God requires spiritual fruit,
NOT religious nuts!
NOT religious nuts!
What's a fruit?
I know trees.
Thank You.
Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 322. (Read 901367 times)
What's a fruit?
I know trees.
Thank You.
God requires spiritual fruit,
NOT religious nuts!
NOT religious nuts!
well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.
The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.
But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.
Give it up dude, you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves. That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws."
One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter. If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize. You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted. Sorry, can't do that.
When you are using standard laws, there is no need to theorize. All that need be done is application.
If you can't put those 3 laws together to see that God exists, that's your problem.
Incorrect. A theory is merely a description of the way something is. Any natural law amounts to a theoretical description of that law. In more refined disciplines, sure, you only need to worry about the application of those laws. But what you're trying to do is prove the existence of an entity which allows for both the laws and the theoretical descriptions of those laws. You can't just assume that the theoretical origins of these laws, and of theorization itself, are sound before trying to prove the existence of the entity which allows the creation of both the laws and their theoretical origins.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:
Quote
theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.
Note that although the first definition, above, suggests that theories are laws, more than one of the others suggest theory is fiction.
Note that the 3 laws, cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy, are laws because of the abundance of observations to that effect, as well as the non-existence of opposition to those laws.
Much of modern physics is starting to be based on Quantum. Quantum is simply advanced probability. This means that the things that are proven by Quantum, have been proven because the researcher was searching for that kind of proof. If a researcher decided to use Quantum to prove the opposite of something already proven by Quantum, he could do that as well.
If a researcher proves pure random using Quantum, another researcher could much more easily prove the non-existence of pure random using quantum. But who is going to look for the non-existence of pure random through Quantum? Nobody, because we already have the law of cause and effect, which proves no pure random. There is no need to prove the non-existence of pure random by Quantum. But if somebody did, it would be a lot easier to do, and a lot firmer, because we already have the law of universal cause and effect.
Quote from: MakingMoneyHoney
read the OT with an open mind.
Why not read Phoenix Journals with an open mind? It is all in plain English with no allegory, including the true teachings of Jesus about karma and reincarnation, and you will not be misled by Pharisees if you ask God within for the truth. "Seek it and ye shall find".I read excerpts you've posted, and I've read the website about it.
I know that it comes from a scribe who claims to be an alien.
It's not true; the scribe Dharma is a Grandmother; the messenger Hatonn is GOD, he is the same as ATON, which is a name of God, and ATON speaks through the Journals with a different voice from Hatonn but they are the same, and Sananda is another messenger whose title mean "One WITH God", and he speaks in a different voice as well, then there are members of the Crew, and finally in the CONTACT newspaper there are writings from humans, and indeed many quotations from human writings are found in the Journals themselves.Therefore, you are getting truth from the horse's mouth, via translation, as explained here:
www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/gch.html
That's what I meant.
"Hatonn is: Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn-Aton. I write through a “Translator”; communications through pulsed short-wave transmission. This is not “psychic channeling nor hocus-pocus”. This is purely “physics” of frequency transmission, receiver termination of transmission and translation of the signal into the English language."
It is channeling and they try to act as if it's not.
Why don't you go and search yourself? I never claimed to have read them all! You can search for the phrase "other speakers" and any other phrase you can come up with!
So you've never read the whole bible and you've never read all the phoenix journals?
well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.
The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.
But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.
Give it up dude, you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves. That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws."
One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter. If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize. You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted. Sorry, can't do that.
When you are using standard laws, there is no need to theorize. All that need be done is application.
If you can't put those 3 laws together to see that God exists, that's your problem.
Incorrect. A theory is merely a description of the way something is. Any natural law amounts to a theoretical description of that law. In more refined disciplines, sure, you only need to worry about the application of those laws. But what you're trying to do is prove the existence of an entity which allows for both the laws and the theoretical descriptions of those laws. You can't just assume that the theoretical origins of these laws, and of theorization itself, are sound before trying to prove the existence of the entity which allows the creation of both the laws and their theoretical origins.
well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.
