The God Denying Method

[Jan Ardena]

Sardaukar,

He also displays qualities such as insecurity and ignorance. Contradictory of his supposed immaculate nature.

That is your perception.

Because if the universe didn't have an overseer life would cease function?

I suppose that's one way of putting it.

There is no evidence of God's existence.

You don't know that.
If you're talking about digging in the dirt, combining chemical, or trying
to find traces of Gods' DNA, then I would be inclined to agree.

Don't be so rash as to conclude he must exist out of necessity.

Don't you be so rash as to conclude he doesn't exist.

Given as you said, God is loving and caring. He can no longer work outside those given characteristics, and if he does then that too is compiled into his nature.

God is IS love, care, compassion etc..
By definition He IS reality.

By whom? Religious text has already proved itself countless times as an unreliable source.

That is an unreliable, and relative statement.

Man made God. We twist and distort the definition of a figurative being that probably doesn't exist, so as to answer our questions of life, to feel rewarded for our "good" deeds, with the promises of heaven, and Whom do you think wrote the bible, why man did. And man is a sick creature filled with devious manipulative perception.

I doubt that man is capable of making such a complete concept, which holds
for as long there have been humans.
There is no history of such a combined
effort, let alone one which last for so long.

As for rewards, fine. We are all looking for happiness, atheist and theist alike.
We just think differently.

Most people don't believe in God because they want to answer questions of life.
Having such questions answered does nothing for individual soul.
This is where the explicit atheist dwells in order to prove at least to himself,
there is no God. Which is why the discussions have become bogged down.


jan.

 

[spidergoat]

...Most people don't believe in God because they want to answer questions of life.

Perhaps, but believers want answers too, and they get them, however wrong they have proven to be. Atheists at least recognize when the answers are not reliable.

Having such questions answered does nothing for individual soul.

Then why is religion so popular?

 

[Bishadi]

But you just stated you did it because you were chilly: outside causation (or influence).

awe but the life, makes the determination. as that life is of its own intent!

that is what you are failing at.

Just as the 'hot' is said to go 'cold' by its 'percieved' intent; the causality is left open.

in contrast, the progression is causal and of intent (just as you eat, and breath by a living intent)

No, it's a law.

and the 'complacent' follow laws without causality; just like the religious do.

If you think that then you haven't understood it (but that's been obvious all along).

i think

you believe

big difference

Just like, i can perform the evidence; while you don't observe it, because no one else approves it.


Huge difference of human being; you and i.

I am humble enough to learn develop and be honest and you are..............

well.......................?

let's just say, a daffy to keep it simple (stupid)

 

[Oli]

awe but the life, makes the determination. as that life is of its own intent!
that is what you are failing at.
Just as the 'hot' is said to go 'cold' by its 'percieved' intent; the causality is left open.

No, you got dried because you were cold - external factor.

in contrast, the progression is causal and of intent (just as you eat, and breath by a living intent)

Close, but untrue.

and the 'complacent' follow laws without causality; just like the religious do.

Ridiculous non-sequitur.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law not a suggestion.

i think
you believe
big difference

Oh, bad fail.
Stupid assumption on your part.

Just like, i can perform the evidence; while you don't observe it, because no one else approves it.
Huge difference of human being; you and i.
I am humble enough to learn develop and be honest and you are..............
well.......................?
let's just say, a daffy to keep it simple (stupid)

Yet according to you (post near the top of the page), this concept is apparently new to you.
But old news to anyone that's actually studied physics.

 

[Bishadi]

No, you got dried because you were cold - external factor.

See the point, "I" WAS, not the external, not the outside anything making the actions; it was the 'life' that made the action possible.

eg.... make a rock cold, does the rock roll up into a blanket? No!

you are not taking into consideration the life of the mass (as oooosual)

Close, but untrue.

ooooops, i forgot; most everything you do is random, especially when it comes to commenting; you have no idea what you are saying!

