Religion… What do you think?

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223742

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I often wonder, how much time do we really even think about GOD ? I mean there are 168 hours in a week. You may spend what 3 hours tops on Sunday going to Church if you are of a Faith. Then maybe 3 to 5 hours total if you are more involved in the Church with Choir or Bible Study or Sunday School. Other than that, how much time do we really even think about GOD ? Maybe a 3 to 5 minute prayer here or there. You may pray after you wake up. Sometime during the day when something special happens or you get a breakthrough on something. Then probably before you go to sleep perhaps. I mean if I measure the amount of time I spend playing Video Games against how much time I even think about GOD it's not even close.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28602  Edited By FlashFyr

@dshipp17: Nope, I said I'm done reading your vague and fallacious bullshit. The only engagement you'll get from me is a voice debate where you can't leave out entire parts of my argument and build up foundationless syllogisms and garbage scientific methods unimpeded. Don't worry, you'd be able to stop me too. But I already know you won't debate me like that because all your tactics rely on uncited information, my inability to clarify immediately, and your ability to ignore both questions and arguments, so I guess I really am done with you.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223742

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

Your video games ARE God

Idols perhaps. I mean I do not view them as Necessary Entities as much as I would The Almighty. I view Video Games in the same sense I do the Television and Internet as The Great Titans Of Luxury.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

There are more bacteria in your body than there are cells.

Without the bacteria you will die.

You are as much bacteria as you are human.

It is this kind of intimate connectedness that makes all things One.

We can see the many ways that Video games connect us together.

Video games are in integral part of The One.

The One is God.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

There are more bacteria in your body than there are cells.

Without the bacteria you will die.

You are as much bacteria as you are human.

It is this kind of intimate connectedness that makes all things One.

We can see the many ways that Video games connect us together.

Video games are in integral part of The One.

The One is God.

This is the kind of stuff I hear when my friends get high.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223742

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

There are more bacteria in your body than there are cells.

Without the bacteria you will die.

You are as much bacteria as you are human.

It is this kind of intimate connectedness that makes all things One.

We can see the many ways that Video games connect us together.

Video games are in integral part of The One.

The One is God.

I am trying to figure out how Bacteria and Video Games are connected. Second, does this mean that Human Innovation is connected to The One as Video Games is basically Human Innovation ?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

No bacteria = No humans = No video games.

Human innovation Is The One

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

John 6:1-16:

After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.

2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.

4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?

6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.

7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,

9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?

10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.

12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.

13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

16 And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,

Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

Loading Video...
Loading Video...
@flashfyr said:

@dshipp17:

"Correct" and "false" are not the right vocabulary, whether you're talking about events, equations, or variables. Do you know how we came to the inductive conclusion of abiogenesis? There hasn't been sufficient, low p-value empirical evidence to suggest a god did anything, but we have plenty of data to suggest natural processes happen. Ergo, until we find evidence to reject the null hypothesis for creationism, we research the possibility of abiogenesis. No one says the Great Flood or creationism is impossible or wrong because that's not the right vocabulary.

> In this case, it means that I have to write my thesis or present the findings. It's a physics calculation or formula. If it's for my thesis or scientific finding, I'm not just going to present it here, until after I've formalized my results.

And that's why I'm dismissing it.

> This is a side issue and not the issue at hand (e.g. the complications with Flood versus the complications with abiogenesis). I'm not doing science wrong, because I'm not slanted towards the way you would like to see things. I just disagree.

A slant isn't why you're doing science wrong (in this particular point), you're doing it wrong by flexing an argument from ignorance fallacy.

> They've done many different experiments that demonstrate the abiogenesis is just not something that is likely. This is one of those things that are described exhaustively among Christian scientists. Essentially, this is a roundabout way of saying that we should start by assuming that there is no God in favor of abiogenesis, despite the evidence against the idea, which is pretty sound. By the same token, evidence for God has panned out, as it expands beyond science. If I have experimental proof, then, there is no real need to continue with something like the null hypothesis; there is just simply lots of different experiments that has shown one way or the other that abiogenesis is not likely, including the showing that it is literally mathematically impossible.

Cite. Your. Information.

> When the Flood is discussed, they're always describing something like geology and fossilization and making logical inferences; they aren't just making truth claims; I know this, because I look at what they're describing, not presuming what they said. This is a case of whether the context is always appropriate to apply the scientific method; here, you're just making sweeping generalizations. I just simply made an observation or described one, based on the context and circumstances. If the context called for the use of the scientific method, then, I would have phrased it differently, except this was the context for describing the scientific method in action.

