No announcement yet.

General Theorem of Existence

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Thanks for clearing that up. But understand that if i post a reply to something you wrote to label it as "baloney" or fake... or to call you a "fool", i dont think it'll sound too nice to anyone. But i understood your point of view and i respect that, you have your beliefs and i have mine. I'm not here to disproof or proove anything, but to ask two simple questions that even people like you are not too affraid to answer.

    1. God, as creator of creation, is as established as any other religion or belief system in our world today. True to say there are most who believe in evolution or the famous, unproovable, "BigBang". It is also true there are millions in this same world, who grew up with the same teaching in schools about evolution and all of that, who now believe that the universe was created by 'Intelligent Design' with a precise balance in nature that if we were to "tweek" nature, even by a micro"inch", life wouldnt be capable of existing. Even your astrologers and scientist know this... ofcourse they are affraid to accept it because we, as humans, dont like the idea that we are NOT in control of life. So my question would be, why is it so hard to consider GOD as creator of creation? I can accept the fact that your bringing to the table, that doesnt mean i have to tolerate it (in MY life). No matter what proof you bring in the end is God (to ME, not to you as you demonstrated). So if i can accept that, why is it so hard for people to accept that there might be a God, or in a scientific form - "higher intelligent source"? You cannot just invent something like that. which brings me to my next question.

    2. Can you come-up with (invent) a new color, WITHOUT using black or white or the prime colors of the rainbow? Thats ok... you dont have to answer, I already know you cant... neither can I. It only goes to strengthen the fact that you cannot come-up with or invent something so "fake" and "outrageous" as God. Sure, you can think-up of Pink Elephants, but the color 'Pink' exist and so does the 'Elephant'. Sure, you may even invent something as inventive and fake as 'superman', but "man of steel" there is steel that bullets cant penetrate and there is man. "its a bird.. a plane!, no its superman" non-living things and living things exist that fly, how do you think they invented the plane? its in nature, he probably got inspired by watching living things that EXIST. "faster than a bullet..." theres speed of light.. why didnt they say "faster than speed of light"? "laser-like beams from his eyes" there was already "lazer-cutting" technology. "x-ray vision" thats self explanatory.

    So can you come up with something that doesnt exist? I dont think so... but isnt that what some scientist are saying and enforcing, "something was created from nothing" thats what they are sounding like. It is evident you cannot come-up with this idea of God, massive religious gatherings, miracles and wonders-all surrounding "their" creator, God. Can you come up with a supernatural God? or what basis can you use to come up with a supernatural "high-intelligent source" God? Again... even as a simplified question like this second question cant be answered... i can live with that.. can you?

    Trust me, not even me.. myself, would be following God if i wanst convinced (through Faith) that He exist. But then again... Faith is such a strong word for unbelievers, some cant even understand it, and thats ok... we cant pretend to know (understand) everything. We know what we know, and thats all we KNOW. you know what you know, and thats all YOU KNOW. What is there to proove.. you know what you know from your science, astrology, archeology, and history books... we know what we know from one book, the Bible. And thats another story. I've written enough already, but remember my two questions.
    1. Why is it so hard to accept God as "source" of creation?
    2. Can you come-up with a new color, without using black or white or the prime colors of the rainbow?

    I'll be waiting for your "go at it" answers.

    nuff said


    • #77
      Originally posted by GodCatcher
      I've written enough already, but remember my two questions.
      1. Why is it so hard to accept God as "source" of creation?
      2. Can you come-up with a new color, without using black or white or the prime colors of the rainbow?

      I'll be waiting for your "go at it" answers.

      nuff said [/B]
      G.C. as to your first question I have answered that in another post of mine, long ago, that perhaps you never read. So I will post it below, so that you can entertain yourself with it, although it is the farthest thing from comic books that you can imagine. It offers the scientific proofs against creationism, or the argument of a designed universe also, from the atheist's point of view. So if you can extrapolate from the post, you will can get a pretty fair picture of my view and answer to your first question. As to your second question, I am not an artist and into mixing paints like Leonardo da Vinci and other artists are, so you will have to go that type of a source if you want an answer to that question. For me, therefore, the question on colors is irrelevant to the issue of a so-called creationist universe. But I can see where you might be so interested in colors, since you seem to like reading the colorful comic books so much. Not putting you down for that because different strokes for different folks, if you understand what I mean.

      Here comes my post:
      Senior Member

      Registered: Apr 2000
      Posts: 2452
      The Foundations of Atheism
      As a Christian doing research at M.I.T., Dr. Hutchinson says, "The marvels of the scientific world are little revelations of God?s creative thoughts. ." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Religionists, like Dr. Hutchinson, have the "notion" that things are the way they are, BECAUSE they believe or have faith that they are so.

      On the other hand, scientists have the concept that things are the way they are, BECAUSE they can prove that they are so through the scientific method of discovering the invariant relationships or iron laws of nature, by going from things that are known and making inferences to things that are not known. In point of fact, though testing and reproducing or repeating the results of the tests, scientists can discover a scientific explanation which is biunique with prediction. Such a scientific explanation of the way things are is in a one-to-one correlation with predictability. And the results are the scientific laws discovered concerning the universe.

      Theists, on the contrary, never have to prove anthing, because they have "belief". And when in ecclesiastical history, they tried to prove the existence of what they termed "God", they were never able to do it. And so they resorted to believing that it was so; in short, advancing the notion of faith in that it was so. All of it, is without proving that it was so. And when they challenged atheist scientists to DISprove the existence of what they termed "God", such scientists made it clear and unequivocable that they did not have to disprove it, because it was beyond the limitations of human understanding to prove the nonexistence of what religionists believe, which is that there is an omnipotent, infinite, and omniscient being who created everything and to whom they are obliged to worship.

      Religionists went on to charge the scientists with having a religion and/or a cult in atheism. But astute scientists have pointed out that their atheism is merely the ABSENCE OF BELIEF OR FAITH, and not a denial of the existence of "God". For the term "god" refers to that which is beyond the boundaries of finite human understanding, and is therefore in effect NOTHING. And anything that is multiplied by nothing, zilch, or zero is NOTHING or ZERO, no matter what it is. Therefore, even multiplying DENIAL by ZERO is zero. And, therefore, atheist scientists can never be accused of being cultists or religionist in their atheism.

      Only the religionists can have a religion of nothingness, because they introduce the element of their belief or faith into a failed attempt to prove the existence of "God".

      Yours truly,



      • #78
        Props on a job well done with the post BUT.... you still didnt answer the last question. heh.. thats ok, I guess i can be called a 'so-called' scientist of yours, because i predicted you wouldnt be able to answer it. Its funny your so cought-up on your own game that you failed to answer a question a child could have answered. You dont have to be an artist to answer this Eddie. Its hard to say "I dont know" doesnt it?.

        But enough of that, just wanted to comment on your post, again... i'm not here to outwit anybody. And i'm going to leave the bible here for just one second, everything i assert is of your own beliefs and 'nice thoughts' as theories. So lets beggin.

        You quoted " Hutchinson says, "The marvels of the scientific world are little revelations of God?s creative thoughts. ."

        First of all... couldnt you come up with one yourself. Not to disrispect, but you know.. "different strokes for different folks" He said "creative thoughts"... funny, as I already showed you CANT come-up with(create) something that doesnt exist. You cant create something from nothing... however this is what you saying, thats absurd! You can use things that dont exist to assume things that does, which is, by the way the basis for science.. thus why they can say "this is how it happened, because we are seeing a pattern similar to what we are studying wich we didnt see" such as the formation of Galaxies and things like that. It always amazes me how they can say THIS is how it happened when they themselves were not even there... they call this "reconstruction". You have to be kidding. But anyhow, thats your stroke,.. and i dont want to know anything about you stroking anything... lets focus on facts here.

        You said: "In point of fact, though testing and reproducing or repeating the results of the tests, scientists can discover a scientific explanation which is biunique with prediction. Such a scientific explanation of the way things are is in a one-to-one correlation with predictability. And the results are the scientific laws discovered concerning the universe."

        Ok... In science everything is labeled. For example, everything thats been tested and prooven goes to the FACT file, everything that is YET to be prooven goes to the THEORY file, and everything that cannot be explained goes to the SUPERNATURAL/UNEXPLAINABLE file. Such supernatural occurances of the bible such as "The Flood" and "The Walls of Jericoh" cannot be explained on HOW it took place but that in FACT it DID take place. So even when you have mud in your shoes and pictorial proof and samples that it DID happened you conclude that as "ZERO" just because it goes far beyond than the "finite brain"... thats just plain stupid, no offence. Even secular television showed a story on this, archeologist found that the walls of Jericoh didnt fall forward or backwards, it is prooven that the walls fell straight down as if the earth opened up and swallow'd a wall big (wide) enough to hold around 7 to 10 chariots side by side at the top of the wall. An earthquake? no earthquake is that precise to take down a wall that big and tall and not destroy the city it self. So this falls into the "supernatural/unexplainable" file. and to you that is ZERO, right? Eventhough it showes that it did happened,.. but just because you cant explain HOW it happened you dismiss it as "oh thast just fake" or "ZERO".. that to me is a "weak try to keep your pride". You work on the law of averages... but what about the remaining factor? its to say "after we tested and retested we noticed that in 100 test 90 of them came out the same, so we can conclude that it did happen this way" but what about that remaining percent? as small and insignificant as it may seem, its still there. Maybe things didnt happen within that average, maybe it happened within the remaining factor. You'll never know. Science can never proof things 100%... its the flaw of mankind, but no!.. lets not call it flaw.. lets call it "ZERO" or "FAKE".. lets blame Christians!

        Isnt it amazing... that we have the worlds biggest names in science trying to create, even the simplest life they can, JUST to proove that no intelligence was necessary to create it in the first place! Yet these are the very same people that want to have you believe everything just happened by chance or random. SMART?!

        Note: I'm stating facts of the bible because its been prooven even by your so called scientist, astrologers, archeologist, cosmologist, and theologians. After years of research, the bible was established as a historical document on itself. You know what that means? it means it was prooven, tested, and retested, the bible still stands as the oldest Historical record ever written. The kings, rules, people, dates, and even events noted on this book are all prooven to be true. Fake?.. you seem like a guy who does his homework, do the research! The bible is translated into every language and sold more copies than any other book in history. But let me remind you of what you said here before; In point of fact, through testing and reproducing or repeating the results of the tests, scientists can discover a scientific explanation which is biunique with prediction. Such a scientific explanation of the way things are is in a one-to-one correlation with predictability." Let me tell you a biunique prediction. "The Earth and the heavens shall pass away, but My Words (The Bible) will remain forever." In History, since the beginning of notion of scriptures, Kings and rulers, scientist, theologians, archeologist, astrologers, and such like have all tried to disproof the bible, they are all dead, but the book still remains. Thats your correlation with a biblical prediction (prophecy) Eddie.

        You said "For the term "god" refers to that which is beyond the boundaries of finite human understanding, and is therefore in effect NOTHING. And anything that is multiplied by nothing, zilch, or zero is NOTHING or ZERO,[...]"

        So you prooven you can multiply, but Who said anything about multiplying, we are on the basics here Ed, we are adding and subtracting! 1 + 1 - 1 is still ONE! You can even do it in reverse, the answer's still the same. This is our (Christians) "ONE" and anything you multiply by "1" IS SOMETHING!

        Oh, and another thing. What percent of the Human brain do we use during consious state?... do we use 100%? No... still we only use but a small percent, but based on what your telling be that BIG percent we dont use is nothing? Looks like you have your hands full Ed, because in order for you to say "anything beyond the boundaries of 'finite' human understanding [...] is NOTHING" you have to consider the brain because that is in fact what you use for logic, rationalize, and understand things. So anything outside of the small percent we use to rationalize is "NOTHING".. your calling yourself dumb buddy. Again.. no offence... it seems to me that even sience cannot be founded on "small-percentage" people with a BIG percent of AIR in their heads. How can you trust that?

        And lastly, You said: "Only the religionists can have a religion of nothingness, because they introduce the element of their belief or faith into a failed attempt to prove the existence of "God".

        Let me ask you this; How can you proove the existance of Cristobal Columbus? or the first president of the united states? or even the engeneer who invented the automobile engine? is it THAT evident to you that they exist? So is God, as a matter of fact... your standing on the biggest evidence of a "supreme intelligent source" to be blaimed for the biggest accident of the universe - "life"

        nuff said


        • #79

          Well, you have written a screed full of twists and turns that rivals a snake. You act like a "know it all", and won't even accept that the human understanding has boundaries whether or no one uses ones brains to its fullest capacity or only the reptilian stem of the brain like you do.

          When I wrote my essay about the MIT scholar, you didn't even exist in memory; I never met you nor read you, and now that I have you don't interest me one bit. I am just tidying up concerning my post. Are you offended by what I just wrote, then I am not a hypocrite like you who has hurled a bunch of insults at me, and then spit out like venom..."no offense" after everyone of them: in short I will not say like you "no offense" but will be open and above board, without a shred of hypocrisy, and say to you not 'no offense' but instead that you disgust me!

          All you fundamentalist, bible-thumping religionists are superstition-mongers, snake eaters and fire worshippers of the hell you talk so much about. You are HYPOCRITES, and given to dissembling in a manner that is of a pig-dog lying bastard. Your mothers all should have had abortions before you were born. You disgust me without peradventure of a doubt. That is all I will give to you on scepticism versus religionist belief. This discussion is over.


          E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin


          • #80
            WoW... I'm sorry, i apologize...

            You know... I honestly didnt expect that from you. But thats ok, i can understand where your comming from, i guess it must have been too much for you, but then again, it was just simply put... i dont understand why you would react in such a form of a child without love. I dont pretend to know it all, i just imparted a few thoughts, YOU on the other hand, want to sound smart even in your writings. Your wanting to "end this discussion" seems a weak attempt to keep your dignity by putting ME down.. or atleast trying, i'll give you that, but to no avail.
            "The famous bully in middle school who picks on kids smaller than him in order to hide his short commings and insecurities.. its the only way he can feel good, by making others look bad, therefor drawing the attention to someone else as a "fool" or "weak" so people wont see that He is really the 'fool with a weakness'."

            The "no offence" was just that, NO OFFENCE to YOU. I didnt pretend to lay it easy with that, i wasnt calling YOU stupid or anything like that, I was calling what YOU BELIEVE stupid. Just like you would say the same about me. I wouldnt get offended, why should i? I'm sure about what I belive. You got offended?.. not my problem, sorry to say. There's an old saing (not biblical, but secular) that says "The truth hurts." All i got to say is thanks for prooving that. But that gave you no right to answer the way you did in the end. I discust you? you sounded repulsive after what you wrote!. You're right, this discussion is over, not because you say so, but because you dont know how to conduce your weak argument (wich you started) and just simply dont have manners. No matter what you call me Ed, or wishing my "non-existance", i wouldnt have never acted that way, not even wish you death, not even an atheist should act that way, its called human courtesy or "nice manners. Wasnt it you who told me "not to get offended" by the way you treated my post in your reply? Boy, i didnt even treated you half bad as you did me, and i should take it easy while you take it like this? I'm confused... who's the hipocrate?

            You wrote: "Okay, okay so you think that being recognized as a fool for Christ is a "dis". Hmmm, I thought that was the thing that you religionists do and it is an acceptable practice. Did I seem over critical about your stuff about faith and creationism?, I didn't mean to be if that is the way you took it."

            Well... I didnt mean to be "over critical" about your beliefs if thats the way YOU took it. I'm really sorry, its aim was never that. But hey, if you still want to be like that, fine! I cant change you and i dont pretend to know you. You called me a hipocrate? I resent that, I am not, so why should i get offended. But, since it seems you need someone to jogg your memory once in a while (from your other post in the past), then let me remind you... better yet, have you take a look at the SECOND post you ever wrote me on page 5 and then read your last post. I could call you a hipocrate, but i'm not about to stoop to your level, but i WILL stoop LOWER than that and humbly ask for your forgiveness. FREE FOR ANYONE TO SEE IT! Its a free world, you're free to belive what you want as well as me and everybody else. I hope you consider this... i dont need an essay this time though, the subject will be dropped wether you forgive me or not, its your choice... either way i wont get offended.. i promise. sorry.

            peace and God bless

            nuff said


            • #81
              Wherefor art thou Eddie!

              I know you read that. But i took this long to make sure you were deffinetly out of this discussion and ran away with your tail between your legs. I would like the opportunity to flash back your memories. Here's a few interesting tidbits i gathered from another post written by the all time famous Eddie (yes you) in response to the very same act your doing right now. ::Ahem!::

              Quote.. from Big Eddie. "Suki, POV is probably a military officer who is a cog in the military machine for indoctrinating new recruits in the Army against Marxism. And if he does what he usually has done in the forum, which is run away like a coward from any theme that he feels uncomfortable with, he will probably not reply [...]"

              Whos running now?

              You wrote once (on that same post) "I dare him to pick up my challenge. Let's see if he has enough gruel in his guts to do that! "

              You never answered my challenge of a question, whats that make you? I guess you didnt have enough guts to do THAT!

              *********side note*********

              I got this all from "Marxism and Philosophy/ Karl Korsch" Thread under the Philosophy Forum originally started by Camano

              *********End side note*********

              You Also wrote "So! POV you rear your ugly head once again, and belie that you are a "gentleman". You didn't respond to the excellent post [...], who rebutted your erroneous notions, and tried to open you up to wider horizons than your narrowminded and now invective notions reveal. "

              I was trying to open YOU up to wider horizons, but I think everyone would agree with me when they read what you last wrote me that YOU sir are no "gentleman" either. You wrote to me worst things than POV wrote you. Thats a shame. It almost seems that your trying to do with me what POV did with you... Eddie hmmmm... you would do that, would you?

              You went on to write "it excuses yourself, so you believe, by saying your don't have the time to be responsible for what you say, and answer replies to those who take issues with what you say. I don't think you are lazy, so it must be that you don't schedule your time with precision. [...]You prove nothing but that you are capable of being a low-life, who has run away from the replies of others to what you have demagogically thrown on this forum."

              This is great.. its like your talking to yourself. I'm doing nothing more than to rebuke you with your own words! If i use mine all you'll do is find any excuse to throw it in my face and call me all sorts of names. Boy, its like you rebuked POV for what your doing right now. So shut up and listen (to yourself!. lol!)

              You kept on and said "So what's the real beef Mister POV? Answer the challenge with reason and responsibility for what you said, or shut up and forever hold your peace. It is much better than what you are doing now by throwing out on this forum a plethora of slanderous personalisms towards me, instead of doing your duty and being responsible for what you say."


              You also said "Your last post to me again shows that you will run! But at least I see that you have answered [...], be that as it may. [...] But I will not hear anymore from you addressed to me, and will equally treat you the same way but without any HYPROCRISY, which is the last slander you threw at me. [...] If you want to continue with the personalisms, insults, and downright bad manners that you have displayed to me and all on this forum, then use the email for that, if you dare!"

              I'm starting to get a big case of dejavu...this is weird!!!

              You said to Bambina "Well La,La-Bambina, here is one "edito" who is both rational and socially responsible, which you are NOT! You are for anarchistic individualism which is the source of all evil in the world."

              Source of all evil in the world? Wait a minute, arent you enforcing abortion? Wasnt it you who wrote (like a snake) those detestable things of venom you spat out about wishing my non-existance, saying that my "mother should have had an abortion" with me? An old man calling a child OLD! This just keeps getting better!

              You then replied to POVs post again saying "The first quote shows 'contundentamente' the bad manners that POV has; his lack of discretion in asking a very, very personal question on a public forum. His question should have been asked in private through the use of email, or in person in a confidential environment"

              All i say is.. follow your own advice Eddie. Maybe your not so bad after all. Your last comments should have all been said ALSO through e-mail as they were very personal in form. But you just wanted to go out with a "Big Bang", 'ey?

              I know you probably wont reply to make me believe you didnt read it, but i know you did ;op.

              You then focus on Stanley and say "[...] e ademas, para usar el instrumento de una manera tan nefasta en tirandolo en tu personalismo tan sucio hacia mi persona. Yo de rodillas?, NUNCA!, jamas de las jamases!"

              And THAT my friend.. is your problem. You dont know how to be humble. Tu usastes tu instrumento TAMBIEN para atacar a mi persona. Sin embargo, yo SI fui de rodillas y te pedi perdon arriesgando que me rechasaras. But what can we do, right? It seems that you only focus and what YOU believe and what YOU say, aslong as YOU are seen like a pro or a "know it all" about everything, aslong as YOU feel good with what is being said that backs up what YOU write. geeez, seems to me that your a very selfish person full of pride that blinds you from the truth of yourself. Face it Ed... there are those who agree with you and there are those who DONT, and WONT agree with you.. so what? Learn to accept that... your not always right, man! IF (to you) I'M wrong... isnt there a slight chance that you might be wrong also? but that to you is so unpallatable that you start attacking anybody with a different point of view! It hurts me to see people act the way that you've been acting Ed.. for real. you need to do something about this. not everybody will share your idealisticly but erroneous way to see things. I know this fact, time for you to learn it too.

              You finished a post with POV saying "To POV I say directly: Mister, you have lots and lots to learn about the truth [...]"

              I finish this one saying; Ed... YOU have lots and lots to learn about the REAL truth!

              God Bless you Ed... i really mean that.

              Nuff said

              [Edited by GodCatcher on 26th August 2004 at 09:32]