Ridiculous non-sequitur.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law not a suggestion.

it was 'created' in a period when steam engines were being built; just like you




2Lot ( is a macro analogy incorporated into the planck scale) Which you are and have been too stupid to ever comprehend, when i have been trying to share with you, even the original publication from max planck (into english)

Oh, bad fail.
Stupid assumption on your part.

such as believing a law is infallible

(that is why you will not progress and troll over everything i write; because you have no intent of ever doing anything but whine and troll)

you will not be honest with evidence in front of you

Yet according to you (post near the top of the page), this concept is apparently new to you.
But old news to anyone that's actually studied physics.

physics don't tell me how life exists, nor anyone on this earth,

because to anyone who comprehends physics know the mechanics suggest the exchanges are random not to mention, at the mathematical scale the reversal of entropy or neg entropy must be performed to represent an exchanged between living structures. (the law is being broken in most ever rendition performed in math to verify the experimental evidence)


that is what many of them publications i have been posting in many of the 1500 post i have made on this site share; but you DO NOT READ THEM, nor comprehend them



and troll like a duck all day long

from practical application thru to the evidence provided; you just will not be honest

perhaps you should be banned for being a troll!

 

[Oli]

See the point, "I" WAS, not the external, not the outside anything making the actions; it was the 'life' that made the action possible.
eg.... make a rock cold, does the rock roll up into a blanket? No!

Again you make my point for me.

you are not taking into consideration the life of the mass (as oooosual)

Facile (and stupid) strawman.

it was 'created' in a period when steam engines were being built; just like you

Facile (and stupid) attempt at insult.

2Lot ( is a macro analogy incorporated into the planck scale) Which you are and have been too stupid to ever comprehend, when i have been trying to share with you, even the original publication from max planck (into english)
such as believing a law is infallible

Share?
Why would I want to partake in your incorrect delusion?

(that is why you will not progress and troll over everything i write; because you have no intent of ever doing anything but whine and troll)

Wrong again.

you will not be honest with evidence in front of you
physics don't tell me how life exists, nor anyone on this earth,
because to anyone who comprehends physics know the mechanics suggest the exchanges are random not to mention, at the mathematical scale the reversal of entropy or neg entropy must be performed to represent an exchanged between living structures.(the law is being broken in most ever rendition performed in math to verify the experimental evidence)

Utter and total nonsense.

that is what many of them publications i have been posting in many of the 1500 post i have made on this site share; but you DO NOT READ THEM, nor comprehend them

More nonsense: I read them and ask YOU to show how they support your erroneous "conclusion" - something you have signally failed to to in any post.

from practical application thru to the evidence provided; you just will not be honest
perhaps you should be banned for being a troll!

It's fascinating how you accuse me of dishonesty and trolling when you have not once in your entire series of badly-spelt grammatically befuddled barely comprehensible diatribes provided any support for your own contention.

 

[Bishadi]

Again you make my point for me.

sure, that you are not causal nor observant (did not comprehend the 'cat'?)

Facile (and stupid) strawman.

how is pointing out your lack of observing the life as the specimen, staw?

Facile (and stupid) attempt at insult.

you insult yourself

Share?
Why would I want to partake in your incorrect delusion?

having integrity is a delusion to you; you can't think for yourself!

it is why, you will not observe evidence; as it will contradict what you have learned.

It's fascinating how you accuse me of dishonesty and trolling when you have not once in your entire series of badly-spelt grammatically befuddled barely comprehensible diatribes provided any support for your own contention.

now that is a down right lie and i call moderation to bann you for a deceitful comment

i have posted more data, laws, pubs from planck to wiki to give you evidence, as even you shared above and rather than question your own intellect, you point at me as not understanding or comprehending

when just on this thread, you can't even identify the life being of cause to action, that is opposing to entropy!

Moderators; this Oli is lying, trolling and should be banned for ill regard and not maintaining the rules!

 

[Oli]

sure, that you are not causal nor observant (did not comprehend the 'cat'?)
how is pointing out your lack of observing the life as the specimen, staw?

Because things without life cannot make decisions at all.
It's that simple.

now that is a down right lie and i call moderation to bann you for a deceitful comment
i have posted more data, laws, pubs from planck to wiki to give you evidence, as even you shared above and rather than question your own intellect, you point at me as not understanding or comprehending

Oh keep trying: you refuse to show HOW the presented papers support your view, which is not a lie - not once, ever, have you done more than post a link and say "that's the answer - read it". Even when you have been told that the linked paper does not mean what you think it does you avoid pointing out the supposed relevant details.
Anyone can link to a document and say "read that it proves my point", but when said document actually does not do so then it's a failure on YOUR part to provide evidence.

when just on this thread, you can't even identify the life being of cause to action, that is opposing to entropy!

