Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prove God Doesn't Esxist

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 12:19:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
God- A persons definition of the phenomena behind the energies of the universe.

This energy was the initial start of the expansion of our universe.

All matter is or was manipulated by this energy.

This energy has evolved our universe and is essentially what made us evolve from microbes to a species.

This energy generates our thoughts and actions to this day.

The understanding and discussion of the energies existence and evolution is what has built up our knowledge of science and philosophies today and thus is the energy behind collective thought.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 12:33:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: This falls under the general category of slapping the label "god" onto some arbitrary definition and then asking people to disprove that definition. This is basically tantamount to asking people to disprove any propositional statement you want that you have decided to call "god."

No. People aren't are your mercy or beck and call to prove or disprove whatever arbitrary statement you want them to. This is one of the reasons why burden of proof exists and is placed upon the people asserting such propositions.

So, prove what you said is true.
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 12:47:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 12:19:04 PM, pozessed wrote:
God- A persons definition of the phenomena behind the energies of the universe.

This energy was the initial start of the expansion of our universe.

All matter is or was manipulated by this energy.

This energy has evolved our universe and is essentially what made us evolve from microbes to a species.

This energy generates our thoughts and actions to this day.

The understanding and discussion of the energies existence and evolution is what has built up our knowledge of science and philosophies today and thus is the energy behind collective thought.

I am confused about your definition of God.

Do you mean to define God as energy? Because energy is merely the motion of matter, it doesn't make for a particularly interesting description of a personal God, nor something that you can disprove.

Or do you mean to define God as some personal entity that gave the universe its energy? If so, cosmology has not advanced enough to investigate what caused the initial expansion, so claims about that cause are meaningless and might never be falsifiable.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 12:54:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 12:33:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
Short Answer: No.
Who or what are you saying no to?
Long Answer: This falls under the general category of slapping the label "god" onto some arbitrary definition and then asking people to disprove that definition. This is basically tantamount to asking people to disprove any propositional statement you want that you have decided to call "god."
Ah so it's okay to define the universe as "nothing" but it's not okay to try and define God?
No. People aren't are your mercy or beck and call to prove or disprove whatever arbitrary statement you want them to. This is one of the reasons why burden of proof exists and is placed upon the people asserting such propositions.
I never said anyone was. Although I do applaud your tactic at averting a debate that would surely be lost.
So, prove what you said is true.
Prove what I said isn't true. I described the science behind our universe that any ninth grade student should know.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 1:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 12:47:21 PM, VainApocalypse wrote:
I am confused about your definition of God.

Do you mean to define God as energy? Because energy is merely the motion of matter, it doesn't make for a particularly interesting description of a personal God, nor something that you can disprove.

Or do you mean to define God as some personal entity that gave the universe its energy? If so, cosmology has not advanced enough to investigate what caused the initial expansion, so claims about that cause are meaningless and might never be falsifiable.
Both, the phenomenons of the universes energy had to be programmed or in a conscious state in order for God to exist.
I also meant to say that these energies are used to interpret the universe and also generate our understanding of personal knowledge.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 1:26:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 12:54:19 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/12/2012 12:33:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
Short Answer: No.
Who or what are you saying no to?

You and your demand to "Prove God Doesn't Exist"

Long Answer: This falls under the general category of slapping the label "god" onto some arbitrary definition and then asking people to disprove that definition. This is basically tantamount to asking people to disprove any propositional statement you want that you have decided to call "god."
Ah so it's okay to define the universe as "nothing" but it's not okay to try and define God?

No, it isn't. Then again, nothing I said even resembles a statement or attitude to that affect, so I don't know where you're coming from.

No. People aren't are your mercy or beck and call to prove or disprove whatever arbitrary statement you want them to. This is one of the reasons why burden of proof exists and is placed upon the people asserting such propositions.
I never said anyone was. Although I do applaud your tactic at averting a debate that would surely be lost.

I seriously doubt you are applauding anything. And of course such debates would be lost; It is a trivial matter to construct propositions that can't be disproved. However, you can claim no real victory in such matters because the burden lies on you to prove them, not on others to disprove them.

