# Proof that God exists, without faith

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Proof that God exists, without faith

I originally heard of the RRS, through the proof of God's existence without faith debate RRS vs the way of the munters

I decided to work out if this was technically possible before the debate took place, and I succeeded I think . in another forum, knowing the way the Internet works this may have cropped up already but just in case it hasn't here it's is

Fundamental questions that nobody can answer... until now

This answer pre-assumes that what we perceive as reality is reality

Question .... does God (intelligent creator of everything) exist ....... Answer... yes
And here is the proof

The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.The properties of everything in the universe .. are the properties of the universe and vice versa
There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational
There is intelligence in the universe .... the universe has intelligence .... the universe is intelligent

Universe = intelligent

Universe = creator (the universes existence has created the opportunity for life ect ect )

Universe = everything

Universe = intelligent creator of everything

God = intelligent creator of everything

Universe = God
God = Universe

The description of intelligent creator of everything. only works from the point where intelligence emerges in the universes existence

Of course you could also use these parameters to prove the universe is a bowl of minestrone. this wouldn't cancel out the above proof it would simply add to it.

? could somebody show me the error in this ( this is just a piece of fun and should not be taken seriously by any theist because this God has an IQ of approximately 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1

and he/she/it has fleas )

Gauche
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
Offline
Every object in the universe

Every object in the universe has a gravitational force that it exerts on every other object but not every object in the universe has intelligence. That doesn't apply to intelligence so I don't think saying the universe is is intelligent is like saying that it is gravitational.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
This wouldn't be entirely

This wouldn't be entirely true with gravity. not everything in the universe exerts a gravitational field

And the universe is connected in far more ways than I can describe on the quantum level, thus it becomes impossible to separate one part of an enclosed system as all parts are connected to describe one part of the universe describes the universe

Kinder like reading the ingredients on a can of soup " warning this can of soup may contain intelligence "

ParanoidAgnostic
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: There

Rev_Devilin wrote:

There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational

The universe is gravitational? Not is't not, what does that statement even mean? You can describe a force as gravitational, you can describe a movement as gravitational (as the result of the gravitational force). but you cannot describe an object as gravitational. An object has mass, which exerts gravitational force.

I'd also coreect the second part to be "the universe contains gravity" the word "has" can be read in the wrong way, which is what leads to the erronious last statement. A glass bottle that has a vacuum inside is not a vacuum, it contains a vacuum. If you consider it and it's contents as a whole then part of it is a vacuum.

For something to exert the force of gravity it needs to be within the universe. Gravity is the bending of space-time. The cuniverse contains space-time, there is no space-time outside of the universe so what can the universe bend?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
According to Relativity,

According to Relativity, gravity works in all dimensions.

Gauche
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
Offline
I don’t know enough about

I don’t know enough about quantum mechanics to really comment on that but it is pretty obvious that everything on the macro scale exerts a gravitational force and almost nothing possesses intelligence. So that’s why I don’t understand how you can make this connection. Perhaps you could elaborate a little and I will try to keep up.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

For something to exert the force of gravity it needs to be within the universe. Gravity is the bending of space-time. The cuniverse contains space-time, there is no space-time outside of the universe so what can the universe bend?

This pre-assumes that our universe isn't expanding inside another universe

Or " what can the universe bend" Itself would be another possible answer

Vastet
Posts: 13012
Joined: 2006-12-25
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: The

Rev_Devilin wrote:
The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.

We do not know this is true.

Rev_Devilin wrote:
The properties of everything in the universe .. are the properties of the universe and vice versa
There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational

In regards to what? For the universe to be gravitational, it would seem that there must be something outside the universe that gravitates. Which would imply the universe is not necessarily a closed system, but more akin to a galaxy amongst galaxies.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

There is intelligence in the universe .... the universe has intelligence .... the universe is intelligent

Universe = intelligent

Universe = creator (the universes existence has created the opportunity for life ect ect )

Universe = everything

Universe = intelligent creator of everything

God = intelligent creator of everything

Universe = God
God = Universe

The description of intelligent creator of everything. only works from the point where intelligence emerges in the universes existence

Ironically this would mean we created god, in a literal sense. Which would make us even more powerful than god. We would be the god of god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Gauche wrote: I don’t

Gauche wrote:

I don’t know enough about quantum mechanics to really comment on that but it is pretty obvious that everything on the macro scale exerts a gravitational force and almost nothing possesses intelligence. So that’s why I don’t understand how you can make this connection. Perhaps you could elaborate a little and I will try to keep up.

