so if universal causation isn't true, then the scientific method is bogus.

Coveny said:

You can move 20lb weight with 10lbs of force, you can move it with far less than that without a problem.

Could you please direct me to a link or video where this is shown in a lab setting?

Coveny said:

Prove that we get a paradox. Because we could be a self-contained universe that has always existed. Also if we go with your then your god must have a “cause” and the backwards to time infinitely as you mention, and given your “c” that cause for god must be VERY powerful.

RollTide420 said:

RollTide420 said:

 

However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted.

How is this not a paradox? And this explains shy God doesn't need a cause, as it claims he exists outside of the universe, with the paradox showing that something must exist outside of the observable universe and is therefore not bound by causality. Going back forever in time would require an infinite chain of causes going back, and since time can't go back forever, fore the reasons explained, we have a paradox if nothing exists beyond our observable universe.

Coveny said:

Oh look a false dichotomy where there are only two mutually exclusive options for me to choose from. 

I pretty much said time has a beginning, or goes back forever, meaning causality would go back forever. If this is a false dichotomy, what other options are there within the bounds of causality, which if done away with renders the scientific method, the basis for your beliefs, bogus.

Coveny said: 

I would say that we don’t do a very good job measuring time, but sure we can observe and measure it somewhat. Again, time could be infinite, and we are done. Also, there is a whole murky area on what is the effects of time? We blame time, but it’s not really time that’s “causing” the problem now is it, so time isn’t the effect. So you’ll need to prove time effected something, rather than the effect not being from another source, and given our small understanding of time I don’t foresee you being able to do that.

So because time isn't "causing" the problem its not the effect? You realize cause an effect are two different things, not the same right? Your relgion claims that there is a relationship between time and gravity, which is where the phenomenon of time dilation comes in . Whether time is the cause or effect may be unclear, but something is effecting it as time slows and speeds up depending on gravity.

Coveny said:

Negatives can be physically expressed. You are using math not physical expressed. Magnetics and electricity have a negative physical expression amongst other things. 

Actually magnetism and electricity's properties may be expressed negatively, but no substance found in them has a negative amount. The number of protons is positive, the number of electrons is positive, and the number of any kind of quark is positive. The negative only comes into play when you compare the numbers of opposing charges. Electrons are said to have "negative"charge, but its not a negative number of anything physical. Elctrons have positive mass, even if it is extremely small compared to protons, it isn't negative. If there is more of electrons than protonsthe charge is expressed as negative, but no particle in there can there be said to be a negative number of.

Coveny said:

Time is not physical, and time doesn’t always follow those rules. Not to mention that have proven it’s possible to go forward in time with light. 

Time is physical. I took physics in high school and time was in several equations, most notably, s=d/t. Physics is physical, time is physical. Also,I didn't mention any rules time follows, is imply said it could be observed and measured and is used in physics equations. However, with that begin said, please point me to an example where a physics equations that's been proven true came out wrong because time didn't behave the way it was supposed to?

Also, what is the significance of light moving forward in time? Doesn't everything move forward in time?

Coveny said: 

I don’t think you understand the concept of infinity. There isn’t a beginning, and there isn’t an end. You don’t “reach” infinity because you don’t reach the beginning or end. There are many mathematical graphs that show infinite beginning and infinite ending as they get closer and closer to 0, so all your math talk proves nothing. Also all that stuff is math, which is an abstract of the physical world. I can take a car go negative, then go positive and pass across zero without any problems or issues. You can measure, calculate, and whatever else you like to my car while I do it without issues, or problems as I cross zero. If time was that simplistic that would be your answer. It’s actually more like what the doctor said “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.”

Actually you don't understand the concept of infinity. Infinity is a positive number(albeit an imaginary number). It has no end, but it a has a beginning, at 0. If you multiply infinity by negative one you get negative infinity. Negative infinity has no beginning, but has an end at zero. negative infinity and infinity are two different number, just as 2 and negative 2 are different numbers. If you are solving a mathematical equation and the answer is negative infinity, but you just put infinity, you will get the equation wrong. There can't be anything physical there is a truly negative amount of (charges are assigned positive and negative arbitrarily by us, there is nothing inherently negative about negative charges, the simply oppose what we have named positive charges), so negative infinity cannot truly exist. If I' can't use math to prove science, than physicists really need to reconsider using so much math in their formulas.

Your example of a car contains no exponents, which are a part of our reality. Add those to the equation and you will notice the significance of zero. You can't say zero isn't a significant unique number just because it little (not no effect, but little) on one particular measurement.

A non-linear viewpoint of time hasn't been proven, nor is there any sort of consensus of this amongst scientists. To say non-linear is non-subjective, misleading, as non-subjective implies that your unproven viewpoint has been proven, which it hasn't.

Coveny said:

Again, if something outside our universe must “start” the chain, then the infinity backwards apply to that just as it applies to the rest. You disprove yourself.

No, because the principle of universal causation has only been demonstrated inside our universe. Outside, it need not apply. The principle of universal causation itself is what creates a paradox, and since the scientific method rests on it, something must exist beyond what can be proven through the scientific method.

Coveny said:

Science is more than the study of the observable universe, and you can’t prove a negative. Science (or anything else for that matter) can’t state that something doesn’t exist. As far as proving god’s existence, science believes the person making the claim has the burden of proof. The bigger the claim the bigger the burden, so don’t blame science, it’s your responsibility to proof what you believe.  (which after 1,000 of years none of you theists have been successful in doing) 

The following definition of science was copied and pasted from dictionary.com- "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." I feel I've conformed to this quite well with my definition. The only proof atheists will accept are scientific and God can't be proven through the  scientific method, as he exists beyond the observable universe, and this is the realm science covers. However, the paradoxes of causality I presented show that there is more to our existence than what can be proven through the scientific method.

Coveny said:

You have stated many falsehoods as facts. You’ve broken your own scenario’s rules. And you have shown ZERO facts. You want to try that again?

Zero facts? Either you don't know what facts are or you didn't bother to count. I'm not going to list all of them, but here are a few indisputable facts I presented.

RollTide420 said:

@Coveny

Coveny said:

Well that's an interesting article... 

http://www.therealafrican.com/2017/07/ancient-confession-found-we-invented-jesus-christ-to-brainwash-and-dominate-africans/

WOW! An article where some guy claims, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of scholars, that Jesus was made up to enslave Africans with no evidence to back this claim. EVERYONE READING PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE to see how little evidence it presents to make its case. Are you going to make arguments, or direct me to articles where some they talk about some guy who told them what he though  without going into much detail why? If There is no God address these actual facts regarding the matter.

RollTide420 said:

@Coveny

Coveny said:

Well that's an interesting article... 

http://www.therealafrican.com/2017/07/ancient-confession-found-we-invented-jesus-christ-to-brainwash-and-dominate-africans/

WOW! An article where some guy claims, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of scholars, that Jesus was made up to enslave Africans with no evidence to back this claim. EVERYONE READING PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE to see how little evidence it presents to make its case. Are you going to make arguments, or direct me to articles where some they talk about some guy who told them what he though  without going into much detail why? If There is no God address these actual facts regarding the matter.

RollTide420 said:

 

RollTide420 said:

time can be observed and measured, 

cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, 

You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes.

Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. 

(its (time) a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
and can be observed, measured, and calculated,  

On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero,

And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept.

Numerically, infinity can never be reached.

Facts. Far more than zero. And most importantly, if time had no beginning, address this fact.

RollTide420 said:

RollTide420 said:

 

RollTide420 said:

if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old.

RollTide420

@Coveny

Coveny said:

I don't remember tagging you when I posted that article almost like it wasn't directed to you. But hey if the shoe fits wear it. I guess you are back to smack talk now. (that didn't take long) When you present facts I'll address them. Thus far all you've done is present opinions, and a logical scenario that defeats itself. So when you come up with an argument you let me know, and I'll address it myself with facts and logic. No I'm not going back on my words, but ... and this may hurt your feelings... I'm not a monogamous debater. I talk to other people. Boy you must have gotten really excited when you thought you "got me". ROFL Like F***** christmas at the tide house or some such s***.

I apologize for this misunderstanding, I should have paid closer attention. However, the fact remains that the article gave no evidence o back up its point, and only stated some guys opinion. In fact it was only like 3 paragraphs. This versus a mountain of evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that we have physical copies of manuscripts of the Gospels dating to the 2nd century, more than one thousand years before any European run African-based (the romans might have taken Africans as slaves, but their slavery wasn't based on African labor, it was multi-racial) slave-trade took place on any sort of large scale.

Also, I don't recall saying anything about you talking smack. I said to avoid the ridiculous ad hominem fallacies and not to make assumptions about what a person you've never met would do in a situation they've never faced, as you do not have adequate information to have any clue what you are talking about here. That wasn't even a good educated guess, as statistics regarding people's willingness to engage in heroism don't really back you up. Talk all the S*** you would like, but for the sake of not wasting my time, please refrain from using fallacies or assumptions based on a situation you are ignorant of. If you can talk s*** without committing fallacies, I'm all game.

RollTide420

@Evidence

I also agree that the mind/body problem is great evidence for God. however, like God, the mind exists outside the realm defined by science. Yet we know it is real which is more proof that there is more to existence than what science can prove.


When God takes physical forms such as he did with Moses in the burning bush, or at the coming of Christ, he is still God, but he is not in his original form, which is invisible. While God in his original form is outside of science, he left a decent trail of evidence for him that we can trace.


We can't see God is his original form physically, but we can see him with our "spirit eyes," if you will. However, spiritual sight, as real as it is, is outside of the bounds defined by the study of science (which I emphasize is not all-encompassing). Some of the best evidence for God come from the social sciences (which are considered distinct from "hard sciences," or "natural sciences" in that social sciences are based on trends and not proven experiments). DNA functions very much like a language, as well as many other features of a universe which strongly point to a creator. But linking the linguistic nature of DNA to a creator is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. The fallacy of scientism is that they believe science to be all encompassing.


With that being said, I still don't see a fundamental difference between infinite and infinity. Yes God is infinite, but when you say this, what you are saying is that all of his qualities "go into infinity." For the rest of us, if he allows some of our qualities to go into infinity, but not all, then those qualities are infinite, but not us, as some of our other qualities are limited, and therefore we are not completely infinite. God, however, has no finite qualities. All of his qualities extend into infinity, which is why is the only being which can be said to be infinite. However, the quality of his being infinite is because all of his qualities "go into infinity" and therefore the point remains that infinite and infinity are merely different conjugations of the same root word.

Coveny

@RollTide420 If you make a claim, you need to prove it. Simply saying it again is not “proof”. You claim “All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation” and I guess you consider this synonymous “science period depends on the universal causation” you have to prove that claim. 

The scientific method is not based on “determining causal relationships” either. You just keep making up .

The simplest way to do this is with leverage here is one article on the matter. Quote from this article “The mechanical advantage is that you can move a heavy object using less force than the weight of the object”

http://www.school-for-champions.com/machines/levers.htm#.WYCjiIjyuUk

As you also requested a video here you go.

No it does not create a paradox. I’ll give you an example to help you get there. You have a universe with no outside force applied. There is just a bunch of matter. Gravity slow pulls the matter together, and could be your “first” cause. However, by its nature your thoughts are not thinking infinitely when you are thinking about a FIRST cause. First implies a beginning, infinite does not have a beginning, so there is no paradox of “how it started”, because there is no “start”. If you require a start of the universe, you MUST require a start of yahweh, and then your “what started it” issue comes into play into backward infinity. The same holds true for time, if there is a “start” then it creates a backwards infinity. The ONLY non-paradox is that matter and time have existed infinitely. 

Your false dichotomy:

1) at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. 2)  we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely.

What if we had more than one thing that happened at the same time? (such as gravity) What if it’s just a loop where there the first cause is also the last cause that doesn’t go backwards into time infinitely, it just keeps replying  the same time over and over? There are other options but hopefully you get the point that you present a false dichotomy, these are not the only answers.

Followed by statement which is portrayed as a false dichotomy

1) If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. 

2) the second option is impossible.

Now here you make a stretch in logic and present it as the only answer. Assuming there was a first cause you still haven’t proven it came from outside this universe. (back to the gravity though experiment presented before)

Now back to the present response. None of my response renders the scientific method bogus. Your lack of understand isn’t an excuse to dismiss something.

Yes I understand that cause and effect are different. Do you understand that universal causation (the topic) links them together? For you explanation of time to work you have to prove that time is the cause of an effect. If time isn’t “causing” the effect then time is outside of universal causation isn’t it? 

Gravity and time. Yes now we are getting further into how little we understand time. Like I said before time isn’t understood very well, nor can we measure it well. So yes there seems to be an association, but we aren’t sure how much is there, we don’t have a good way to measure it, and a whole host of other issues. 