And you have yet to show how (or indeed IF) life does oppose (or break as you've stated many times) entropy.

Moderators; this Oli is lying, trolling and should be banned for ill regard and not maintaining the rules!

Ooh please moderators: ban Bishadi for hypocrisy, lying, trolling and general stupidity.

 

[Bishadi]

Because things without life cannot make decisions at all.
It's that simple.

and life 'abuses entropy'

(like i have been saying and you JUST NOW share the reality of observing 'life')

the rest of your post; i have no need to even read

you just put your foot in YOUR MOUTH and after months of my being consistent and maintain the EXACT same reality since day ONE

YOU FINALLY post an observance to life and the reality of 'its' choice, all by yourself!

NOW, draw up any system you want, and i will show you LIFE abusing entropy!

The law is not universal; deal with it!

 

[Oli]

and life 'abuses entropy'

No it doesn't.

(like i have been saying and you JUST NOW share the reality of observing 'life')

More rot from you.

the rest of your post; i have no need to even read

You surprise me. I hadn't previously seen any evidence that you can read.

you just put your foot in YOUR MOUTH and after months of my being consistent and maintain the EXACT same reality since day ONE
YOU FINALLY post an observance to life and the reality of 'its' choice, all by yourself!

You misunderstand again, as usual.

NOW, draw up any system you want, and i will show you LIFE abusing entropy!

Er, you made the claim, you show the evidence.

The law is not universal; deal with it!

Wrong.

 

[spidergoat]

Bishadi, you have no idea what the law even states. Life does not represent an increase in entropy of the entire system, EVER. Life is such a small percentage of the total matter (even just on Earth, not to mention the entire universe) that it's negative entropy is meaningless from the point of view of the 2nd law.

Physics cannot build a model that predicts life from the laws of physics because life is a property that emerges from extremely complex physical interactions. It's the same reason computers cannot predict the weather.

 

[Bishadi]

No it doesn't.

then please go equilibriate somewhere where your kind will fade; you offer little with no comprehension of life.

meaning; you give nothing, you take for selfish enterprize!

Your integrity is bound to the self; you are not honest with anything, nor anyone. Kind of like a 'black box' always taking from the environment.

you deny, anything that contradicts your antiquated knowledge

you do not base on evidence you believe what is accepted

you are more religious to paradigm than reality!

the example above on how life will move (put on a jacket) as a rock will not (abusing entropy), was the most perfect example, that you could never contradict with all the math in the world

you cannot win, you know it, and you will not just face it!

all the while continuing your ranting; LIKE A TROLL!

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

WHAT is equilibriate???

 

[Oli]

then please go equilibriate somewhere where your kind will fade; you offer little with no comprehension of life.

And neither do you, as shown by your continuing idiocy with "life abuses entropy".

Your integrity is bound to the self; you are not honest with anything, nor anyone.

Integrity?
When you still have to support your nonsensical fantasy?

you deny, anything that contradicts your antiquated knowledge

And you make up rubbish and call it "knowledge".

you do not base on evidence you believe what is accepted
you are more religious to paradigm than reality!

Ah, the woo woo that has no evidence or support but still spews the same nonsense talks to me/i] about "religion".

the example above on how life will move (put on a jacket) as a rock will not (abusing entropy), was the most perfect example, that you could never contradict with all the math in the world

Wrong again. It merely illustrates your complete lack of comprehension.

you cannot win, you know it, and you will not just face it!

Cannot win? There isn't even a contest.
You have no evidence, no knowledge and no point.

all the while continuing your ranting; LIKE A TROLL!

Oh yeah, rant rant rant. Sound familiar?

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, you have no idea what the law even states. Life does not represent an increase in entropy of the entire system, EVER.

i know, it is neg entropy (reversing) (taking in energy to continue, by itself; not randomly)

Life is such a small percentage of the total matter (even just on Earth, not to mention the entire universe) that it's negative entropy is meaningless from the point of view of the 2nd law.

seems to me, that meaningly is so WRONG you can't believe it; eg......... entangled energy between mass is gravity; so as the stars are exchanging with all the other matter, a potential is being imposed to all that mass affected

Physics cannot build a model that predicts life from the laws of physics because life is a property that emerges from extremely complex physical interactions.

wrong!

the same exact rules that apply to all elements, from a single atom to the galaxies are the same. Th QM problems between the micro/macro are the errors of the physics, not reality.

