Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Notice how dumb Atheists can be

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Notice how dumb Atheists can be

    The Atheists assume the Creator is somehow required to make every planet habitable, so then because most planets aren't habitable, he calls it "stupid design".

    Not so. The Creator is not "required" to do anything, any way. Got that?

    The Creator could make one habitable planet in the Universe if he wants to do so, and the fermi Paradox suggests that may well be close to the truth..

    https://phys.org/news/2018-03-theory...positions.html

    #2
    This reminds me of how they are still hung up on the 1+-1=0 argument.

    There is almost no anti-matter in the Universe, and all antimatter in the known universe is created by collisions of ordinary matter.

    There is no reason to assume that the Universe was created with equal parts matter and anti-matter; That's a fairy tale.

    Therefore teh Standard Model makes a COLOSSAL false prediction, which is to say it predicts there should be equal parts matter and anti-matter.

    Why does it make a false prediction? Because Atheists start with the assumption of "No God" and force the "everything came from nothing" parameter into the equation, which the deceased Stephen Hawking invented.

    But he forgot to quote Rene Descartes, "From nothing comes nothing," and certainly laws don't come from nothing.

    So, Ordinary matter was created by God, and Ordinary Matter was created with certain properties so that when certain collisions occur then anti-matter particles are produced.

    So, the "Standard Model" of particle physics correctly describes ordinary matter, but it incorrectly predicts the existence of an 50% anti-matter universe. in reality, less than 1/( 1*10^30) of the universe is antimatter.

    In other words, the lack of Anti-Matter and the lack of "Negative Energy" is evidence of Creation.

    There is actually a lot more positive energy than just what this article is talking about. Zero Point Energy has been detected too, and it is positive, and there is more Zero Point energy in the space of an empty glass than all the ordinary "Mass-Energy" in the entire universe combined.

    In other words, the standard Model is close, but no cigar...hehehe. God did it anyway.
    Last edited by Wade; March 24th, 2018, 07:55 AM. Reason: Summary

    Comment


      #3
      https://phys.org/news/2018-03-hawkin...-universe.html

      "God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator." - Stephen Hawking.

      What an idiot this guy really was.

      He's the one with the 1+(-1) = 0 syndrome.

      Problem, mister deluded Physicist, is your theories don't actually work, as I pointed out above, the Standard Model of Particle Physics predicts half the Universe should be anti-matter, which ultimately means it actually predicts the entire universe ought to be Gamma Rays.


      Once you can believe everything came from nothing, well then you are prepared to believe any lie anybody tells you.

      Comment


        #4
        Do you do this stuff for your own benefit? If you do it in hopes we'll agree with you, we won't, lol.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Chara View Post
          Do you do this stuff for your own benefit? If you do it in hopes we'll agree with you, we won't, lol.
          Hey, "Christian", who never heard of Logos, you should care, because you're being brainwashed by these liars.

          Hawking tried to use a math equation to explain away God, but he couldn't use an equation to explain away the equation. The equation is a sub-set of "LOGOS", and so in attempting to explain the Universe without God, Hawking accidentally pointed the reader back to God.

          So then you said there was no LOGOS in Christianity, and i said Get a Strong's Concordance and search for the word "Word" as translated in John 1:1. Ah it turns out that "Word" is a (poor) translation of the Greek "Logos". So in fact, Logos is not only "in" Christianity, but it is the foundation of Jesus and his disciples taught. Don't feel too bad about this, I didn't learn this until a few years before I rejected Christianity, because it isn't taught by anybody anyway, and it isn't obvious that a "believer" needs to worry about this situation, unless you debate Atheists.

          But Logos isn't the foundation fo Christianity alone, Logos is the foundation of any true Theology. You'll notice that "Theology" uses a derivative of "Logos" as a suffix.

          "In the Beginning was the Science, and the Science was with God, and the Science was God."

          Comment


            #6
            https://phys.org/news/2018-03-trappi...nets-life.html

            Corrrrrrrect.

            If you have too much water on a planet, the bottom of the ocean turns into exotic ices, typically ice 7, and acts as a solid barrier between the liquid water above and the nutrients of the crust below. Without suspended/dissolved nutrients, you cannot have life, no matter how much water exists on the planet. I first wrote about this problem over 10 years ago when I became aware that exotic ices even existed. It was one of the first "aha" moments I had regarding limitations on extraterrestrial life. It's another variable that needs to be worked out to get the true solution to the Drake Equation, that is, if the Drake equation is even valid. If everything was created by God, the Drake Equation may not even be valid.
            Last edited by Wade; March 24th, 2018, 08:59 AM.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Wade View Post

              Hey, "Christian", who never heard of Logos, you should care, because you're being brainwashed by these liars.