You don’t seem to understand positive and negative. Physically magnetism pushes in two directions. One must be positive and one must be negative. The same holds true for the physical charge of an atom. It can be positive or negative. You are move away from the physical world and using abstracts to try and “prove” something which isn’t true. We use math to count stuff, yes. You can’t count stuff that isn’t there, yes. Does this prove there aren’t negatives in the physical world, no… no it doesn’t. And I’m not touching on cool s*** like antimatter, or quantum stuff that’s crazy. 

Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it’s physical. Let’s say I have two concepts and I’m thinking about which one is better. I can measure those concepts (2 of them), did they just poof into existence because of that? No, they didn’t. This is the problem with using an abstract like math to explain the real world. I literally defending the other side of this argument earlier in this thread. ROFL

I could find you information to prove time doesn’t always work the way we expect it too, but it’s high end science and the time it would take to dig up articles on the topic isn’t worth it to me. Yes, everything moves forward in time, but if light move faster than the “standard” timeframe it counts as time travel, which is significant. But it’s all getting high end, which I’m just a light reader on, not a hard-core enthusiast. 

Infinity is both a positive and negative number. Infinity is all the imaginary abstract numbers. As stated before it does not have a “beginning” or it wouldn’t be infinity. You can’t multiply, divide, add, subtract, or any other kind of math to infinity. That’s not how infinity works. It’s a concept, not a yardstick. As far as too much math in their formulas, that’s what’s required, so they do it to understand the world. 

My car has many exponents. It’s has several bolts which are standard. So half inch, quarter inch, etc, etc. But even if it didn’t NONE of the measurements are going to be exact. The precision of a vehicle that age just doesn’t make it happen, but to be fair I doubt currently produced vehicles are exact either if you measure to the 100th or for sure at the 1000th place.

I didn’t say zero wasn’t significate in general, just that it wasn’t significate in this discussion.

It could be infinite, linear, and not pass over either the x or y zero lines.

If it affects this universe then it’s in this universe an falls into universal causation, but even if there weren’t the case if we go back to your definition point A “Everything must have a cause”, and we are at the backward infinite loop again. You are trying to use a trick to get out of causation, and it doesn’t work like that. 

If you are going with observable universe only then you need to drop the conceptual and theoretical which covers much of the time space discussions, we are having. They aren’t observed, they are just “proven” mathematically. The theory and concepts have merit, but it’s not something we’ve observed. So I’m not disagreeing with the definition from dictionary I’m disagreeing with you boxing science in. There is more in our universe that can’t be proven through the scientific method. That doesn’t “prove” anything, it’s just an unknown. You are the one who says god is out there, you have the burden to prove god is out there. Science does NOT have to prove god isn’t out there, as this is a negative which is impossible to prove.

You have no facts. You have no proof. And you for sure have no “indisputable” facts. Let’s go through them.

1) time can be observed and measured

I’ve never seen time, what does it look like, how is it observed in isolation? Our ability to measure time is remedial at best. 

2) cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded

Ok lets apply that to your god. Yahweh cannot effect anything because a cause must precede an effect, and Yahweh has no beginning so there is nothing to precede him. Oh look you broke your own “facts”… shocking

3) You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes.

If I was born with 10 fingers and 10 toes isn’t that the beginning state? Isn’t that your precious zero? If so when I lose a finger I am negative a finger. Poof I can have negative fingers or negative toes. (not that any of this red herring matters)

4) Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found

You think you are making some grand statement here, but all you are saying is if you have no gold, then your gold has no weight. Um sure. Tie it to something and make a point

5) (its (time) a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed) and can be observed, measured, and calculated

I can put dreams into equations. I can measure them. I can calculate them. That doesn’t mean they are physical. You try to assert something as fact, but your logic is flawed.

6) Not gonna past that one.

Lines cross zero all the time, and conceptually be infinite. You are hung up on math here, and think it proves something. I only need one exception to your rule, and your god is disproven.

7) infinity is not a true number but a concept

Yes which is why you can divide it like you were trying to do earlier.

8) Numerically, infinity can never be reached

Numerically infinity is reached all the time. (pi is in a lot of equations) But that aside. If you pick a point on an infinite line you’ve “reached” infinite, you just haven’t reached all of infinity.

9) if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old.

Ok so god is infinitely god, so it would have taken infinity for him to reach this point, so he doesn’t exist. Again apply your logic to your god, and it show it’s absurd.

Coveny

RollTide420 said:

@Coveny
I apologize for this misunderstanding, I should have paid closer attention. However, the fact remains that the article gave no evidence o back up its point, and only stated some guys opinion. In fact it was only like 3 paragraphs. This versus a mountain of evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that we have physical copies of manuscripts of the Gospels dating to the 2nd century, more than one thousand years before any European run African-based (the romans might have taken Africans as slaves, but their slavery wasn't based on African labor, it was multi-racial) slave-trade took place on any sort of large scale.

Also, I don't recall saying anything about you talking smack. I said to avoid the ridiculous ad hominem fallacies and not to make assumptions about what a person you've never met would do in a situation they've never faced, as you do not have adequate information to have any clue what you are talking about here. That wasn't even a good educated guess, as statistics regarding people's willingness to engage in heroism don't really back you up. Talk all the S*** you would like, but for the sake of not wasting my time, please refrain from using fallacies or assumptions based on a situation you are ignorant of. If you can talk s*** without committing fallacies, I'm all game.

The article wasn't a "proof", stay focused.

And you don't think ad hominem attacks/fallacies are talking smack?

RollTide420

@Coveny

Coveny said:

The article wasn't a "proof", stay focused.

And you don't think ad hominem attacks/fallacies are talking smack?

Well, since you've brought this up, could you please present the proof. As I've stated the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels date to over a millennium before the African slave trade took place.

Ad hominem and fallacy is talking smack but it is not the only form of talking smack. Just like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares, likewise, all ad hominem and fallacy may be talking smack, but not all talking smack is  ad hominem or fallacy. If you wanna talk smack or make mocking comments I don't care, but don't assert things that you would have no way of even obtaining at sort of information as to whether or not your assertion is true. Please explain to me where you got your information regarding what situations I have and haven't been in and how I reacted. If you can't do this, then do not make assertions about what situations I have and haven't been in and how I reacted as this is based off of pure speculation which again amounts to bulls***.

Coveny

RollTide420 said:

@Coveny

Well, since you've brought this up, could you please present the proof. As I've stated the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels date to over a millennium before the African slave trade took place.

Ad hominem and fallacy is talking smack 

If you wish more information on the article do it yourself. 

RollTide420 said:

@Coveny
I apologize for this misunderstanding, I should have paid closer attention. However, the fact remains that the article gave no evidence o back up its point, and only stated some guys opinion. In fact it was only like 3 paragraphs. This versus a mountain of evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that we have physical copies of manuscripts of the Gospels dating to the 2nd century, more than one thousand years before any European run African-based (the romans might have taken Africans as slaves, but their slavery wasn't based on African labor, it was multi-racial) slave-trade took place on any sort of large scale.

Also, I don't recall saying anything about you talking smack. I said to avoid the ridiculous ad hominem fallacies and not to make assumptions about what a person you've never met would do in a situation they've never faced, as you do not have adequate information to have any clue what you are talking about here. That wasn't even a good educated guess, as statistics regarding people's willingness to engage in heroism don't really back you up. Talk all the S*** you would like, but for the sake of not wasting my time, please refrain from using fallacies or assumptions based on a situation you are ignorant of. If you can talk s*** without committing fallacies, I'm all game.

So if you didn’t say anything about me talking smack, and ad hominem attacks and fallacies are talking smack, are you saying that I didn’t do any ad hominem attacks and fallacies? Because otherwise that falls into the “something” category of talking smack.

My assertions of your life were stated and supported. I got my information regarding your situation from reality, and what you’ve said. You haven’t done anything to prove it’s wrong. You just keep stating you couldn’t know, you don’t know, blah, blah, blah. If you wish to prove me wrong then prove that you have never been in or near a situation where you could have helped/protected someone and didn’t. And before you buck up and chicken chest proud remember that you can have zero knowledge of “bad” areas or dangerous places were you could protect others, or you must consistently attempt to help/protect those areas. Obviously the more danger, the more needed you are. Do you have a TV? Never heard anything about anywhere that needs help/protect that you didn’t ignore? Of course you have, just like everyone else. 

Now you may want to come back with some “it’s not my responsibility” crap, but before you do, just remember this was brought up in reference to you being morally superior to me because of the bible.

Evidence

RollTide420 said:

RollTide420 said:

@Evidence

I also agree that the mind/body problem is great evidence for God. however, like God, the mind exists outside the realm defined by science. Yet we know it is real which is more proof that there is more to existence than what science can prove.

@Coveny @Erfisflat @RollTide420

Actually, it is the opposite, this is what I mean by pseudoscience having kidnapped science and definitions, especially anything about, or regarding God.

Infinite, as in the invisible, "Infinite, Eternal conscious, intelligent Spirit/Mind" is what's real, the rest is made up, .. they are finite created "things" rules and laws, Gods laws. Like this:

I know you have never heard any Christian theologian use such comparison, yet if you think about it, you will find that what I say here is true!
Take our video games for instance, what is "real" in the video game? It's all created by a language, .. laws right? The 'only' thing real in a video game is when a human takes control of a character through a controller, that's it. And what the mind does with the character is limited by what the character was programmed to do. For instance if a character was programmed for walking/running on the ground, that's all you'll be able to do with it. But another may have been programmed with the ability to fly, and now that one can do that too.

Well the same how God created human body for instance; the 'only' thing real, or uncreated about a human body is his mind/spirit, the rest is just a very, very complex set of rules, created by a very complex language that God calls "Word".

So just as in a computer game a human mind gives life to the character (except for the AI characters that are preprogrammed to mimic intelligence), the mind is what gives life to this here physical 'body'.

Now what is in the realm of science?
What is "science"? Observing the world around us, correct? Well we use things like microscopes, but we forget that the eye is also just another sensing tool, we just use a microscope to enhance what we see with the eyes. Like I said, this body is just a tool used by us the mind to create with, and to sense, to enjoy creation with.

What we observe through science with tools starting with our body is all digitized and turned into electronic information which is sent to the brain, which sifts through and distributes all the information into electronic signals that we the 'mind' read.

So you see that "we the mind/spirit" is not outside the realm defined by science, it is what, actually "who" observes science!
In other words, it is "we/spirit/mind" who are scientists, not the tools we use, like a microscope, our eyes, ears nose etc. The evidence of the mind is the activity, them neurons firing off above our brain. So we have proof of both, the physical and the spiritual.

So just as a microscope is not the scientist, neither is our eyes or any other created sensing tool that is in our body, and this includes our brain. We the mind are scientists and creators. How can we say that we scientists are out of the realm defined by science, .. right?

RollTide420 said - When God takes physical forms such as he did with Moses in the burning bush, or at the coming of Christ, he is still God, but he is not in his original form, which is invisible. While God in his original form is outside of science, he left a decent trail of evidence for him that we can trace.

Exactly, because Infinite/Mind/God is Spirit, has no form just as our mind doesn't, right!? You cannot see my mind and I cannot see yours, but it is not outside the realm of science.
Like you said, God takes whatever form He choses, but us, God put us in one form, each man has his own form/body that we are stuck using. It is what gives us our different characters, and since we have free will, we can go as far as disobey God, even forget that He exists!

About Christ. Here is where we have to be careful in not associating a specific body to God, like you did here with Christ/Jesus, who we know is really the Word (John 1).
Why?
Because then God would be Jesus. Or another religious group could worship the "Fiery Angel" Moses spoke to, as God, you know what I mean? We have to remember that; "God is Spirit", and when He possesses a body and makes Himself known, the body isn't God. Moses understood this.

RollTide420 - We can't see God is his original form physically, but we can see him with our "spirit eyes," if you will. However, spiritual sight, as real as it is, is outside of the bounds defined by the study of science (which I emphasize is not all-encompassing).

That's the thing, God has no "original form", He is Spirit.
Spiritual sight is best described as "wisdom/understanding"
But let's ask ourselves; is not using our eyes, looking through a microscope as we observe the world around us (science), which is then transferred into digital signals and read by us the mind an understanding?

But look what religion, or more like what "religious science" has done, it has convinced us/mind that we don't have a mind. That we only have a brain which mimics, or creates this illusion of a mind. So now the "mind/spirit" of man is reduced to the brain, when the brain can't do any more "seeing" than our Gluteus Maximus can.

When Jesus said that: "God is Spirit, .. no one has seen God at any time, those that want to worship/know/understand God must worship Him In The spirit", what he meant was that we must stop being so carnal, so "physical minded", so "worldly, finite" but return to our real self, our spiritual self and reason outside of what was stored in our brain. In other words, we are to stop thinking that "what we see with our physical eyes is It", but instead we are to look at everything with our spiritual eyes, which is an "understanding/wisdom".

