How much of whatsupyall/musclemans's posts do u comprehend?

[MarcAC]

French

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
what do you mean by a "factor of 2"?

The calculated distance of a specific galaxy from us here on earth can be 10 billion miles using one method and 5 billion using another.

x^a = a/x + a'(ln(x))

Thus you see that science is in a fragmented state. Fine. Can you explain the equation up there for me please? Some parts I don't get.

It shows that YOUR opinion is that something about me is bad.

No it doesn't. My opinion doesn't matter here. My point was that yourview on reliability cannot be practicably applied to all worldly situations.

HOWEVER, I can not believe AND be open to the possibility at the same time.

So you are stating here that you realise your belief might be illfounded. Fine.

If that is your definition, than omnipotence cannot exist. If nothing governs god, then he is random, which would actually make sense according to quantum mechanics. But in that case, he would cease to be intelligent and be analogous to nature itself.

You really have my cerebrum in some knots here. O.k. I see it now. My mistake. Let me put it this way. The nature of God is such that he is infinitely powerful and infintely governing. Now when you have too infinities you cannot logically state that one precludes the other. Get it?

How is that? I think I trust my senses quite completely. If you do not trust your senses completely than you cannot trust completely in god. Only through your senses can you gain knowlege and alter yourself like that.

The only thing I 'believe in' is God. Thus if I see lights in the sky I cannot trust if it is a flying saucer, a high altitude jet or a tumbling satellite. When I look at something at a distance I'm sometimes not sure of what I'm looking at. A person who is colour blind will see things differently. You shouldn't always take things at face value French. You must question it first. If someone offered you a drink at a night club [just an analogy - not saying you go there o.k.?] would you trust your senses to know it is not laced with trance [a drug]? You experience God spiritually French, anything physical is a result of that spiritual contact. You experience God's works in the physical world.

But we cannot say that it is god, can we?

Why not?

The reason we believe that it could be phychology is because we know THAT exists and so it is a probability.

God's existence is a possibility, thus, it is a possibility. And to tell you the truth, either way it doesn't affect God's existence. You can never disprove God.

 

[Frencheneesz]

damnit, the fucking thing deleted my post, ill reply later.

 

[Frencheneesz]

MarcAC:

"Can you explain the equation up there for me please? Some parts I don't get."

Well actually, that equation had nothing to do with the issue, I just used it to illustrate a point.

(x^a)' = a/x + a'(ln(x))
^ ^ ^
^ ^ Derivative of A times the natural log of x
^ a divided by x
Derivitive of x to the power of a

"My point was that yourview on reliability cannot be practicably applied to all worldly situations."

Why not? Could you give me some proof (evidence) of this (or an explanation)?

"The nature of God is such that he is infinitely powerful and infintely governing. Now when you have too infinities you cannot logically state that one precludes the other. Get it?"

Uhh.. no. You need to define "infintely governing" and "infinitely powerful"; I don't know what you mean by those.

"Thus if I see lights in the sky I cannot trust if it is a flying saucer, a high altitude jet or a tumbling satellite."

Ok, this is a different meaning of "sense" than I had used. When I say "sense", I mean the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste, and sound. Thus if you can see lights in teh sky, you CAN trust that there are lights in the sky, am I wrong?

"would you trust your senses to know it is not laced with trance "

This is where the reasoning factor comes in. I might think "hmm, I don't smell, see, feel (touch), taste, or hear that it has trance in it, so it must not have... wait, what if trance is an invisible, inaudible, tastless, smelless and textureless substance?" From here one might go about reasoning if the people who are giving you the drink might be trying to trick you. Thus I might trust my reasoning when using senses DIRECTLY don't help (of course you use those same senses to gauge the credibility of the offerer of the drink).

"Why not?"

Because we do not have conclusive evidence. You can dream, hope, believe that it is the case, but one would be ignorant not to know that his beliefs are subject to failure.

"God's existence is a possibility, thus, it is a possibility."

God's existance IS a possibility. It IS also a possibility that god makes miricals happen (like the placeabo [sp] effect). HOWEVER, god is NOT a PROBability for the simple reason that it does not rank of the most likely possibilities. God is not proven, therefore something like human will of the mind (which is widely accepted to exist, unless of course you don't believe in freewill) is much more possible.

"And to tell you the truth, either way it doesn't affect God's existence. You can never disprove God."

You or some other Thiest dedided to use this as PROOF of GOD! So we are merely disproving its relevancy to the subject. And we have been itterating and reitterating that you cannot disprove god, we know. Yet the probability of his existance is quite low indeed, and no hard evidence of his existance has been put forth.

 

[Slacker47]

I understand what he is saying, but he is really ignorant when it comes to science and common sense.