God sees you when your sleeping, he knows when your awake.... hey, that sounds familiar... Personally, I have the oddest urge to finish every conversation with a Theist with the words 'they have medication for that now!'
I'm convinced that I talked too much to God and he got pissed off at me.. so he stopped responding and hid ALL evidence that he exists - or ever existed - to me so that I would become an atheist.
Your mind set is yet another atrocity religion perpetuates.Sex is life-affirming; few other worldly pleasures have brought so much joy as the peaks of sexual gratification with someone whom I love.A smooth scotch with a pipe of aged tobacco on a cool autumn twilight is another.The pursuit of scientific knowledge compares.
I am an animal, purely flesh; my sapience is a manifestation of chemical activity in my brain. The pain that makes it real and the pleasures I enjoy are my reasons for life.
@dejesusluisx "I state that this is the only universe we know exists." By using improbability as a proof of god you are assuming that this universe had to exist or no other could, otherwise it doesn't matter how improbable it is that it exists. As you might realize, this is my position. If you would like to change positions and agree with me I am all for that.
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
@dejesusluisx Well, it's a good thing philosophy means jack shit as a tool to explore reality and rational reasoning via a scientific method actually works. Given that this is the case the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. So, do you have any?
@haohyou12 There's plenty of scientific evidence that favors overwhelmingly the existence of a force directing the universe than the universe coming into existence out of randomness. The Penrose calculations, Hoyle calculations, the string theory landscape model, the BB model and the definition of energy all points towards a conscious force rather than pure chance. If you're unfamiliar with them, I could explain.
@haohyou12 God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible that God exists.
@dejesusluisx A few things: How can you observe god to know it is made of energy or even part of this universe? We don't know what was "before" the big bang or if anything can be "before" the expansion of space-time and energy so it's illogical to make claims about what initiated the big bang and even if energy was present in the form that we know or present at all. And the big kicker: Even if I grant you all these there is not logical connection to god nor is its existence necessary.
@haohyou12 "How can you observe god to know it is made of energy or even part of this universe?" Can you feel energy? I guess not, but you can see it's effects, same with God. Watch the BBC documentary: what happened before the big bang and you'll see there is a lot of research in that area.
"there is not logical connection to god" all the explanations point to energy creating the universe, and God revealed that before we knew what energy was, what more proof do you need?
@dejesusluisx I can feel heat energy, see light, observe an object in motion. Energy is demonstrable and measurable. That god is energy is not. Also, you're misunderstanding the nature of the conjecture about what happened "before" the big bang and such things string theory. None of those things are well studied or accepted scientific models, they are merely hypothetical models based on mathematics of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics. They are not observable, proven, nor prove god.
@haohyou12 "That god is energy is not" it is, look at the planets orbiting, the order and movement of the universe and our own existence, they all point to a universal consciousness.
"All evidence points to a godless universe" quite the contrary, all the evidence points to God. The universe works following precise mathematical laws, randomness can't be predicted mathematically. A godless universe would be a random universe.
@dejesusluisx The more we explore quantum mechanics the more we find how unnecessary a god figure is. You're simply inputting god where theoretically applicable, but just because god could be the energy that started the big bang or created matter doesn't mean it was. In fact, there is no reason to believe it was. All evidence points to a godless universe. Matter didn't need god to create it, energy doesn't need to be driven by god to cause the big bang, and all observable science displays this.
@haohyou12 The force or energy that created the universe is either conscious or unconscious. An unconscious force will produce a random outcome without any order or pattern. Is the universe random? or we see an order? If the universe isn't random, then the force had to be conscious. The odds of an ordered life permitting universe are 10^10123 as calculated by atheist R. Penrose. A conscious force capable of creating the whole universe can only be called divine. We call this divine energy God.
@dejesusluisx You are also falsely presuming order cannot arise without consciousness. Why in the world would you think that? Order certainly can be here without a sapience to mandate it. Look up the hexagonal rock formations in Ireland. There arises an ordered pattern without any consciousness. To look even deeper, the chemical and physical nature of the universe gives rise to an order in matter and energy. Wherever do you get the idea that sapience needed to create order?
"Is a physical law that all things trend towards entropy."
It's true that the ultimate fate of the universe is entropic heat death. However, there are subsidiary cycles. When you freeze a glass of water it becomes more ordered at the same time that the heat energy of the water makes something else more chaotic which in turns yields to entropy. Order can occur in a system that in not closed and indeed the universe has been shown to not be a closed universe, rather an open one.
@haohyou12 "When you freeze a glass of water it becomes more ordered at the same time that the heat energy of the water makes something else more chaotic which in turns yields to entropy" You just proved it requires lots of energy to overcome the entropy, therefore, supporting my claim that energy created the universe, and since God is energy, God created the universe.
@haohyou12 All events and movements occur due to natural laws, all laws need a law giver. Nature didn't exist previous to the BB, so nature couldn't had created it's own laws, it's a logical contradiction. You need an external law giver. This law giver would just follow it's own laws, otherwise why would He created them if He wouldn't?
"the indeed followed the laws designed by a conscious being."
"they also fallow designed mathematical laws"
This is unsupported conjecture. Where is evidence that the patterns, "laws" needed a law giver. No science shows this, observation suggests that a "lawgiver" for physical and chemical principles of the universe is non-existent and not necessary.
@haohyou12 "Where is evidence that the patterns, "laws" needed a law giver" We know animals are not conscious, try to find mathematically precise patters that can be described by laws in any behaviors they do (not in the things they can't control like biological activities).
" try to find mathematically precise patters that can be described by laws in any behaviors they do"
How does this relate to anything? Do you not see there is no logical connection between patterns and sapience? Patterns happen. They do, nothing needs to have dictated it so.
I guess this is really the crux; I feel no belief is justified unless it is supported by demonstrable evidence and rationalization. If you're willing to take unsupported claims like "laws can't exist without lawgivers," and "this universe and life had to be here because it is improbable" as unassailable facts then you've locked yourself into a belief that a god is likely when the fact is nothing suggests or necessitates god.
@haohyou12 "I feel no belief is justified unless it is supported by demonstrable evidence and rationalization" and yet you have no evidence to counter the overwhelming mathematical evidence that we are not the product of chance.
@dejesusluisx Also, you are making a false dichotomy between order and randomness. The universe is both random and order; there can be randomness in an ordered system. If I take a handful of stones and throw it in the air they will fall "randomly" (or not in any pattern.)
@haohyou12 "If I take a handful of stones and throw it in the air they will fall "randomly" (or not in any pattern.)" yes, and you, a conscious being, threw them. Precisely my point, thanks.
However, there is order to how they fall. If I can measure their initial velocity, the angle at which they were thrown, and the force of friction due to air I can calculate how high they will go, how long it will take for them to fall, and where they fill fall.
@dejesusluisx Also, the Penrose and Hoyle calculations are absolute bunk. They prove less than nothing. They, by their very nature, are faulty models for measuring the "chance" of their claims and do nothing to support the idea that the universe and life couldn't be here without a conscious creator. Also, they have an unsubstantiated presumption that there can only be this type of universe with this type of life and that some kind of predetermination necessitates our existence.
@haohyou12 "They prove less than nothing" They prove neither the universe nor us are the product of chance. Even if you assume that they err by an astonishing 99% and the calculations are just 1% reality, that is more than enough evidence to say chance is a statistical improbability.
@dejesusluisx You don't understand what I'm saying about those calculations, do you? So what if the probability of this universe forming is .000000001%. Guess what? If the slightest thing was off the universe wouldn't be here, a different one would. This universe is here because things happened as they did. There's no predetermination that the universe as we see it had to be like this. Don't assume there was a goal to create this specific universe.
@haohyou12 "There's no predetermination that the universe as we see it had to be like this" actually the low chances for us to be here is the evidence we aren't the product of chance, is hitting you in the face and you don't see it.
@dejesusluisx No, you don't see that you're making a logical error in presuming that we are here in spite of a small chance as if by some predetermination that life and the universe was meant to and had to be this way. I'm making this up right now, let's see of it works.