Not everything in universe has mass, certain forms of energy has no mass ie energy doesn't exert a gravitational field

On a quantum level tap your mouse button and the effects of this action reaction could be felt on the other side of the universe. everything is that connected on a quantum level

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Vastet wrote: The universe

Vastet wrote:

The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.

We do not know this is true.

You may have spotted a potential error. I shall contemplate this thanks

darth_josh
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: I

Rev_Devilin wrote:

I originally heard of the RRS, through the proof of God's existence without faith debate RRS vs the way of the munters

I decided to work out if this was technically possible before the debate took place, and I succeeded I think . in another forum, knowing the way the Internet works this may have cropped up already but just in case it hasn't here it's is

Fundamental questions that nobody can answer... until now

This answer pre-assumes that what we perceive as reality is reality

Question .... does God (intelligent creator of everything) exist ....... Answer... yes
And here is the proof

The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.The properties of everything in the universe .. are the properties of the universe and vice versa
There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational
There is intelligence in the universe .... the universe has intelligence .... the universe is intelligent

Whoops. You have just made a non-sequitur.

Because something is in something else and has something else does not mean that it IS that something else.

Quote:
Universe = intelligent

What denotes intelligence?

What denotes universe?

They are different terms to describe different things. Here is the problem.

Universe = Universe

Intelligence = Intelligence

Quote:
Universe = creator (the universes existence has created the opportunity for life ect ect )

WHOA, big daddy. As Richard Carrier pointed out, the universe is great at making black holes. In other words, perhaps the universe is a better opportunity for black holes and life is a sort of side effect.

Quote:
Universe = everything

Nope. The universe is the sum of the pieces within it if you declare it to be a closed system.

Quote:
Universe = intelligent creator of everything

There goes the leap again. The everything intelligently creating everything needs an everything to create it. Infinite regression breaks down the presupposition.

Quote:
God = intelligent creator of everything

Precept fails due to invalid steps.

Quote:

Universe = God
God = Universe
The description of intelligent creator of everything. only works from the point where intelligence emerges in the universes existence

Exactly. Human intelligence(or the lack thereof lol) created god belief, but not a god itself. If humanity did create a god then it would be defined as a creation of humanity not the other way around as asserted by theists.

Quote:
Of course you could also use these parameters to prove the universe is a bowl of minestrone.

No. I couldn't I could only prove what a bowl of minestrone was and that it was in the universe by denoting its parameters and giving it mass and loci.

Quote:
this wouldn't cancel out the above proof it would simply add to it.

The above proof fails due to the initial non-sequitur made followed by the allowance of presuppositions.

Quote:

? could somebody show me the error in this ( this is just a piece of fun and should not be taken seriously by any theist because this God has an IQ of approximately 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1

and he/she/it has fleas )

It is fun because arguments like this are held as truth and proof for people that will willingly allow that leap from one thing to another without defining either.

A decent hypothesis for a god must contain the testability factor and that requires definition.

Incidentally, they make apologists to groom the fleas off of gods. One day when they're all gone, the god fleas will take over. lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
Who wrote this?

Who wrote this?

darth_josh
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Who

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Who wrote this?

Textbook philosophical pantheism, dude.

This is close to your same (erm...) stuff.

Objectification of concepts, anthropomorphization of natural phenomenon, poetic license, and presupposition are all tools of the evangelical pantheist in my opinion.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Who wrote this?

Textbook philosophical pantheism, dude.

This is close to your same (erm...) stuff.

Objectification of concepts, anthropomorphization of natural phenomenon, poetic license, and presupposition are all tools of the evangelical pantheist in my opinion.

There's a textbook on philosophical pantheism?

NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: I

Rev_Devilin wrote:

I originally heard of the RRS, through the proof of God's existence without faith debate RRS vs the way of the munters

I decided to work out if this was technically possible before the debate took place, and I succeeded I think . in another forum, knowing the way the Internet works this may have cropped up already but just in case it hasn't here it's is

Fundamental questions that nobody can answer... until now

This answer pre-assumes that what we perceive as reality is reality

Question .... does God (intelligent creator of everything) exist ....... Answer... yes
And here is the proof

The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.The properties of everything in the universe .. are the properties of the universe and vice versa
There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational
There is intelligence in the universe .... the universe has intelligence .... the universe is intelligent

Universe = intelligent

Universe = creator (the universes existence has created the opportunity for life ect ect )

Universe = everything

Universe = intelligent creator of everything

God = intelligent creator of everything

Universe = God
God = Universe

The description of intelligent creator of everything. only works from the point where intelligence emerges in the universes existence

Of course you could also use these parameters to prove the universe is a bowl of minestrone. this wouldn't cancel out the above proof it would simply add to it.