RollTide420 - Some of the best evidence for God come from the social sciences (which are considered distinct from "hard sciences," or "natural sciences" in that social sciences are based on trends and not proven experiments).

Social sciences, like: the scientific study of human society and social relationships? No my friend, we would study "religion" with that, not for any evidence of God. And like I said before, no "Religion" knows Infinite/God. But as I noted above, we are the mind/spirit, and we can observe both the created and the Uncreated with our mind, as long as we understand what our mind is, or actually "who" our mind is?

RollTide420 - DNA functions very much like a language, as well as many other features of a universe which strongly point to a creator. But linking the linguistic nature of DNA to a creator is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. The fallacy of scientism is that they believe science to be all encompassing.

Science is "all encompassing", but NOT how the religious pseudoscientists think it is. They claim that the physical realm is all there is, that what we can see and detect physically is the only thing that exists, not realizing, or more like intentionally ignoring that what they cannot see with their physical eyes is the actual reality, it is this invisible mind who is actually the scientist who is observing the created! The finite, which was created. It is that which is "not real", and the life/spirit/mind is what is real.

So what points to a creator, the automated robot making cars in a factory, that robot creator, or the creator that made that robot?
Let's consider this:
That robot in a factory has a brain, it is chips with a processor, and it was programmed by a creator.
The human body/robot has a brain too, which, .. which what? .. which was "programmed, just like the automated robot was by us the spirit/mind.
But since we/mind/spirit did not create our body, that first body, then a Mind/Spirit like ours must have. There is no other option, except make up some fairytale and claim it as science!?

It is we/mind/spirit that does all the programming of our brain. Then we command the action of our whole body through the master control panel the brain to build another creator like that robot in the factory. Then we use the keyboard to "program" the brain/memory of the robot.
Just as the memory chip in the robot didn't, or couldn't program itself, our brain can't program itself either.

So now the real question is: "what is the mind, and where did the mind/spirit of man come from?"
So let's be scientific about it and observe:
We humans have done just about everything possible (sort to speak) to reanimate a dead human body. We know that once the spirit/mind leaves that body, even if we keep pumping warm oxygenated blood through it, keeping that brain alive, that brain will not do anything on its own. The spirit is gone, while the body is still there. The "person" is gone, or left the body.

RollTide420 - With that being said, I still don't see a fundamental difference between infinite and infinity. Yes God is infinite, but when you say this, what you are saying is that all of his qualities "go into infinity." For the rest of us, if he allows some of our qualities to go into infinity, but not all, then those qualities are infinite, but not us, as some of our other qualities are limited, and therefore we are not completely infinite. God, however, has no finite qualities. All of his qualities extend into infinity, which is why is the only being which can be said to be infinite. However, the quality of his being infinite is because all of his qualities "go into infinity" and therefore the point remains that infinite and infinity are merely different conjugations of the same root word.

Is it; "God's infinity qualities", .. OR "Gods Infinite qualities" ?
Is it; "Gods infinity love, or Gods love that goes throughout infinity", OR "Gods Infinite love"?

You see, "God IS love", it is "God's Infinite wisdom", Not "Gods infinity wisdom" or any shape of infinity.

We agree; God alone IS Infinite, and visa-versa.

As for us, the only "Infinite" about us is what God gave of Himself; the breath of life which is our mind.
But what God did was put that mind in a finite body, in a finite brain, and like you said about the DNA is what "forms" our character, which changes with each consecutive generation. No two people are alike. The body influences the way we think, which forms our mind, our character, this is what differentiates us from God.

Ecclesiastes 12: 6Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed,
Or the golden bowl is broken,
Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain,
Or the wheel broken at the well.
7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Coveny

@Evidence

This spirit has zero basis in science. You people keep using the term science, but you have no clue what it means. For it to be scientific it has to be objective, repeatable, measured, peer reviewed, and the spirit has never been this. The whole concept of a spirit goes against what we see in the real world:

1) Brain damage has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to effect personality, abilities, and capacities. If the spirit was in control, damage to the physical would not “change” the personality, it would not make it so the person can no longer remember, and it wouldn’t make it so that things there use to be easy to figure out, were now impossible.

2) We have brought dead people back to life, I’m talking no brain activity, no pulse, and body is frozen solid. If there was a “spirit” it should have left his body, but just like every other machine it was started back up. Now I don’t think cryogenically frozen people are going to be coming back, right now, but once science figures out the process they will be able to freeze people, and then bring them back it’s just a matter of time. When they do (as with the dead guy) where does this “spirit” of yours go? Nowhere because it doesn’t exist, you aren’t mystical or magical regardless of much you want to be.

3) Transplant receipts commonly develop traits of the person that donated to them. Combinatorial coding by nerve cells, and cell memory theory both indicate that not only does the brain make us who we are but the very DNA in our bodies do as well. (something that shouldn’t affect a spirit in the least)

So, NO your body isn’t a video game you are controlling with your spirit. Your body is you. There is no scientific proof of the spirit. NONE, zip, zero. The biological computer that is your brain firing electricity to make decisions doesn’t “prove” that we have a spirit any more than an AI in a game proves the AI has a spirit. 

Back to fairy tells about stoned guys talking to bushes, and saying it was god. Do you have any idea how many people are currently in loony bins who say they have heard the voice of god? (spoiler alert it’s a lot) Again proof that you are your brain, parts of the brain make this happen.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=11193

Evidence

Coveny said:

@Evidence

@Coveny - This spirit has zero basis in science. You people keep using the term science, but you have no clue what it means. For it to be scientific it has to be objective, repeatable, measured, peer reviewed, and the spirit has never been this. The whole concept of a spirit goes against what we see in the real world:

So what you're telling me is that, scientifically speaking, you don't have a spirit/mind because some atheist scientists never cared to consider it. That all you have is only a brain, which with the eye reads what I just wrote, and through billions and billions of years of careless, unintentional, chaotic accumulated selection from your environment and the food you ate, the brain responds. But not because of free will*, but because it has no choice, it just reacts from it's envoronment to what it read, or what it hears, .. is this correct?

If so, then I have a few questions for you?

If not, then please explain to me, like in "Evolution for Dummies" style what "science" has determined of this thing we humans call "mind" to be?

Like the common repeatable saying: "Have you lost your mind?" How come even you evolutionist don't come back with a: "What the heck are you talking about, .. mind? What is this 'mind' that you think I lost? How can I lose something that doesn't even exist?"

Oh, and yes, the "mind"  IS objective, repeatable, measured, peer reviewed, all done with the "mind".

Coveny - 1) Brain damage has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to effect personality, abilities, and capacities. If the spirit was in control, damage to the physical would not “change” the personality, it would not make it so the person can no longer remember, and it wouldn’t make it so that things there use to be easy to figure out, were now impossible.

Oh really?
Here is a simple "scientific experiment" you can do to explain why that happens!? Take a bat to your computer, and see how you with your perfectly healthy mind/spirit could get out of the smashed up computer memory (as in brain damage), the monitor (as in eyes/seeing), and the responses you get (as in a busted lip, tongue half cut off) as you type a response to me?

Yes, "brain damage" can really screw up what the mind/spirit is trying to say, or do, .. you don't need to have a degree in science to realize that.

Coveny - 2) We have brought dead people back to life, I’m talking no brain activity, no pulse, and body is frozen solid. If there was a “spirit” it should have left his body, but just like every other machine it was started back up. Now I don’t think cryogenically frozen people are going to be coming back, right now, but once science figures out the process they will be able to freeze people, and then bring them back it’s just a matter of time. When they do (as with the dead guy) where does this “spirit” of yours go? Nowhere because it doesn’t exist, you aren’t mystical or magical regardless of much you want to be.

So using common sense responses/answers to what I have "observed in the world around me" (as in science) is mysticism for you?
"Hey guys, I'm a mystic now, a guru! I'll just shave my head and throw an orange bedsheet around me, cross my legs, sit on the sidewalk and teach!"

Seriously Coveny, if the frozen guy comes back to life, is because the spirit hasn't let the body yet. He/spirit still sees a potential, a small glimpse of hope in the cells that are still alive for him to stay in.

http://zidbits.com/2011/02/can-a-human-be-frozen-and-brought-back-to-life/
- Despite the fact that no human placed in a cryonic suspension has yet been revived, some living organisms can be, and have been, brought back from a dead or near-dead state.

We can keep a heart pumping, or even a brain from corruption, but no "life" as in spirit/soul has ever taken possession of them. It's all a Big-Bang Evolutionist sci-fi dream to "Be like the Most High". A Frankenstein dream.

Coveny - 3) Transplant receipts commonly develop traits of the person that donated to them. Combinatorial coding by nerve cells, and cell memory theory both indicate that not only does the brain make us who we are but the very DNA in our bodies do as well. (something that shouldn’t affect a spirit in the least)

You didn't read what I wrote, that is exactly what I said; that God "breathed" His Spirit into a body He made out of quantum dust particles, and man became a living soul. That it is this body that gives the spirit its individual character which as I said changes from generation to generation.
Yes, I believe if the spirit of the man with organ transplant want's to stay, God will let him. But as you can see, not too many "spirit/mind's" are so corrupted, so lost, so distanced from God that they would be willing to stay at all costs, where even he is willing to get parts from a pig, or other animals just to stay alive!? These people are trying to "climb the fence", to gain eternal life, or even to prolong their rich lifestyle knowing what's waiting for them on the "other side"; (please see Christ's Lazarus and the Rich man story)

Coveny - So, NO your body isn’t a video game you are controlling with your spirit. Your body is you. There is no scientific proof of the spirit. NONE, zip, zero. The biological computer that is your brain firing electricity to make decisions doesn’t “prove” that we have a spirit any more than an AI in a game proves the AI has a spirit. 

Man, again you didn't read what I said.
I never said our body is a video game, I likened our body to a video game characters body.
Just as the video-game-character was created, designed by its creator with limitations decided by the creator, our own human body was created, intelligently designed by our Creator.
We are like our Heavenly Father, little gods, little creators, why He calls us children. So you can imagine the pain, the hurt it causes our Father to deny Him like you are doing here?

And yes, without a programmer/spirit/mind to place a program into the memory in our computer, it will be as intelligent as our brain without the spirit/mind, which means zilch, nothing, dumb as a rock.

Yes, the brain "firing electrically" IS the evidence that someone is reading and responding to those messages. I mentioned how we can even touch an electrode to different parts of the brain to make that persons hands, his legs etc. move. This is another "proof" that an outside force is controlling the body through the brain.

Coveny - Back to fairy tells about stoned guys talking to bushes, and saying it was god. Do you have any idea how many people are currently in loony bins who say they have heard the voice of god? (spoiler alert it’s a lot) Again proof that you are your brain, parts of the brain make this happen.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=11193

I guess people making pacts with Lucifer/Satan is more acceptable, right?
Please, .. stop with the demonically possessed; claiming god talked to them! So you even know what "god" they were referring to? Because it sure as hell wasn't our Creator/God that Moses was talking to.

Please look at this video (I know you won't, so this is for our fellow debaters who might also read this)



They all admit opening up to demonic possessions, so unless you have some other point you want to make, can you ate least watch, read, listen to what I said and respond to that?
Thanks.

Coveny

@Evidence

We can prove people have a mind, all we need do is open up their skull. I don’t believe in a spirit because no one ever considered it, I don’t believe in a spirit because there is no proof.

You show again you don’t understand evolution.

You want me to tell you what science has found out about the brain? Um no, do your own research, that is WAY to much crap to list.

The mind is a physical thing, it’s another word for brain. Maybe you are talking about consciousness and just don't understand the words your using. The mind is the biological computer that’s in charge of our actions.

Yes the mind is objective, repeatable, measurable, peer reviewed, etc. Science even understands how to turn you off by destroy certain parts of it.

1) Brain damage – Are you trying to prove my point? If the spirit is in “charge” of the computer it shouldn’t matter if the computer is damaged, the driving force can’t be damaged, and therefore the personality should not change because some of the hardware got damaged. So thanks for supporting that the spirit doesn’t exist.

2) Back from the dead – When you start using sense in any form (common or otherwise), I’ll stop calling what you are putting out as mysticism. Speaking of animals do they all have spirits and free will and that’s why they can be brought back? You didn’t like being compared to animals before, but now you are doing it, I find that… strange.

3) Transplants – So your “reason” is that the transplants spirit what merges with the host’s spirit or something?