Imagine standing at the edge of a football field. The field is painted into a grid with 1ft x 1ft squares. Each square represents a possible universe. You take a ball and throw it into the air.
As the ball is flying a bird swoops by and knocks it 10ft to the left. It continues to fall and the wind picks up by 5pmh and pushes it to the right. Then, as the ball is landing a groundhog pops up and the ball hits the groundhog in the head and it takes an extra bounce, being deflected a couple feet and the ball lands in a square.
Now, the chances of all these events taking place to get the ball to that specific square are nearly impossibly slim if you decide that the ball was meant to and had to land in that square via these processes. If even the slightest thing was off, the bird took an extra .5sec eating its breakfast that morning and wasn't in the right spot to hit the ball, the wind was 1mph faster, the groundhog was smushed by a car earlier, and it would be impossible to get the ball there.
@haohyou12 ""Now, the chances of all these events taking place to get the ball to that specific square are nearly impossibly slim"" The analogy fails because the ball has the same chance of falling into any of the squares, the fact that many improbable events happened to make the ball land in a particular square, doesn't make that particular square less probable in itself. Our universe is not one of 10^10123 existing, our universe is the only one existing in out of 10^10123 chances to exist.
@dejesusluisx EXACTLY. I stipulated that, "..if you decide that the ball was meant to and had to land in that square via these processes," which is what you are doing with life and the universe.
@haohyou12 "which is what you are doing with life and the universe" No, is not like that, you have to prove first the existence of trillions upon trillions of other universes.
@dejesusluisx You are predetermine that the universe had to be here and this way despite all the chances it might not just as the person who threw the ball predetermined that it had to land in that square via all those unlikely events.
@haohyou12 "You are predetermine that the universe had to be here and this way" is a one shot out of an impossible shot, hit right on the spot. Only a direct intent could had accomplished a shot like that.
@dejesusluisx The point I'm making is that it is just as likely a different universe with the same probable constraints could have existed or no universe at all and that you have no proof otherwise.
@haohyou12 I'll try to follow your analogy with a more realistic calculation, and I'm making this up now too: have you played marbles? if you take a marble an shoot it randomly at space to hit another marble hidden in between a trillion, trillion universes like ours, that would roughly give you one chance in 10^52, and the funny thing is you hit the marble from the first shot!!! Now the aim for our universe is ridiculously more difficult, is 10^10123!! Do you realize now God is looking at you?
@dejesusluisx Again, you're still making the predetermination that this universe has to be here like this. You''re shooting a marble into a sea of marbles. There's a 10^10123 chance of hitting the one specific marble an dif it misses that marble it hits another one.
Why do you have the predetermination that this universe had to be here? Why do you feel life had to be here?
@haohyou12 "You''re shooting a marble into a sea of marbles. There's a 10^10123 chance of hitting the one specific marble an dif it misses that marble it hits another one." There's no sea of marbles, there are no even two universes much less 10^10120, the statement is absurd.
@haohyou12 "Why do you feel life had to be here?" because it was an impossible, one shot one hit, in an incomprehensibly improbability of making that hit. The odds the same person wins every lottery, every week, on every state for all his life are about 10^14, and no one in his right mind would say is perfectly acceptable to believe there was no intervention at all to alter the results. The odds the universe suitable for life are 10^10123, and you say is OK to believe there was no intervention?
So what would have happened? The ball would have landed in any other square. Apply this to the universe. If the slightest thing was off we wouldn't be here, but something else would. Where is your evidence that this universe had to have ended up this way? Where is your evidence that we had to be here? You're making a false presumption that this universe was intended to be like this despite the slim chances of it arising due to probable constraints and that no other could.
@dejesusluisx Futher, Hoyle's calculations are false not only due to my football ball analogy, but also because of what I just stated, a certain order exists in chemistry and physics. The constituents that make life have a natural affinity to coalesce. It is simply a manifestation of matter like any other. Sure, there was chance involved in creating this specific life and us, but if it didn't happen as it did than some other life may or may not be here (which lends itself to my first point.)
@haohyou12 If you put in a test tube a soup of all the components needed to form a living cell, taken from thousands of actual cells, you can't form even one cell out of random rearrangements. Scientists have been trying for decades, with the latest knowledge, resources and instruments available at their disposal, to create life in the lab. When they succeed, they'll prove life is designed. If the components had an affinity as you said, then new cells could easily be formed like a chem reaction
@dejesusluisx Stop changing the subject, there are so many things left undone.
Do you understand your faults in the entropy situation?
Where is your evidence that a "lawgiver" was needed for physical and chemical principles of the universe despite all observation?
Do you understand how no one can say what may have caused the big bang or what may or may not have "existed" prior to it and that these physical and chemical principles may not have applied?
@dejesusluisx "Watch the BBC documentary "what happened before the big bang"
I will. I am, however, familiar with much of the quantum mechanics and theoretical physics currently circulating and you have to understand that they are unobserved, unsupported hypothetical models (like string theory) and though they may be interesting and help us understand things and may or may not be real, no one takes them as fact. Further, none of those models, though they can, make a true connection to a god.
@haohyou12 "Further, none of those models, though they can, make a true connection to a god" God is a conscious being and is His desire that we get to Him through faith and not through reason, in spite of that we had come up with pretty good arguments for His existence and every new scientific discovery bring us closer and closer to understand God's true nature. That in itself is a remarkable achievement. If God would not exist, we would had been able to conclusively prove so many years ago.
"you have to prove first the existence of trillions upon trillions of other universes."
"There's no sea of marbles, there are no even two universes much less 10^10120"
I'm not saying there's a sea of marbles, especially because we can only observe this one. You state this is the only possible universe, further, this universe is predetermined. Where is your proof of that. It doesn't matter if any other universe is possible simply that there's no evidence this on is necessary.
@haohyou12 "You state this is the only possible universe," no, I state that this is the only universe we know exists. You need to prove there are 10^10123 universes to support your claim or analogy about probabilities and to justify our existence without divine intervention.
As I've stated, I make no such claim. My argument doesn't hinge on whether they actually exist. Simply that you make the claim that this universe is the only one that can exist and there is no evidence of this. Observably, this universe exists with principles that if different it wouldnt be here. My position is: It doesn't matter whether any other universe could be here, but so what if another was or none at all?
@haohyou12 "Simply that you make the claim that this universe is the only one that can exist and there is no evidence of this" I never claim that, I claimed this is the only one that exists not that is the only one that can exist, they are two very different things.
@dejesusluisx "I claimed this is the only one that exists not that is the only one that can exist" They both lead to the same conclusion, where is evidence that it is the only one that exists and more importantly since it doesn't really matter whether it is the only one: even if it was, the improbability of it does not prove god.
@dejesusluisx "I claimed this is the only one that exists not that is the only one that can exist,"
Also, you realize if you say that this isn't the only universe that could exist you've destroyed your argument that improbability proves god? If any other universe could have happened it doesn't matter how improbable this or any other one may be.
@dejesusluisx "no evidence to counter the overwhelming mathematical evidence that we are not the product of chance."
That is very backwards reasoning. First of all, not all of it was chance, as I've said, the properties of this universe allow much of it to act in an order way with chance (remember my false dichotomy thing?) and AGAIN so... fucking... what if it is improbable that we are here. Why do we have to be here to give that improbability any meaning?
@haohyou12 "what if it is improbable that we are here" You still not get it, the improbability is that we are here due to chance, not that we are here. That we are here is not improbable because we are here, but we are here because there is a conscious energy that beat the odds and decided we should be here.
"You still not get it, the improbability is that we are here due to chance, not that we are here. That we are here is not improbable because we are here, but we are here because there is a conscious energy that beat the odds and decided we should be here."
You say it is too improbable that we are here therefore a god mandated it to be so. We've come back around to the start.
@dejesusluisx Nothing proves this universe had to be here as opposed to any other or none at all. If you agree that another universe could exist or this one may not have, then there are no improbable odds to beat because it doesn't matter how improbable it was because anything else could have happened.