? could somebody show me the error in this ( this is just a piece of fun and should not be taken seriously by any theist because this God has an IQ of approximately 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1

and he/she/it has fleas )

Ah... I see it now...

Beans + a couple of hours = gas

gas is gaseous

gaseous = imminant flatulence

flatulence = passing energy

passing energy = magical energy

magical energy = tweedle dee and tweedle dum

tweedle dee + tweedle dum = Congress

congess is congessional

congressional is mockery of intelligence

mockery of intelligence is pseudo intelligence

pseudo intelligence may be actual intelligence

actual intelligence is intelligent

intelligent = god

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Who

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Who wrote this?

Me myself and I.

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:
Rev_Devilin wrote:

I originally heard of the RRS, through the proof of God's existence without faith debate RRS vs the way of the munters

I decided to work out if this was technically possible before the debate took place, and I succeeded I think . in another forum, knowing the way the Internet works this may have cropped up already but just in case it hasn't here it's is

Fundamental questions that nobody can answer... until now

This answer pre-assumes that what we perceive as reality is reality

Question .... does God (intelligent creator of everything) exist ....... Answer... yes
And here is the proof

The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.The properties of everything in the universe .. are the properties of the universe and vice versa
There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational
There is intelligence in the universe .... the universe has intelligence .... the universe is intelligent

Whoops. You have just made a non-sequitur.

Because something is in something else and has something else does not mean that it IS that something else.

If the universe is an enclosed system intimately connected on the quantum level then the properties of the system are the properties of the system as all thing are connect ie a car is not defined by it's individual components but by it's whole ? what one individual component in a car defines it as a car look at a car on a quantum level and this becomes even more apparent

Quote:
Universe = intelligent

What denotes intelligence? you do

What denotes universe? that which created the opportunity for your existence

They are different terms to describe different things. Here is the problem.

If the universe is a enclosed system intimately connected on a quantum level then there are large gray areas of overlapping definitions.ie it's like trying to define breathe without defining muscle movement lungs and oxygen and so on until you define the entire universe

Universe = Universe and everything in the universe

Intelligence = Intelligence try defining intelligence completely separated from the universe it was created in

Quote:
Universe = creator (the universes existence has created the opportunity for life ect ect )

WHOA, big daddy. As Richard Carrier pointed out, the universe is great at making black holes. In other words, perhaps the universe is a better opportunity for black holes and life is a sort of side effect.

Agreed

Quote:
Universe = everything

Nope. The universe is the sum of the pieces within it if you declare it to be a closed system.

if you could point to something and declared it as not part of the universe I would agree. otherwise the universe is everything

Quote:
Universe = intelligent creator of everything

There goes the leap again. The everything intelligently creating everything needs an everything to create it. Infinite regression breaks down the presupposition.

I'm just using incredibly bad logic to to fit two definitions together god universe

Quote:
God = intelligent creator of everything

Precept fails due to invalid steps.

If the universe is an enclosed system then I believe they are valid

Quote:

Universe = God
God = Universe
The description of intelligent creator of everything. only works from the point where intelligence emerges in the universes existence

Exactly. Human intelligence(or the lack thereof lol) created god belief, but not a god itself. If humanity did create a god then it would be defined as a creation of humanity not the other way around as asserted by theists.

Quote:
Of course you could also use these parameters to prove the universe is a bowl of minestrone.

No. I couldn't I could only prove what a bowl of minestrone was and that it was in the universe by denoting its parameters and giving it mass and loci.

Quote:
this wouldn't cancel out the above proof it would simply add to it.

The above proof fails due to the initial non-sequitur made followed by the allowance of presuppositions.

Quote:

Possibly I believe my assertion that the universe as an enclose system may be in error. but I think the rest is valid

? could somebody show me the error in this ( this is just a piece of fun and should not be taken seriously by any theist because this God has an IQ of approximately 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1

and he/she/it has fleas )

It is fun because arguments like this are held as truth and proof for people that will willingly allow that leap from one thing to another without defining either.

A decent hypothesis for a god must contain the testability factor and that requires definition.