Nature does not live a dual set of rules

It's the same reason computers cannot predict the weather.

causality is the reason.....

i have said over and over, if they want to predict the weather far better, then they must observe the earth's magnetic field anomolies (pressure differences are actually caused by this)

 

[Bishadi]

And neither do you, as shown by your continuing idiocy with "life abuses entropy".

you are equlibriating as we speak;

and i abuse your intellect all day long!


notice not one line you posted addresses anything but your own whining!


at least i offer examples (and evidence; meaning have you EVER offered a pub to discount any item i ever posted? EVER?)

when i have posted perhaps hundreds all over this website

anyone who reads can see who is full of it!

 

[Oli]

you are equlibriating as we speak;

As is everything else, more or less.

and i abuse your intellect all day long!

Another stupid assumption.

notice not one line you posted addresses anything but your own whining!

Actually I'm addressing your delusion.

at least i offer examples (and evidence; meaning have you EVER offered a pub to discount any item i ever posted? EVER?)

You offer examples that don't support your fantasy, evidence that only you can see... You made the initial point, I don't need to support mine.

when i have posted perhaps hundreds all over this website

Not one of which shows you are right.

anyone who reads can see who is full of it!

They can indeed. In fact everyone can see who's full of it. Except you apparently.

 

[Bishadi]

As is everything else, more or less.

now we have another one;

in your eyes, a life is in equlibriation

Actually I'm addressing your delusion.

where as my delusion is that when life's combine (the energy of) the potential is greater than the selfishness of isolation (your equlibriation)

you idealize based on the self (isolation from the environment)

while i am aware of the progression of life (opposite of entropy) (combining for the progress; increased life; potential

that combining of energy for the progression is what you do not comprehend in physics

you only know what the law says without the comprehension of the physical applicability

that is why you do not comprehend that evolution in itself as well evn to watch and embryo develop (grow) is a perfect and unequivocal proof that the life, the energy of, is by intent; abusing the hell out of entropy

again; i offer examples;

let's see more of your ranting!

You offer examples that don't support your fantasy, evidence that only you can see... You made the initial point, I don't need to support mine.

which is why, your lack of integrity to observe evidence makes you a dishonest and uncredible opinion!

 

[Oli]

now we have another one;
in your eyes, a life not contributing is OK (equlibriation)

Equilibrating has nothing whatsoever to do with contributing or not.

where as my delusion is that when life's combine (the energy of) the potential is greater than the selfishness of isolation (your equlibriation)

Misuse of the word "equilibration" (and mis-spelling).

you idealize based on the self (isolation from the environment)

Nope.

while i am aware of the progression of life (opposite of entropy) (combining for the progress; increased life; potential

Nope.

that combining of energy for the progression is what you do not comprehend in physics

Go ahead, show it...

that is why you do not comprehend that evolution in itself as well evn to watch and embryo develop (grow) is a perfect and unequivocal proof that the life, the energy of, is by intent; abusing the hell out of entropy

Once again: you're talking nonsense. Sheer utter nonsense.

again; i offer examples;

Which fail to make your point.

which is why, your lack of integrity to observe evidence makes you a dishonest and uncredible opinion!

"Uncredible"? Do you speak English at all?
No, it's not my "lack of integrity" it's your self-obsessed delusion that's misleading YOU.
You're wrong, it's that simple.

 

[Bishadi]

Equilibrating has nothing whatsoever to do with contributing or not.

i rewrote it when i noted the dual nature....

i know that sentence does not make sense in the context you have it quoted

Wow you take a while to respond![/QUOTE]


in case you are into reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

and if you remember the 'gibbs free energy' material i shared a while back; notice even wiki is observing it too?

because that process does not follow the 'law' when defining the exchange of energy; the old standard frame converted to a wave analogy in which the energy is the specimen, not as chemically defined (reductionary)

so after you have read and comprehend the link, and when you comprehend what the wave function of schroedinger is; then you can ask me another question on why in biology, the scientist basically have to throw out chemistry (QM reductionary ignorance) to define the interractions of the energy at the molecular scale

when you comprehend WHY, then you can ask

but i am not here to baby sit you on physics, when you don't even comprehend or address the basics in common sense.