The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.
But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.
Give it up dude, you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves. That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws."
One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter. If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize. You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted. Sorry, can't do that.
When you are using standard laws, there is no need to theorize. All that need be done is application.
If you can't put those 3 laws together to see that God exists, that's your problem.
well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.
The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.
But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.
Give it up dude, you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves. That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws."
One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter. If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize. You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted. Sorry, can't do that.
well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.
The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.
But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.
I believe in solipsism.
None of you are real and are made up by me, the only one who is!
None of you are real and are made up by me, the only one who is!
Must be awful boring, talking to yourself all the time, and not being able to get any wise answers.
I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.
dood this is the question ,NEWTONS laws could have been made by anyone who did research ..but your fucking religion starts with only ONE
and that ONE is suspicious and LIAR,
If the One that you are talking about is God, He is absolutely NOT a liar. The fact that you say He is, shows that YOU are the liar.
So, let me ask a question. What causes brought you into the effect of being a liar. After all, it wasn't the plan of God that you be a liar.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (341 BCE – 270 BCE)
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
Yes, but you are only looking at a tiny section of the surface of things.
God is able to prevent evil, and He is doing so. Here is how He is doing it.
God formulated a plan whereby His Son came to live in the form of a man. The Son suffered all the punishment for all the evil that mankind has done, so that mankind can be saved for goodness... saved from death and the eternal destruction that it brings.
At the resurrection of the dead, those people who had believed in the Son, Jesus, in this life, will go into everlasting joy and bliss, with both the Father and the Son. Those who have not accepted the salvation offered by the Son, will go into the lake of fire where they will be "melted down" so that their evil is gone and their energy can be returned to God Who made and gave it in the first place.
Thus, there will only be good forever. Everything of this universe will pass away, and will even never be brought back into remembrance. Evil entirely gone. Good remaining forever.
Now, a thought for you to ponder. After you die, how much of this life will you remember?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (341 BCE – 270 BCE)
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.
dood this is the question ,NEWTONS laws could have been made by anyone who did research ..but your fucking religion starts with only ONE
and that ONE is suspicious and LIAR,
Quote from: MakingMoneyHoney
read the OT with an open mind.
Why not read Phoenix Journals with an open mind? It is all in plain English with no allegory, including the true teachings of Jesus about karma and reincarnation, and you will not be misled by Pharisees if you ask God within for the truth. "Seek it and ye shall find".I read excerpts you've posted, and I've read the website about it.
I know that it comes from a scribe who claims to be an alien.
It's not true; the scribe Dharma is a Grandmother; the messenger Hatonn is GOD, he is the same as ATON, which is a name of God, and ATON speaks through the Journals with a different voice from Hatonn but they are the same, and Sananda is another messenger whose title mean "One WITH God", and he speaks in a different voice as well, then there are members of the Crew, and finally in the CONTACT newspaper there are writings from humans, and indeed many quotations from human writings are found in the Journals themselves.Therefore, you are getting truth from the horse's mouth, via translation, as explained here:
www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/gch.html
It was written through someone else, and that is like using a medium.
Translation is not the same thing as mediumship; for example, the first epistle of Peter is thought by most scholars to be written by someone else, and if it WAS dictated by Peter, it is supposed that he dictated it to a scribe who wrote it down for him in a translated form. That is translation, not mediumship, and little-different from how the Journals were produced.The bible says not to consort with mediums, because their info comes from demonic forces.
You cannot judge a book by its cover; in the Journals there are given methods of determining which energy is of the light and which is not.God says "read it all and judge in wisdom of knowledge", and "my people die for lack of knowledge"; how will you get knowledge if your book tells you to "stop seeking" it?
I think I, more than many other people, have read a lot of what you posted about it,
Maybe you would be willing to read a whole Journal then? Like the one about the Laws of God? Or at least you could search on subjects of interest to you, like "other speakers":www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/site_search.html
and I have come to my conclusion (through the Holy Spirit) that it is not true.