@dejesusluisx The problem here lies in that you feel a god predetermined that this universe and we, life, had to exist and therefore overcame improbable odds. That is unsupported and a presumption that cannot be logically or observably made.
@haohyou12 "That is unsupported and a presumption that cannot be logically or observably made" That is supported by the mathematical calculation of atheist Roger Penrose using 30+ cosmological parameters and the potential values those parameters can take.
@dejesusluisx That number shows the improbability of a universe that supports life. Not that a universe that supports life had to exist as opposed to one that doesn't or none at all.
@haohyou12 "Not that a universe that supports life had to exist as opposed to one that doesn't or none at all." I don't know why you keep repeating that when that wasn't what I asserted, is probably your close mindedness that doesn't let you understand the argument.
Also, I'd like to clarify something. You keep attributing things to a god (like those theoretical models you saw in that documentary.) They may to you seem like evidence of god, but the truth is what I keep saying "they make no logical connection to god." What I mean by this is this: I could pray that my aunt's cancer goes away. If it "miraculously" does, I could thank god. Or, I could realize that cancers sometimes go into remission.
Even if I grant you that current physics apply, some great force of energy had to have created the BB, you could say that matches your definition of god exactly (which I continue to contest, by the way. You have observable way make claims about god's nature, you simply take that which is in the bible as predetermined fact.) However, so what if a large energy was needed to make the BB? I say this makes no logical connection to god because a big energy does not necessitate god.
Where is the evidence that this energy needed to be god or come from god?
Just because something fits your predetermined and assumed claims about what god is or does does not mean that it is god and it is not a logical conclusion to come to without evidence of the claim, especially because all that is observable has a striking lack of evidence for a god's hand. (Also, improbability is not evidence of god.)
@haohyou12 If it has a beak like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, and if my eternal life would depend on it, I would say is definitively a duck until someone brings a truckload of evidence to prove it's an elephant.
@dejesusluisx "God is a conscious being and is His desire that we get to Him through faith and not through reason"
You've found the end to all debates I've had with theists. You have no rational reason or evidence to believe a god exists. If you want to take it on faith than there is nothing I can say or prove to change your mind. At least now, hopefully, you realize why your arguments hold no water in trying to prove god.
@haohyou12 "You have no rational reason or evidence to believe a god exists" I gave you five reasonable scientific arguments. The problem is not the arguments, is your close mindedness. I can tell you that the sky is blue and of you don't want to take off your yellow glasses you'll see it green. You are the problem, not the theists you're debating. You're hypnotized by an evil cult that forever wants to grasp your soul. Open your eyes.
@dejesusluisx " I gave you five reasonable scientific arguments. " And I explained why they do not prove god. I have no soul and I'm ok with that. More than ok actually.
@haohyou12 "And I explained why they do not prove god" They support the fact that: 1. we are not the product of chance, therefore a force intervened to create the universe. 2. That force or energy had to be conscious to be so unbelievably accurate. 3. God is defined as energy and energy has been defined to be present before the BB. The existence of a conscious energy is the best explanation to date for the origin of the universe.
@dejesusluisx So, you've read nothing of what I said because I dispelled all those false claims. Even now you use such twisted, meaningless terms as "conscious energy." I'm done with this. I'm really sorry you've poisoned your mind with predeterminations and untrue statements that you are so incapable of discerning truthful claims and unable to rationalize.
@haohyou12 "I dispelled all those false claims" only in your mind, you didn't read my counter arguments? My arguments stands because of your lack of logical claims to disprove them. If you want to continue with your ways is your choice. But there's an alternative. You will not hear a voice from the ski or see a light. This is all you’ll get, this message. Reason won't get you there, only Faith can. Don’t loose your soul trying to win silly arguments, isn't worth it.
@dejesusluisx A lot of what you said didn't need to be disproved because most of my points are that what you said aren't proven in the first place and re baseless conjecture that you have as predeterminated and falsely taken as fact. That is what I was trying to show you but you fail to understand this.
I planted the seed; that was my mission, now is up to you. You will not hear a voice from heaven or see a light. You will only get this message. My job is done. You still have hope. GBY
@dejesusluisx Seriously, and you think I'm the one who is closed minded. You've literally gained nothing from days of talking and have exactly the same opinions even when I have demonstrated with not just logic but evidence and definitions that aren't consistent with some of what you say, like the false dichotomy between random chance and order and why we don't have to either be chanced occurences or creations. You're pathetic, and I honestly feel bad for you.
@haohyou12 "like the false dichotomy between random chance and order" events are without any intervention (random or pure chance) or with intervention (non-random), what is the false dichotomy there? If you prove that events can't be random, there is an intervention, the kind of intervention will have to be determined. The intervention can be conscious or unconscious. Is here that order determines is conscious. You're more confused than your FSM god. You haven't read or understood the replies.
"events are without any intervention (random or pure chance) or with intervention (non-random), what is the false dichotomy there?"
Example: The fact that carbon molecules form the backbone of organic molecules is not random chance but require no intervention to do so. Your point has been disproven numerous times in this way by me yet you do not see it. The rest of the conversation has taken place much like this one specific point.
@haohyou12 "The fact that carbon molecules form the backbone of organic molecules is not random chance but require no intervention to do so" A bad example, one thing has nothing to do with the other, this example just shows how little you know about anything.
@dejesusluisx Your reasoning is a mockery on rationality; it's a perverted representation of preconceived notions and false premises based on no evidence and make no logical connection to nor necessitate a god's existence.
You know what, you've said one correct thing. You told me not to waste my soul. While I don't believe I have one, I do have a finite amount of time to enjoy sentience. So, I'm going to have a drink and then have sex with my girlfriend. Yeah... yeah. That's what I'll do now.
@haohyou12 When you truly love someone you would treat this person with dignity and respect, not use her for you selfish pleasure. You use your couple as an object if you don't give them stability and an honorable relationship she deserves. Love means self sacrifice, not self indulgence.
That is the core difference between us. The fourth consciousness level requires that you reject materialism and selfishness. Rejecting your selfish animal instincts is the way.
@dejesusluisx That is the first thing you've said that actually offends me. You've taken one of the most enjoyable things a person can do and made it disgusting. Having sex with someone is not selfish, it does not make a person an object, and it is not dishonorable. Are you suggesting women don't enjoy sex? Because I can assure you, we both think it's a wonderful expression of our love and relish our ability to engage in it together. If you don't understand this, perhaps you're doing wrong?
@dejesusluisx Like I said, one of the terrible atrocities of religion. How did you possibly gather from what I said that I somehow objectified and demeaned my girlfriend and displayed nothing but selfishness by saying I like to have sex with her? That is truly disgusting, that you've can take something that we find beautiful and pleasurable to both of us and somehow label it as dishonorable and disgusting.
@haohyou12 Use your God given intuition: who shows a higher consciousness level?, who kills or who respects life?, who enslaves or who frees?, who envy or who love?, who is selfish or who is selfless?, who is materialistic or who is spiritual?. We are due to move to the next consciousness level by rejecting all materialism and selfishness. Those were Jesus teachings, which atheism reject. God will act, and anyone that refuse to move may be expendable. Open your eyes and live like Christ today.
@haohyou12 "You are stupid and disgusting" that means you finally realize the truth is in my side and it hurts, I know it hurts, I was a non-believer. That phase you're going through is called denial. Accepting the truth takes time and lots of meditation and prayer. There is hope, seek the love of Christ and truth shall be revealed.
@dejesusluisx Oh come off it. You know that's not true. I say you're stupid and disgusting because you have perverted logic and have twisted views on sex.
Jesus can suck it. In fact he probably should have, then he wouldn't have been wasting so much time lying about god to people.
@dejesusluisx What I don't understand is how you don't see that there is no reasons to believe in god. You claim you have 5 scientific ones but I've that they don't prove god at all. Some of them aren't even stable claims in their own right.
@haohyou12 Don’t close yourself to the possibility. If I am wrong, I got nothing to lose, I lived a good life and have many friends because of it; but what if you are wrong?
