Is there any proof God exists?

Page 17 of 105 [ 1680 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 105 Next

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

08 Feb 2015, 9:11 am

David, David, David... lol...

You pronounce me guilty until proven innocent, yet you cite no evidence of my guilt. Not a cracker! It's up to you to provide evidence, David, not me. Quote whatever you like - if it's not me you're quoting, then you're just grasping at straws.

At least when I accused you of subjective assumptions, I gave 20-something items of evidence, from your own words.

I'm disappointed, David.

_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,943

08 Feb 2015, 9:19 am

Ah.. David.. The Pitfalls of science and specialization...

Me thinks Mr. Reed.. The so-called humorous fool could use some education in positive AND negative epigenetics...

Use it or lose it does apply...

Humans are functionally disabled by the growing 'virus' that is culture...

Humans like the historical example of Jack La Lane CAN tow boats swimming.. Into so-called old-age...

Entropy.. like human free will.. evolution.. Particles changing into waves.. AND time are ALL relatively 'Speaking Entities'...

Even a Jock or A Poet Or a Philosopher can determine that or even a so-called True Fool...

I find so-called Rockets Scientists amusing and that's part of why I now increase my leg pressing strength to 930lbs..at 12 reps..at age 54...

I escape the so-called relative effects of entropy in so-called middle-age simply by escaping the relative insanity of the virus that has become a mechanical cognition of culture...

So what does your human Relative Free Will.. Faith.. Hope.. And Belief in You with Trust in the Rest of Nature.. Just DO for YOU lately...

Cynicism IS the True Devil's tool...

Or the Apathy and Entropy of little emotion...

And WILL the 'rule fool' 'stand up and take a bow'.. ' Nonot really...'

'This place' definitely ain't high brow.. Overall.. !;)...

In Truth..low brow rules high brow.. As always...

_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,943

08 Feb 2015, 10:05 am

Oops.. i forget my short clip of video..

to MORE FULLY illustrate

what i am relatively speaking too..

This fool KNOWS too..

Even a corporate Entity can figure IT OUT IN THE SIMPLEST OF TERMS.

'JUST DO IT.'

'WORDS ARE FOR FOOLS.'

'THE SECOND ONE IS MINE.'

THE THIRD ONE IS SATIRE.. AND CAUTION..
FOUR LETTER
WORD(S)
ARE INCLUDED..
IF one decides to
purview IT.

_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

08 Feb 2015, 4:59 pm

Oldavid wrote:

Your ideological assumption that everything that exists caused itself to exist for no reason is in flagrant contradiction to everywhere observable, and always experimentally demonstrable, what we call science.
.

Strawman. This assumption has not been made.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Feb 2015, 5:05 pm

Narrator, have you noticed (rhetorical question as I am sure you have) that our resident YEC only ever responds to actual science and math with unsubstantiated hyperbole, even this article he posts as evidence has no actual mathematics to back up the claims made.

Knowing that this will not happen (posting for the benefit of those who have not witnessed his refusal to actually debate on a scientific level

Once again David falsify this

DentArthurDent wrote:

I really don't think you get it, you do not seem to understand the full nature of the amount of energy coming from the sun nor the amount of energy required for the evolution of all life on this planet. I can furnish you with the maths if you like, but essentially the the amount of entropy for all lifeforms on the planet would be around -302 j/ks yet the amount of energy throughput coming into the system from the sun is around 420 x 10 to the power of 12 J/Ks. In short your argument is nonsense. Areas of the universe can decrease in entropy so long as other areas increase by a greater amount, entropy is not universal in the sense of the a steady increase throughout all areas of the universe. Another canard you are guilty of is to assume evolution is all about increased complexity, it is not, it is about adaptability. And on a final note it's also necessary to deal with the canard that entropy equals 'disorder'. This is a non-rigorous view of entropy that scientists engaged in precise work discarded some time ago. Not least because there are documented examples of systems that have a precisely calculated entropy increase after spontaneously self-organising into well-defined structures. Phospholipids are the classic example of such a system - a suspension of phospholipids in aqueous solution will spontaneously self-assemble into structures such as micelles, bilayer sheets and liposomes upon receiving an energy input consisting of nothing more than gentle agitation. To Quote a paper from 1998

Gentle Force Of Entropy Bridges Disciplines by David Kestenbaum, Science, 279: 1849 (20th March 1998)
Kestenbaum, 1998 wrote:Normally, entropy is a force of disorder rather than organization. But physicists have recently explored the ways in which an increase in entropy in one part of a system can force another part into greater order. The findings have rekindled speculation that living cells might take advantage of this little-known trick of physics.

And from wikibooks:Structural Biochemistry/Lipids/Micelles

Micelles form spontaneously in water, as stated above this spontaneous arrangement is due to the amphipatic nature of the molecule. The driving force for this arrangement is the hydrophobic interactions the molecules experience. When the hydrophobic tails are not sequestered from water this results in in the water forming an organized cage around the hydrophobic tail and this entropy is unfavorable. However, when the lipids form micelles the hydrophobic tails interact with each other, and this interaction releases water from the hydrophobic tail and this increases the disorder of the system, and this is increase in entropy is favorable

Entropy and evolution Daniel F. Styera

The common canard amongst YECS and OEC alike is that evolution always moves forward in greater complexity. This is not so. Evolution moves in whatever direction the environment pushes it.[/quote]

The full maths in contained in the link to Daniel F. Styera

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

08 Feb 2015, 5:36 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

I have noticed a lot of bluff and bluster, and as Janissy pointed to, strawmen. This last one was an obvious dodge.

trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

09 Feb 2015, 7:21 am

Will that entropy "argument" ever disappear? It was nonsense to begin with and has been debunked many times, but that doesn't seem to matter somehow.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

09 Feb 2015, 7:28 am

Janissy wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Strawman. This assumption has not been made.

Righto, then you accept that something caused everything?

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

09 Feb 2015, 7:48 am

Oldavid wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Strawman. This assumption has not been made.

Righto, then you accept that something caused everything?

No.
Not making an assumption does not mean defaulting to an opposite assumption.

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Feb 2015, 7:59 am

Oldavid wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Strawman. This assumption has not been made.

Righto, then you accept that something caused everything?

David, do you know the problem in trying to discuss these things with you? The problem is this - when we attempt to respond, you don't discuss our replies, other than to mock them.

I love to learn and I would love to have a conversation with you on causality and entropy, but you just don't let it happen. You would rather mock than discuss. Knowing this is what I can expect, I stopped participating with you, almost before we even got started.

But what I really want to know is, why do you pursue these topics with us if you're not interested in discussing them? Is your only purpose here to mock "the 'Spergics?"

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

09 Feb 2015, 9:15 am

Narrator wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

I have noticed a lot of bluff and bluster, and as Janissy pointed to, strawmen. This last one was an obvious dodge.

I have not seen any "actual science and math".

I contend that real science is a sacrificial victim of your ideology. There is no science that supports your ideology and you consistently offer none. A few well known gratuitous assertions do not represent observable, experimentally testable, scientific reality.

Snake Oil to massage egomania is not science. Prove that a thing that does not exist can cause itself to exist even in 4 billion years. You can't, and your only defence is evasion and derision. Well, let me help you with that (derision) because it will do me no harm and you no good. It will not make the impossible possible. I am a hopeless drunk and I can't bear to engage with slaves of fashionable opinions unless I'm partly anesthetized.

That should give you ammunition for sanctimoniously assuming the "high ground" without having to get into the irksome details of science. You have a "science" that is so far above observable and testable reality that even Rene Guenon, in his most esoterically "enlightened" moments, would have been incapable of perceiving.

Anyhow, I am quite content to be stuck in reality and I seek no initiation into some unreality that I can fashion to my own fancies.

If there are any, at least curious, readers of this thread I suggest a poke around this 'site:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/
I don't endorse any or all of what appears there but it's a blardy good start if one wants to begin to appreciate the difference between media popularised superstition and timeless, well thought out, reason for things.

I do contend that there is reasonable "proof" (empirically and philosophically) that an uncaused First Cause is necessary because of the obvious existence of changeable other things. I will discuss the how's, why's and wherefores' if there's reasonable interest.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

09 Feb 2015, 9:19 am

Janissy wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Strawman. This assumption has not been made.

Righto, then you accept that something caused everything?

No.
Not making an assumption does not mean defaulting to an opposite assumption.

Then you will need to be more specific about what you do mean.

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Feb 2015, 9:37 am

Oldavid wrote:

Narrator wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

I have noticed a lot of bluff and bluster, and as Janissy pointed to, strawmen. This last one was an obvious dodge.

I have highlighted/underlined 9 of your pejorative responses in this one post. This is standard fare from you, and all I ever get from you, which is the very reason why I have not bothered to respond. If pejoratives are all I can expect from you, why the hell should I bother? I'm here for discussion. You give me pejoratives.

I could care less that you drink.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

09 Feb 2015, 10:37 am

Narrator wrote:

I suppose I would be intimidated by your sanctimonious and patronising con-job except that I didn't come down in the last shower. Look, Cobber, I bin wooed by Orange People, J.W.'s, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Scientologists, every shade of Wesleyites, Theosophists, Freemasons, Modernists, and every nebulous shade of Agnostic to Atheist... and probably more I don't remember. If they didn't come looking for me, I went looking for them.

Go ahead... I've been willing to discuss causality and entropy ever since I discovered that there might be other misfits "out there" who don't just "run with the fashion" to be judged "normal".

Anyhow, why would one not mock nonscience? I started off very gently inviting intelligent responses and all that was forthcoming was Dawkinsian evasion and derision. You're still at it. I think you should stick to selling Snake Oil... there seem to be many willing "customers" (suckers) out there wanting to be absolved of their perversity on the grounds of "evolutionary inevitability".

I have no intention to be judged more normal than normal by running ahead of the normal and reducing normal to more and more normal degradation.

But, of course, in evolutionary "philosophy", everything that came after what was before is "ipso facto" better than its precedent. I'm sure I'm wasting my time here.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

09 Feb 2015, 10:43 am

I just think Mr. David wants to have fun with us.

I'm sure there are many people getting sick of his "iconoclastic, devil's advocate" act.

It's always THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN!! !! !! !!

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

09 Feb 2015, 10:45 am

Oldavid wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Strawman. This assumption has not been made.

Righto, then you accept that something caused everything?

No.
Not making an assumption does not mean defaulting to an opposite assumption.

Then you will need to be more specific about what you do mean.

What I mean is that I make no assumptions about what preceded the Big Bang. Maybe something caused everything. Maybe nothing did. Maybe there was a different universe preceding this one. Maybe something else that I can't conceive. There are various hypotheses that are being floated around by astronomers and physicists but we don't as yet have any specific evidence for before the Big Bang. One theory is that "before" is not a useful concept for thinking about the Big Bang because time didn't exist.

It's ok to say "unknown". Scientists do it all the time.

Page 17 of 105 [ 1680 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 105 Next

Jump to:

Is there any proof God exists? Post Reply New Topic

Is there any proof God exists?