In the end, you've done something that is neither original nor significant and are somehow claiming victory regarding a debate that wouldn't ever happen.

So, prove what you said is true.
Prove what I said isn't true.

I see you missed the part about where the burden of proof lies.

I described the science behind our universe that any ninth grade student should know.

No you didn't.

Your description basically consists of three parts:

1. Inventing a vague, fictional energy as an explanation for the beginning of the universe and its expansion.
2. Attributing, through an implied series of cause and effect, that this energy is then, indirectly responsible for: the cosmological development of the universe, abiogenesis, biology, psychology, and sociology.
3. Labeled this energy "God."

None of these concepts are very scientific. 2 comes the closest, but doesn't quite hit the mark, even if we are talking about a 9th grade level.

First, we don't know what (if anything) caused the universe (or even if it was caused) or started off its inflation/expansion. Current scientific models break own before getting to such points in time, predicting the existence of a singularity which represents, not an actual thing scientists belief exists, but an error that represents the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics that requires modification of one, or both (or the invention of an entirely new model) to resolve.

Now, certainly the universe did expand and energy was involved, but as far as attributing ultimate causes to such things, you are venturing outside the realm of science and into the realm of speculation.

Second, your use of the term "energy" is increasingly vague. Certainly different kinds of energy (such as kinetic energy) are involved in the formation of the universe and life. Even discounting a deterministic universe (which is implied by your statements) I don't disagree that we can attribute just about everything that has happened to energy of some form or another. That, at least, we can call consistent with science.

However, your use of the term as a singular thing as if there is only one type or source of energy is troubling. Your vague use of the term and lack of specifics leave your statements wanting from a scientific standpoint.

Lastly, we have your arbitrary labeling of this phenomenon (or phenomena) as "god." Now, there really nothing I can do about this. You are free to label whatever concepts you want with whatever words you want. Now, that has nothing to do with science.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 1:48:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 1:26:22 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. Inventing a vague, fictional energy as an explanation for the beginning of the universe and its expansion.
I didn't invent any vague or fictional energy. My first sentence says energies and every other sentence was supposed to describe those energies. I'm sorry for the confusion.
2. Attributing, through an implied series of cause and effect, that this energy is then, indirectly responsible for: the cosmological development of the universe, abiogenesis, biology, psychology, and sociology.
I have read nothing that states the energies of our universe started as one form of energy and completely turned itself into another energy that completely annihilates the existence of its old energy.
As far as I knew there were four forms of energy that started our universe. Magnetic, electric, weak, and strong. All of which are involved in holding atoms together if I'm not mistaken.
How could abiogenesis, biology, chemistry, sociology, or anything happen without those four energies?
3. Labeled this energy "God."
I think its better than labeling the existence of our universe "nothing"
None of these concepts are very scientific. 2 comes the closest, but doesn't quite hit the mark, even if we are talking about a 9th grade level.

First, we don't know what (if anything) caused the universe (or even if it was caused) or started off its inflation/expansion. Current scientific models break own before getting to such points in time, predicting the existence of a singularity which represents, not an actual thing scientists belief exists, but an error that represents the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics that requires modification of one, or both (or the invention of an entirely new model) to resolve.
Very true, and when something is unexplained it is a phenomena.
I would like to see what you have researched that explains the error between relativity and QM. I will look into that soon.
Now, certainly the universe did expand and energy was involved, but as far as attributing ultimate causes to such things, you are venturing outside the realm of science and into the realm of speculation.
I disagree because I have science to use as proof of my speculations.
Second, your use of the term "energy" is increasingly vague. Certainly different kinds of energy (such as kinetic energy) are involved in the formation of the universe and life. Even discounting a deterministic universe (which is implied by your statements) I don't disagree that we can attribute just about everything that has happened to energy of some form or another. That, at least, we can call consistent with science.
I'm glad we can agree =)
Lastly, we have your arbitrary labeling of this phenomenon (or phenomena) as "god." Now, there really nothing I can do about this. You are free to label whatever concepts you want with whatever words you want. Now, that has nothing to do with science.
I say God because there is no reason not to call it God other than to appease somebody elses definition of the universe.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:00:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 1:48:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/12/2012 1:26:22 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. Inventing a vague, fictional energy as an explanation for the beginning of the universe and its expansion.
I didn't invent any vague or fictional energy. My first sentence says energies and every other sentence was supposed to describe those energies. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Yes, your first sentence says energies. But it is something you made up. It is fictional, fantasy, not real, illusory, imaginary.

