So you're still having trouble finding any actual support for your unprovable nonsense?
Typical.
The Creation
- Thread starter Buffalo Roam
- Start date
Typical.
Nope, I just dismiss you like you dismiss everything I say. It's only your point of view, nothing more.
That's right, you dismiss me so much that you feel the need to insult me at every opportunity.
Must be your insecurity showing through.
Yet somehow you consider your own opinion to be indisputable...
Strange blindness you have.
It's a good job I'm here to point out that your specious rubbish is, in fact, rubbish.
The same of course, applies to you.
Given that you think every question is ultimately one of subjective opinion, and therefore any answer is of equal value, one has to wonder why you even bother posting here....
Lol, you are the one that is saying no to everything. You act as if you know everything, dare I say, you act as if you were God.
You tell me I'm wrong because I have no evidence. Does that make you right? No. You just delude yourself in your own world with YOUR OWN TRUTH, not to be confused with truth.
If I don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. Lets see who is going to be more satisfied after we end this conversation. I am already laughing at you.
LOL. So, you disagree with me?
Dywyddyr is a member in good standing of this forum. He makes quality posts that seem to reflect a good education, and knowledge of the world. I've never seen you offer anything worthwhile. If anyone should be leaving....
Try re-reading your own statements: you make the comment and either refuse to back it up or are incapable of doing so. In other words you're expecting everyone to take your opinion as fact - setting yourself up as "god", in fact. I'm simply pointing out that your statements are merely unsupported opinion.
That's close to being correct.
You aren't wrong because you have no evidence, you could, in the end, be 100% correct. But you can't show that you are anywhere close to being correct so all you're offering is opinion as if it were fact. That is my objection.
On the contrary I'm asking for YOUR evidence. You're the one making the initial statement as if it were the truth. And you can't show that it is.
You would be laughing, it's a measure of your delusion and arrogance, and your own unsupported belief in that delusion.
Go make yourself useful and stop trying to let me know what he is and what he isn't. He's a big boy, he can handle himself. Good education? Knowledge of the world? LOL! I'm sorry but I don't know what your definition of knowledge is, it surely can't be actual knowledge. Good education to you = Saying, there is no evidence to everything. Show me evidence for big bang, evolution, and there is no God assumption (based on no evidence theory) . Show me the God damn good educated evidence so I can stop wasting my time and join you educated and knowledgeable people. Please show me the light. Prove to me once and for all that we come from monkeys, and that the universe was made because of a freak accident. Do it.
I gave you a simple mathematical equation. Nothing x Nothing= Nothing
True or false. Maybe you need a simpler equation. 0x0=0
This is a basic mathematical equation that has been PROVEN to be a fact.
So, how was everything made? Start from "nothing," please explain in detail, and I would like evidence, as well as facts. Educate me.
Yup and you also forgot that you used mathematics, not the real world.
Mathematics is an idealised system of logic and proves only itself, not its applicability to the universe.
You also forgot (or decided to ignore) that mathematics and what we know of science applies now, but you went ahead and used the current set of rules when we already know that they didn't apply (that's why physics has problems for anything before the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang).
In other words you can't state categorically that your logic held true.
Unknown.
So you're saying that although an incomprehensible realm is inconceivable to me that it is entirely conceivable to you. IOW God is capable of being imagined by those who do believe beyond the material conception of life....interesting.
I wonder how you see this in relation to our interaction starting with your post 190 - with the posts before as context.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2435855#post2435855
I think what you say above is at least related to what Parmalee and I were getting at. Logic or math alone cannot produce new facts. You need some kind of attachment to reality, which Parmalee was including in reason.
I read what you said above and I suddenly remembered the old thread. I do not think that logic alone or math alone can generate knowledge.
This is a tangent here, so if you're interested it might be better to respond in the other thread.
Bah!!
Simple: mathematics only proves itself, but that doesn't stop it having some applicability to the real world.
Just because something can be shown to be mathematically true doesn't necessarily mean that it "exists" in the universe as a reality. But in engineering (for example) where it has been shown that maths does apply, then maths can be used to discover new facts.
Um, the example I gave I that thread did apply to the real world (bridge girder, IIRC), but the equation could be handed to an apprentice, or a computer, without them knowing what the applicability is and it would still produce an answer: which could be handed to the project leader... "Oh okay, I see we need to be using a larger I value for the support struts. Damn, back to the drawing board..."
The FACT can be generated without knowing the applicability (or even knowing there is an applicability), the utility of that fact requires reason however.
Edit: now cross-linked to the relevant thread.
http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=773133&ParentId=656977
LOL. Nothing is nothing, but nothing is something. Nothing explodes creates everything. I don't know man this makes a lot of sense.
WOW! Educated answer. I appreciate this very much. You have thought me a lot.
you mean like telling a confirmed catholic and theist they don't know anything about christianity because their an atheist?
I'm saying that the material concept of life comes with concomitant factors that spoil the endeavour to know god (and thus , much like any opinion that departs from the normative issues that frame a claim, lead one to a host of false conclusions, such as its an imagination etc)
And Vishnu has 4 arms, blue skin and wears yellow clothes. He is adorned with jewelery and floral arrangements. He waves weapons and shellfish around while standing on some mutant snake creature. Isn't this imagination? The very act of thinking God is composed of material components renders Him a false conclusion by your standards, actually spoiling the endeavor to know god, yes?
Last edited:
I guess it depends whether one is holding the material world as the reliable yard stick to determine the nature of something credited as being the source of it (which in turn, may very well spoil the endeavour to know god)
(BTW nice research, although you are talking about a plenary expansion of god)