Ok, NO your body isn’t “like” a video game you control with your spirit. If our bodies were designed (which they aren’t) they were designed by an . As far as pain I cause yahweh… are you serious? The pain the fantasy of him has caused is immense, and he’s not even real. Even if he were real I follow in line with what was carved into the wall of a concentration camp cell:

Outside force – So all computers on the planet have the spirit of yahweh inside them as well? Because they “fire electrically”, and you can touch an electrode to different parts to make different actions. This is the problem with all your “proofs”, they all hover around stating a rule, and then breaking that same rule in any other case than the one you want it applied to. Everything was created, except the thing that created everything, and the like. 

Pacts with Lucifer/satan? Why can you not get this? I don’t believe in ANY of your imaginary friends. I’m an atheist. If I believed in satan, then I wouldn’t be an atheist. I’m not talking about demons either, I do NOT believe in any of your imaginary friends. These are problems that are created because of damage to the physical mind. They create situations where something like a dream is real to them, and happens while they are awake. It effects MILLIONS of people in this country alone.

I’m NOT watching an hour and a half propaganda piece. State your case, don’t get other people to defend positions you hold, but you can’t articulate, and it’s a sign that you don’t understand the beliefs you hold because you can't put them in your own words. I read what you write (until you start preaching the gospel at me), and respond to that. 

Evidence

Coveny said:

@Coveny - We can prove people have a mind, all we need do is open up their skull. I don’t believe in a spirit because no one ever considered it, I don’t believe in a spirit because there is no proof.

I can just see you as a 6th grade science teacher who brings in a jar to class with a brain in it, and telling the class: "I have brought in a brain of a criminal, now I will cut a piece from it so we can 'see' what was on his mind, .. also we will analyze how a criminal thinks!"

No one considered a spirit? Maybe on your spinning, and twirling through the vacuum of space globe they haven't, but here on Flat Earth it seems that's all people talk about.
I never seen anyone take a chunk of a brain out for a discussion and talk about it, .. have you? Never mind, I already know your answer because I can read your brain.

Coveny - You show again you don’t understand evolution.

You want me to tell you what science has found out about the brain? Um no, do your own research, that is WAY to much crap to list.

The mind is a physical thing, it’s another word for brain. Maybe you are talking about consciousness and just don't understand the words your using. The mind is the biological computer that’s in charge of our actions.

Wait, so your mind is your brain and you're sharing 'chunks' of your thoughts with me? Ouch! Gives a whole new meaning to: "Let me digest that thought for a minute"

No, it is the "brain" that's the biological computer, where us the mind/spirit store info into, and send messages through by which to control the body with. This is common sense knowledge from observing the actual physical brain, and listening, reading what all the different "mind/spirits" throughout history had to say. Only Dr. Frankenstein would be sick enough to 'debate' with a brain, take chunks of it to share it with others. That's sick, only an animal would do that, like apes, chimps who eat other chimps brains.

Coveny - Yes the mind is objective, repeatable, measurable, peer reviewed, etc. Science even understands how to turn you off by destroy certain parts of it.

Yes, Dahmer became an expert in that. Same thing happens when you drill holes in your computer, you'll start seeing all kinds of weird things happening, even though you the mind/person controlling it is perfectly healthy.

Here is another video you will not watch, yet shows that it is not the brain that is in control, but the mind (Note! The video is actually misinformation, assuming the mind doesn't exist, but proves my point instead!)



The "brain" would never have responded like that to the hammer hitting the rubber arm! It would have reacted only to stimuli, when the hammer would have actually hit his hand. No stimuli, no reaction. Another 'evidence' for the "mind".

Coveny - 1) Brain damage – Are you trying to prove my point? If the spirit is in “charge” of the computer it shouldn’t matter if the computer is damaged, the driving force can’t be damaged, and therefore the personality should not change because some of the hardware got damaged. So thanks for supporting that the spirit doesn’t exist.

Ah, this is getting tiresome. How in h*% would the message you are sending through a broken computer not be effected?
Have you EVER used a walkie-talkie as a kid and get all kinds of distortion? Is that your speech that is getting slurred, or it's the medium you are sending your message through that's at fault?
I mean you wouldn't run to your friend you are talking with and ask him if he was OK or not, right? ", I got worried there for a second, you started sounding really freakish! You OK?"

Coveny - 2) Back from the dead – When you start using sense in any form (common or otherwise), I’ll stop calling what you are putting out as mysticism. Speaking of animals do they all have spirits and free will and that’s why they can be brought back? You didn’t like being compared to animals before, but now you are doing it, I find that… strange.

Pastor Dawkins never "compared' humans to animals, he said that humans ARE animals, .. that he IS an animal

God created the animals and man from the dust of the earth, same material, same Designer, only man was created different in glory/type. Animals are different than humans, (I know, "Whaaa? Naaaw!" right?) and humans are different than Angels and so on. Same with the sun, the moon and the stars, each was created different.
From "observation" it is obvious that the body design limits the spirit, so if you/spirit/soul were put into that body like this bird, that's as far as you would be able to go.

Coveny - 3) Transplants – So your “reason” is that the transplants spirit what merges with the host’s spirit or something?

No, there is no "spirit" in the body part, just like if you put a faster processor in one computer over another, the one with the faster will run faster, right? (I noticed this myself from scientific observation lol) It will not effect either the programmer of the slower computer, nor the programmer of the faster computer, the faster will just get better or faster results/processing.
Same with an animal brain vs. a human brain, the processor in the human brain be like:
728380-B21 | HP BL660c Gen9 Intel Xeon E5-4669v3
(2.1GHz/18-core/45MB/135W)

and the birds be like the TRS-80, or the Commodore 64 processor.

Coveny - Ok, NO your body isn’t “like” a video game you control with your spirit. If our bodies were designed (which they aren’t) they were designed by an . As far as pain I cause yahweh… are you serious? The pain the fantasy of him has caused is immense, and he’s not even real. Even if he were real I follow in line with what was carved into the wall of a concentration camp cell: "If there is a God, He will have to beg my forgiveness!"

Aww, that quote on that camp cell wall is soo meaningful, it brings tears to my eyes (pun intended). .. Right, so the Jews want God on His knees, that is IF He exists? Yes, the Jews, .. the World Leaders on Homosexual/Gay rights, homosexuality in movies and prime-time TV shows etc.

Yes my Jewish brothers; world leaders in atheism, and comedy that specifically mocks God and His son Jesus Christ, .. yes God will "beg for your forgiveness", .. right after you "beg for forgiveness for crucifying His son Jesus Christ!" But not just Jews (who by the way were His chosen People), but everyone who has ever committed a sin.

I hear this B.S. all the time, especially the Oh-So-Righteous Jews, and the almighty Nazis. I mean really, Jews and Nazis together against the God of Abraham, now how ironic is that? What's that called again? Oh yeah, my daughter used to say: "frienemies".

The pain is when Organized Religion takes over anything; books, science, philosophy, governments, law .. that is anything we value, and interprets it through their own agenda.

Bodies designed by an ?? I believe you're thinking of the Bruce/Caitlyn sex change aren't you? Because I agree, only an could do something like that.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/files/2015/06/BRUCEJENNER.jpg

Or these work of arts:


especially time 1:11

Coveny - Pacts with Lucifer/satan? Why can you not get this? I don’t believe in ANY of your imaginary friends. I’m an atheist. If I believed in satan, then I wouldn’t be an atheist. I’m not talking about demons either, I do NOT believe in any of your imaginary friends. These are problems that are created because of damage to the physical mind. They create situations where something like a dream is real to them, and happens while they are awake. It effects MILLIONS of people in this country alone.

"Damage to the physical mind", .. , this would explain why you keep denying the existence of things that you keep talking about, and even describing, and evaluating, like their creative abilities!? How long have you had this problem arguing against things and beings you swear don't exist?

You know what, without the care of a professional, let's just move on!? OK?

Coveny - I’m NOT watching an hour and a half propaganda piece. State your case, don’t get other people to defend positions you hold, but you can’t articulate, and it’s a sign that you don’t understand the beliefs you hold because you can't put them in your own words. I read what you write (until you start preaching the gospel at me), and respond to that. 

Which cult do you belong to, since it's obvious they have you following some very strict guidelines? "Don't watch that, just say: "that's propaganda!"" or "Close your eyes, that's a quote from the Bible, just say 'That's preaching!' and pretend it wasn't even there!"
Any show of evidence? pretend it never happened, deny everything and turn it back on your opponent and say "show me evidence", .. do this every time any evidence is presented.
Wait, that is exactly what the Jesuit Order/Oath video I've shown you reveals, .. no wonder you didn't watch it! Sly-dog you!

And last but not least, again and again, and again, .. I am not talking about any religion, or speaking from an Organized Religious perspective like Christianity. But never mind, you have been sooo indoctrinated that you could never understand what I'm telling you unless you step out of your religious views and beliefs long enough to be able to understand.

Coveny

@Evidence

Notice how you say “we can 'see' what was ON his mind.” Not we can see his mind, but see what’s ON his mind. This is the difference between consciousness and the physical. To go back to the computer analogy. Your mind is the hardware, while the consciousness is the software that runs on it. Just as you can’t take out a CPU and surf the internet, neither can you take the mind out and expect the facial muscles, lungs, vocal cords, and all the other crap required to have a conversation to work. That I need to explain this too you, shows your abysmal lack of knowledge on how science works.

You made a BIG error here. You said the spirit stores information is the brain. So if the spirit is your personality, who you are, then it doesn’t need to store any information in the brain, it’s the one in control. If the spirit is dependent on the physical for information, then your whole concept of a spirit goes out the window, and it proves what I have been saying. (oh and nothing you say is knowledge, common or otherwise)

Why are you on this zombie kick? Is it because you worship one named yahweh? I’m not talking about eating brains, or the mind, and trying to use phrases to prove that is absurd. “The mind is a terrible thing to waste” does that mean you should eat it?

You post a video that you state is wrong, agrees with my position, but proves your point. This is what I’m dealing with here. You have literally taken science, and attempted to twisted to fit your fantasy. Again, you don’t understand science. Many of our reactions are not conscious thoughts, they are subconscious, and we react before we consciously register the stimuli. Also some damage doesn’t cause pain because it destroys the nerve ending, or various other reasons, so if your eye register it you will react to it before you “feel” it. Children LOVE to call other children “scared” because they react like this, but it’s a primitive survival trait.

1) Brain damage – Read this AGAIN. Personalities change. Not that you get a garble message, or something doesn’t look right. It would be like hitting a computer with a hammer and afterwards word became a music player. It doesn’t work that way in a computer, but because the human brain is a complex biological self-healing computer it does work that way with the mind/brain. There are people who actually increase in abilities after brain damage. Science would LOVE to be able to replicate the human mind/brain with hardware, but we can’t come close… yet.

2) Zombies – We are animals. We all agree these things are different. That you feel the need to act like that’s an epiphany just shows how little understand evolution. Oh and evolution has proof, you have none.

3) Transplants – Let me try this again with the computer analogy. If you changed the processor, and afterword’s you found new programs on your machine, that would be about the same effect. Transplant recipients have learned to play instruments that the donor know how to play.

 

If you can’t look around the world and see the HORRIBLE way the world is, you are blind. If you believed in a creator the thing would have to be the cruelest entity in existence. I see SO many theists who praise their gods for any good thing, while completely ignoring all the bad things. Gods public relations representative is doing an AMAZINNG job. I mean really all powerful, all knowing, and bad things aren’t his fault???? 

Oh yes, if our bodies were “designed” they were designed by an . Other animals have a different pipe for eating and breathing, yet 1,000s of humans die every year because of that design. Sinus cavities do nothing but cause pain…. What thought pain was a good idea? And zero physical weapons? Where are the claws? Soft easily damaged skin? Really a bad design on all fronts. 

Denying the existence of things, YOU and others keep talking about. If theists would stop pushing their agenda, raping, torturing, and murdering, then I could stop talking about unicorns. I look forward to the day it happens. How long have I been dealing with it? Since I was a child and theists couldn’t tell me why god created evil. (never been a fan of torture and murdering… ie evil)

I think a professional might be a bad idea for you. We lock people up now who say they can talk to god. We’ve stop being superstitious, and now we are locking up more and more theists for following the bible rather than good morals.

I belong to no cult, I believe in no creator, I believe in no gods (good or bad ones) I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in fantasy. You want to state your case, state it. I could spam you with 20 hours’ worth of Dawkins video, but that’s not what debating is about now is it? 

The bible isn’t evidence of yahweh any more than thor comics are evidence of thor. When you understand why you don’t believe in thor, you’ll understand why I don’t believe in yahweh. When you understand why you don’t want to watch a video “proving” thor exists, you’ll understand why I don’t want to watch a video “proving” Yahweh exists. 