2. Attributing, through an implied series of cause and effect, that this energy is then, indirectly responsible for: the cosmological development of the universe, abiogenesis, biology, psychology, and sociology.
I have read nothing that states the energies of our universe started as one form of energy and completely turned itself into another energy that completely annihilates the existence of its old energy.

Based on your statements below, you don't seem to know what energy is.

As far as I knew there were four forms of energy that started our universe. Magnetic, electric, weak, and strong. All of which are involved in holding atoms together if I'm not mistaken.
How could abiogenesis, biology, chemistry, sociology, or anything happen without those four energies?

Those aren't energies. Those are forces.

3. Labeled this energy "God."
I think its better than labeling the existence of our universe "nothing"

No one does that.

None of these concepts are very scientific. 2 comes the closest, but doesn't quite hit the mark, even if we are talking about a 9th grade level.

First, we don't know what (if anything) caused the universe (or even if it was caused) or started off its inflation/expansion. Current scientific models break own before getting to such points in time, predicting the existence of a singularity which represents, not an actual thing scientists belief exists, but an error that represents the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics that requires modification of one, or both (or the invention of an entirely new model) to resolve.
Very true, and when something is unexplained it is a phenomena.

Uhm, no. Phenomena is merely another term for observation and can be either explained or unexplained. As it is, we don't know anything about any phenomenon responsible for the creation or initial expansion of the universe.

I would like to see what you have researched that explains the error between relativity and QM. I will look into that soon.

I've found a good explanation in the introductory chapters of Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe." While ultimately about string theory, his initial chapters present a primer on the development of physics in general and why there is even a need for something like string theory. He explains the development of relativity and quantum mechanics and why they are incompatible.

Now, certainly the universe did expand and energy was involved, but as far as attributing ultimate causes to such things, you are venturing outside the realm of science and into the realm of speculation.
I disagree because I have science to use as proof of my speculations.

Since you've demonstrated that you aren't even using the term "energy" correctly, you've completely exited the realm of science. While science may be available for you to use as proof you aren't, in this instance, actually using it.

Second, your use of the term "energy" is increasingly vague. Certainly different kinds of energy (such as kinetic energy) are involved in the formation of the universe and life. Even discounting a deterministic universe (which is implied by your statements) I don't disagree that we can attribute just about everything that has happened to energy of some form or another. That, at least, we can call consistent with science.
I'm glad we can agree =)

Well, not anymore. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were using the word "energy" in the scientific context. You weren't. So no, your statements aren't consistent with science.

Lastly, we have your arbitrary labeling of this phenomenon (or phenomena) as "god." Now, there really nothing I can do about this. You are free to label whatever concepts you want with whatever words you want. Now, that has nothing to do with science.
I say God because there is no reason not to call it God other than to appease somebody elses definition of the universe.

There's no reason not to call it "Flabbergeist" either, but since we already have a label for the universe (hint, it's "universe"), I don't see why we should create additional labels that don't add anything to the discussion.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:11:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 12:54:19 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/12/2012 12:33:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
Short Answer: No.
Who or what are you saying no to?
Long Answer: This falls under the general category of slapping the label "god" onto some arbitrary definition and then asking people to disprove that definition. This is basically tantamount to asking people to disprove any propositional statement you want that you have decided to call "god."
Ah so it's okay to define the universe as "nothing" but it's not okay to try and define God?
No. People aren't are your mercy or beck and call to prove or disprove whatever arbitrary statement you want them to. This is one of the reasons why burden of proof exists and is placed upon the people asserting such propositions.
I never said anyone was. Although I do applaud your tactic at averting a debate that would surely be lost.
So, prove what you said is true.
Prove what I said isn't true. I described the science behind our universe that any ninth grade student should know.