@dejesusluisx Pascal's Wager is a pitiful argument. I'm not going to waste my breath explaining why. Go to talkorigins's archive on pascal's wager, come back and tell me if you'll ever have the hubris to spew that verbal diarrhea ever again.
@haohyou12 I've seen the rebuttals, and they all come from an argument of ignorance, therefore invalid. They claim there are many Gods and dogmas, but there is only one God and if you're in His wavelength you can be saved regardless of your dogma.
@dejesusluisx Oh, so that's why you used "argument from ignorance" incorrectly before. You assume your preconceived notions are fact and "ignorance" refers to anything that doesn't agree with them.
The term "argument from ignorance" refers to a logical fallacy in which someone who does not have an answer or cannot understand the answer asserts therefore an unsupported claim from their predeterminations must be correct (in your case, your christian god.)
@haohyou12 ""The term "argument from ignorance" refers to a logical fallacy"" I'm not using the term argument of ignorance to assert a logical fallacy, If I had I would had used the term "appeal to ignorance" which is the correct term to describe the fallacy you refer to, what I meant was literally, that the person saying God is X or Y without knowing God, is arguing from their ignorance because they don't know God.
But I won't have lost anything because I will have lived a life based on honesty and not based on believing something to cover my ass from a murderous demon
@boyinthedrain "What if Muslims are right?" They are right. People throughout the ages have been confused about God and had created weird dogmas to describe Him. There's only one God, one Divine Consciousness, one conscious energy that created the universe with many names and dogmas created by men over many centuries in our desire to understand his essence. Dogmas might be real or not, but God is real, and to understand that reality you need to be in his wavelength.
@boyinthedrain God is energy and to be in tune with energy, you need to be in it's same wavelength. The same with God, you need to be in His wavelength to be saved. Buddhists call it Nirvana or Enlightenment, Hindus call that Moksha, Islam calls it Taubah and we call it living in Grace. There's only one Divine Consciousness with many names and dogmas, but just one reality. You can be spiritual and be one with God consciousness without religion, but to get somewhere, a map is always helpful.
@Damarcast God isn't a physical being, is an immaterial being, a spirit, a form of energy. Have you heard the phrase God is love? Try to explain the existence of love through science. Theoretical parameters and intangibles don’t fall into the realm of science because science uses empirical data and experiments to prove its theories and that cannot be done with intangibles. That's why other disciplines like philosophy or theology study them.
Love is explained through science. It's a brain state formed by a combination of released chemicals and electrical impulses.
Theories do fall within the realm of science. Any decent theory will be based on some amount of fact and will attempt to explain something not currently known. Just because we may not be able at the time to prove the theory doesn't mean science can't formulate one.
@Damarcast ""Energy has mass"" Photons are mass less. ""Love is explained through science"" ""The word you were looking for was bullshit"" I guess those two quotes go together...
""Theories do fall within the realm of science"" God isn't a theory, is a conscious being.
You really haven't studied physics or modern medicine. You can google it.
You mentioned theories so I stated theories, are you really not capable of recalling what you yourself typed?
If God is a conscious being, and likely by your theology to have existed before the universe came to be (though I can't tell because what you type sounds like new age bullshit), what evidence do you have that a mind and consciousness can exist without a brain for it?
@Damarcast The only explanation cognitive scientists have for our consciousness is the fact that we have a greater capacity to store information than animals, if that is the case, then energy can store an infinite amount of information, so energy can be conscious.
@Damarcast "Would you argue a dog is not conscious?" There are levels of consciousness, they have what is call action/reaction consciousness, which is the same to say instinctive consciousness. No other animal has the level of consciousness we have. We are the only animal with a self programming brain, which is the capacity to reject or act contrary to our instincts.I explain that concept in some of the videos have uploaded.
Not to mention I didn't state photons, I stated energy because you stated energy. And even if photons themselves have no mass (which is debated on the difference between rest mass and inertial mass), we know they are a part of existence because we can observe them, and in cases like gravity, we can observe it's effect on the universe.
If we're going to get anywhere, you have to stop using terms and forgetting which terms you used after my reply.
@Damarcast ""I stated energy because you stated energy"" Photons are energy, part of the electromagnetic energy spectrum. Energy isn't matter, energy can produce matter, but is not matter.
@dejesusluisx You know what, are you a poe? No one can be as close minded as you are showing yourself to be. Either that or you are so close-minded that you didn't even read what I wrote or chose to ignore it, or are too dumb to comprehend it.
@haohyou12 Here is the problem, you don't know what you're talking about, that's all. Is like me talking about your significant other and insisting how is she/he from an article I read somewhere. I know God, you don't. There is nothing you can do, say, post, assert or claim that can change that fact. It doesn't matter how smart might be, you are bringing up arguments from ignorance because you have no clue whatsoever of what you're talking about here. If you want to avoid that, try to know God.
@dejesusluisx You are the definition of argument from ignorance. You can't comprehend what I'm saying so you continue to assert god must be behind it.
Seriously, I want to help you, even if some small way.So, I'm done with the whole god thing because you've just admitted to rationalization cant make you question your presumptions and false belief. So, fucking admit this one thing: Carbon forms the backbone of organic molecules is not random chance but require no intervention to do so.
@haohyou12 "I say this makes no logical connection to god because a big energy does not necessitate god" If you ask to a goat herder living 3,000 yrs ago to describe energy, what do you think it will come with? I say is remarkable they were able to grasp concepts as infinite, immaterial, timeless, powerful, ever present and even more remarkable that energy can produce matter, something we just discover in the 20th century. That knowledge could had only come from God. God is real. Open your eyes.
@dejesusluisx " I say is remarkable they were able to grasp concepts as infinite, immaterial, timeless, powerful, ever present "
That is exactly what a primitive goat herder would say because it is made up BS to explain things he couldn't explain at that time. Now we have tools and faculties to find real answers and god is nowhere in them. There is nothing shown to be timeless, immaterial (without real manifestation,) and all powerful.
@dejesusluisx "energy is." Energy is not infinite or all powerful. It is finite, measurable, and ultimately the universe (being open) will reach entropic heat death wherein the universe will go cold. No life, stars, galaxies. No light nor kinetics. All work stops. Everything has limits.
@haohyou12 "I could thank god. Or, I could realize that cancers sometimes go into remission" You can believe whatever you want, but remember you'll be accountable for it.
anyone know where i can find that video he was talking about?
messakg123 1 month ago
God sees you when your sleeping, he knows when your awake.... hey, that sounds familiar... Personally, I have the oddest urge to finish every conversation with a Theist with the words 'they have medication for that now!'
skywize 2 months ago
Apologies for being a musical nit picker- the lead in song is ELP's "The Enemy God Dances with the Black Spirits"
jcgadfly 3 months ago
I'm convinced that I talked too much to God and he got pissed off at me.. so he stopped responding and hid ALL evidence that he exists - or ever existed - to me so that I would become an atheist.
Then again, I could be wrong...
looncraz 3 months ago
Opening song name please?
ytmndman 4 months ago
Your mind set is yet another atrocity religion perpetuates.Sex is life-affirming; few other worldly pleasures have brought so much joy as the peaks of sexual gratification with someone whom I love.A smooth scotch with a pipe of aged tobacco on a cool autumn twilight is another.The pursuit of scientific knowledge compares.
I am an animal, purely flesh; my sapience is a manifestation of chemical activity in my brain. The pain that makes it real and the pleasures I enjoy are my reasons for life.
haohyou12 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx "I state that this is the only universe we know exists." By using improbability as a proof of god you are assuming that this universe had to exist or no other could, otherwise it doesn't matter how improbable it is that it exists. As you might realize, this is my position. If you would like to change positions and agree with me I am all for that.
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx "because it was an impossible, one shot one hit, in an incomprehensibly improbability of making that hit"
So what? Improbably good and bad things happen constantly. That doesn't necessitate their need for them.
haohyou12 4 months ago
conversation with God,yes i made the sun the water and the rainbow.
no rainbow = no sun or no water.
yes you are all igneramouses.
mickwillie1 4 months ago
this entire video is unintelligent..nothing worth saying has been said. just people trying to sound smart and justifiable.... :rolleyes:
MixTheVision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Well, it's a good thing philosophy means jack shit as a tool to explore reality and rational reasoning via a scientific method actually works. Given that this is the case the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. So, do you have any?