And last but not least, again, again, again, again… I don’t CARE that you claim that you aren’t part of a religion, you believe in a creator I do not. You think it somehow adds more credence to your faith because you aren’t part of organized religion? Who cares? You are the same as pagans, or 100s of other theist that don’t have organized religion, not to mention it’s like you have copied and pasted from Jim Jones, and I think we all know how that turned out. You want SO badly to be special, and smart, but you are just like all the rest following blindly along, and looking down on other theists who don’t believe in the same fairy tale you do.

Evidence

@Coveny - Notice how you say “we can 'see' what was ON his mind.” Not we can see his mind, but see what’s ON his mind. This is the difference between consciousness and the physical. To go back to the computer analogy. Your mind is the hardware, while the consciousness is the software that runs on it. Just as you can’t take out a CPU and surf the internet, neither can you take the mind out and expect the facial muscles, lungs, vocal cords, and all the other crap required to have a conversation to work. That I need to explain this too you, shows your abysmal lack of knowledge on how science works.

Your version of "see what's on his mind" is what pseudoscience does with the fMRI, looking at the neurons firing off on the brain.
What is actually happening is us the mind reading those firings off the brain, which is seeing/understanding with our mind, us-spirit.
Software? .. so who programmed the software?

Coveny - You made a BIG error here. You said the spirit stores information in the brain. So if the spirit is your personality, who you are, then it doesn’t need to store any information in the brain, it’s the one in control. If the spirit is dependent on the physical for information, then your whole concept of a spirit goes out the window, and it proves what I have been saying. (oh and nothing you say is knowledge, common or otherwise)

Yes, the spirit/mind is us, me and you, but to keep focused, we/us/spirit/mind keep record in our brain. The body itself stores info in the brain, it forms who we are starting in the womb. Otherwise without the body we'd be "spirit", .. all over the place since we are infinite.
Even God Himself keeps a record: (Daniel 7:10 and Revelation 20:12) Just as each of His creations keep records, and since He is God, all this information is available to Him.

Coveny - Why are you on this zombie kick? Is it because you worship one named yahweh? I’m not talking about eating brains, or the mind, and trying to use phrases to prove that is absurd. “The mind is a terrible thing to waste” does that mean you should eat it?

A mind that believes he is a brain, is a waste.
Jesus called it "dead", even walking and talking they are dead, and he said that "Let the dead burry the dead". Yes, walking zombies, everyone who believes that their brain is who they are, are zombies.

Coveny - You post a video that you state is wrong, agrees with my position, but proves your point. This is what I’m dealing with here. You have literally taken science, and attempted to twisted to fit your fantasy. Again, you don’t understand science.

No, science is being interpreted wrong, all because they want to stay with the Evolution Religion. The video proves my point, that if we were the brain, then it would respond to stimuli, not be startled by fakeness. BUT, we the mind can be startled, we can be manipulated if we don't "keep watch", and before you know it, not only do we believe we are animals, but start acting like them because we figure hey, ..  animals don't have any moral codes, only survival, so if you were to kill me and my whole family, an Evolutionist Lawyer will fight for your "animal rights" and blame it on your environment, and the food you ate. Or, blame it on your ape ancestors and show a documentary how apes/chimps kill and eat their own sometimes.

Coveny - Many of our reactions are not conscious thoughts, they are subconscious, and we react before we consciously register the stimuli. Also some damage doesn’t cause pain because it destroys the nerve ending, or various other reasons, so if your eye register it you will react to it before you “feel” it. Children LOVE to call other children “scared” because they react like this, but it’s a primitive survival trait.

The mind just want's to have fun, so things like keeping the heart beating we, or I should say God put that part of us/mind in the brain on a loop. If our body needs more oxygen, the subconscious reacts and makes adjustments without having to take our main focus away from the fun activity. But you know we CAN take charge of the subconscious mind, and slow the heart down if we choose.
Look, I will not argue with an Evolutionist who thinks he is a brain. Learn what your Pastor Dawkins taught you; that "you don't have free will", you are a victim of your environment, and the food you eat, now stay with that teaching and tell me how your brain can create things it never seen before? Or tell me how you are able to debate with me here, switching to completely different subjects, or even multiple subjects within seconds if your brain is "evolving" your responses as Dawkins says?

Coveny - 1) Brain damage – Read this AGAIN. Personalities change. Not that you get a garble message, or something doesn’t look right. It would be like hitting a computer with a hammer and afterwards word became a music player. It doesn’t work that way in a computer, but because the human brain is a complex biological self-healing computer it does work that way with the mind/brain. There are people who actually increase in abilities after brain damage. Science would LOVE to be able to replicate the human mind/brain with hardware, but we can’t come close… yet.

What? Who said your mind changes into a music player if you got hit on the head and damaged your brain? I said that just like a computer if damaged, the brain will react the same way, the mind will be unable to get the message out that we intended, or the way we intended. Same with the damaged computer, the "programmer/mind" will not get the results he wanted.
Increase with brain damage? Oh, so that's why the deadly inoculations of infants, to see what new evolved creature the poor child will become when he/she turns autistic? Unbelievable, sick minded religious fanatics, experimenting on children.

Coveny - 2) Zombies – We are animals. We all agree these things are different. That you feel the need to act like that’s an epiphany just shows how little understand evolution. Oh and evolution has proof, you have none.

Lol, .. all one has to do is look in the mirror to see that we are not animals. Even human infants can tell the difference between animals and humans. The same goes with animals, just go into a gorillas cage, or a lions den and you'll see for yourself.

Coveny - 3) Transplants – Let me try this again with the computer analogy. If you changed the processor, and afterword’s you found new programs on your machine, that would be about the same effect. Transplant recipients have learned to play instruments that the donor know how to play.

 

There is just no end to this BB-Evolution delusions is there? Robots creating their own language, arm transplants playing piano, alien worlds, we must populate Mars by 2030 because they are chem trailing the earth where humanity will no longer be sustainable, .. what's next, cheetah leg transplants for Olympic runners?
I remember when the doctor told us that we should remove my boys tonsils because we human-animals no longer need them! That we only needed them when we grazed grass as cows, or whatever animal my boy evolved from!?
This is scary, imagine going under the knife of an Evolutionist/atheist surgeon. You are out, laying there for a minor laminectomy, and he starts cutting parts out that he feels you no longer need!

Coveny - If you can’t look around the world and see the HORRIBLE way the world is, you are blind. If you believed in a creator the thing would have to be the cruelest entity in existence. I see SO many theists who praise their gods for any good thing, while completely ignoring all the bad things. Gods public relations representative is doing an AMAZINNG job. I mean really all powerful, all knowing, and bad things aren’t his fault???? 

So blame God for the whacked out religions, the worst one being Evolution/no Creator, no God, "Do As Thou Wilt", grave robbing, skull&bones worshipping, human degrading, .. teaching children immorality and to literally hate God and blame god as you are doing here, .. abortion on demand, homosexuality, .. of it feels good, do it mentality? Yep, Gods fault, you know, God, the one you don't believe exists. Lol

Coveny - Oh yes, if our bodies were “designed” they were designed by an . Other animals have a different pipe for eating and breathing, yet 1,000s of humans die every year because of that design. Sinus cavities do nothing but cause pain…. What thought pain was a good idea? And zero physical weapons? Where are the claws? Soft easily damaged skin? Really a bad design on all fronts. 

And your Religions solution?
Chem-trail the hell out of the skies to cause as much harm to our ecosystem as possible (you ever wonder why they don't chem-trail the hell out of all the Bio-Domes?), poison our drinking water, food, plants to grow vegetables that can last years and taste like plastic and have 0 nutrition value, amputate for minor infections so to offer them bionic extremities so you could somehow justify "how bad Gods design is"!?, prosthetics that cause immeasurable pain and infections that are hidden from the public, .. tell them; "You Have Cancer" whether or not they have it so you can reduce the population through deadly therapy fulfilling a demonic agenda like Agenda 21 and 2030, .. rob us Trillions of dollars for imaginary science fiction stories claimed as science, and offer some delusional hope on a fake desolate planet that supposedly has poison gas for air, .. but hey, that's better than this:



Right?
 
Anything is better than Gods creation earth and our human body, right? Even this:



Now what grave robbing, skull and bones worshipping, demonically possessed moron would suggest we leave this earth and run and "populate" a CGI cartoon planet like in that video by 2050, huh?
I mean the Star Wars planet Tatooine is better than that, why not go there? Or Planet Vulcan, or any of the other Star Wars, or Star Trek planets? Why a dead, airless sandstorm ridden hellhole like Mars?

Coveny - Denying the existence of things, YOU and others keep talking about. If theists would stop pushing their agenda, raping, torturing, and murdering, then I could stop talking about unicorns. I look forward to the day it happens. How long have I been dealing with it? Since I was a child and theists couldn’t tell me why god created evil. (never been a fan of torture and murdering… ie evil)

Never been a fan? , I know you don't read everything we tell you, but at least you should read what you write!?

Coveny - I think a professional might be a bad idea for you. We lock people up now who say they can talk to god. We’ve stop being superstitious, and now we are locking up more and more theists for following the bible rather than good morals.

Oh please, .. you know well that the ONLY reason we still have some morals left on this world is because of the Bible. Once you lock us up, and chop our heads off in the name of your goddess ISIS, and burn all the Bibles, the projection movie "The Purge" would best describe your "Godless-world" raping, torturing, and murdering as you said. You should hear the hate in your speech?

Coveny - I belong to no cult, I believe in no creator, I believe in no gods (good or bad ones) I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in fantasy. You want to state your case, state it. I could spam you with 20 hours’ worth of Dawkins video, but that’s not what debating is about now is it?

Umm, .. yes it is. It's a big part of presenting your evidence. So PLEASE, .. by all means, pick your favorite sermon from Dawkins and lets debate it?

Coveny - The bible isn’t evidence of yahweh any more than thor comics are evidence of thor.

So the Spider-Man comic is the evidence for Thor? OK then.

Coveny - When you understand why you don’t believe in thor, you’ll understand why I don’t believe in yahweh. When you understand why you don’t want to watch a video “proving” thor exists, you’ll understand why I don’t want to watch a video “proving” Yahweh exists. 

Who said I don't believe in Thor? I used to be a big fan of Thor, and that's the truth, or my name isn't Odon (pronounced Odin)

Coveny - And last but not least, again, again, again, again… I don’t CARE that you claim that you aren’t part of a religion, you believe in a creator I do not. You think it somehow adds more credence to your faith because you aren’t part of organized religion? Who cares? You are the same as pagans, or 100s of other theist that don’t have organized religion, not to mention it’s like you have copied and pasted from Jim Jones, and I think we all know how that turned out. You want SO badly to be special, and smart, but you are just like all the rest following blindly along, and looking down on other theists who don’t believe in the same fairy tale you do.

Hey, I would never look down on anyone, .. pointing out your errors is not looking down on you, OK? And if you want to believe in what you believe in, fine, just don't try to force it on anyone, OK? Because your religious beliefs sounds very dangerous, like Marshal Applewhite, or like the NASA idea to "colonize Mars", .. you know what I mean?

Coveny

Evidence said:

Your version of "see what's on his mind" is what pseudoscience does with the fMRI, looking at the neurons firing off on the brain.
What is actually happening is us the mind reading those firings off the brain, which is seeing/understanding with our mind, us-spirit.
Software? .. so who programmed the software?

Coveny - You made a BIG error here. You said the spirit stores information in the brain. So if the spirit is your personality, who you are, then it doesn’t need to store any information in the brain, it’s the one in control. If the spirit is dependent on the physical for information, then your whole concept of a spirit goes out the window, and it proves what I have been saying. (oh and nothing you say is knowledge, common or otherwise)

Yes, the spirit/mind is us, me and you, but to keep focused, we/us/spirit/mind keep record in our brain. The body itself stores info in the brain, it forms who we are starting in the womb. Otherwise without the body we'd be "spirit", .. all over the place since we are infinite.
Even God Himself keeps a record: (Daniel 7:10 and Revelation 20:12) Just as each of His creations keep records, and since He is God, all this information is available to Him.

Coveny - Why are you on this zombie kick? Is it because you worship one named yahweh? I’m not talking about eating brains, or the mind, and trying to use phrases to prove that is absurd. “The mind is a terrible thing to waste” does that mean you should eat it?

A mind that believes he is a brain, is a waste.
Jesus called it "dead", even walking and talking they are dead, and he said that "Let the dead burry the dead". Yes, walking zombies, everyone who believes that their brain is who they are, are zombies.

Coveny - You post a video that you state is wrong, agrees with my position, but proves your point. This is what I’m dealing with here. You have literally taken science, and attempted to twisted to fit your fantasy. Again, you don’t understand science.