I'm only 60% sure I know what you're saying because your grammar and syntax need brushing up. It doesn't help that you're using lots of vague words like "this, what (as an object), a case," instead of just saying the noun. But going off what I think you're trying to say, my response is that the null hypothesis is a technique used in every science for every kind of research. Everywhere. It doesn't matter whether it's social science or physical science, qualitative, quantitative, inductive, deductive, ethnography or experiment; I'm making a sweeping generalization of the scientific method because null hypothesis is the scientific method.

> This is largely because of the biases and presumptions taken at the start, most likely. Simply because a natural process occurred is largely irrelevant to whether God did something. Natural processes is just terminology that you just threw into the discussion out of the ether and without proper context to the discussion at hand.

What biases and presumptions are taken at the start? You're being vague again. But p-value is something that can be taken from any scientist, so what low p-value evidence has creationism put forth? I'm not saying that natural processes have relevancy to God doing something; I'm talking about the amount of evidence we have for Great Flood vs abiogenesis. They're two standalone topics but, for comparison's sake because you decided abiogenesis is less probable, I'm saying that abiogenesis (a natural process) has more empirical support (natural processes) than a Great Flood and all the events you're saying happened (divine intervention). How do you claim that a Great Flood is more likely when you don't give any data of divine interventions? And if you're going to say I'm getting the context wrong, say what you think the context is instead.

> Irreducable complexity is one reason to accept creationism and reject abiogenesis. Creationism is proving much more likely then abiogenesis; it's just their decision to continue to research abiogenesis but not research creationism.

Irreducible complexity is defined as a part being unable to do the same function if you reduce it, which is a patently absurd argument because, while it's true, it doesn't prove your god made anything or even that evolution is wrong. We have removed pieces of DNA that code for flagella and found that the part transforms into something that still has a useful function, just not the same function. So if a flagella's current state is mobility, we'd reduce it to less mobility, then a tail to catch food, then a basic feeler. That was something predicted in evolution via path dependency and cumulative retention. You keep saying creationism is proven much more likely but this is the only thing you've been specific about and it's far from a strong argument for proving or disproving something.

> This is just plan wrong; there is simply no evidence for abiogenesis, at all; figuratively and literally; no evidence for the Great Flood is just a claim recycled over and over again in the atheistic community. They describe evidence for the Flood in the very video that you're supposedly discussing with me; you just pick this thing about the heat heat energy calculation against the Flood and ran with that, where the video is discussing the geological evidence for the Flood. You're simply living or describing in a state of denial, if, after watching that video, you say there's not evidence for the Flood; there's plenty; sometimes, though, it's a matter of interpretation more than anything else.

Good job ignoring the part where I explained, start to finish, how we used the inductive method to reach abiogenesis as a conclusion. It's funny because you didn't quote my message where I listed the data collection used to induce abiogenesis (a natural process). As for the second part of your response, I asked you wholly what your Great Flood model has predicted, but instead you look at something already discovered and apply an ad hoc explanation to call it evidence which is something I specifically said is a problem with creation science (coming up with no discoveries compelling only to creationism, waiting for other people to discover everything, then interpreting it differently). How convenient you never quoted my request for a prediction anywhere. Literally, creation science has been nothing but a bunch of negativists hellbent on trying to disprove everything but producing nothing new and tangible. If all you can do is interpret other people's findings and call that evidence, creation science is akin to someone that takes the position of a critic without ever having created art. Wait until someone else does the work, then jump on it with no merit of your own. Nor have you given any low p-value evidence that I asked for early on.

> I didn't say this, at all; I said that they've reconstructed the Ark, based on the dimensions provided in the Bible and shown it to be viable; in response, you raised the issue of rough currents.

First of all, is your critical thinking actually this poor? Let's walk through what you said.

@flashfyr said:

Further, how did his family build a wooden ship that didn't twist and fall apart in such violent wind and water? Not only did they live before modern engineering, but they also used a subpar material that doesn't work for projects that big. Assuming the ark didn't get destroyed as wood should, how come the animals and humans weren't thrown around the interior by hundred-meter-tsunamis for over a month?

@dshipp17 said:

@flashfyr:

...

“Further, how did his family build a wooden ship that didn't twist and fall apart in such violent wind and water? Not only did they live before modern engineering, but they also used a subpar material that doesn't work for projects that big. Assuming the ark didn't get destroyed as wood should, how come the animals and humans weren't thrown around the interior by hundred-meter-tsunamis for over a month?”

The dimensions for the ship are provided in the Bible. This design has been reconstructed and it proved to be quite viable for the task at hand.