Hey, i am in 9th grade and we are still learning about inertia.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 10:43:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:00:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes, your first sentence says energies. But it is something you made up. It is fictional, fantasy, not real, illusory, imaginary.
Yes, I conjured up the forces of energy that created our universe and everything in it when I started this post and nothing existed before this post existed....
Based on your statements below, you don't seem to know what energy is.
That's only because you disagree with what I said, not because what I've said isn't true.
Those aren't energies. Those are forces..
Please do tell how an energy force and a force of energy don't consist of energy?
No one does that.
Quantum Theory (which I don't disagree with entirely, only the existing from nothing part)
Uhm, no. Phenomena is merely another term for observation and can be either explained or unexplained. As it is, we don't know anything about any phenomenon responsible for the creation or initial expansion of the universe.
1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.
2. something that is impressive or extraordinary.
3. a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder.
4. Philosophy.

Even though my definition of phenomenon was wrong, I still used it n the right context in my definition. Therefore my definition still stands on solid ground
I've found a good explanation in the introductory chapters of Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe." While ultimately about string theory, his initial chapters present a primer on the development of physics in general and why there is even a need for something like string theory. He explains the development of relativity and quantum mechanics and why they are incompatible.

TY, I appreciate the useful info.
Since you've demonstrated that you aren't even using the term "energy" correctly, you've completely exited the realm of science. While science may be available for you to use as proof you aren't, in this instance, actually using it.
It wasn't that I didn't use the term correctly, it's that you didn't agree with how I used it. Since it is only your opinion and not a act that I didn't use it correctly my logic is still firm.
Well, not anymore. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were using the word "energy" in the scientific context. You weren't. So no, your statements aren't consistent with science.
Prove that I took it out of context. If you can't you have only proved that your opinion of the forces were different than mine.
There's no reason not to call it "Flabbergeist" either, but since we already have a label for the universe (hint, it's "universe"), I don't see why we should create additional labels that don't add anything to the discussion.
I am not describing the universe I am describing the energies that create and evolve the universe. Bit of a difference.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 11:02:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Prove that your definition of God is true.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:45:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 7:01:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:02:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Prove that your definition of God is true.

http://www.youtube.com...

Right... that's not proof that that is a God. Most people who believe in a deity say that he exists outside the universe.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:25:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:45:55 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 7:01:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:02:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Prove that your definition of God is true.

http://www.youtube.com...

Right... that's not proof that that is a God. Most people who believe in a deity say that he exists outside the universe.

you asked me to prove "my" definition of God as true, which I did. I didn't take into account what everyone else believes as that wouldn't be my own belief.
Your supposed to argue against my definition not someone elses.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:47:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:25:02 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:45:55 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 7:01:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:02:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Prove that your definition of God is true.

http://www.youtube.com...

Right... that's not proof that that is a God. Most people who believe in a deity say that he exists outside the universe.

you asked me to prove "my" definition of God as true, which I did. I didn't take into account what everyone else believes as that wouldn't be my own belief.
Your supposed to argue against my definition not someone elses.

You didn't prove anything. You listed a bunch of arbitrary characteristics, pre assumed the existence of a God, and slapped his label onto them.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:51:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:25:02 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:45:55 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 7:01:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:02:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Prove that your definition of God is true.

http://www.youtube.com...

Right... that's not proof that that is a God. Most people who believe in a deity say that he exists outside the universe.

you asked me to prove "my" definition of God as true, which I did. I didn't take into account what everyone else believes as that wouldn't be my own belief.
Your supposed to argue against my definition not someone elses.

That wasn't a proof by any stretch of the imagination, and it didn't even entail your argument.

It's like clkaiming God is a horse and showing us a picture of a horse as proof, what doesn't exist in your "argument" is logic.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:00:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:45:55 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 7:01:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/12/2012 11:02:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Prove that your definition of God is true.

http://www.youtube.com...

Right... that's not proof that that is a God. Most people who believe in a deity say that he exists outside the universe.

I don't think "outside the universe" is an accurate representation, perhaps transcendent to our universe would be a better way to put it, or maybe outside of our four dimensional frame of reference.