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 There's plenty of scientific evidence that favors overwhelmingly the existence of a force directing the universe than the universe coming into existence out of randomness. The Penrose calculations, Hoyle calculations, the string theory landscape model, the BB model and the definition of energy all points towards a conscious force rather than pure chance. If you're unfamiliar with them, I could explain.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible that God exists.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx A few things: How can you observe god to know it is made of energy or even part of this universe? We don't know what was "before" the big bang or if anything can be "before" the expansion of space-time and energy so it's illogical to make claims about what initiated the big bang and even if energy was present in the form that we know or present at all. And the big kicker: Even if I grant you all these there is not logical connection to god nor is its existence necessary.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "How can you observe god to know it is made of energy or even part of this universe?" Can you feel energy? I guess not, but you can see it's effects, same with God. Watch the BBC documentary: what happened before the big bang and you'll see there is a lot of research in that area.
"there is not logical connection to god" all the explanations point to energy creating the universe, and God revealed that before we knew what energy was, what more proof do you need?
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx I can feel heat energy, see light, observe an object in motion. Energy is demonstrable and measurable. That god is energy is not. Also, you're misunderstanding the nature of the conjecture about what happened "before" the big bang and such things string theory. None of those things are well studied or accepted scientific models, they are merely hypothetical models based on mathematics of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics. They are not observable, proven, nor prove god.
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haohyou12 "That god is energy is not" it is, look at the planets orbiting, the order and movement of the universe and our own existence, they all point to a universal consciousness.
"All evidence points to a godless universe" quite the contrary, all the evidence points to God. The universe works following precise mathematical laws, randomness can't be predicted mathematically. A godless universe would be a random universe.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx The more we explore quantum mechanics the more we find how unnecessary a god figure is. You're simply inputting god where theoretically applicable, but just because god could be the energy that started the big bang or created matter doesn't mean it was. In fact, there is no reason to believe it was. All evidence points to a godless universe. Matter didn't need god to create it, energy doesn't need to be driven by god to cause the big bang, and all observable science displays this.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 The force or energy that created the universe is either conscious or unconscious. An unconscious force will produce a random outcome without any order or pattern. Is the universe random? or we see an order? If the universe isn't random, then the force had to be conscious. The odds of an ordered life permitting universe are 10^10123 as calculated by atheist R. Penrose. A conscious force capable of creating the whole universe can only be called divine. We call this divine energy God.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx You are also falsely presuming order cannot arise without consciousness. Why in the world would you think that? Order certainly can be here without a sapience to mandate it. Look up the hexagonal rock formations in Ireland. There arises an ordered pattern without any consciousness. To look even deeper, the chemical and physical nature of the universe gives rise to an order in matter and energy. Wherever do you get the idea that sapience needed to create order?
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "Why in the world would you think that?" Is a physical law that all things trend towards entropy.
"There arises an ordered pattern without any consciousness" the indeed followed the laws designed by a conscious being.
"the chemical and physical nature of the universe gives rise to an order in matter and energy" they also fallow designed mathematical laws
"Wherever do you get the idea that sapience needed to create order?" animals can't do math, only a conscious being can.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
"Is a physical law that all things trend towards entropy."
It's true that the ultimate fate of the universe is entropic heat death. However, there are subsidiary cycles. When you freeze a glass of water it becomes more ordered at the same time that the heat energy of the water makes something else more chaotic which in turns yields to entropy. Order can occur in a system that in not closed and indeed the universe has been shown to not be a closed universe, rather an open one.
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haohyou12 "When you freeze a glass of water it becomes more ordered at the same time that the heat energy of the water makes something else more chaotic which in turns yields to entropy" You just proved it requires lots of energy to overcome the entropy, therefore, supporting my claim that energy created the universe, and since God is energy, God created the universe.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@haohyou12 All events and movements occur due to natural laws, all laws need a law giver. Nature didn't exist previous to the BB, so nature couldn't had created it's own laws, it's a logical contradiction. You need an external law giver. This law giver would just follow it's own laws, otherwise why would He created them if He wouldn't?
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
"the indeed followed the laws designed by a conscious being."
"they also fallow designed mathematical laws"
This is unsupported conjecture. Where is evidence that the patterns, "laws" needed a law giver. No science shows this, observation suggests that a "lawgiver" for physical and chemical principles of the universe is non-existent and not necessary.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "Where is evidence that the patterns, "laws" needed a law giver" We know animals are not conscious, try to find mathematically precise patters that can be described by laws in any behaviors they do (not in the things they can't control like biological activities).
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx
" try to find mathematically precise patters that can be described by laws in any behaviors they do"
How does this relate to anything? Do you not see there is no logical connection between patterns and sapience? Patterns happen. They do, nothing needs to have dictated it so.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 ""No science shows this"" because this is beyond the realm of science.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
"because this is beyond the realm of science. "
I guess this is really the crux; I feel no belief is justified unless it is supported by demonstrable evidence and rationalization. If you're willing to take unsupported claims like "laws can't exist without lawgivers," and "this universe and life had to be here because it is improbable" as unassailable facts then you've locked yourself into a belief that a god is likely when the fact is nothing suggests or necessitates god.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "I feel no belief is justified unless it is supported by demonstrable evidence and rationalization" and yet you have no evidence to counter the overwhelming mathematical evidence that we are not the product of chance.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx "Nature didn't exist previous to the BB, so nature couldn't had created it's own laws, it's a logical contradiction."
As I've stated no one can reliably say what may have caused the big bang or what may or may not have "existed" prior to it.
Also, you've yet to answer my burning question, Why do you feel life and this universe had to be here?
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Also, you are making a false dichotomy between order and randomness. The universe is both random and order; there can be randomness in an ordered system. If I take a handful of stones and throw it in the air they will fall "randomly" (or not in any pattern.)
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haohyou12 "If I take a handful of stones and throw it in the air they will fall "randomly" (or not in any pattern.)" yes, and you, a conscious being, threw them. Precisely my point, thanks.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx cont.
However, there is order to how they fall. If I can measure their initial velocity, the angle at which they were thrown, and the force of friction due to air I can calculate how high they will go, how long it will take for them to fall, and where they fill fall.
haohyou12 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Also, the Penrose and Hoyle calculations are absolute bunk. They prove less than nothing. They, by their very nature, are faulty models for measuring the "chance" of their claims and do nothing to support the idea that the universe and life couldn't be here without a conscious creator. Also, they have an unsubstantiated presumption that there can only be this type of universe with this type of life and that some kind of predetermination necessitates our existence.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "They prove less than nothing" They prove neither the universe nor us are the product of chance. Even if you assume that they err by an astonishing 99% and the calculations are just 1% reality, that is more than enough evidence to say chance is a statistical improbability.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx You don't understand what I'm saying about those calculations, do you? So what if the probability of this universe forming is .000000001%. Guess what? If the slightest thing was off the universe wouldn't be here, a different one would. This universe is here because things happened as they did. There's no predetermination that the universe as we see it had to be like this. Don't assume there was a goal to create this specific universe.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "There's no predetermination that the universe as we see it had to be like this" actually the low chances for us to be here is the evidence we aren't the product of chance, is hitting you in the face and you don't see it.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx No, you don't see that you're making a logical error in presuming that we are here in spite of a small chance as if by some predetermination that life and the universe was meant to and had to be this way. I'm making this up right now, let's see of it works.
Imagine standing at the edge of a football field. The field is painted into a grid with 1ft x 1ft squares. Each square represents a possible universe. You take a ball and throw it into the air.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx cont.
As the ball is flying a bird swoops by and knocks it 10ft to the left. It continues to fall and the wind picks up by 5pmh and pushes it to the right. Then, as the ball is landing a groundhog pops up and the ball hits the groundhog in the head and it takes an extra bounce, being deflected a couple feet and the ball lands in a square.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx cont.