No Caption Provided

I set conditions (tsunamis) and you said there's a reconstruction that's shown to be viable for surviving said conditions. First you claim you didn't say "this" (vague as usual). Then you cancel that statement by saying they HAVE reconstructed an ark that's viable, contradicting yourself. And to really bring out the stupidity of it all, you claim I brought up the issue of rough currents in response, but I never once used that word ever. If you're taking it from "violent wind and water," or when I brought up tsunamis, I raised those issues in my first message and you even quoted it. Either you're making up an argument for me, or you're pretending that I raised an issue after rather than before.

Aight, I'm done. I can't argue with people who rewrite history, write it back, and possibly create some new history.

You leave out parts of my messages you haven't addressed, you use incorrect terminology like "sound, correct, and jargon," you're vague as hell, replacing important nouns like topics and contexts with pronouns, saying there's "plenty of evidence" in everything you claim yet you haven't said what they are nor can you be bothered to link a page to it (I can live without one or the other, not both), and you blatantly can't keep track of your points or mine. Since I'm not a hypocrite and I'm not gonna be vague, let me point out exactly what I'm talking about:

> They've done many different experiments that demonstrate the abiogenesis is just not something that is likely... By the same token, evidence for God has panned out, as it expands beyond science. If I have experimental proof, then, there is no real need to continue with something like the null hypothesis; there is just simply lots of different experiments that has shown one way or the other that abiogenesis is not likely, including the showing that it is literally mathematically impossible. (No description of these experiments or any link to them).

> the evidence against the idea, which is pretty sound. (Soundness is a philosophical term that operates under truth/false and science does not deal in truth claims)

> When the Flood is discussed, they're always describing something like geology and fossilization and making logical inferences; they aren't just making truth claims; I know this, because I look at what they're describing, not presuming what they said. This is a case of whether the context is always appropriate to apply the scientific method; here, you're just making sweeping generalizations. If the context called for the use of the scientific method, then, I would have phrased it differently, except this was the context for describing the scientific method in action. (Who are 'they?' What is 'it?' What is 'this?' What is the context? I'm sure the meaning is simple but your language isn't)

> This is largely because of the biases and presumptions taken at the start, most likely. (Didn't name them)

> Natural processes is just terminology that you just threw into the discussion out of the ether and without proper context to the discussion at hand. ("The context" you still refuse to spit out so that it's a vague force that makes me wrong by de facto, aka you're vague)

> it's just their decision to continue to research abiogenesis but not research creationism. (Left out a part of my message and didn't address at all why we research abiogenesis as a result of induction, instead misrepresenting this decision as arbitrary decision)

> you are biased towards something like abiogenesis being true (true is not correct terminology since science doesn't do truth claims)

And it's 11:51 now so I'm done scanning for other spots past the 1/4 my list constitutes. You've eaten up enough of my time so I'm not gonna bother reading your messages. I'll just quote this and attach it to whatever video rhetoric you try proselytizing everyone with so they know why it's a waste of time to argue with you. Bye.

Bonus lols for both appealing to Einstein and misquoting Him.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/bacteria-can-be-recruited-to-produce-graphene-without-the-high-cost/amp

Researchers Just Showed Bacteria Can Produce Wonder-Material Graphene

"""Using this process, we might be able to create graphene at the sort of scale necessary for the next generation of computing and medical devices – utilising graphene's powerful mix of strength, flexibility, and conductivity."""

"""This opens up all kinds of possibilities for the cheaper, bacteria-produced graphene. It could be used in field-effect transistor (FET) biosensors, """

"""This kind of graphene material could also be used as a conductive ink in circuit boards, in computer keyboards, or even in small wires to defrost car windshields. If needed, the bacteria process can be tweaked to produce graphene that's only conductive on one side."""

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223742

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/bacteria-can-be-recruited-to-produce-graphene-without-the-high-cost/amp

Researchers Just Showed Bacteria Can Produce Wonder-Material Graphene

"""Using this process, we might be able to create graphene at the sort of scale necessary for the next generation of computing and medical devices – utilising graphene's powerful mix of strength, flexibility, and conductivity."""

"""This opens up all kinds of possibilities for the cheaper, bacteria-produced graphene. It could be used in field-effect transistor (FET) biosensors, """

"""This kind of graphene material could also be used as a conductive ink in circuit boards, in computer keyboards, or even in small wires to defrost car windshields. If needed, the bacteria process can be tweaked to produce graphene that's only conductive on one side."""