No, science is being interpreted wrong, all because they want to stay with the Evolution Religion. The video proves my point, that if we were the brain, then it would respond to stimuli, not be startled by fakeness. BUT, we the mind can be startled, we can be manipulated if we don't "keep watch", and before you know it, not only do we believe we are animals, but start acting like them because we figure hey, ..  animals don't have any moral codes, only survival, so if you were to kill me and my whole family, an Evolutionist Lawyer will fight for your "animal rights" and blame it on your environment, and the food you ate. Or, blame it on your ape ancestors and show a documentary how apes/chimps kill and eat their own sometimes.

Coveny - Many of our reactions are not conscious thoughts, they are subconscious, and we react before we consciously register the stimuli. Also some damage doesn’t cause pain because it destroys the nerve ending, or various other reasons, so if your eye register it you will react to it before you “feel” it. Children LOVE to call other children “scared” because they react like this, but it’s a primitive survival trait.

The mind just want's to have fun, so things like keeping the heart beating we, or I should say God put that part of us/mind in the brain on a loop. If our body needs more oxygen, the subconscious reacts and makes adjustments without having to take our main focus away from the fun activity. But you know we CAN take charge of the subconscious mind, and slow the heart down if we choose.
Look, I will not argue with an Evolutionist who thinks he is a brain. Learn what your Pastor Dawkins taught you; that "you don't have free will", you are a victim of your environment, and the food you eat, now stay with that teaching and tell me how your brain can create things it never seen before? Or tell me how you are able to debate with me here, switching to completely different subjects, or even multiple subjects within seconds if your brain is "evolving" your responses as Dawkins says?

Coveny - 1) Brain damage – Read this AGAIN. Personalities change. Not that you get a garble message, or something doesn’t look right. It would be like hitting a computer with a hammer and afterwards word became a music player. It doesn’t work that way in a computer, but because the human brain is a complex biological self-healing computer it does work that way with the mind/brain. There are people who actually increase in abilities after brain damage. Science would LOVE to be able to replicate the human mind/brain with hardware, but we can’t come close… yet.

What? Who said your mind changes into a music player if you got hit on the head and damaged your brain? I said that just like a computer if damaged, the brain will react the same way, the mind will be unable to get the message out that we intended, or the way we intended. Same with the damaged computer, the "programmer/mind" will not get the results he wanted.
Increase with brain damage? Oh, so that's why the deadly inoculations of infants, to see what new evolved creature the poor child will become when he/she turns autistic? Unbelievable, sick minded religious fanatics, experimenting on children.

Coveny - 2) Zombies – We are animals. We all agree these things are different. That you feel the need to act like that’s an epiphany just shows how little understand evolution. Oh and evolution has proof, you have none.

Lol, .. all one has to do is look in the mirror to see that we are not animals. Even human infants can tell the difference between animals and humans. The same goes with animals, just go into a gorillas cage, or a lions den and you'll see for yourself.

Coveny - 3) Transplants – Let me try this again with the computer analogy. If you changed the processor, and afterword’s you found new programs on your machine, that would be about the same effect. Transplant recipients have learned to play instruments that the donor know how to play.

 

There is just no end to this BB-Evolution delusions is there? Robots creating their own language, arm transplants playing piano, alien worlds, we must populate Mars by 2030 because they are chem trailing the earth where humanity will no longer be sustainable, .. what's next, cheetah leg transplants for Olympic runners?
I remember when the doctor told us that we should remove my boys tonsils because we human-animals no longer need them! That we only needed them when we grazed grass as cows, or whatever animal my boy evolved from!?
This is scary, imagine going under the knife of an Evolutionist/atheist surgeon. You are out, laying there for a minor laminectomy, and he starts cutting parts out that he feels you no longer need!

Coveny - If you can’t look around the world and see the HORRIBLE way the world is, you are blind. If you believed in a creator the thing would have to be the cruelest entity in existence. I see SO many theists who praise their gods for any good thing, while completely ignoring all the bad things. Gods public relations representative is doing an AMAZINNG job. I mean really all powerful, all knowing, and bad things aren’t his fault???? 

So blame God for the whacked out religions, the worst one being Evolution/no Creator, no God, "Do As Thou Wilt", grave robbing, skull&bones worshipping, human degrading, .. teaching children immorality and to literally hate God and blame god as you are doing here, .. abortion on demand, homosexuality, .. of it feels good, do it mentality? Yep, Gods fault, you know, God, the one you don't believe exists. Lol

Coveny - Oh yes, if our bodies were “designed” they were designed by an . Other animals have a different pipe for eating and breathing, yet 1,000s of humans die every year because of that design. Sinus cavities do nothing but cause pain…. What thought pain was a good idea? And zero physical weapons? Where are the claws? Soft easily damaged skin? Really a bad design on all fronts. 

And your Religions solution?
Chem-trail the hell out of the skies to cause as much harm to our ecosystem as possible (you ever wonder why they don't chem-trail the hell out of all the Bio-Domes?), poison our drinking water, food, plants to grow vegetables that can last years and taste like plastic and have 0 nutrition value, amputate for minor infections so to offer them bionic extremities so you could somehow justify "how bad Gods design is"!?, prosthetics that cause immeasurable pain and infections that are hidden from the public, .. tell them; "You Have Cancer" whether or not they have it so you can reduce the population through deadly therapy fulfilling a demonic agenda like Agenda 21 and 2030, .. rob us Trillions of dollars for imaginary science fiction stories claimed as science, and offer some delusional hope on a fake desolate planet that supposedly has poison gas for air, .. but hey, that's better than this:



Right?
 
Anything is better than Gods creation earth and our human body, right? Even this:



Now what grave robbing, skull and bones worshipping, demonically possessed moron would suggest we leave this earth and run and "populate" a CGI cartoon planet like in that video by 2050, huh?
I mean the Star Wars planet Tatooine is better than that, why not go there? Or Planet Vulcan, or any of the other Star Wars, or Star Trek planets? Why a dead, airless sandstorm ridden hellhole like Mars?

Coveny - Denying the existence of things, YOU and others keep talking about. If theists would stop pushing their agenda, raping, torturing, and murdering, then I could stop talking about unicorns. I look forward to the day it happens. How long have I been dealing with it? Since I was a child and theists couldn’t tell me why god created evil. (never been a fan of torture and murdering… ie evil)

Never been a fan? , I know you don't read everything we tell you, but at least you should read what you write!?

Coveny - I think a professional might be a bad idea for you. We lock people up now who say they can talk to god. We’ve stop being superstitious, and now we are locking up more and more theists for following the bible rather than good morals.

Oh please, .. you know well that the ONLY reason we still have some morals left on this world is because of the Bible. Once you lock us up, and chop our heads off in the name of your goddess ISIS, and burn all the Bibles, the projection movie "The Purge" would best describe your "Godless-world" raping, torturing, and murdering as you said. You should hear the hate in your speech?

Coveny - I belong to no cult, I believe in no creator, I believe in no gods (good or bad ones) I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in fantasy. You want to state your case, state it. I could spam you with 20 hours’ worth of Dawkins video, but that’s not what debating is about now is it?

Umm, .. yes it is. It's a big part of presenting your evidence. So PLEASE, .. by all means, pick your favorite sermon from Dawkins and lets debate it?

Coveny - The bible isn’t evidence of yahweh any more than thor comics are evidence of thor.

So the Spider-Man comic is the evidence for Thor? OK then.

Coveny - When you understand why you don’t believe in thor, you’ll understand why I don’t believe in yahweh. When you understand why you don’t want to watch a video “proving” thor exists, you’ll understand why I don’t want to watch a video “proving” Yahweh exists. 

Who said I don't believe in Thor? I used to be a big fan of Thor, and that's the truth, or my name isn't Odon (pronounced Odin)

Coveny - And last but not least, again, again, again, again… I don’t CARE that you claim that you aren’t part of a religion, you believe in a creator I do not. You think it somehow adds more credence to your faith because you aren’t part of organized religion? Who cares? You are the same as pagans, or 100s of other theist that don’t have organized religion, not to mention it’s like you have copied and pasted from Jim Jones, and I think we all know how that turned out. You want SO badly to be special, and smart, but you are just like all the rest following blindly along, and looking down on other theists who don’t believe in the same fairy tale you do.

Hey, I would never look down on anyone, .. pointing out your errors is not looking down on you, OK? And if you want to believe in what you believe in, fine, just don't try to force it on anyone, OK? Because your religious beliefs sounds very dangerous, like Marshal Applewhite, or like the NASA idea to "colonize Mars", .. you know what I mean?

You still have a problem distinguishing “seeing his mind” and “seeing what’s ON his mind”. An MRI shows the mind. (I’m glad you finally admit that mind can be seen by an MRI and we are past that non-sense at least) Ideas, thoughts, etc is what’s on your mind, this is your consciousness. Your mind is the electric signals, neurons, gray matter, etc. As for who programed the software… no one, that’s why it sucks so bad. It evolved, just as we humans continue to evolve. (you should watch the bacteria evolution video again, you still don’t grasp this concept at all)

What about this “spirit body” you kept talking about? Where did that go? Change your stance much? So now without a physical form the spirit dissipates? Stop flip flopping…

Good news, I don’t think your brain is very large so you won’t be appealing to those fantasy Zombies you’re so scared of.

The mental gymnastics to get from subconscious response to proof of god is impressive. I mean it’s got huge logical holes like why does being manipulated mean we believe we’re animals? Why doesn’t it mean we believe there is a god? As far as blame on outside forces for our own actions, I’m pretty you theists LOVE the saying “the devil made me do it”. You have a whole section devoted to a guy who makes it so you don’t have to be responsible for your own actions… seriously.

During an argument with “an Evolutionist who thinks he is a brain.” You say “I will not argue with an Evolutionist who thinks he is a brain.”. Oh the lies… they burn… they burn so bad. Does anyone believe your ?

I did. I said brain damage can change your personality. You still don’t seem to understand the concept though, and sound confused as usual. So, let me try this again. The brain is not like a computer, if you hit a brain sometimes it gets better at things. It unlocks abilities you didn’t have before. This NEVER happens with a computer. Here is some reading on the topic.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/professor-cromer-learns-read/201203/after-brain-injury-the-dark-side-personality-change-part-i

http://uproxx.com/life/derek-amato-musical-savant/

*Ignoring the anti-vaxxer autistic .

Looking in a mirror proves we are animals. It’s believed every species can tell it’s own, but I’m not convinced on the topic. Having a different response could mean other things like friendship or whatever. People work with wild lions and gorillas all the time. Humans made the top of the food chain many years ago. (Isn’t evolution great?)

So no rebuttal at all, just as string of religious rhetoric. So tonsils no, penis yes? ROFL you theists are so weird.

Blame the all-powerful… all-knowing yahweh for what he created is ludicrous to you? This is what I’m talking about, yahweh has the best public relations guy EVER!!!

So the theist asks the atheist what his religious solution is, the atheist replies, none, I’m not a theist! Oh look a list a batshit crazy conspiracy theory tangent crap with no proof to back any of it up.

You need to read the bible, there is a LOT of torture and murder in there. I’m not a fan of torture and murder. You support the bible, you support torture and murder. Again, I’m not a fan of torture and murder. Read your bible and come back to me. It clearly states yahweh created evil. I get you skipped that part because you don’t read your bible but you might want to try it sometime if you want to believe in the sky fairy.

I know the only reason we have some morals left is this world is because people have STOP using the bible as a moral compass. The thing is horrible. I don’t believe in any of your fairy tales. (ISIS included) The purge? That must mean that you have a desire to murder and the only thing stopping you is your bible. Maybe a moral discussion might not be your best topic. The rest of us however murder exactly as much as we want, and that number is zero…

Supporting research is debating. Using another to debate for you isn’t debating. I’ll fight my own battle, and take responsibility for the results. On a side note I don’t watch Dawkins videos or read his books either. I’m actually not a fan, as I feel like he’s a bit of a sexiest. 

Are you saying you believe a spider-man comic is evidence for thor? Because I didn’t say that. I don’t believe the bible is evidence of yahweh, nor do I believe thor comics are evidence of thor. So you believe the god thor exists? So a polytheist after all. There goes that uncreated creater crap right out the window.

You ridicule other theists, you don’t “point out errors”. Anyone taking a passing glance at this thread can see how condescending you are on the topic. That’s looking down on them, thinking you and your way is better than theirs. I’ll naturally stop trying to force my opinion of there not being gods when theists stop forcing their opinion that there are gods. Again, I don’t believe in god, I’m not a theist. I have no religion, I’m not a theist. I have no religious beliefs, I’m not a theist. 

I know you think mars doesn’t exist, that you think NASA is a big lie, that all sorts of other things are lies, but that bible of yours. That book written 1,000s of years ago by primitive man who couldn’t use electricity, couldn’t fly, had no cell phones, GPS, automobiles, medicine, etc, you BELIEVE that over the vast knowledge we’ve accumulated. Good news, you are a dying breed, fewer and fewer children are indoctrinate in your non-sense every year, and as more education, science, and understanding come along, the more foolish ALL you theists look. 