Now, the chances of all these events taking place to get the ball to that specific square are nearly impossibly slim if you decide that the ball was meant to and had to land in that square via these processes. If even the slightest thing was off, the bird took an extra .5sec eating its breakfast that morning and wasn't in the right spot to hit the ball, the wind was 1mph faster, the groundhog was smushed by a car earlier, and it would be impossible to get the ball there.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 ""Now, the chances of all these events taking place to get the ball to that specific square are nearly impossibly slim"" The analogy fails because the ball has the same chance of falling into any of the squares, the fact that many improbable events happened to make the ball land in a particular square, doesn't make that particular square less probable in itself. Our universe is not one of 10^10123 existing, our universe is the only one existing in out of 10^10123 chances to exist.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx EXACTLY. I stipulated that, "..if you decide that the ball was meant to and had to land in that square via these processes," which is what you are doing with life and the universe.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "which is what you are doing with life and the universe" No, is not like that, you have to prove first the existence of trillions upon trillions of other universes.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx You are predetermine that the universe had to be here and this way despite all the chances it might not just as the person who threw the ball predetermined that it had to land in that square via all those unlikely events.
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haohyou12 "You are predetermine that the universe had to be here and this way" is a one shot out of an impossible shot, hit right on the spot. Only a direct intent could had accomplished a shot like that.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx The point I'm making is that it is just as likely a different universe with the same probable constraints could have existed or no universe at all and that you have no proof otherwise.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 I'll try to follow your analogy with a more realistic calculation, and I'm making this up now too: have you played marbles? if you take a marble an shoot it randomly at space to hit another marble hidden in between a trillion, trillion universes like ours, that would roughly give you one chance in 10^52, and the funny thing is you hit the marble from the first shot!!! Now the aim for our universe is ridiculously more difficult, is 10^10123!! Do you realize now God is looking at you?
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Again, you're still making the predetermination that this universe has to be here like this. You''re shooting a marble into a sea of marbles. There's a 10^10123 chance of hitting the one specific marble an dif it misses that marble it hits another one.
Why do you have the predetermination that this universe had to be here? Why do you feel life had to be here?
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "You''re shooting a marble into a sea of marbles. There's a 10^10123 chance of hitting the one specific marble an dif it misses that marble it hits another one." There's no sea of marbles, there are no even two universes much less 10^10120, the statement is absurd.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "Why do you feel life had to be here?" because it was an impossible, one shot one hit, in an incomprehensibly improbability of making that hit. The odds the same person wins every lottery, every week, on every state for all his life are about 10^14, and no one in his right mind would say is perfectly acceptable to believe there was no intervention at all to alter the results. The odds the universe suitable for life are 10^10123, and you say is OK to believe there was no intervention?
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx cont.
So what would have happened? The ball would have landed in any other square. Apply this to the universe. If the slightest thing was off we wouldn't be here, but something else would. Where is your evidence that this universe had to have ended up this way? Where is your evidence that we had to be here? You're making a false presumption that this universe was intended to be like this despite the slim chances of it arising due to probable constraints and that no other could.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Futher, Hoyle's calculations are false not only due to my football ball analogy, but also because of what I just stated, a certain order exists in chemistry and physics. The constituents that make life have a natural affinity to coalesce. It is simply a manifestation of matter like any other. Sure, there was chance involved in creating this specific life and us, but if it didn't happen as it did than some other life may or may not be here (which lends itself to my first point.)
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 If you put in a test tube a soup of all the components needed to form a living cell, taken from thousands of actual cells, you can't form even one cell out of random rearrangements. Scientists have been trying for decades, with the latest knowledge, resources and instruments available at their disposal, to create life in the lab. When they succeed, they'll prove life is designed. If the components had an affinity as you said, then new cells could easily be formed like a chem reaction
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Stop changing the subject, there are so many things left undone.
Do you understand your faults in the entropy situation?
Where is your evidence that a "lawgiver" was needed for physical and chemical principles of the universe despite all observation?
Do you understand how no one can say what may have caused the big bang or what may or may not have "existed" prior to it and that these physical and chemical principles may not have applied?
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 Watch the BBC documentary "what happened before the big bang
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx "Watch the BBC documentary "what happened before the big bang"
I will. I am, however, familiar with much of the quantum mechanics and theoretical physics currently circulating and you have to understand that they are unobserved, unsupported hypothetical models (like string theory) and though they may be interesting and help us understand things and may or may not be real, no one takes them as fact. Further, none of those models, though they can, make a true connection to a god.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "Further, none of those models, though they can, make a true connection to a god" God is a conscious being and is His desire that we get to Him through faith and not through reason, in spite of that we had come up with pretty good arguments for His existence and every new scientific discovery bring us closer and closer to understand God's true nature. That in itself is a remarkable achievement. If God would not exist, we would had been able to conclusively prove so many years ago.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
"every new scientific discovery bring us closer and closer to understand God's true nature. "
Well that's just not true. God is no where observable and every quantum mechanical theory that is produced continues to show how unnecessary he is.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
If I may make a suggestion, watch Lawrence Krauss' lecture "A Universe From Nothing"
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
Where is evidence that order needs sapience since, again, observation does no suggest this?
Why do you feel life and this universe had to be here, since the whole point that it is improbable it could without a god hinges upon it?
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
"you have to prove first the existence of trillions upon trillions of other universes."
"There's no sea of marbles, there are no even two universes much less 10^10120"
I'm not saying there's a sea of marbles, especially because we can only observe this one. You state this is the only possible universe, further, this universe is predetermined. Where is your proof of that. It doesn't matter if any other universe is possible simply that there's no evidence this on is necessary.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "You state this is the only possible universe," no, I state that this is the only universe we know exists. You need to prove there are 10^10123 universes to support your claim or analogy about probabilities and to justify our existence without divine intervention.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
"You need to prove there are 10^10123 universes"
As I've stated, I make no such claim. My argument doesn't hinge on whether they actually exist. Simply that you make the claim that this universe is the only one that can exist and there is no evidence of this. Observably, this universe exists with principles that if different it wouldnt be here. My position is: It doesn't matter whether any other universe could be here, but so what if another was or none at all?
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "Simply that you make the claim that this universe is the only one that can exist and there is no evidence of this" I never claim that, I claimed this is the only one that exists not that is the only one that can exist, they are two very different things.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx "I claimed this is the only one that exists not that is the only one that can exist" They both lead to the same conclusion, where is evidence that it is the only one that exists and more importantly since it doesn't really matter whether it is the only one: even if it was, the improbability of it does not prove god.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx "I claimed this is the only one that exists not that is the only one that can exist,"
Also, you realize if you say that this isn't the only universe that could exist you've destroyed your argument that improbability proves god? If any other universe could have happened it doesn't matter how improbable this or any other one may be.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx "no evidence to counter the overwhelming mathematical evidence that we are not the product of chance."
That is very backwards reasoning. First of all, not all of it was chance, as I've said, the properties of this universe allow much of it to act in an order way with chance (remember my false dichotomy thing?) and AGAIN so... fucking... what if it is improbable that we are here. Why do we have to be here to give that improbability any meaning?
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "what if it is improbable that we are here" You still not get it, the improbability is that we are here due to chance, not that we are here. That we are here is not improbable because we are here, but we are here because there is a conscious energy that beat the odds and decided we should be here.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx
"You still not get it, the improbability is that we are here due to chance, not that we are here. That we are here is not improbable because we are here, but we are here because there is a conscious energy that beat the odds and decided we should be here."
You say it is too improbable that we are here therefore a god mandated it to be so. We've come back around to the start.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Nothing proves this universe had to be here as opposed to any other or none at all. If you agree that another universe could exist or this one may not have, then there are no improbable odds to beat because it doesn't matter how improbable it was because anything else could have happened.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 I don't get you point, you're not making any sense.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx "I don't get you point, you're not making any sense"
Ok.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx The problem here lies in that you feel a god predetermined that this universe and we, life, had to exist and therefore overcame improbable odds. That is unsupported and a presumption that cannot be logically or observably made.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "That is unsupported and a presumption that cannot be logically or observably made" That is supported by the mathematical calculation of atheist Roger Penrose using 30+ cosmological parameters and the potential values those parameters can take.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx That number shows the improbability of a universe that supports life. Not that a universe that supports life had to exist as opposed to one that doesn't or none at all.