Incidentally, they make apologists to groom the fleas off of gods. One day when they're all gone, the god fleas will take over. lol.

It was just a bit of fun to see whether I could do it. and for this to work you have to concede that god is just a word

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
NarcolepticSun

NarcolepticSun wrote:

Ah... I see it now...

Beans + a couple of hours = gas

gas is gaseous

gaseous = imminant flatulence

flatulence = passing energy

passing energy = magical energy

magical energy = tweedle dee and tweedle dum

tweedle dee + tweedle dum = Congress

congess is congessional

congressional is mockery of intelligence

mockery of intelligence is pseudo intelligence

pseudo intelligence may be actual intelligence

actual intelligence is intelligent

intelligent = god

You have reached a stage of true enlightenment

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
My essays are better >_>

My essays are better >_>

Vastet
Posts: 13012
Joined: 2006-12-25
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Vastet

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Vastet wrote:

The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.

We do not know this is true.

You may have spotted a potential error. I shall contemplate this thanks

No problem.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: My

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
My essays are better >_>

Pahh and humbug let's see you prove God's existence in less than 20 lines. in perfectly understandable no jargon English then, I am  currently making the sound of a raspberry in your general direction

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Vastet wrote: Rev_Devilin

Vastet wrote:
Rev_Devilin wrote:

Vastet wrote:

The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.

We do not know this is true.

You may have spotted a potential error. I shall contemplate this thanks

No problem.

hmmm it's an idea of my own making a years ago I posted this on a physics forum, ( I was just starting to understand the rudimentary of quantum physics, after a year of study I now know considerably less than when I started   )

quotes me "  I wonder if anybody has covered the possibility.that the mass of our universe is affected by the mass of possible previous universe's ? " ie dark matter

If so then stuff like entanglement wouldn't be applicable to this dark matter and the intimately connection on a quantum level would contain large gaps

I'm still trying to clarify this in my mind this might take some time

? do you have some ideas on this yourself

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
My essays are better >_>

Pahh and humbug let's see you prove God's existence in less than 20 lines. in perfectly understandable no jargon English then, I am currently making the sound of a raspberry in your general direction

'Cuz tha Bible says so.

NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: You

Rev_Devilin wrote:

You have reached a stage of true enlightenment

Sweet tits! Now all I must do is figure out how to make all women desire to tell me to have sex with them...

SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote:  I

Rev_Devilin wrote:

I originally heard of the RRS, through the proof of God's existence without faith debate RRS vs the way of the munters

I decided to work out if this was technically possible before the debate took place, and I succeeded I think . in another forum, knowing the way the Internet works this may have cropped up already but just in case it hasn't here it's is

Fundamental questions that nobody can answer... until now

This answer pre-assumes that what we perceive as reality is reality

Question .... does God (intelligent creator of everything) exist ....... Answer... yes
And here is the proof

The universe in which we live. is an enclosed system.The properties of everything in the universe .. are the properties of the universe and vice versa
There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational
There is intelligence in the universe .... the universe has intelligence .... the universe is intelligent

Universe = intelligent

Universe = creator (the universes existence has created the opportunity for life ect ect )

Universe = everything

Universe = intelligent creator of everything

God = intelligent creator of everything

Universe = God
God = Universe

The description of intelligent creator of everything. only works from the point where intelligence emerges in the universes existence

Of course you could also use these parameters to prove the universe is a bowl of minestrone. this wouldn't cancel out the above proof it would simply add to it.

? could somebody show me the error in this ( this is just a piece of fun and should not be taken seriously by any theist because this God has an IQ of approximately 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1

and he/she/it has fleas )

No No No No!!!

why do people keep refering to the universe as though it is an entity.

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT AN ENTITY it is a completely empty void of nothingness, with things in it, to that end a void cannot have properties. There is no gravity in an empty vacuum and so the universe itself has no gravity, the things inside the universe do, however.

ParanoidAgnostic
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
Offline
NarcolepticSun

NarcolepticSun wrote:

Sweet tits! Now all I must do is figure out how to make all women desire to tell me to have sex with them...

It's easy, Just be strong but sensitive, emotional but stoic, open with your feelings but silent, intelligent but not smarter than them, funny but serious, tall but short, black but white, up but down, left but right....

But most of all never point out that women want a contradiction.