Coveny

Put another log on the fire...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/11/study-finds-that-children-raised-without-religion-show-more-empathy-and-kindness/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FBCP-PATH&utm_content=pathmainpage

RollTide420

Coveny said:

This is the problem with using an abstract like math to explain the real world.

If you are going with observable universe only then you need to drop the conceptual and theoretical which covers much of the time space discussions, we are having. They aren’t observed, they are just “proven” mathematically. The theory and concepts have merit, but it’s not something we’ve observed. 

You are hung up on math here, and think it proves something.

Coveny said:

As far as too much math in their formulas, that’s what’s required, so they do it to understand the world. 

So your telling me we can't rely on math to understand the real world, and then you say math is needed to understand the world. How do you not see the contradiction here? Its fallacious to just throw out an entire subject of study when it doesn't support your view, and bring it back when it does.

Coveny said:

@RollTide420 If you make a claim, you need to prove it. Simply saying it again is not “proof”. You claim “All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation” and I guess you consider this synonymous “science period depends on the universal causation” you have to prove that claim. 

The scientific method is not based on “determining causal relationships” either. You just keep making up .

The simplest way to do this is with leverage here is one article on the matter. Quote from this article “The mechanical advantage is that you can move a heavy object using less force than the weight of the object”

http://www.school-for-champions.com/machines/levers.htm#.WYCjiIjyuUk

As you also requested a video here you go.

No it does not create a paradox. I’ll give you an example to help you get there. You have a universe with no outside force applied. There is just a bunch of matter. Gravity slow pulls the matter together, and could be your “first” cause. However, by its nature your thoughts are not thinking infinitely when you are thinking about a FIRST cause. First implies a beginning, infinite does not have a beginning, so there is no paradox of “how it started”, because there is no “start”. If you require a start of the universe, you MUST require a start of yahweh, and then your “what started it” issue comes into play into backward infinity. The same holds true for time, if there is a “start” then it creates a backwards infinity. The ONLY non-paradox is that matter and time have existed infinitely. 

Your false dichotomy:

1) at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. 2)  we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely.

What if we had more than one thing that happened at the same time? (such as gravity) What if it’s just a loop where there the first cause is also the last cause that doesn’t go backwards into time infinitely, it just keeps replying  the same time over and over? There are other options but hopefully you get the point that you present a false dichotomy, these are not the only answers.

Followed by statement which is portrayed as a false dichotomy

1) If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. 

2) the second option is impossible.

Now here you make a stretch in logic and present it as the only answer. Assuming there was a first cause you still haven’t proven it came from outside this universe. (back to the gravity though experiment presented before)

Now back to the present response. None of my response renders the scientific method bogus. Your lack of understand isn’t an excuse to dismiss something.

Yes I understand that cause and effect are different. Do you understand that universal causation (the topic) links them together? For you explanation of time to work you have to prove that time is the cause of an effect. If time isn’t “causing” the effect then time is outside of universal causation isn’t it? 

Gravity and time. Yes now we are getting further into how little we understand time. Like I said before time isn’t understood very well, nor can we measure it well. So yes there seems to be an association, but we aren’t sure how much is there, we don’t have a good way to measure it, and a whole host of other issues. 

You don’t seem to understand positive and negative. Physically magnetism pushes in two directions. One must be positive and one must be negative. The same holds true for the physical charge of an atom. It can be positive or negative. You are move away from the physical world and using abstracts to try and “prove” something which isn’t true. We use math to count stuff, yes. You can’t count stuff that isn’t there, yes. Does this prove there aren’t negatives in the physical world, no… no it doesn’t. And I’m not touching on cool s*** like antimatter, or quantum stuff that’s crazy. 

Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it’s physical. Let’s say I have two concepts and I’m thinking about which one is better. I can measure those concepts (2 of them), did they just poof into existence because of that? No, they didn’t. This is the problem with using an abstract like math to explain the real world. I literally defending the other side of this argument earlier in this thread. ROFL

I could find you information to prove time doesn’t always work the way we expect it too, but it’s high end science and the time it would take to dig up articles on the topic isn’t worth it to me. Yes, everything moves forward in time, but if light move faster than the “standard” timeframe it counts as time travel, which is significant. But it’s all getting high end, which I’m just a light reader on, not a hard-core enthusiast. 

Infinity is both a positive and negative number. Infinity is all the imaginary abstract numbers. As stated before it does not have a “beginning” or it wouldn’t be infinity. You can’t multiply, divide, add, subtract, or any other kind of math to infinity. That’s not how infinity works. It’s a concept, not a yardstick. As far as too much math in their formulas, that’s what’s required, so they do it to understand the world. 

My car has many exponents. It’s has several bolts which are standard. So half inch, quarter inch, etc, etc. But even if it didn’t NONE of the measurements are going to be exact. The precision of a vehicle that age just doesn’t make it happen, but to be fair I doubt currently produced vehicles are exact either if you measure to the 100th or for sure at the 1000th place.

I didn’t say zero wasn’t significate in general, just that it wasn’t significate in this discussion.

It could be infinite, linear, and not pass over either the x or y zero lines.

If it affects this universe then it’s in this universe an falls into universal causation, but even if there weren’t the case if we go back to your definition point A “Everything must have a cause”, and we are at the backward infinite loop again. You are trying to use a trick to get out of causation, and it doesn’t work like that. 

If you are going with observable universe only then you need to drop the conceptual and theoretical which covers much of the time space discussions, we are having. They aren’t observed, they are just “proven” mathematically. The theory and concepts have merit, but it’s not something we’ve observed. So I’m not disagreeing with the definition from dictionary I’m disagreeing with you boxing science in. There is more in our universe that can’t be proven through the scientific method. That doesn’t “prove” anything, it’s just an unknown. You are the one who says god is out there, you have the burden to prove god is out there. Science does NOT have to prove god isn’t out there, as this is a negative which is impossible to prove.

You have no facts. You have no proof. And you for sure have no “indisputable” facts. Let’s go through them.

1) time can be observed and measured

I’ve never seen time, what does it look like, how is it observed in isolation? Our ability to measure time is remedial at best. 

2) cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded

Ok lets apply that to your god. Yahweh cannot effect anything because a cause must precede an effect, and Yahweh has no beginning so there is nothing to precede him. Oh look you broke your own “facts”… shocking

3) You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes.

If I was born with 10 fingers and 10 toes isn’t that the beginning state? Isn’t that your precious zero? If so when I lose a finger I am negative a finger. Poof I can have negative fingers or negative toes. (not that any of this red herring matters)

4) Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found

You think you are making some grand statement here, but all you are saying is if you have no gold, then your gold has no weight. Um sure. Tie it to something and make a point

5) (its (time) a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed) and can be observed, measured, and calculated

I can put dreams into equations. I can measure them. I can calculate them. That doesn’t mean they are physical. You try to assert something as fact, but your logic is flawed.

6) Not gonna past that one.

Lines cross zero all the time, and conceptually be infinite. You are hung up on math here, and think it proves something. I only need one exception to your rule, and your god is disproven.

7) infinity is not a true number but a concept

Yes which is why you can divide it like you were trying to do earlier.

8) Numerically, infinity can never be reached

Numerically infinity is reached all the time. (pi is in a lot of equations) But that aside. If you pick a point on an infinite line you’ve “reached” infinite, you just haven’t reached all of infinity.

9) if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old.

Ok so god is infinitely god, so it would have taken infinity for him to reach this point, so he doesn’t exist. Again apply your logic to your god, and it show it’s absurd.

The scientific method is based on causality. The scientific nethod lays out the step for proving things through experimentation. In all experiments there is an independent variable and a dependent variable. The relationship between these two is that a change in the independent variable will CAUSE a change in the dependent variable. Without this CAUSAL relationship the scientific method is nothing. Can you give me an example where the scientific method is used for something besides proving a causal reltionship? 

While I was technically incorrect regarding force, the concept that an effect need adequate cause remains in effect. For any force not used, an adequate force substitute, such and equates torque in your example must be used. The fact that there anydequatesre equations for how much force and torque is neefed to move a given object show that a cause must be sufficient for its effect.

Saying gravity slowly pulling things together in the first cause doesn't solve anything. First off, what caused gravity to suddenly start pulling when it hadn't before? Also this doesn't at all solve the paradox of infinity never being reached due to it taking an infinte time to get to the present, with no regard to zero (a mathematical impossibility). Also, math does apply in the real world. Physic relies on math, so if math doesnt apply in the real world, than physics doesn't apply. Could you provide an example of the laws of math being broken I n the real world, since you claim math doesn't apply in the real world?

The paradox shows that there is an exception to causality. We've never observed one, but this paradox proves there is. This demonitrates that there not only might be something beyond what we can observe, but there definitely is something beyond what we can observe scientifically, so in order to prove God, other subjects just be introduced. Mathemeticians, unlike scientists don't have to rely on unproven theoris such as evolution or big bang. The concepts discussed amongst matheticians are proven beyond question, and bus to examples of them being broken can be found.

It's not a false dichotomy, either time had a beginning (and therefore a cause), or it didn't. If gravity caused things, something would need to initiate it. If it was already there, it would have been pulling before it caused anything, and it's pull would've caused the change before, but there is no before and you are still left with a paradox.

Also, an infinite loop in time defies the laws of math, which if dismissed then physics, which relies on math, can also be dismissed. Time can be measured mathematically, it could give you exact dates of events. Our precision in measuring time still has room for improvement but our accuracy is fine.

Since time is measured mathematically, it must follow the laws of math. No such loop can be demonstrated on a number line. Infinity always moves away from negative infinity, not back to it. 0 to positive infinity, the mathematical basis for my worldview can be shown on a numberline.

The proof that the first cause is outside the universe is that nothing in our universe has been shown to be uncaused, but since something must be due to aforementioned paradox, the only way out is that the uncaused thing was outside of our universe.

Since the scientific method alway demonstrates a causal relationship, then dismissing causality dismisses the scientific method. I never said it was bogus, I said your claim that causality doesn't apply to what we can observe scientifically renders it bogus if true, which I don't believe it to be. God is able to defy causality because he is beyond what the scientific method can demonstrate.

In regards to time not "effecting" anything, universal causation says everything is caused, not that it causes other things. Also, since no event can happen unless time moves forward for it to happen, so in th at sense time helps to cause everything, so no it is not outside of causality.

Just because we don't know everything about how to measure time doesn't mean it can't be measured. The fact that we have made any progress into measuring time shows it can be measured. Also while we might not know everthing about times relationships to other aspects of physics doesn't mean we can't observe or measure it. Days, years, even minutes are quite easy to measure. I'd bet my clock and yours tell the same time, adjusted for the effect of time zone, precise down to the minute. While our precision may be lacking, our accuracy is not. How long ago a given point in time was isn't debated, it's simply counted.

Positive and negative charges aren't inherently negative or positive, we assign the two arbitrarily. If you switchied them, it would come out the same. This doesn't hold true for true positives and negatives. If you switched the positives and negative around in math, you end up with all sorts of dilemmas such as the positive/negative relationship in multiplication or the concept of how imaginary numbers when you get the square roots of negatives work.

Also antimatter and all that theoretical stuff hasn't been proven. Scientists don't know what antimatter is, nor have they observed it so antimatter really isn't hard science, it's theoretical physics.

When you thinking of two concepts you cannot measure them in the same way you can physical thing, you can only compare them. Measurements require a unite of measurement. One such unit for distance is feet. One for time is minutes. What unit of measurement do you use for thoughts? There isn't one.

When you say it's high end science that your not digging up, are you admitting you haven't done you research here? Most of the high end science you refer to is theoretical physics, the key word being theortetical. If you can't explain the science, don't expect anyone to buy it.

Infinity and negative infinity are two distinct numbers. Just like 3 and negative 3, the occupy distinct roles on the number line. If you substitute negative infinite for infinity, or vise versa, on a math test, you will usually end up with an incorrect answer. Infinity goes both ways but not as an single entity. There is a positive and a negative. They are distinct and you cannot get from one to the other without crossing zero. Infinity is not all abstract imiginary numbers. "i" is an abstract imiginary number. It is the square root of negative one. It is never represented on a regular number line whereas infinity and negative infinity often are.

What does the lack of precision on you car measurements have to do with the way zero behaves on a graph? The positive and negative you referenced were in regards to your cars direction of movements not othe random aspects of it. Zero is significant to this discussion because it is the starting post of numbers and it must be crossed in order too get from negative infinity to infinity on a numberline Since you claim time had no beginning or end, and has no starting point, your numberline for time goes from negative infinity to infinity without crossing zero. This is numerically impossible.