              Hawking tried to use a math equation to explain away God, but he couldn't use an equation to explain away the equation. The equation is a sub-set of "LOGOS", and so in attempting to explain the Universe without God, Hawking accidentally pointed the reader back to God.

              So then you said there was no LOGOS in Christianity, and i said Get a Strong's Concordance and search for the word "Word" as translated in John 1:1. Ah it turns out that "Word" is a (poor) translation of the Greek "Logos". So in fact, Logos is not only "in" Christianity, but it is the foundation of Jesus and his disciples taught. Don't feel too bad about this, I didn't learn this until a few years before I rejected Christianity, because it isn't taught by anybody anyway, and it isn't obvious that a "believer" needs to worry about this situation, unless you debate Atheists.

              But Logos isn't the foundation fo Christianity alone, Logos is the foundation of any true Theology. You'll notice that "Theology" uses a derivative of "Logos" as a suffix.

              "In the Beginning was the Science, and the Science was with God, and the Science was God."
              What I'm saying is we aren't going to follow a word of what you say because you stalk celebrities on facebook lmao. I'm just wondering why you have these conversations with yourself on your own threads

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Chara View Post

                What I'm saying is we aren't going to follow a word of what you say because you stalk celebrities on facebook lmao. I'm just wondering why you have these conversations with yourself on your own threads
                You are so full of shit. I don't stalk celebrities on Facebook, and the only Celebrity I've ever messaged was Selena Gomez, and that was on Twitter.

                At this point, If I knew your real name, I'd get a lawyer and sue you for Libel.

                Comment


                  #9
                  If you want to know where Logos is in the Bible, get a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and search for the 3056th Greek Word. It will be "Logos", the original Greek term translated "Word" in the King James Bible.

                  This is important, because "Word" is not the best translation of this word, but probably "Reasoning" or even "Reasoning Mind" would be better translations.

                  IN which case, John 1:1 would say, "In the Beginning was a Reasoning MInd (Logos) and the Reasoning Mind (Logos) was with God and the Reasoning Mind (Logos) was God....He made all things, and without Him was not anything made which was made."

                  But in any case, the way the Greeks used this word, it means "The Rational Principle which governs reality."

                  In any case, that's where Logos is in Christianity. Derivatives of "Logos" are used all over the New Testament, and they are sometimes poorly translated.


                  Right now, you have an irrational belief in God, because you can't explain your belief in God.

                  I can show you how to have a rational belief in God, without using scripture, but I reserve the right to use scripture when it is correct, and I reserve the right to rebuttal scripture when I perceive that it is incorrect.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Let me explain why you should not be a Christian, but should believe in a God nonetheless.

                    Jesus of Nazareth was a false prophet. He claimed the world was going to come to an end within one generation of his death. It has now been about 100 generations later, and the world still hasn't ended, and not one of his "end time" prophecies has ever come to pass; The closest he came to prophesying correctly was when he forecast the destruction of Herod's Temple, but even this is not technically correct, because parts of the temple complex still remain in tact. He claimed "not one stone would be left upon another," which is patently false, because the walls of the temple's outer court still remain in tact to this day, and devout Jews pray at the wall. It's called the "Wailing Wall". So it is true that the destruction of the Temple is the only prophesy of Jesus which has come "close" to being true, but that could have happened by coincidence anyway, and in any case as I've said it didn't come totally true.

                    Paul, John, Peter, and Jude all taught that the world and the entire universe was going to come to an end "soon" in human terms, specifically claiming it would be burned up, but it has never happened.

                    The end of life on Earth is not likely to happen for another 2 billion years or so, and the end of the universe itself is not likely to happen for an absurdly long time, greater than 10^100th power years.

                    John's closest prophecy to coming true so far is the Red Giant stage of the Sun, which has not happened and might not be guaranteed to happen if the Sun isn't massive enough to burn Helium. John CORRECTLY claimed that the Sun would burn seven times hotter, if we allow the number "seven" to be the Jewish "indefinite number" rather than the literal number 7, which is okay, since it was prophecy. Out of Jesus and all his apostles, this is the ONLY prophecy in the New Testament which has actually a scientific basis and can be calculated. It is currently believed by Cosmologists that the Sun will burn 1000 times brighter during the peak of the Red Giant phase....way to go, John, you got one prophecy correct out of about 100 prophecies in the Book of Revelation.

                    This is why you should not be a Christian, but should believe in a God, "THE GOD OF GODS", anyway.


                    Titus destroyed Herods Temple because there was a rumor that Gold was hidden in the temple, and also because the Jews revolted against Rome. However, Herod's Temple had no Gold in it. The original Temple, allegedly constructed by Solomon, was allegedly made of Cedar and overlain within and without with Gold. Herod's temple was made of Marble and Limestone.
                    Last edited by Wade; March 24th, 2018, 10:17 AM.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      And you think the Ontological Argument holds any weight whatsoever. Turns out everybody can be stupid.
                      Originally posted by Wade
                      Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                        And you think the Ontological Argument holds any weight whatsoever. Turns out everybody can be stupid.
                        If the Ontological argument were the only argument for God, your statement might have a point. However, the Cosmological argument and my own Logos argument and my own chaos argument still exist, and they are stronger than the Ontological argument anyway.

                        Chaos Argument for a God of Order:
                        if reality started as Chaos, then Chaos means anything can happen.
                        If anything can happen, then there can be an Almighty God.
                        An Almighty God can turn Chaos into Order. (see the law of entropy).


                        Logos Argument:
                        Logos is the Rational Principle which governs Reality.
                        The properties of My mind is governed by Logos.
                        Logos must contain the properties of a mind.
                        If Logos contains the properties of a mind, then Logos must be a a sentient Being.
                        Anything as powerful as Logos and having the properties of a mind must be a God.
                        Therefore God exists.

                        Between these two arguments I have shown that the existence of God is inevitable. That is, God would exist even if he didn't exist.
                        Last edited by Wade; March 24th, 2018, 12:21 PM.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          The Ontological Argument attempts to claim that God is the Greatest Conceivable Being, and then attempts to claim that the Greatest Conceivable Being must exist.

                          I don't think that you can claim God is the greatest conceivable being, but rather you can claim that God is the greatest being which actually exists.

                          The Greatest Conceivable Being claim makes logical paradoxes. After all, a Pink unicorn that flies at the speed of light can be said to be ten times greater than the Greatest God, and then you are lying, but you have in fact conceived of a being greater than God.

                          Thus God cannot be the greatest conceivable Being, but he can be the greatest being which actually exists, because there aren't pink flying unicorns that are ten times greater than the greatest conceivable being.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Atheists believe the Logos is almighty, they just don't believe it has a mind.

                            Now look, I showed above that the Logos must contain the properties of a mind because it governs a reality which contains the properties of many minds. If the Logos did not contain the properties of a mind, then it would not be possible for our minds to exist.

                            All laws.
                            All order
                            All Chaos
                            All matter and energy
                            All minds*

                            All are contained and governed by the properties of Logos.

                            *This works because the Logos is a self-contained reality. (Google this, self-containing spaces have been proven to be theoretically possible, such as a Klein Bottle). So the Logos is a self-contained reality. Thus we do not need the "Who created God" nonsense, because God is a self-contained reality.

                            And for the record, the Universe we live in is not self-contained, since it has a beginning.
                            Last edited by Wade; March 24th, 2018, 12:38 PM. Reason: Self contained vs not self contained

                            Comment


                              #15
                              So we know the universe is not self-contained, because the universe had a calculated beginning.

                              So the whole, "Who created God?"

                              Well, God is a self-contained reality and does not require a creator.

                              "Why does the universe require a creator? Couldn't it be self-contained?"

                              The Universe requires a creator because the universe is past finite, re. The Big Bang is the creative event, but the Big Bang is not "The Creator".

                              The Logos can describe God. This is both Transcendence and Self-Containment. Thus God and the Logos are one and the same, and they are self-contained.

                              You may have noticed that the Logos is not a dimensional construction; The Logos can describe both non-dimensional constructions and dimensional constructions, but it is not itself dimensional. It doesn't matter whether there are 4 dimensions or 10, or 11, or 52 or some other number, they are all described and governed by Logos. If they were not governed by Logos then dimensional theories in Geometry, especially higher -dimensional theories used in Physics, they'd all be hogwash. But we know these theories work because we use them all the time. Therefore we know Logos describes and governs them. They are predictable and derivable.

                              Comment


                                #16

                                Comment


                                #17
                                Originally posted by Wade View Post

                                If the Ontological argument were the only argument for God, your statement might have a point. However, the Cosmological argument and my own Logos argument and my own chaos argument still exist, and they are stronger than the Ontological argument anyway.

                                Chaos Argument for a God of Order:
                                if reality started as Chaos, then Chaos means anything can happen.
                                If anything can happen, then there can be an Almighty God.
                                An Almighty God can turn Chaos into Order. (see the law of entropy).


                                Logos Argument:
                                Logos is the Rational Principle which governs Reality.
                                The properties of My mind is governed by Logos.
                                Logos must contain the properties of a mind.
                                If Logos contains the properties of a mind, then Logos must be a a sentient Being.
                                Anything as powerful as Logos and having the properties of a mind must be a God.
                                Therefore God exists.

                                Between these two arguments I have shown that the existence of God is inevitable. That is, God would exist even if he didn't exist.
                                Yeah, all of those arguments are if/then thoughts that don't pan out. Logos (based on your first line)doesn't of necessity contain properties of a mind, it only has the capability of producing a mind, meaning that you can't get away with calling it sentient.

                                Then there's the problem of what a brain is, a mass of nerves firing synapses across ten pounds of nerve tissue. Brains are physical objects that govern the mind. If Logos has a mind, he must have a brain. But brains are physical things, and if Logos is what governs reality Then it could not be physical in nature- because the physical world was created by Logos.

                                If Logos has a brain, then it cannot be powerful enough to be a God, and if it doesn't have a brain then it cannot have properties of a mind, cannot be sentient, and therefore cannot be God.


                                ...But then again, what's the point of arguing? I know your logic isn't enough to persuade me, and I'm 104% Sure you'll never change your mind, so this is a pointless endeavor. Might as well back out of this one-person echo chamber because nothing can be accomplished here.
                                Last edited by OrganizationXV; March 24th, 2018, 02:16 PM.
                                Originally posted by Wade
                                Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

                                Comment


                                  #18
                                  Originally posted by Wade View Post

                                  You are so full of shit. I don't stalk celebrities on Facebook, and the only Celebrity I've ever messaged was Selena Gomez, and that was on Twitter.

                                  At this point, If I knew your real name, I'd get a lawyer and sue you for Libel.
                                  Dude you stalked her. We've seen your tweets, it was beyond creepy. If you wanna get technical then fine, sorry for saying facebook. But none of us will ever take you seriously because of that.

                                  Comment


                                    #19
                                    I blame Rick and Morty tbh.
                                    Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                                    I have this illness called "Having-a-Heart" and gives me this irrational sense of empathy and care for my fellow man.

                                    Comment


                                      #20
                                      Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                                      Yeah, all of those arguments are if/then thoughts that don't pan out. Logos (based on your first line)doesn't of necessity contain properties of a mind, it only has the capability of producing a mind, meaning that you can't get away with calling it sentient.

                                      Then there's the problem of what a brain is, a mass of nerves firing synapses across ten pounds of nerve tissue. Brains are physical objects that govern the mind. If Logos has a mind, he must have a brain. But brains are physical things, and if Logos is what governs reality Then it could not be physical in nature- because the physical world was created by Logos.

                                      If Logos has a brain, then it cannot be powerful enough to be a God, and if it doesn't have a brain then it cannot have properties of a mind, cannot be sentient, and therefore cannot be God.


                                      ...But then again, what's the point of arguing? I know your logic isn't enough to persuade me, and I'm 104% Sure you'll never change your mind, so this is a pointless endeavor. Might as well back out of this one-person echo chamber because nothing can be accomplished here.
                                      The Logos itself is a mind. It's self-containment and self-similarity. I am not able to fully describe this to you in human words because I am not the Creator. I can only describe in this life what works in human words.

                                      Self-containment and self-similarity are known, mathematical and logical constructions, and this is the best way at the moment, that I know to explain to you that the Logos is a mind and it has a mind.

                                      God is like the "Brain Trust", the Mind is the entire Being. In the sense of mechanics, you are partly correct, the "mechanics" of the mind of God are what we call "Spirit". He is not a physical mind, he is a Spirit-MInd. There are mechanics to Spirits, but no religion has ever claimed to know the correct way to describe that, but we can say through Logos that some properties do exist as spirit and some properties do not exist as spirit. Paul tried to explain this a few times in his letters, but I admit for a person who spoke 5 languages fluently, he did a poor job of explaining it.

                                      But God is not a physical brain. He is a spiritual mind. These "mechanics" which I speak of are defined by God himself, so the Spirit-Mind is self-governing, while our minds are not entirely self-governing.

                                      The Spirit of God, or the Mind of God, is such that if you examine a part of the whole, you will find the part is the same as the whole. Changing the scope or scale of an argument does not change the morality or mechanics of God.

                                      That is a property of Transcendence. The God that you cannot know is the same as the God you can know.
                                      Last edited by Wade; March 24th, 2018, 04:11 PM.

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X