But your point is valid, he certainly didn't provide a proof.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:04:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
God doesn't exist in my mind (Can't speak for others) because as far as my teachings have gone, I know God to be a being in the form of man that waves a wand presumably above the universe and causes changes to happen at 'his' will.

And I think that is silly...?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:19:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Megalodon.
A fish with teeth designed solely for biting cocks off, known as the Dunkleosteus.
Spiders. Particularly camel spiders and those little b*stards that dig a hole and leap out and oh god I am never going to Australia ever again.
Slenderman.
Jersey Shore.

You are now free from your omnipresent tyrranical sugar-daddy. You're welcome.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 6:11:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You didn't prove anything. You listed a bunch of arbitrary characteristics, pre assumed the existence of a God, and slapped his label onto them.

To your perception I didn't prove anything.
I proved to you my of my definition. And that is the energies that started with the big bang started everything.
Also, if your asking me to "prove" God, my definition is my proof of God. Anything beyond my definition is irrelevant due to lack of proof.

Science can't prove everything that it claims, but people accept that without question sometimes.
For the most part, everything I claim in my definition of God is proven. What isn't proven is that energy has a form of consciousness.
However energy does prove to seem conscious during a few tests in quantum physics.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 6:17:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That wasn't a proof by any stretch of the imagination, and it didn't even entail your argument.
It's like clkaiming God is a horse and showing us a picture of a horse as proof, what doesn't exist in your "argument" is logic.

How did that not fit into my first argument?

Your argument is solely ignorant IMO. You ignored my first statement and how that video I showed is accepted scientific proof of how the universe started and what was there during its creation.
I claim God is conscious energies, how is that illogical? because you don't believe it to be possible?
Just because your perception doesn't agree with mine doesn't mean my perception is wrong, it just isn't accepted yet.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 6:24:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:04:30 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
God doesn't exist in my mind (Can't speak for others) because as far as my teachings have gone, I know God to be a being in the form of man that waves a wand presumably above the universe and causes changes to happen at 'his' will.

And I think that is silly...?

I agree your criteria for God is silly.
I believe God is a form of energy that is all knowing and ever changing. I believe his energy is connected to everything inside of our universe, and his goal is to learn everything he can using the resources he has inside our universe. This gives him more understanding of what is or will be.
In other words God is n energy of knowledge that needs to learn in order to grow and everything inside of our universe gives him knowledge through a connection of observation.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 6:58:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 6:24:08 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:04:30 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
God doesn't exist in my mind (Can't speak for others) because as far as my teachings have gone, I know God to be a being in the form of man that waves a wand presumably above the universe and causes changes to happen at 'his' will.

And I think that is silly...?

I agree your criteria for God is silly.
I believe God is a form of energy that is all knowing and ever changing. I believe his energy is connected to everything inside of our universe, and his goal is to learn everything he can using the resources he has inside our universe. This gives him more understanding of what is or will be.
In other words God is n energy of knowledge that needs to learn in order to grow and everything inside of our universe gives him knowledge through a connection of observation.

Oh, see i just call that "energy".
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 7:15:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
thats fair to do, I didn't ask you to accept my beliefs. I am just asking someone to prove what I believe could be God to be wrong using scientific logic to back it up.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 7:28:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 7:15:37 PM, pozessed wrote:
thats fair to do, I didn't ask you to accept my beliefs. I am just asking someone to prove what I believe could be God to be wrong using scientific logic to back it up.

I mean, that's like me saying.

If God = Oxygen, prove he doesn't exist.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 7:30:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 7:28:33 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/14/2012 7:15:37 PM, pozessed wrote:
thats fair to do, I didn't ask you to accept my beliefs. I am just asking someone to prove what I believe could be God to be wrong using scientific logic to back it up.

I mean, that's like me saying.

If God = Oxygen, prove he doesn't exist.

That's why it's annoying to argue with pantheists sometimes.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 7:32:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You should really claim your Noble Prize for unlimited clean energy.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 7:33:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 7:32:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You should really claim your Nobel Prize for unlimited clean energy.

Fixed.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 7:34:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I mean, that's like me saying.
If God = Oxygen, prove he doesn't exist.

very true, but you never claimed oxygen to be conscious and able of making a universe using scientific evidence.