0 must be crossed to get from negative infinity to infinity on any axis. The shape of the graph doesn't matter, you can't get from negative infinity to infinity without crossing 0, which is the points the axes are located so you would cross at least one axis.

Not everything that affects the universe is in the universe and affected by causation. The mind cannot be observed or proven in a lab, and physically it does not exist. Yet it affects our universe.

I'm not only going with the observable universe, I'm using the observable universe to show that there is more to existence than our observable universe. Also, math isn't theoretical, it's concepts are proven beyond question.

Also, my facts are indisputable and you didnt adequately refute them let's go through them again.

1) I'd bet you've never seen energy either. Physical doesn't mean visual. We may not have perfected precision in regards to time, just like we haven't perfected precision in measuring distance or energy. However we can measure it accurately. I can literally call someone in China and ask them what time it is in my time zone, and they could figure it out on their own with relative ease. Not too difficult too measure.

2) you ignore the entire basis of my argument here. Since time cannot be infinite as shown by the numberline. The paradox of causation shows that there must be an exception. Since no exceptions exist in the observable universe, the exception must exist outside of the universe. It needs no cause as it is outside of causality. It need not be proceeded it need not be caused.

Also you didn't dispute this fact merely it's application. You say I have zero facts. Pleasee look up the term zero in a dictionary.

3) Actually your starting poin is starting till zero. Firstly, the minumum number of fingers someone can be born with isn't 10, it's zero. Some people are born without fingers. More importantly EVERYONE is conceived with zero fingers. You start with nothing, not 10 fingers. The fingers are gained in the womb and their presence is not the starting state for us. My post zero here, is zero.

4) My point here is that negatives don't exist physically. Again you don't dispute this fact, merely it's application. Please look the word zero up if you are going to continue to use it.

5) Please give me an example where dreams are a factor used in a an equation that physicists actually take seriously. Time is used in these all the time, the most basic being distance divided by time equals speed. Dreams are not found in any uch equations and physicists never use dreams as a factor, whereas time is used all the time. Your comparison point here is fundementally different than time in regards to the topic at hand.

6) Lines don't display weird begavior at 0, but it's integral does. It's still significant. If math doesnt prove anything when I use it, then it doesnt prove anything when physicists use it. Physics relies on math. If math doesnt prove anything, than physics doesn't prove anything. So is physics bogus to you? It relies on math and you claim math proves nothing, so how can physics prove anything using math?

7) You don't dispute my fact, just the application. You say I have zero facts. Again, please look up what zero means.

8) Numerically infinity is never reached. Pi is not infinity, it merely has an infinite number of digits behind the decimal. It serves a seperate mathethematical fiction. Pi is, by definition, less than 4. Infinity is, by definition greater than 4. That's one key difference. Also, pi it fonts not just a concept, pi is a real number that falls between 3 and 4. It occupies a specific place on the numberline. If you substitute pi for infinity, or vice versa, on a math test, you will lose points. This is not considered an acceptable subtitution as the two are not equal.

Also, it isn't correct to pick any point on the numberline and call it infinite. Any given point you pick, you have a finite, countable number. If you substitute some random number for infinity, or vice versa, on a math test, you will lose points. This is not considered an acceptable substitution as the two are not equal.

9) I don't claim God has been around for an infinite time. Since a cause must precede its effects, and God caused time, God preceded time. In order to precede something, you have to exist independently of it. God therefore exists independently of the concept of time. He hasn't been around for an infinite among of time as his existence is independent of time. 

Coveny

@RollTide420

Scientific method – I don’t really want to get into Causal Determinism, but there are things like radioactive decay, Quantum mechanics, and there was one about light that I can’t remember. I did a search on the matter, and here is an article about this debated (not accepted) topic.  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#ChaDet

Force – You don’t need 20lbs to move 20lbs as your claimed. Although at this point I don’t remember what the claim was in reference to… Also what is “anydequatesre equations”?

First cause – I’m not saying there was a first cause because my position is that time is without a beginning. You disputed this by saying there “must be” a first cause, this was my example of how even if there was a beginning there didn’t need to be an outside force. So as to why gravity didn’t working on it before… there was no before as this was the beginning of time. As for infinite time to the present, you are playing with words. If your god is infinite, then by that “proof” he can’t have existed because it took an infinite amount of time to get here right? Regardless, if something is infinite there are going to be points of existence on all points in the timeline, and everything is infinite away from infinite. Infinity is a concept, it’s not a math equation where you can plot a timeline through “zero”. No just because math can’t be applied to something doesn’t mean physics don’t matter. ROFL As for an example of math being broken 1 = 1 correct? So one rotten apple equals one non-rotten apple? In reality almost nothing equals anything else because there are slight difference is structure, color, weight, etc. Math has to move up the levels of abstraction to a more conceptual level of an apple rather than the lower detailed level of abstraction.

There’s no paradox, and it’s not an “exception” to causality. However, there are things that we don’t see as having a “cause” to them. Also, we have long sense gone past what can be observed. Anti-matter could never be observed but we still theorize its existence. If you are referring to being observed with the human eye, the number of things science knows about that are beyond what we can observe grows much larger still. (we don’t have good eyes) None of this “proves” any of the various gods existences even if you make it more complex by bring in other subjects. When you say “unproven theories” you show how little you understand science. Also math does get questioned every now and then but it’s only with the high end math. I work in IT so I deal with encryption which relies heavily on math, and as I think most people know keeps changing. 

I’ll give you time either had a beginning or it didn’t, but that wasn’t what you stated originally. My position is that time did not have a beginning, yours is that it did, but without time, yahweh “started” time… when there wasn’t time, and you see this as the “most likely” solution somehow. 

Infinite loop – Doesn’t defy laws of math, or physics. You can’t measure time with math, any more than you could measure the weight of a brick with math. Numbers are used sure, but math… not so much. Now you can calculate time just like you can calculate if you added bricks to a pile how much more the weight would increase, but that’s not measuring time. Your lack of scientific understanding is astounding. 

A line can be infinite, math has no problem with infinity. There are many numbers and equations which stretch out to infinity in math. Graph the circle (x+0)^2+(y+0)^2=4 and tell me where the beginning is please. Tell me how it has a problem “negative infinity”. You only need to copy and paste that yourself but I’ll do it for you https://www.mathway.com/popular-problems/Pre-Algebra/165765

Again many things in our universe has been shown to not have a “cause”, but again if something outside the universe has to “cause” the beginning, then that something has to have a “cause”.  It’s like you use logic to get to the answer you want, then ignore logic when it applies to your answer. Also infinity doesn’t “move”, that’s sorta the point of infinity. Infinity means ALL points. Do you think yahweh can’t “move backwards”? If he is infinite, he exists everywhere. If he has infinite knowledge he has ALL knowledge. If he has infinite power he has all power. Infinity doesn’t “move”, you add to it, it doesn’t work with math. You understand this when you apply it to your god, but can’t fathom the concept when it comes to anything else. If time is infinite it has all time.

The scientific method doesn’t always show a causal or direct relationship see above. Oh and the only thing the gods are able to defy is proof of their existence. 

You said “universal causation says everything is caused, not that it causes other things.” Which is NOT what that says.  Most simply state it as causality. 

Free dictionary - The principle of or relationship between cause and effect.

Webster - the relation between a cause and its effect or between regularly correlated events or phenomena

Dictionary - the relation of cause and effect:

Oxford - The relationship between cause and effect.

So, as you can see causation is cause AND effect… not just cause. There MUST be a relationship between the two for it to fall into this category. 

I didn’t say we “can’t” measure time. That is a strawman fallacy. I said we don’t do a very good job at measuring time. We can observe and measure time. As for our clocks being in agreement it really depends on how precise you want to be, but that’s the “easy” part of measuring time. If we go with that simplistic view of time, yes it’s easy to count back to a given point. 

You said “Positive and negative charges aren't inherently negative or positive, we assign the two arbitrarily.”. Could you tell me words that were not arbitrarily assigned? If you switched positive and negative numbers, it would come out the same as well. Add two negatives get more negatives, just like adding two positives. We arbitrarily have decided negative means a deficient and positive means no deficient, math however doesn’t care, it works with negatives just as easily as it works with positives. You can swap’m with anything you like including square roots. (do a search for “sqrt(-16) = 4i”) Math is like honey badger… it’s don’t care, we do, but math doesn’t.

Anti-matter has been “proven” in that we know “something” is there, and the effects it has. (this from the guy who’s all about cause and effect) Is it “hard science” … no, but then neither is math. Do you know what the term “hard science” means? Me thinks you do not.

The unit of measurement for “thoughts”… him… thoughts? I had a thought, I had two thoughts, I had a hundred different thoughts. Poof measured. 

On the topic of high science, more like I haven’t spent the time to understand the research here. This could include math, physics, or whatever, but as a field gets more complex it takes a base of knowledge to just understand what you are looking out, otherwise it looks like a foreign language. As for “buying” something you don’t understand, ever taken a car anywhere? Do you know how all those parts work? (and remember that includes the programing on all these smart cars) Someone can have a general idea about something but not fully understand how it works, you do this, and buy this just like everyone else. Disagreeing with me without providing any reason why is called the appeal to the stone fallacy. 

Infinity is a concept that can have or not have a beginning. A line can extend positively into infinity, or negatively, or both negatively and positively. When most people use the term infinity they don’t give it the positive or negative qualifier indicating it is all positive and negative, and everything in-between. Take “Graph y=X^3” for instance, it goes through zero, positive, and negative infinity, so most would just say it’s infinite. On the “never represented on a regular number line” might want to check this out: https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra2/ComplexNumbers/CPGraphs.html really though you are getting into high math at this point and it’s not on topic.

The mind/brain can be proven in a lab physically, and does exist. Consciousness can also be proven in a lab, and does exist. It can be proven by brain activity, or by interaction, and measured in both cases.

1) Measuring Time – We measure objects, not time. We measure electricity. I can put a voltmeter on electricity and measure its amps, watts, and cycles. What instrument to you apply to time to measure it? The answer is none. You measure an object that has been created to “keep time” based off how long a day is on earth, you don’t measure time itself.

2) Cause and effect – I did NOT ignore your argument. Your argument, I disagree with statement that time cannot be infinite/there must be a cause, and I used your argument about there not being a cause for your god as reference to your false statement about time. Whatever you are applying to your god, applies to time. Oh and you have zero facts, you have no facts, you have nothing in the bucket of facts to support the existence of your god.

3) Negative fingers – This is a red herring and I’m tired of wasting time on it. If it makes you feel better I’m plus 10 toes, 8 fingers, and 2 thumbs. If I “lose a finger” I guess I won’t have lost anything, I would be plus 7 fingers, which makes no sense but whatever.

4) Negative exist physically as I’ve already shown with various positive and negative things. When you count physical objects… sure negatives don’t exist. I wouldn’t say I have negative 3 cars or something like that. It is you who are screwing around with the application of the term negative to make some grand point not me. Negatives exist physically, we have forward and backwards, we have all these things, but sure if you are counting the gold bars you own you can’t have negative gold bars.

5) In an equation, it must be real. You know now that I’m going back through this, I see I missed this logical flaw the first time through. Your stance is that if it’s in an equation it must physically be real is a direct contradiction to your stance than negative numbers aren’t physically real. So I’m going to go with that rather than going further down the dreams rabbit hole as this is a much better way to address your .

6) Didn’t say math NEVER proves anything, but math doesn’t ALWAYS prove something. Even if it didn’t prove anything, it wouldn’t mean that just because physicists use it, physicist don’t prove anything. Your logic is flawed on many levels.

7) I don’t dispute facts regardless of who presents them. How many of those facts support your position? Zero… zero facts support your position.

8) I’ll give you pi wasn’t the best example because it does have a “beginning”, but pi does stretch out to infinity behind the decimal, so infinity is reached in equations, and the point stands. Infinity is used to describe something, that something may or may not be less than 4 and greater than 4. Is your god less than 4? I don’t think you would say yes to that because of the abstract nature of numbers. I’d have to qualify 4 of what wouldn’t I? Is he less than 4 gods combined? Yes or no? Hopefully you see that less than 4 and greater than 4 is not a requirement for infinity, and for future reference anything you attempt to apply to my postion you can assume I’m going to apply it to your god as well. If it doesn’t fit your god, then it doesn’t have to fit me either you don’t get to try to use logic and then say he’s the exception on all your logic. Oh, and just because you seem to have trouble with this concept we are not talking about math, this is philosophy, and if you would or would not pass within the confines of math makes ZERO difference.

9) How long was god around before time, was it an infinite amount of time? Hehe Seriously though if everything requires something to precede it, what preceded god? 

This whole debate can be summed up with “apply ALL your to your god please”. (man you take up a lot of time to respond to, but at least it isn't a ton of smack talk)