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haohyou12 "Not that a universe that supports life had to exist as opposed to one that doesn't or none at all." I don't know why you keep repeating that when that wasn't what I asserted, is probably your close mindedness that doesn't let you understand the argument.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
Also, I'd like to clarify something. You keep attributing things to a god (like those theoretical models you saw in that documentary.) They may to you seem like evidence of god, but the truth is what I keep saying "they make no logical connection to god." What I mean by this is this: I could pray that my aunt's cancer goes away. If it "miraculously" does, I could thank god. Or, I could realize that cancers sometimes go into remission.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 cont.
Even if I grant you that current physics apply, some great force of energy had to have created the BB, you could say that matches your definition of god exactly (which I continue to contest, by the way. You have observable way make claims about god's nature, you simply take that which is in the bible as predetermined fact.) However, so what if a large energy was needed to make the BB? I say this makes no logical connection to god because a big energy does not necessitate god.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12
Where is the evidence that this energy needed to be god or come from god?
Just because something fits your predetermined and assumed claims about what god is or does does not mean that it is god and it is not a logical conclusion to come to without evidence of the claim, especially because all that is observable has a striking lack of evidence for a god's hand. (Also, improbability is not evidence of god.)
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 If it has a beak like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, and if my eternal life would depend on it, I would say is definitively a duck until someone brings a truckload of evidence to prove it's an elephant.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx "God is a conscious being and is His desire that we get to Him through faith and not through reason"
You've found the end to all debates I've had with theists. You have no rational reason or evidence to believe a god exists. If you want to take it on faith than there is nothing I can say or prove to change your mind. At least now, hopefully, you realize why your arguments hold no water in trying to prove god.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "You have no rational reason or evidence to believe a god exists" I gave you five reasonable scientific arguments. The problem is not the arguments, is your close mindedness. I can tell you that the sky is blue and of you don't want to take off your yellow glasses you'll see it green. You are the problem, not the theists you're debating. You're hypnotized by an evil cult that forever wants to grasp your soul. Open your eyes.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx " I gave you five reasonable scientific arguments. " And I explained why they do not prove god. I have no soul and I'm ok with that. More than ok actually.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "And I explained why they do not prove god" They support the fact that: 1. we are not the product of chance, therefore a force intervened to create the universe. 2. That force or energy had to be conscious to be so unbelievably accurate. 3. God is defined as energy and energy has been defined to be present before the BB. The existence of a conscious energy is the best explanation to date for the origin of the universe.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx So, you've read nothing of what I said because I dispelled all those false claims. Even now you use such twisted, meaningless terms as "conscious energy." I'm done with this. I'm really sorry you've poisoned your mind with predeterminations and untrue statements that you are so incapable of discerning truthful claims and unable to rationalize.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "I dispelled all those false claims" only in your mind, you didn't read my counter arguments? My arguments stands because of your lack of logical claims to disprove them. If you want to continue with your ways is your choice. But there's an alternative. You will not hear a voice from the ski or see a light. This is all you’ll get, this message. Reason won't get you there, only Faith can. Don’t loose your soul trying to win silly arguments, isn't worth it.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx You didn't have counter arguments. You repeated the first things that I had countered
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx A lot of what you said didn't need to be disproved because most of my points are that what you said aren't proven in the first place and re baseless conjecture that you have as predeterminated and falsely taken as fact. That is what I was trying to show you but you fail to understand this.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 you've shown nothing.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx I think you finally see you're wrong at least about this one point but can't admit it...
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 sorry, but you keep failing.
I planted the seed; that was my mission, now is up to you. You will not hear a voice from heaven or see a light. You will only get this message. My job is done. You still have hope. GBY
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Seriously, and you think I'm the one who is closed minded. You've literally gained nothing from days of talking and have exactly the same opinions even when I have demonstrated with not just logic but evidence and definitions that aren't consistent with some of what you say, like the false dichotomy between random chance and order and why we don't have to either be chanced occurences or creations. You're pathetic, and I honestly feel bad for you.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "like the false dichotomy between random chance and order" events are without any intervention (random or pure chance) or with intervention (non-random), what is the false dichotomy there? If you prove that events can't be random, there is an intervention, the kind of intervention will have to be determined. The intervention can be conscious or unconscious. Is here that order determines is conscious. You're more confused than your FSM god. You haven't read or understood the replies.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
"events are without any intervention (random or pure chance) or with intervention (non-random), what is the false dichotomy there?"
Example: The fact that carbon molecules form the backbone of organic molecules is not random chance but require no intervention to do so. Your point has been disproven numerous times in this way by me yet you do not see it. The rest of the conversation has taken place much like this one specific point.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "The fact that carbon molecules form the backbone of organic molecules is not random chance but require no intervention to do so" A bad example, one thing has nothing to do with the other, this example just shows how little you know about anything.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Right, how little I know about anything. Except that it disproves your premise that order can only come from intervention.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Your reasoning is a mockery on rationality; it's a perverted representation of preconceived notions and false premises based on no evidence and make no logical connection to nor necessitate a god's existence.
You know what, you've said one correct thing. You told me not to waste my soul. While I don't believe I have one, I do have a finite amount of time to enjoy sentience. So, I'm going to have a drink and then have sex with my girlfriend. Yeah... yeah. That's what I'll do now.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 predictable, third rate consciousness level, selfish animal instinctive behavior.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
haohyou12 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 When you truly love someone you would treat this person with dignity and respect, not use her for you selfish pleasure. You use your couple as an object if you don't give them stability and an honorable relationship she deserves. Love means self sacrifice, not self indulgence.
That is the core difference between us. The fourth consciousness level requires that you reject materialism and selfishness. Rejecting your selfish animal instincts is the way.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx That is the first thing you've said that actually offends me. You've taken one of the most enjoyable things a person can do and made it disgusting. Having sex with someone is not selfish, it does not make a person an object, and it is not dishonorable. Are you suggesting women don't enjoy sex? Because I can assure you, we both think it's a wonderful expression of our love and relish our ability to engage in it together. If you don't understand this, perhaps you're doing wrong?
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Might I suggest a sex counselor? Man, I thought I pitied you. Your poor partner...
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Material is all there is. I suggest you enjoy it without falsely demeaning it.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Like I said, one of the terrible atrocities of religion. How did you possibly gather from what I said that I somehow objectified and demeaned my girlfriend and displayed nothing but selfishness by saying I like to have sex with her? That is truly disgusting, that you've can take something that we find beautiful and pleasurable to both of us and somehow label it as dishonorable and disgusting.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Rejecting your animal instincts is the way alright. The way to lie to yourself.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 Use your God given intuition: who shows a higher consciousness level?, who kills or who respects life?, who enslaves or who frees?, who envy or who love?, who is selfish or who is selfless?, who is materialistic or who is spiritual?. We are due to move to the next consciousness level by rejecting all materialism and selfishness. Those were Jesus teachings, which atheism reject. God will act, and anyone that refuse to move may be expendable. Open your eyes and live like Christ today.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx You are stupid and disgusting.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "You are stupid and disgusting" that means you finally realize the truth is in my side and it hurts, I know it hurts, I was a non-believer. That phase you're going through is called denial. Accepting the truth takes time and lots of meditation and prayer. There is hope, seek the love of Christ and truth shall be revealed.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Oh come off it. You know that's not true. I say you're stupid and disgusting because you have perverted logic and have twisted views on sex.
Jesus can suck it. In fact he probably should have, then he wouldn't have been wasting so much time lying about god to people.
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haohyou12 Don't you want to know the truth?
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx What I don't understand is how you don't see that there is no reasons to believe in god. You claim you have 5 scientific ones but I've that they don't prove god at all. Some of them aren't even stable claims in their own right.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 Don’t close yourself to the possibility. If I am wrong, I got nothing to lose, I lived a good life and have many friends because of it; but what if you are wrong?