Oh, so a voice told you that you can judge the entire contents by just a few paragraphs? If you feel the same way about the bible, then so be it. It was just a suggestion.
There is truth in all Scripture--mine and yours alike. If you have even a little discernment, you will know truth when you read it, and NOT before. I take it there's nothing in the phoenix journals about not listening to mediums, right?
Why don't you go and search yourself? I never claimed to have read them all! You can search for the phrase "other speakers" and any other phrase you can come up with!Quote from: MakingMoneyHoney
read the OT with an open mind.
Why not read Phoenix Journals with an open mind? It is all in plain English with no allegory, including the true teachings of Jesus about karma and reincarnation, and you will not be misled by Pharisees if you ask God within for the truth. "Seek it and ye shall find".I read excerpts you've posted, and I've read the website about it.
I know that it comes from a scribe who claims to be an alien.
It's not true; the scribe Dharma is a Grandmother; the messenger Hatonn is GOD, he is the same as ATON, which is a name of God, and ATON speaks through the Journals with a different voice from Hatonn but they are the same, and Sananda is another messenger whose title mean "One WITH God", and he speaks in a different voice as well, then there are members of the Crew, and finally in the CONTACT newspaper there are writings from humans, and indeed many quotations from human writings are found in the Journals themselves.Therefore, you are getting truth from the horse's mouth, via translation, as explained here:
www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/gch.html
It was written through someone else, and that is like using a medium.
Translation is not the same thing as mediumship; for example, the first epistle of Peter is thought by most scholars to be written by someone else, and if it WAS dictated by Peter, it is supposed that he dictated it to a scribe who wrote it down for him in a translated form. That is translation, not mediumship, and little-different from how the Journals were produced.The bible says not to consort with mediums, because their info comes from demonic forces.
You cannot judge a book by its cover; in the Journals there are given methods of determining which energy is of the light and which is not.God says "read it all and judge in wisdom of knowledge", and "my people die for lack of knowledge"; how will you get knowledge if your book tells you to "stop seeking" it?
I think I, more than many other people, have read a lot of what you posted about it,
Maybe you would be willing to read a whole Journal then? Like the one about the Laws of God? Or at least you could search on subjects of interest to you, like "other speakers":www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/site_search.html
and I have come to my conclusion (through the Holy Spirit) that it is not true.
Oh, so a voice told you that you can judge the entire contents by just a few paragraphs? If you feel the same way about the bible, then so be it. It was just a suggestion.
There is truth in all Scripture--mine and yours alike. If you have even a little discernment, you will know truth when you read it, and NOT before. I take it there's nothing in the phoenix journals about not listening to mediums, right?
Why don't you go and search yourself? I never claimed to have read them all! You can search for the phrase "other speakers" and any other phrase you can come up with! In other words, why do atheists prefer to explain away observations by making up stories without any evidence?
Perhaps they are unaware of truth, or they are closed-minded, so they lash out against religions, which try to teach truth, but usually fail.
Perhaps they are unaware of truth, or they are closed-minded, so they lash out against religions, which try to teach truth, but usually fail.
what is this "truth" you speak of? are you saying there is some kind of universal truth? how would you (or anyone) be able to recognize it as such?
Moreover, the survival hypothesis has been validated, and it is backed up by over 50 points of evidence. Careful study of the evidence brings one to the same conclusion that Chopra made: "Who you meet in the afterlife and what you experience there reflect your present beliefs, expectations, and level of awareness. In the here and now, you can shape what happens after you die."
generally, religions, too, make unprovable assumptions about existence and of "truth." is lashing out against them unreasonable?
In one sense, you should chastise the irrational and unreasonable, in another, it is not your duty to "save" everyone and bring them the truth; your duty is basically to understand who you are and why you are here, and to obey God's Laws.my approach is to be skeptical of anything that is unprovable, unknowable. by definition, since human perception is subjective, that is virtually all knowledge.
It is good to be skeptical, even of science, which is "unprovable" by most accounts; the problem comes when those who claim to be skeptical refuse to look at evidence and instead decide to make up stories to explain away the evidence even though the stories have no empirical basis.in other words, to be either a theist or an atheist is a nonsensical position to me.