I'm going to find somewhere to hide now.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

ParanoidAgnostic
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
Offline
SamSexton wrote: THE

SamSexton wrote:

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT AN ENTITY it is a completely empty void of nothingness, with things in it, to that end a void cannot have properties. There is no gravity in an empty vacuum and so the universe itself has no gravity, the things inside the universe do, however.

I disagre, slightly. While I don't think you can treat the universe as an entity I don't think you can treat it as a container (as you seem to imply). It does not just have things in it. It is the sum of everything, not just the non-entity that everything is inside of.

How can you be inside of a container that does not exist?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
Offline
i agree, i should have said

i agree, i should have said that although i say "inside" i'm not supposing that there is an outside. Looking more in to the definition of the universe, the term actually refers to all the energy and matter within this void, therefore refering to only a tiny part of this endless vacuum. When people say the universe is expanding they simply mean that the matter and energy is getting more spread out.

It's important to understand that "the universe" is not the vacuum itself, only the contents.

NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
Offline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
NarcolepticSun wrote:

Sweet tits! Now all I must do is figure out how to make all women desire to tell me to have sex with them...

It's easy, Just be strong but sensitive, emotional but stoic, open with your feelings but silent, intelligent but not smarter than them, funny but serious, tall but short, black but white, up but down, left but right....

But most of all never point out that women want a contradiction.

I'm going to find somewhere to hide now.

Ah... so... the women whom say they want an "honst man" really want to be lied to? so when she says what do you think of me, today? - I probably shouldn't say something to the affect of "you're awefully bitchy"? Perhaps come out with something a little less genuine, such as: "You're somewhat tolerable today, now shut up - or i'll be forced to choke you" :-P

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
SamSexton wrote:   No No

SamSexton wrote:

No No No No!!!

why do people keep refering to the universe as though it is an entity.

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT AN ENTITY it is a completely empty void of nothingness, with things in it, to that end a void cannot have properties. There is no gravity in an empty vacuum and so the universe itself has no gravity, the things inside the universe do, however.

SamSexton wrote:

i agree, i should have said that although i say "inside" i'm not supposing that there is an outside. Looking more in to the definition of the universe, the term actually refers to all the energy and matter within this void, therefore refering to only a tiny part of this endless vacuum. When people say the universe is expanding they simply mean that the matter and energy is getting more spread out.

It's important to understand that "the universe" is not the vacuum itself, only the contents.

No No No couldn't resist

SamSexton you are a genius, you are also wrong about the universe, I'll explain why later, my head is dizzy with a concept you've give me, thanks

NarcolepticSun people generally desire the unattainable ie you only want what you cannot have

Susan
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
Offline
NarcolepticSun

NarcolepticSun wrote:
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
NarcolepticSun wrote:

Sweet tits! Now all I must do is figure out how to make all women desire to tell me to have sex with them...

It's easy, Just be strong but sensitive, emotional but stoic, open with your feelings but silent, intelligent but not smarter than them, funny but serious, tall but short, black but white, up but down, left but right....

But most of all never point out that women want a contradiction.

I'm going to find somewhere to hide now.

Ah... so... the women whom say they want an "honst man" really want to be lied to? so when she says what do you think of me, today? - I probably shouldn't say something to the affect of "you're awefully bitchy"? Perhaps come out with something a little less genuine, such as: "You're somewhat tolerable today, now shut up - or i'll be forced to choke you"

You're all in trouble now.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
Offline
Susan

Susan wrote:
NarcolepticSun wrote:
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
NarcolepticSun wrote:

Sweet tits! Now all I must do is figure out how to make all women desire to tell me to have sex with them...

It's easy, Just be strong but sensitive, emotional but stoic, open with your feelings but silent, intelligent but not smarter than them, funny but serious, tall but short, black but white, up but down, left but right....

But most of all never point out that women want a contradiction.

I'm going to find somewhere to hide now.

Ah... so... the women whom say they want an "honst man" really want to be lied to? so when she says what do you think of me, today? - I probably shouldn't say something to the affect of "you're awefully bitchy"? Perhaps come out with something a little less genuine, such as: "You're somewhat tolerable today, now shut up - or i'll be forced to choke you"

You're all in trouble now.

That's a constant for me

Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
Offline
Quote: There is gravity in

Quote:
There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational
There is intelligence in the universe .... the universe has intelligence .... the universe is intelligent

I think this is one of the bigger flaws.

There is blue in green .... green has blue .... green is blue

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Voiderest

Voiderest wrote:

Quote:
There is gravity in the universe .... the universe has gravity...... the universe is gravitational
There is intelligence in the universe .... the universe has intelligence .... the universe is intelligent

I think this is one of the bigger flaws.

There is blue in green .... green has blue .... green is blue

I commend you upon your thinking. but I'm dubious about your chosen example. colors don't exist they are only perceived

I suppose it would all come down to whether you could differentiate between certain aspects in an enclosed connected environment ie heat the universe is warm, background radiation from the Big Bang it's everywhere, but then there's suft like life which isn't everywhere but it is part of the universe so could life be defined as the universe. ie the universe is alive, well by taking a large sledgehammer and an ample supply of ignorance to logic I believe I can

The universe is hot

The universe is gravitational

Gravity and radiation are prevalent throughout the universe so it is easy to define the universe as hot and gravitational

The universe is alive

Gravity is everywhere in the definable universe But it does not affect everything, and gravity does not exist by itself it is created by mass, mass only accounts for a small proportion of the universe but you cannot separate mass from gravity so the universe has mass and gravity, to describe the universe in its entirety you would need to say the universe has a gravitational mass or the universe is a gravitational mass, but this wouldn't be describing the entire universe. to describe the universe in its entirety you would also need to include everything in the universe including life, now life itself is quite hard to define although you consider you're self to be fully alive this isn't exactly true your fingernails hair ect are dead organic material, only a proportion of you is alive but you do not consider what proportion of alive defines life only that life itself is present to fit this definition of alive. thus the proportion of life is inconsequential to the definition of alive, the universe contains life life is made possible by the universes existence life itself is made by the material created by the universe life is created and sustained by the universes existence, the definition of life itself is the definition of the universe therefore the universe is life therefore the universe is alive

I sincerely hope I have confused the hell out of you with this vague answer

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Rev_Devilin

SamSexton wrote:

No No No No!!!

why do people keep refering to the universe as though it is an entity.

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT AN ENTITY it is a completely empty void of nothingness, with things in it, to that end a void cannot have properties. There is no gravity in an empty vacuum and so the universe itself has no gravity, the things inside the universe do, however.

SamSexton wrote:

i agree, i should have said that although i say "inside" i'm not supposing that there is an outside. Looking more in to the definition of the universe, the term actually refers to all the energy and matter within this void, therefore refering to only a tiny part of this endless vacuum. When people say the universe is expanding they simply mean that the matter and energy is getting more spread out.

It's important to understand that "the universe" is not the vacuum itself, only the contents.

No No No

SamSexton , our universe is absolutely full of suft background radiation light, go take a look for yourself on the next cloudless night away from man-made light pollution, and find a large area of complete darkness where nothing exists go on

"When people say the universe is expanding they simply mean that the matter and energy is getting more spread out" although this is essentially true it is also in error, the light at the edges of our universe defines the edges of our universe that which exists beyond this has no time in this universe, there is a clear distinction between what is in our universe and what is outside it ie inside our light and our time

Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: I

Rev_Devilin wrote:
I commend you upon your thinking. but I'm dubious about your chosen example. colors don't exist they are only perceived

I suppose I should really pick an object and quality to be fair.

This is the formula as far as I can see it.

There is Q in O .... O has Q .... O is Q

Q = quality

O = object

Now lets see if there is a hole in this, I think I can find one.

Does limited aspects of an object really say something about the whole object?

Lets say we have a string of numbers, our object.

1713641873469861298 1123549 637402937

The highlighted section has a pattern.

For this O = number string and Q = pattern.

There is a pattern in number string .... number string has a pattern .... number string is a pattern

However if you look at number string as a whole it is not a pattern even though there is a pattern within it.

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Voiderest wrote:

Voiderest wrote:

I suppose I should really pick an object and quality to be fair.

This is the formula as far as I can see it.

There is Q in O .... O has Q .... O is Q

Q = quality

O = object

Now lets see if there is a hole in this, I think I can find one.

Does limited aspects of an object really say something about the whole object?

Lets say we have a string of numbers, our object.

1713641873469861298 1123549 637402937

The highlighted section has a pattern.

For this O = number string and Q = pattern.

There is a pattern in number string .... number string has a pattern .... number string is a pattern

However if you look at number string as a whole it is not a pattern even though there is a pattern within it.