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Pascal's Wager is a pitiful argument. I'm not going to waste my breath explaining why. Go to talkorigins's archive on pascal's wager, come back and tell me if you'll ever have the hubris to spew that verbal diarrhea ever again.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 I've seen the rebuttals, and they all come from an argument of ignorance, therefore invalid. They claim there are many Gods and dogmas, but there is only one God and if you're in His wavelength you can be saved regardless of your dogma.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Oh, so that's why you used "argument from ignorance" incorrectly before. You assume your preconceived notions are fact and "ignorance" refers to anything that doesn't agree with them.
The term "argument from ignorance" refers to a logical fallacy in which someone who does not have an answer or cannot understand the answer asserts therefore an unsupported claim from their predeterminations must be correct (in your case, your christian god.)
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haohyou12 ""The term "argument from ignorance" refers to a logical fallacy"" I'm not using the term argument of ignorance to assert a logical fallacy, If I had I would had used the term "appeal to ignorance" which is the correct term to describe the fallacy you refer to, what I meant was literally, that the person saying God is X or Y without knowing God, is arguing from their ignorance because they don't know God.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
"what if you are wrong?"
Dude
Did you just defecate Pascal's Wager into an argument?
boyinthedrain 4 months ago
Comment removed
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
"If I am wrong, I got nothing lose"
What if Muslims are right?
Then you will be roasting in Hell just like me
But I won't have lost anything because I will have lived a life based on honesty and not based on believing something to cover my ass from a murderous demon
boyinthedrain 4 months ago
@boyinthedrain "What if Muslims are right?" They are right. People throughout the ages have been confused about God and had created weird dogmas to describe Him. There's only one God, one Divine Consciousness, one conscious energy that created the universe with many names and dogmas created by men over many centuries in our desire to understand his essence. Dogmas might be real or not, but God is real, and to understand that reality you need to be in his wavelength.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx
"There's only one God"
How do you know this?
What if there are many?
boyinthedrain 4 months ago
@boyinthedrain God is energy and to be in tune with energy, you need to be in it's same wavelength. The same with God, you need to be in His wavelength to be saved. Buddhists call it Nirvana or Enlightenment, Hindus call that Moksha, Islam calls it Taubah and we call it living in Grace. There's only one Divine Consciousness with many names and dogmas, but just one reality. You can be spiritual and be one with God consciousness without religion, but to get somewhere, a map is always helpful.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx
"but to get somewhere, a map is always helpful"
So is a map whose directions have been verified.
According to Christianity, if I do NOT believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins, I will go to Hell.
According to Islam, if Ii DO believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, I will go to hell.
How do I determine which path is correct?
And what sort of a--hole God would punish someone for belief?
boyinthedrain 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
You need medication.
Damarcast 2 months ago
@Damarcast God isn't a physical being, is an immaterial being, a spirit, a form of energy. Have you heard the phrase God is love? Try to explain the existence of love through science. Theoretical parameters and intangibles don’t fall into the realm of science because science uses empirical data and experiments to prove its theories and that cannot be done with intangibles. That's why other disciplines like philosophy or theology study them.
dejesusluisx 2 months ago
@dejesusluisx
Energy has mass. Physical.
Love is explained through science. It's a brain state formed by a combination of released chemicals and electrical impulses.
Theories do fall within the realm of science. Any decent theory will be based on some amount of fact and will attempt to explain something not currently known. Just because we may not be able at the time to prove the theory doesn't mean science can't formulate one.
The word you were looking for was bullshit.
Damarcast 2 months ago
@Damarcast ""Energy has mass"" Photons are mass less. ""Love is explained through science"" ""The word you were looking for was bullshit"" I guess those two quotes go together...
""Theories do fall within the realm of science"" God isn't a theory, is a conscious being.
dejesusluisx 2 months ago
@dejesusluisx
You really haven't studied physics or modern medicine. You can google it.
You mentioned theories so I stated theories, are you really not capable of recalling what you yourself typed?
If God is a conscious being, and likely by your theology to have existed before the universe came to be (though I can't tell because what you type sounds like new age bullshit), what evidence do you have that a mind and consciousness can exist without a brain for it?
Damarcast 2 months ago
@Damarcast The only explanation cognitive scientists have for our consciousness is the fact that we have a greater capacity to store information than animals, if that is the case, then energy can store an infinite amount of information, so energy can be conscious.
dejesusluisx 2 months ago
@dejesusluisx
How does that explain anything? Would you argue a dog is not conscious?
My hard drive stores information, is it conscious?
Damarcast 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Damarcast "Would you argue a dog is not conscious?" There are levels of consciousness, they have what is call action/reaction consciousness, which is the same to say instinctive consciousness. No other animal has the level of consciousness we have. We are the only animal with a self programming brain, which is the capacity to reject or act contrary to our instincts.I explain that concept in some of the videos have uploaded.
dejesusluisx 2 months ago
@dejesusluisx
Not to mention I didn't state photons, I stated energy because you stated energy. And even if photons themselves have no mass (which is debated on the difference between rest mass and inertial mass), we know they are a part of existence because we can observe them, and in cases like gravity, we can observe it's effect on the universe.
If we're going to get anywhere, you have to stop using terms and forgetting which terms you used after my reply.
Damarcast 2 months ago
@Damarcast ""I stated energy because you stated energy"" Photons are energy, part of the electromagnetic energy spectrum. Energy isn't matter, energy can produce matter, but is not matter.
dejesusluisx 2 months ago
@dejesusluisx I don't understand how you cannot understand what I say and continue to hold your illogical presumptions and views.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx You know what, are you a poe? No one can be as close minded as you are showing yourself to be. Either that or you are so close-minded that you didn't even read what I wrote or chose to ignore it, or are too dumb to comprehend it.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 Here is the problem, you don't know what you're talking about, that's all. Is like me talking about your significant other and insisting how is she/he from an article I read somewhere. I know God, you don't. There is nothing you can do, say, post, assert or claim that can change that fact. It doesn't matter how smart might be, you are bringing up arguments from ignorance because you have no clue whatsoever of what you're talking about here. If you want to avoid that, try to know God.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx You are the definition of argument from ignorance. You can't comprehend what I'm saying so you continue to assert god must be behind it.
Seriously, I want to help you, even if some small way.So, I'm done with the whole god thing because you've just admitted to rationalization cant make you question your presumptions and false belief. So, fucking admit this one thing: Carbon forms the backbone of organic molecules is not random chance but require no intervention to do so.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx I just listen to people like you and don't understand how logic can become so perverted. It truly saddens and frustrates me.
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haohyou12 "don't understand how logic can become so perverted" is not logic that is perverted, is your understanding of truth.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "I say this makes no logical connection to god because a big energy does not necessitate god" If you ask to a goat herder living 3,000 yrs ago to describe energy, what do you think it will come with? I say is remarkable they were able to grasp concepts as infinite, immaterial, timeless, powerful, ever present and even more remarkable that energy can produce matter, something we just discover in the 20th century. That knowledge could had only come from God. God is real. Open your eyes.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx " I say is remarkable they were able to grasp concepts as infinite, immaterial, timeless, powerful, ever present "
That is exactly what a primitive goat herder would say because it is made up BS to explain things he couldn't explain at that time. Now we have tools and faculties to find real answers and god is nowhere in them. There is nothing shown to be timeless, immaterial (without real manifestation,) and all powerful.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "There is nothing shown to be timeless, immaterial (without real manifestation,) and all powerful" energy is.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dejesusluisx "energy is." Energy is not infinite or all powerful. It is finite, measurable, and ultimately the universe (being open) will reach entropic heat death wherein the universe will go cold. No life, stars, galaxies. No light nor kinetics. All work stops. Everything has limits.
haohyou12 4 months ago
@haohyou12 "I could thank god. Or, I could realize that cancers sometimes go into remission" You can believe whatever you want, but remember you'll be accountable for it.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Comment removed
haohyou12 4 months ago