Then technically Bacteria is The One and not Human Innovation as Human Innovation is a by product of Humans and Humans are a product of Bacteria.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for blackdragon3
BlackDragon3

202

Forum Posts

450

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Before the start of my answer, let you tell you something: “Everyone has their own opinions and ideas over things and I really appreciate that.”

I think it’s one of the oldest struggles of mankind To comprehend everything. And after literally tens of thousands of years, man has understood that God is the answer to the questions that have no answer. Religion is a way to serve this God that we see as the answer to our problems. Some people misunderstand that idea of God. As if God would do certain things they wanted, like, get a specific person to love them, or use God to become filthy rich. God isn’t a puppet to follow man’s bidding. But anyway, so religion was a way to serve God, rather than the reverse. People also misunderstand religion. They will apply the minor rules (like keep the speed limit, never take too much change, obey the rules, etc…), but forget the major rules (like love your neighbor as you love yourself). Which is why there are so many religions. Most of them serving the same God, but with different ideas about Him. God is infinite love. God is infinite wisdom. God made humans and loved them deeply. God is taking care of humans. This life we have, is given by God; and we humans make of it what we want; both for ourselves, as for other humans. I think a lot of people have problems with the idea of God being a person, rather than a concept or energy. The majority of people believe in a God with an intelligence and emotional response beyond our human capabilities. While a fraction believes in the energy, and power coming from the concept of God, but without a person (which I find hard to believe if the person has intelligence). And then there are those who rather believe in alien life, than in life that exists outside of our physical world. They don’t believe in anything they can’t physically see or feel, or hear. I find that these people can’t grasp the idea of a being far beyond our space and time, holding the strings of the cosmos as we know it… The concept of God, holds true for me, the idea of religion, less; because it’s a very personal thing. God connects to humans in a personal way; nothing religion can replicate.

Avatar image for king_majestros
King_Majestros

2571

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@blackdragon3: I'm going to break down your comment.

1. And after literally tens of thousands of years, man has understood that God is the answer to the questions that have no answer.

1) False. Not everyone believed "God" existed, even back then, nor did they come to the conclusion that "God" was the answer to unanswered questions.

2. Religion is a way to serve this God that we see as the answer to our problems.

2) Or many Gods, since there were and still are many religions that are polytheistic.

3. Some people misunderstand that idea of God.

3) Not a single individual understands the idea of "God."

4. As if God would do certain things they wanted, like, get a specific person to love them, or use God to become filthy rich.

4) Or justify the evil acts that "God" commits.

5. God isn’t a puppet to follow man’s bidding.

5) Nor are Humans puppets to follow "God's" bidding.

6. People also misunderstand religion.

6) There are plenty of us that know what religion is.

7. They will apply the minor rules (like keep the speed limit, never take too much change, obey the rules, etc…),

7) I wouldn't place "speed limit" as a minor rule, especially when it's built on keeping people safe.

8. but forget the major rules (like love your neighbor as you love yourself).

8) Why would I love someone who could be a child rapist and/or murderer?

9. Which is why there are so many religions.

9) That's not the sole reason as to why there are so many religions.

10. God is infinite love. God is infinite wisdom. God made humans and loved them deeply.

10) He's really not and no he doesn't.

11. God is taking care of humans.

11) By killing them, often innocents.

12. This life we have, is given by God;

12) It isn't.

13. and we humans make of it what we want;

13) True.

14. And then there are those who rather believe in alien life, than in life that exists outside of our physical world.

14) We have the technology that allows us to search for extraterrestrial life, with there being a high percentage of other life existing on other planets. Here's the evidence: Humans. Also, we have no way to cross dimensional portals into alternate universes, so...

15. They don’t believe in anything they can’t physically see or feel, or hear.

15) How is that an issue?

16. I find that these people can’t grasp the idea of a being far beyond our space and time, holding the strings of the cosmos as we know it…

16) Every single person who has claimed that "God" exists has failed to prove it. Every. Single. Person. And that includes yourself. There is not one shred of substantial, verified data demonstrated. Since you believe he does, wouldn't that make you delusional and disconnected from reality?

I hope we can have a decent conversation.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28617  Edited By FlashFyr

@blackdragon3: Believing in alien life doesn't exclude you from believing in God, but I don't understand what makes belief in alien life more irrational than "life that exists nonphysically." All our examples of "nonphysical things," like thoughts, experiences, and feelings are still contingent on a physical system to subjectively interpret them. Can you name one verified nonphysical thing that would continue existing if all physical sentience died? I can't see the difference between "nonphysical" and plainly not existing as an independent object. Not saying there is no difference; I just can't tell how you make the distinction or how you have the data to say nonphysical beings are more rational than aliens.

Second, if you can't see, feel, or hear something, why would you believe it? Isn't that irrational by definition? Any reason for believing in something has to be perceptible in some way to count as evidence, but it sounds like you've set up your god to be undetectable so you can't have evidence for it. But you've given your god all these traits like infinite this and infinite that, that he loves and takes care of us (we have mountains of investigations into holy sites and prayers that show no statistically significant effects on anything), traits which you can't possibly know/detect, so it seems like you're compounding irrationality with each trait.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223742

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

They have been showing a Marathon of one of GOD's greatest Angels of Death on TV.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: So if there were no such thing as the supernatural and we only have a physical, nonsentient universe made of unconscious atoms, that would be God?

Avatar image for king_majestros
King_Majestros

2571

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Religion, no matter how much you sugar coat things, is and always will be the antithesis of Life and Freedom.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr said:

@spareheadone: So if there were no such thing as the supernatural and we only have a physical, nonsentient universe made of unconscious atoms, that would be God?

There is no such thing as the supernatural, its all natural.

We do not only have a physical universe. We have mind and consciousness.

We do not have a nonsentient universe. The universe is aware of itself because we are aware of it.

So we have a natural universe with a conscious mind which is aware of itself. That would be God.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223742

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Can One Truly Be Happy In Heaven If They Know Some Of Their Loved Ones Wont Be There ?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

I dont know what you mean by "hard" (idealism perhaps?) but anyway,no.

God is one being and many selves, many egos.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28629  Edited By FlashFyr

@spareheadone: So what happens to God if you kill all biological life that can perceive things?

Avatar image for king_majestros
King_Majestros

2571

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: That can't be true. If your loved ones committed crimes that God/Bible says will send them to Hell, then they won't be in Heaven nor would said someone be truly happy.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

But there is biological life that can perceive things.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28632  Edited By FlashFyr

@spareheadone: I know. I'm asking you to clarify your definition of God by specifying what happens to it if all biological life dies.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_majestros:

1 Timothy 4:10To this end we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of allmen, especially of those who believe.

Luke 3: 4as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,

‘Prepare the way for the Lord,

make straight paths for Him.

5Every valley shall be filled in,

and every mountain and hill made low.

The crooked ways shall be made straight,

and the rough ways smooth.

6And all humanity will see God’s salvation.’”

Avatar image for king_majestros
King_Majestros

2571

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_majestros
King_Majestros

2571

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_majestros:

No, Highly technologically advanced and we both know technology is real.

Or are you going to tell me you dont believe life can come from non life?

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_majestros: Note that he didn't answer my question about his definition of God.

Avatar image for king_majestros
King_Majestros

2571

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr: Daaaaamn.

@spareheadone: Where'd you get that idea from?

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28641  Edited By FlashFyr

Pst. Wanna know a secret? All life comes from non-life.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

Pst. Wanna know a secret? All life comes from life.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

In reply to your question.....I dont know

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: Everything alive was once not alive, ergo all life comes from non-life.

If you don't know, you're reaching pretty hard to make truth claims using a definition of God that's ill-defined in the first place.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

You didn't come from "not alive" you came from your alive parents.

God is All

There is no need for more description

Your hypothetical questions mean nothing

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28646  Edited By FlashFyr

@spareheadone: So where was I when my alive parents didn't have me yet? I was not alive.

But according to your definition, God isn't "all." You said he's comprised of egos and that the universe's self-awareness is contingent on "us." If God is made up of egos that have perspectives, then objects that have no egos would not comprise God. A helium atom is "something," but it has no ego and wouldn't be part of God, therefore God isn't "all." And this contingency on biological life with sensory perspectives means there's a potentiality that, if all life died, your god would just cease to exist. Or it'd just be a blind, dumb god but I wouldn't know because you don't have any description of god past beings with senses.

You're reaching. Dumbing everything down to "God is all, I don't need to think about the problems with that statement" is an admission of defeat.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

You didn't come from "not alive"

Just like I didn't come from "not DisneyLand"

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28648  Edited By FlashFyr

@spareheadone:

Your house = not Disneyland.

Disneyland = Disneyland

Ergo, you drove from "not Disneyland" to Disneyland. Lmao.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

See I don't need to give you extra defining features for you to deliberately misunderstand me.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28650  Edited By FlashFyr

@spareheadone: No, you don't give extra defining features because you don't know. That's what you said. So I make syllogisms based on the only things you tell me.