Try to pin me down with a sound logical hypothesis, using numbers ekkkkk nobody can escape the undeniable truth of numbers. well there is one cowardly despicable BS escape, infinity tar..dar you forced me to use it and it means I'm on incredibly shaky ground from this point on. but I might just be able to pull this trick off. watch my sleeves carefully

Although the known universe itself cannot be described as infinite ie it has a known size, certain aspects of the universe are consider infinite in quantum models. so a description of the universe becomes a description of infinity ie universe = infinity

There is Q in O .... O has Q .... O is Q

Q = quality = infinite

O = object = infinite

As both quantity and object are infinite they both hold the same value thus Q has the value of O, ie Q=O O=Q O+O=O O+O=Q Q+Q=Q Q+Q=O

NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Try to

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Try to pin me down with a sound logical hypothesis, using numbers ekkkkk nobody can escape the undeniable truth of numbers. well there is one cowardly despicable BS escape, infinity tar..dar you forced me to use it and it means I'm on incredibly shaky ground from this point on. but I might just be able to pull this trick off. watch my sleeves carefully

Although the known universe itself cannot be described as infinite ie it has a known size, certain aspects of the universe are consider infinite in quantum models. so a description of the universe becomes a description of infinity ie universe = infinity

There is Q in O .... O has Q .... O is Q

Q = quality = infinite

O = object = infinite

As both quantity and object are infinite they both hold the same value thus Q has the value of O, ie Q=O O=Q O+O=O O+O=Q Q+Q=Q Q+Q=O

I think I'm gonna go take a shit now...

Susan
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Try to

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Try to pin me down with a sound logical hypothesis, using numbers ekkkkk nobody can escape the undeniable truth of numbers. well there is one cowardly despicable BS escape, infinity tar..dar you forced me to use it and it means I'm on incredibly shaky ground from this point on. but I might just be able to pull this trick off. watch my sleeves carefully

Although the known universe itself cannot be described as infinite ie it has a known size, certain aspects of the universe are consider infinite in quantum models. so a description of the universe becomes a description of infinity ie universe = infinity

There is Q in O .... O has Q .... O is Q

Q = quality = infinite

O = object = infinite

As both quantity and object are infinite they both hold the same value thus Q has the value of O, ie Q=O O=Q O+O=O O+O=Q Q+Q=Q Q+Q=O

Professor Irwin Corey lives!

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

Little Roller U...
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: colors

Rev_Devilin wrote:
colors don't exist

O RLY? Are you colorblind, by any chance?

Apotheon
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
Offline
There can be no proof of

There can be no proof of God because God orchistrated it that way. He gave evidence, but not proof. God could appear right now to everyone in the world, but that would violate our free will. God does not want us to be forced to believe. He wants us to chose to believe.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur

Apotheon
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
Offline
There can be no proof of

[MOD EDIT - duplicate post removed]

ParanoidAgnostic
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
Offline
Apotheon wrote: There can

Apotheon wrote:
There can be no proof of God because God orchistrated it that way. He gave evidence, but not proof. God could appear right now to everyone in the world, but that would violate our free will. God does not want us to be forced to believe. He wants us to chose to believe.

1) What evidence?

2) How does presenting the truth violate free will. By that logic human beings had more free will before we discovered that it was bacteria that caused many illnesses. By your definition 'free will' requires complete ignorance?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

Little Roller U...
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
Offline
Apotheon wrote: There can

Apotheon wrote:
There can be no proof of God because God orchistrated it that way. He gave evidence, but not proof. God could appear right now to everyone in the world, but that would violate our free will. God does not want us to be forced to believe. He wants us to chose to believe.

Care to share some of this "evidence"? How can "evidence" exist for something while "proof" of the same thing doesn't exist?

And in any case, if God DID reveal himself, and his existence were proven to be as true as the existence of Canada, how would that deprive us of free will? I most likely wouldn't worship any god, especially if it was the God of the Bible. But I would still have free will to worship or not worship as I see fit.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.

Rev_Devilin
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
Offline
Little Roller Up First

Little Roller Up First wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
colors don't exist

O RLY? Are you colorblind, by any chance?

No I don't think so, although I maybe incorrect Let's see

looked at an object any object take a red ball for instance, now the ball itself doesn't contain any color, the ball itself will either reflect or absorbed different wavelengths of light, this ball reflect's the red wavelengths of light so it appears red although it isn't you perceive it as red when the reflected red wavelength of light hits you're eye, ie you only perceive it as red because it reflects that wavelength of light not because it is that color ? does this make sense to you

ParanoidAgnostic
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
Offline
Rev_Devilin wrote: looked

Rev_Devilin wrote:

looked at an object any object take a red ball for instance, now the ball itself doesn't contain any color, the ball itself will either reflect or absorbed different wavelengths of light, this ball reflect's the red wavelengths of light so it appears red although it isn't you perceive it as red when the reflected red wavelength of light hits you're eye, ie you only perceive it as red because it reflects that wavelength of light not because it is that color ? does this make sense to you

It is the properties of the ball that make it reflect mostly the red wavelengths. At any time if you shine light with a significant portion of red wavelengths (eg white light) onto the ball it will look red. A red ball is always a red ball, unless you paint it or it fades. Even in no light we would still consider it to be red because we know that the moment we shine some light on it it will reflect those wavelengths. When we say a ball is red that is what we means - It has properties that reflect red wavelengths.

So red is a property of the ball, just like inteligence is a property of some beings that make up an insignificant proportion of the universe.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

Apotheon
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
Offline
You know what the evidence

You know what the evidence is, but you have been taught to deny and ignore it. Search deep within and let that evidence speak to you. Its everywhere.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur

Little Roller U...
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
Offline
Apotheon wrote: You know

Apotheon wrote:
You know what the evidence is, but you have been taught to deny and ignore it. Search deep within and let that evidence speak to you. Its everywhere.

First of all, nobody TAUGHT me to "deny and ignore" the "evidence." I may be an atheist, but everyone else in my (big) family is theist, 6-month-old niece and nephew* notwithstanding.

Secondly, if the "evidence" is "everywere," why are at least 4 billion people worldwide unable to see it; as opposed to the publicly available evidence that the sky is blue, gravity works and Russia is larger in size than Hong Kong?

The evidence is everywhere? Do show us! I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see it.

*twins

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.

ParanoidAgnostic
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
Offline
Apotheon wrote:  You know

Apotheon wrote:
You know what the evidence is, but you have been taught to deny and ignore it. Search deep within and let that evidence speak to you. Its everywhere.

This is a new argument for me. "You already know I'm right you're just being difficult."

I guess all I can do is ask what specifically this evidence is that I'm denying and ignoring. What am I looking for here?

I have a strong feeling that we have different definitions of 'evidence' though.

Or I could just use your own tactic on you:

You have so much evidence that there is no god. It's all around you. You know what that evidence is but you have been indoctrinated to deny and ignore it.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

Little Roller U...
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
Offline
Quote: Apotheon wrote: You

Quote:
Apotheon wrote:
You know what the evidence is, but you have been taught to deny and ignore it. Search deep within and let that evidence speak to you. Its everywhere.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Or I could just use your own tactic on you:

You have so much evidence that there is no god. It's all around you. You know what that evidence is but you have been indoctrinated to deny and ignore it.

PA, you did a better job of pwning Apotheon than I did, although I think his comment was directed at me in particular

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.

Apotheon
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
Offline
The modern phenomenon of

The modern phenomenon of naturalistic sciences and atheistic rationalism has indoctrinated society into believing that only things perceptible to the five senses exist. We have been taught to think this way, but it is false. Look around and look within. The evidence is all around and within you. Listen to the voice within you. God is within every man, nature, history, philosophy (the whole history of philosophy is an argument for God's existance) and religion (Christianity is the highest revealed truth in the world). There is a telological argument for God in nature, but also in history. History seems to be a fine tuned organism for the unfolding of the Divine revelation of God to man, primarily though the vehicle of the Jewish people and climaxed in the manifestation of His own Divine Son, Jesus Christ. God has not given modern man proof, but evidence. Proof would negate faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him." (Book of Hebrews). The evidence is in nature (cosmological and teleological arguments), in logic (law of causality. There are many logical arguments for God) in man (ethical argument), the history of the Jewish people and fulfilled biblical prophecies. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The human conscience, miracles, and life itself. Existance itself is evidence of God but we have been taught to deny this as evidence because the current paradigm of thought rests on materialism and naturalism. Man lost his sense of wonder at nature when he began to move into the concrete and smoke infested jungles called cities. Before the existance of these cities, men and women everywhere believed in God because God spoke to them in nature (Romans talks about this). Concrete and steel towers do not animate the spiritual energies in man but only produce lack of meaning and death. Death gives birth to death. Modern man is desperate for meaning, the one thing science cannot give him. We need to return to the roots, to ourselves--- a return to innocence. Fr. Seraphim Rose can explain this better than I can in his book "Nihilism: the Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age."

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur