This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - 123savethewhales
Pages: 1 ... 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 [95] 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 ... 138
1881
« on: November 19, 2010, 04:29:42 PM »
This tournament is shaping up to be epic. EPIC LLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA................ 20 minutes later AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
1882
« on: November 18, 2010, 09:44:54 PM »
Lol I send something in so you guys can kill it, that is if it gets to enter at all.
1883
« on: November 18, 2010, 12:40:14 AM »
I DEMAND MOAR RAZORZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1884
« on: November 18, 2010, 12:36:51 AM »
Time breaks down as we get closer and closer using relativity theory. It's not "something out of nothing", but "we cannot use the theory to predict any further". So the furthest we can see is still "from something to something".
Then, there's no conventional "bang" either. The two main modern observations contradict the bang are
1. The cosmological microwave background is extremely uniformed
2. The discovery that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate
Currently the popular theory among the scientific community is the inflation theory.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html
Inflation is now considered an extension of the Big Bang theory...
That's certainly not what you implied when you said...
Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.
Here's the reason. On a side note: I drank half a bottle of Tanqueray while I was writing that last post.
I have a hard time understanding most of what I wrote on that post. I am guessing that was what I meant.
1885
« on: November 17, 2010, 10:23:06 PM »
Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.
Explain.
Time breaks down as we get closer and closer using relativity theory. It's not "something out of nothing", but "we cannot use the theory to predict any further". So the furthest we can see is still "from something to something". Then, there's no conventional "bang" either. The two main modern observations contradict the bang are 1. The cosmological microwave background is extremely uniformed 2. The discovery that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate Currently the popular theory among the scientific community is the inflation theory. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html
1886
« on: November 17, 2010, 10:10:33 PM »
You've actually been making a lot of sense up until now, but this time, you were trying too hard.
Your first argument: Because God must have infinite knowledge he therefore knows nothing? Your argument is nonsense.
Your second: God being everywhere is not the same as being in everything, that's pantheism, not omnipresence. Your argument is invalid.
The third: Once again, your thinking of pantheism, not omnipresence. Also, I think your grammar is off, because that last sentence makes zero sense.
I will try to rephrase them. My first argument 1a. Either God is Omnipotent but has no knowledge, as all things are possible, can change at any time, and hence nothing fixed to know, or 1b. God is Omniscient but cannot do anything. Because everything is already known, it then cannot be changed. Omnipotent and Omniscient therefore are incompatible with each other. My Second argument 2. To truly be "everywhere" requires him to occupy all space of all time, in all scales. He don't have to "be" the object. But the point is all time, which leads to My Third argument 3. This one goes into the idea of perfection, and how "Omnipotent there is NOTHING that is impossible to Him." God occupies all time, "everything" is already done in "all time". There's nothing left for God to "do" as the whole concept of change is time driven. In this case God is more a passive natural force than an interactive, decision making, sentient will. Part of the property of an infinite world. Lastly, an argument I didn't mention last time 4. If such a force exist, it contradicts the idea that we can have free will. We have never existed outside of his presence, knowledge, and power since creation. Every action you take he "knows", is "there", and "made" you do it. On a side note: I drank half a bottle of Tanqueray while I was writing that last post.
1887
« on: November 16, 2010, 08:31:58 PM »
@123savethewhales & NFX. You are being extremely limited in your thinking because you are trying to constrain God to the confines of this physical world. By Omnipresence, I do not mean that God exists everywhere in this dimension, but that God exists in infinitely many dimensions. God is not confined within the physical limitations of time and space, and is not made up of anything that we can measure. By Omniscience, I do not mean simply that God knows everything that's going to happen, but everything that can happen. God can see the infinite possibilities in every choice we make, and that He makes. He knows every possible implication of every possible action ad infinitum. Finally by Omnipotent there is NOTHING that is impossible to Him. The things that to you seem like logical impossibilities are nothing to a being who has infinite possibility. The fact that your mind is too small to grasp infinity does not make it impossible.
Finally I refer once again to the Unmoved Mover argument:
- There exists movement in the world.
- Things that move were set into motion by something else.
- If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
- Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
- From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
- From 4, there must be an unmoved mover
That's all for now.
Your definition of omniscient then still breaks his omnipotent. Because he "can" do everything, there's no such thing as "knowing all possibility" as that too will be infinite due to his Omnipotent. Your definition then, creates a God that knows nothing. Just because your mind is too small to understand infinite does not mean it will solve the omniscient/omnipotent contradiction. Your definition of omniscient also breaks his omnipresent. Again, he is everywhere, he is part of everything of all time, there is no "can" as he is everything. The only way those two are compatible is by replacing "can" with "is". In such case you end up with a passive body without a will, which can be labeled as natural force. Your definition of omnipotent also contradicts with his omnipresent. Because nothing is impossible to him, except that he already covered everything that is and are everywhere. Anything else God do will require him to repeat himself. So then he's actually powerless as all is already covered and there's nothing God can do except repeat himself an infinite amount of time. Even then the amount of diversity has not increase.
1888
« on: November 16, 2010, 02:48:22 AM »
New studies are revealing predictors of subjective well-being, often assessed as self-reported happiness and life satisfaction. Worldwide, most people report being at least moderately happy, regardless of age and gender. As part of their scientific pursuit of happiness, researchers have examined possible associations between happiness and (a) economic growth and personal income, (b) close relationships, and (c) religious faith. Surprise surprise. A "self reported" scale of happiness with obviously rigged in favorite of certain "religion" that tells their believer to be contempt with the little that they have, or be burn in eternal hell. Being happy and reporting moderately happy are two different things.
Plus a survey that ask both a person's religion and happiness is totally rigged. Asking an Atheist "What 'religion' are you" is like asking the Tea Party "which democrat candidate do you support", or a black person "which white supremacist would you support". To add insult to injury, "None" is probably placed as the last choice. No wonder Atheist answer more negatively in the rest of the survey.
You are an idiot. The study had the people rate their overall "happiness" than asked them some basic questions such as their financial situation and how important religion was to them etc. This was a scientific study that was published in a psychological journal, not some bullsh** survey conducted by a religious institution.This could simply mean, as Noodle said, that ignorance is bliss, but the information is valid.
So it's pseudo science, big deal. Self report automatically means it's survey, and to get both someone's religion and "happiness" they need to ask both. And those are the natural limitation with any survey, that early question affects future outcomes. Ask me how important my religion is just makes me more unhappy than I already am, you already prove my point. Why am I ask such nonsense question reminding me of all the garbage about other people's imaginary friends? But you won't notice that since you are religious and ever one of those rigged question feeds your ego and makes you feel good. Using name calling just show your argument lacks substance. I don't need to use name calling to show my point.
I choose option C, indifferent to other people's imaginary friends. I recognize that I cannot refute every version of tooth fairies or invisible pink unicorn that people made up. An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God just happens to be the more ridiculous of them. To be consistent with believing any of those nonsense, I would need to check under my bed every morning to see if a million dollars magically spawn when I was asleep. After all, in the world of magic where the inability to disprove == grounds to believe, money spawning under my bed is a very believable concept.
I simply believe an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God makes a lot more sense than, "a ball of matter existed for eternity before it randomly exploded and made the universe then life started somehow." Now, I respect your free choice to believe differently, but if I don't expect to see puddles of mud spring to life. The Unmoved Mover argument applies here.
Your feeling does not justify rationality. I don't believe in either. Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent contradicts itself in so many ways it's not even funny. I rather believe in imaginary pink unicorn because at least it's philosophically consistent. No entity can be omniscient and have a will at the same time, because no choice or changes can be made. No entity can be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time, because this entity cannot make any changes without violating his all knowing. And omnipotent is inconsistent with omnipresent because such entity is limited to all space of all time and nothing more. The closest thing that fits all 3 will be an inactive body that is the same rather you call it natural forces or God. Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway. They are both trash.
1889
« on: November 15, 2010, 03:56:34 AM »
Can I be labeled wrong for hearing voices in my head? They're telling me to kill and drink the blood of my cat...
You are wrong. There I just label you so you know it can be done.
1890
« on: November 14, 2010, 07:13:20 PM »
What I meant, is from my point of view, I can either:
a) Try to convince myself that there is a superior being (even though there is no proof of it), then make my life miserable by following an old book written by crazy people, live in fear, blame everything on an arch enemy, learn to accept things because an old man dressed funny tells me to, yell at people because they don't think my superior being is the best, interfere in others' life and morality, saying that if they don't accept my higher being then they are the followers of my arch enemy, see everything in two colors, with no intermediaries, like a child, know that there are superior people here on earth, and they require special rights (especially when they want to rape little boys in the mouth), and refrain from doing anything that might piss my higher being off because I don't want to burn for eternity. That only rules out a few religions. You still got a whole bunch of religions to discredit. b) Live as I lived before, have my own system of values, think by myself, learn from scientific research and lead a happy life without fearing anything, since I know I'll die some day anyway. Be able to have my own opinion on important matters, do not be dependent of what others say. Think critically and rationally. Live like a normal human not bound by the membership in an organization that to me looks like something out of a horror flick.
Surely you are not only left with option B just because you rule out A. I choose option C, indifferent to other people's imaginary friends. I recognize that I cannot refute every version of tooth fairies or invisible pink unicorn that people made up. An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God just happens to be the more ridiculous of them. To be consistent with believing any of those nonsense, I would need to check under my bed every morning to see if a million dollars magically spawn when I was asleep. After all, in the world of magic where the inability to disprove == grounds to believe, money spawning under my bed is a very believable concept.
1891
« on: November 14, 2010, 06:06:47 PM »
New studies are revealing predictors of subjective well-being, often assessed as self-reported happiness and life satisfaction. Worldwide, most people report being at least moderately happy, regardless of age and gender. As part of their scientific pursuit of happiness, researchers have examined possible associations between happiness and (a) economic growth and personal income, (b) close relationships, and (c) religious faith. Surprise surprise. A "self reported" scale of happiness with obviously rigged in favorite of certain "religion" that tells their believer to be contempt with the little that they have, or be burn in eternal hell. Being happy and reporting moderately happy are two different things. Plus a survey that ask both a person's religion and happiness is totally rigged. Asking an Atheist "What 'religion' are you" is like asking the Tea Party "which democrat candidate do you support", or a black person "which white supremacist would you support". To add insult to injury, "None" is probably placed as the last choice. No wonder Atheist answer more negatively in the rest of the survey. The opiate of the masses.
Intelligent beings, like me, don't need such nonsense to be happy (Image removed from quote.).
No. We follow common sense.
THIS IS HYPOCRISY!!!!!!! What is this common sense non sense you are talking about?
1892
« on: November 12, 2010, 10:28:35 PM »
Besides, scientific studies show that people with religious beliefs are happier on average than those without them
Please show me them, or at least the source of this info.
Self report surveys conducted by religious groups....... Sorta like how Pepsi generated it's 85% people choose Pepsi over Coke. When you go up to someone asking "would you like to take a survey conducted by Pepsi" guess who's going to respond?
1893
« on: November 12, 2010, 08:02:58 PM »
An "all knowing" God giving "free will" is a contradiction.
1894
« on: November 12, 2010, 06:11:20 PM »
Lol I don't see much of that in DSL........
1895
« on: November 11, 2010, 11:38:31 PM »
it's really no better than Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses. WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH!!!!!! Someone gotta mention it.
1896
« on: November 11, 2010, 01:37:03 AM »
Even in well established science like physics and biology, there are too many nonsense and misinterpretations by non scientist. Keyword there is non-scientists. We should just listen to what the scientists say, not use our own "perceptions" of it when we know very little.
Problem being, distinguishing between the two is never easy. Most of us don't get science news directly from the researchers. We get them from journalist, friends, the media, etc. Even among established scientist themselves there are many disputes over the interpretation of a certain finding. One example of this would be global warming. I can't distinguish which voice comes from established scientist and which isn't. I don't believe in anything I haven't looked at myself.
You have lost much of physics, you have lost microbiology, you have lost most of biology (you haven't seen all the living things science claims exist), you have lost astronomy. If you narrow what you believe to only what you have personally seen, then most of science does not exist for you.
I don't mean physically observing an object. I mean looking at the process of which the science is conducted. So for Astronomy, I can look at the theory of red shifting and standard candles, and how those rationale leads to the conclusion that galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. And you are right about physics, general relativity kinna lost me already, and quantum mechanics makes so little sense to me that it doesn't matter rather I believe it or not. I think I took 5 audio lectures and well over 100 hours on those 2 topics already. Knowing more is not a requirement to see the underline assumptions made in each conclusion, and to distinguish well practiced science from bullsh**. I suppose you are partially correct, but a person not well versed in the science can not always recognize the underlying assumption, and they do not always know whether it is false or not.
Which is why people need to learn about the science they cared about, if only the basics. We can't claim to rationally believe otherwise.
1897
« on: November 11, 2010, 12:39:05 AM »
Yes, we trust the conclusions made by people who know more than we do. That is absolutely unavoidable. Of course every scientific finding is looked at separately, but it is also looked at in the context of other theories to see what fits. Each finding is connected to other findings. So far science has gotten most things right (or at least quickly fixes things that are wrong), so I don't see the problem with trusting scientists.
The track record of science have always come with lots of pseudo sciences and bad practices, especially in emerging sciences like psychology, social science, and economics. Even in well established science like physics and biology, there are too many nonsense and misinterpretations by non scientist. Worst is when people vastly misinterpreted certain scientific findings and think they got science behind their back, like the Social Darwinist. I don't believe in anything I haven't looked at myself. Knowing more is not a requirement to see the underline assumptions made in each conclusion, and to distinguish well practiced science from bullsh**.
1898
« on: November 10, 2010, 07:28:45 PM »
So Starcore is a lot harder than NAR AI?
Maybe Naryar need to make a superhard version of NAR AI.
1899
« on: November 10, 2010, 06:51:38 PM »
Perhaps, but as far as the gods are concerned there is absolutely no evidence beyond their respective religious texts and or stories.
Not believing in invisible pink unicorn does not translate to the atom is made up of up quark, down quark, and electrons. I don't know why there's still this Religion vs Science duality in the 21st century. Actually I am very critical of how this duality somehow give people more blind faith in the science they picked up from a magazine. Sciences isn't one thing and each finding needed to be consider separately.
1900
« on: November 10, 2010, 05:07:48 PM »
I don't get this whole emerging faith with all that scientific mumbo jumbo.
Let's face it, most of us don't know enough science to judge the validity and reliability of a given scientific research. But we believe nevertheless.
Pages: 1 ... 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 [95] 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 ... 138
|
Show Posts