Well, since the only two possible answers to the question "Does God exist?" is either "yes" or "no", then the only two positions available are either theist or atheist; therefore, you must think that the QUESTION of God is nonsensical, but I suspect that this will make a bit more sense to you if you read my proof of God:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300
I believe in solipsism.
None of you are real and are made up by me, the only one who is!
None of you are real and are made up by me, the only one who is!
I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.
The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.
Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.
1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.
God.
The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.
Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.
1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.
God.
newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true.
if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.
the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations.
I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.
it doesn't matter if they are understandable. newtonian physics is provably false. why would i use them for a basis to understand anything?
"Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
sure, i can use "2+2=5" as a basis to "figure something out." that doesn't mean it will yield useful results.
You are free, of course, to continue to go around in circles with this. Nobody, not even God, attempts to force anybody into understanding or believing anything... except the public schools, that is.
well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.
for reference, i'll repost what i believe to be the crux of the issue:
that's a tad dishonest. if we are going to discuss "existence", don't dumb down the complexity of the issue. if we can accept mere observations as truth, then there is absolutely no reason to discuss existence at all. the earth is still flat, etc. etc.---it was observed to be true at some point, yes? thus, to define "subjective perception" as "truth" is inherently wrong. it cannot be verified as objectively true.
in your example, there is a big difference between applying practical knowledge (which is useful but not necessarily true) and establishing universal truth. the question of the existence of god(s) necessarily falls into the latter category, as it attempts to make an objective/universal statement about existence.
sure, we have practical knowledge that the universe is complex---that says nothing about why it is complex, or if that idea even hold meaning at all. complexity, after all, is merely a relative term.
here is an example: say, i write something with a pencil (and you observe me doing so). one could say---as a practical truth---that i wrote something with a pencil. HOWEVER, from a universal perspective, the pencil may not, in fact, exist. and i may, in fact, just be a figment of your imagination. i may not exist at all. so then, to say that "i wrote something with a pencil"---while you may observe this to be true---may be universally false.
subjectivity is a bitch, ain't it? too bad there is no omniscient god to whisper all universal truths in our ears. because even if we thought there was, we would never be able to tell it apart from a hallucination.
in your example, there is a big difference between applying practical knowledge (which is useful but not necessarily true) and establishing universal truth. the question of the existence of god(s) necessarily falls into the latter category, as it attempts to make an objective/universal statement about existence.
sure, we have practical knowledge that the universe is complex---that says nothing about why it is complex, or if that idea even hold meaning at all. complexity, after all, is merely a relative term.
here is an example: say, i write something with a pencil (and you observe me doing so). one could say---as a practical truth---that i wrote something with a pencil. HOWEVER, from a universal perspective, the pencil may not, in fact, exist. and i may, in fact, just be a figment of your imagination. i may not exist at all. so then, to say that "i wrote something with a pencil"---while you may observe this to be true---may be universally false.
subjectivity is a bitch, ain't it? too bad there is no omniscient god to whisper all universal truths in our ears. because even if we thought there was, we would never be able to tell it apart from a hallucination.
I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.
The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.
Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.
1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.
God.
The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.
Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.
1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.
God.
newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true.
if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.
the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations.
I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.
it doesn't matter if they are understandable. newtonian physics is provably false. why would i use them for a basis to understand anything?
"Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
sure, i can use "2+2=5" as a basis to "figure something out." that doesn't mean it will yield useful results.
You are free, of course, to continue to go around in circles with this. Nobody, not even God, attempts to force anybody into understanding or believing anything... nobody except the public schools, that is.
I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.
The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.
Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.
1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.
God.
The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.
Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.
1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.
God.
newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true.
if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.
the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations.
I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.
it doesn't matter if they are understandable. newtonian physics is provably false. why would i use them for a basis to understand anything?
"Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
sure, i can use "2+2=5" as a basis to "figure something out." that doesn't mean it will yield useful results.
Jump to: