Questions and Statements about ? ...
Options
Comments
-
perspective@100 wrote: »@Longmeat"A scientific theory is not abstract, ? a scientific theory holds more weight than scientific law"- but yet scientific thoeries are disproved all the time... Laws are used to help create scientific theories. The earth being flat used to be a scientific theory. Dont disguise the word by putting science in front of it. the same principles for its definition apply. Thats why laws and theories are used in the scientific method. Knowledge and technology change. You can tweak a theory not a law. they are two totally differnt things.
@longmeat no you just dont wont to debate because their is a possibility that you may be wrong where as I invite open thought and if I'm wrong I congradulate the person for educating me on something... So you seem like a smart guy as well as Whar67. I wont say i'm a genius but trust me I know some things. Anyhow--
Ok Longmeat and whar67, we are getting no where talking about the word "theory". I will agree a theory is always a theory. Back to the original question I pose. This anit- matter or dark matter. When anti matter is banged against its counter part matter are you saying its completely destroyed with no reminents of energy left? I'm trying to look it up myself and all I find is what they call quarks. Neutrons which contain quarks and antineutrons which contain antiquarks would theoretically annihalate each other? But it says a neutrons can decay into smaller things also.
So what is it? Does matter continuously break down or it it destroyed?
^I been tweaking this post because theories, laws, hypothesis are all important in science. Its hard to say what is the best source of knowledge between them.
A theory isn't just a theory, like I keep saying, you have to understand what's meant by scientific theory to really have a proper understanding of these issues. A scientific theory holds far more weight than a theory. It holds more weight than scientific law. Think of a scientific theory as gospel in a sense. It's been proven, reproven, tested, retested so many times that once it becomes a "scientific" theory it attains a certain status where it's 100% true. I used to have the same misconception myself until I started making sure I know what a specific word meant in a particular field, instead of assuming what it meant.
To answer your question about matter/anti-matter colliding, no they don't just wipe each other out, energy is released. Nasa is looking into using matter/anti-matter colliding to power the next generation of space crafts since so much energy is released when they collide with each other. If I'm not mistaken the effeciency extremely high compared to other forms of energy, but I'm not sure of the exact numbers. Here's a link of nasa talking about it.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html
I think boss-ktulu touched on this point in response to what geechee slim said. Geechee said matter can't be destroyed which is 100% false. It can be destroyed, just collide it with anti-matter and it'll wipe each other out. People interchange matter and energy so there's obviously a confusion on theses terms. Energy can't be destroyed, it's the 1st law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy.DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Give me 1 example of LIFE being made from non-life............Im waiting.
? no matter what i say you're gonna say "that's not true ? did it!" anyway and provide no proof of your own to back up your claims so what's the point?geechee slim wrote: »Real-time use of the senses, conscious, breath, and heartbeat.
According to your theory, a newly conceived fetus isn't life. There's no real time senses, consciousness, breath, heartbeat or brain. A virus isn't life, algae isn't life, etc.DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »When ? breathes the breath of life into man, he becomes a living being. Life comes from ? . He is the way, the truth, and the life.
by your definition, animals aren't alive since ? didn't breath life into him. You don't even understand the damn book which you're quoting. The creation story says ? breathed into Adam the breath of life, and man became a living soul, meaning he had consciousness and awareness. Like I said, going by your definition, only humans on this planet are alive. ? any of the great apes aren't alive even though we share 99% of our DNA with them.
This is why you don't bring religion into scientific debates, you can just make ? up and have no proof to back up your claims. I can say Xenu created the 7th dimension and commissioned the maajin Rufus to bring life and consciousness to earth in an attempt to make his 7th wife jealous and there's as much proof of that being true as there is the biblical account of creation. -
geechee slim wrote: »Here's why I take the religion out of debates like this....
If I'm ? , why would I care whether or not humans (not my first creation) have morals, or religion? That's man-made. I'm ? , I created man, universe, etc. Why should I care about wrong and right? Thats a contribution to humanity, something I'm too important to be a part of.
Theoretically, all things must die. We all die. The planet will die, our sun, our universe, one day. Doesn't the same apply to everything inside/outside our universe, including ? , consciousness, and energy? Or is it impossible?
All religious people will say is "? is supernatural, so he doesn't go by those rules" then you say, "well how do we know that?" then they say "the bible says so" which will ultimately end up with you trying to explain the big bang theory, evolution, abiogenesis, physics, and philosophy and they'll just stick to "? did it" and keep it moving and not hold themselves to the same ethical requirements that they hold you to. -
A theory isn't just a theory, like I keep saying, you have to understand what's meant by scientific theory to really have a proper understanding of these issues. A scientific theory holds far more weight than a theory. It holds more weight than scientific law. Think of a scientific theory as gospel in a sense. It's been proven, reproven, tested, retested so many times that once it becomes a "scientific" theory it attains a certain status where it's 100% true. I used to have the same misconception myself until I started making sure I know what a specific word meant in a particular field, instead of assuming what it meant.
To answer your question about matter/anti-matter colliding, no they don't just wipe each other out, energy is released. Nasa is looking into using matter/anti-matter colliding to power the next generation of space crafts since so much energy is released when they collide with each other. If I'm not mistaken the effeciency extremely high compared to other forms of energy, but I'm not sure of the exact numbers. Here's a link of nasa talking about it.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html
I think boss-ktulu touched on this point in response to what geechee slim said. Geechee said matter can't be destroyed which is 100% false. It can be destroyed, just collide it with anti-matter and it'll wipe each other out. People interchange matter and energy so there's obviously a confusion on theses terms. Energy can't be destroyed, it's the 1st law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy.
? no matter what i say you're gonna say "that's not true ? did it!" anyway and provide no proof of your own to back up your claims so what's the point?
According to your theory, a newly conceived fetus isn't life. There's no real time senses, consciousness, breath, heartbeat or brain. A virus isn't life, algae isn't life, etc.
by your definition, animals aren't alive since ? didn't breath life into him. You don't even understand the damn book which you're quoting. The creation story says ? breathed into Adam the breath of life, and man became a living soul, meaning he had consciousness and awareness. Like I said, going by your definition, only humans on this planet are alive. ? any of the great apes aren't alive even though we share 99% of our DNA with them.
This is why you don't bring religion into scientific debates, you can just make ? up and have no proof to back up your claims. I can say Xenu created the 7th dimension and commissioned the maajin Rufus to bring life and consciousness to earth in an attempt to make his 7th wife jealous and there's as much proof of that being true as there is the biblical account of creation.
Ok well forgive me for not including animals my brother. The point I was making was life originates from ? . Man did not become living and breathing being until ? breathed life into him. Animals also have a spirit, which ? gave them. The difference between man and animal though is that man was created in the image of ? and thus morally responsible to follow and obey ? . Animals on the other hand, were not created in the image of ? and thus they have no moral obligation to ? .
So all in all to answer the question posed by perspective, ? is what makes something alive. Without Him, life is not even possible. -
All religious people will say is "? is supernatural, so he doesn't go by those rules" then you say, "well how do we know that?" then they say "the bible says so" which will ultimately end up with you trying to explain the big bang theory, evolution, abiogenesis, physics, and philosophy and they'll just stick to "? did it" and keep it moving and not hold themselves to the same ethical requirements that they hold you to.
Well if ? isn't super-natural what is He? I mean what answer do you want? There is 1 truth and than there are many lies. Sadly many people exchange the truth of ? for a lie. Are you doing the same? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Well if ? isn't super-natural what is He? I mean what answer do you want? There is 1 truth and than there are many lies. Sadly many people exchange the truth of ? for a lie. Are you doing the same?
Is ? really a He? I never knew that...Explain please. -
blue falcon wrote: »Yes there are argumens which pose as logic that try to refute the existance of ? but 99.9% of the time I street preach or talk to atheist online the science argument pops up.
Do you really "street preach" or was that a joke? I'm being serious. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Well if ? isn't super-natural what is He? I mean what answer do you want? There is 1 truth and than there are many lies. Sadly many people exchange the truth of ? for a lie. Are you doing the same?
that's my entire point, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the supernatural. Like I keep saying, there's as much proof as "? " doing all that ? as there is a giant 13 legged turtle with a eye patch and nike boots creating man because he ate some bad thai food.
It's the reason why no one in the scientific community takes Christian science serious. There's no proof on any level on any of it being true. For me to give credence to the biblical interpretation of creation (which requires 0 empirical evidence) I also have to give credence to scientology who says aliens came down and made us or some ? like that. Or the ancient greeks/romans belief of creation that said Erubus ? Gaea and nutted out us or some ? .... -
bless the child wrote: »Is ? really a He? I never knew that...Explain please.
? the Father is a spirit and thus genderless. ? refers to Himself in a masculine form, thus He is titled as He. And when ? became flesh, He took the form of a man. The incarnate ? , Jesus Christ, is a man. -
that's my entire point, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the supernatural. Like I keep saying, there's as much proof as "? " doing all that ? as there is a giant 13 legged turtle with a eye patch and nike boots creating man because he ain't some bad thai food.
The super-natural can be proved. Go outside, look up into the heavens and read this verse.
"Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." Isaiah 40:26 -
You find a ? and a Lord ? , when you see ? it really means Elohiym which is ? in plural. Then you have Lord ? which mean Yhovah, which is ? in the singular im assuming, dont quote me on that. Read Genesis and notice that the name chances from ? to Lord ? which if you were reading it in hebrew would change from Elohiym to Yhovah. Why is this? And yes im talking to you Douwanttogo2heaven but of course anyone can give their input.
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »The super-natural can be proved. Go outside, look up into the heavens and read this verse.
"Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." Isaiah 40:26
Now go read dianetics and read their belief in creation and space opera...neither belief has any proof, any evidence, or any way to verify it, but I'll go ahead and take your word for it.
Like I keep saying, you can't prove that ? created anything, because you can't prove ? exists. ? even if you believe a supernatural force exists, you still couldn't prove it's the Christian ? in which you believe. Why not Ra? Why not Zeus? Why not the Infallible Cheese Deity? If I was to say, "hey everyone, i believe the spaghetti monster created the universe" they'd put me in an insane assylum. But if I say "Jehovah did it!" I'll get a bunch of amens and ? smh. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »? the Father is a spirit and thus genderless. ? refers to Himself in a masculine form, thus He is titled as He. And when ? became flesh, He took the form of a man. The incarnate ? , Jesus Christ, is a man.
? is a father but he is genderless yet by definition father is use to refer to men. How can you be a father and have no gender? Does ? refer to itselfs in the masculine or does man refer to ? in the masculine? Could it have something to do with the fact that the people who authored this stuff lived in a patriarchal society that rejected the idea of a woman being the supreme being? Jesus( if he exist) is a man and its a fact that every man comes through a woman so what feminine form birthed this masculine form you speak of? -
Simply stating "we know exist" does not will something into a special state of existence. These concepts do exist, in the human mind alone, not separate from it. Were the concepts of "Right and wrong", logic, ideas, and science used before humans existed? Surely not, because humans created them; meaning they are products of humans.blue falcon wrote: »on the contrary they are all things we know exist but cannot imperically prove. We know when something is right or wrong. We all understand logic and how to apply it. But we cannot prove those things exist imperically...
"Concepts" are defined as 1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion or 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.
Nowhere does this assert that they are things that exist in nature or that they are anything other than mental. You're the one making that incorrect assertion, because your argument relies on it being true.
The fact that you are attempting to compare what you refer to as "? " to human-created concepts, only shows the lack of evidence you have that this "? " actually exists. -
I guess than answer is
Yes you can destroy what you forget, or not pay any attention.
No if you accept ? as the life force of everything in the universe.
Plausable if you believe space and time has a limit, and all things must die/end. -
Have people ever considered that maybe the existence of ? rely on written accounts of Jesus? I'm sure the data is out there (along with others that dispute it). The data for ? and science is virtually accessible to us all. I believe the reason why we are either for or against these things is because we have already made up our minds before ? and science are introduced. We already have presuppositions and worldviews in place. They seem to be more at risk of extinction than just ? not existing or science being wrong. If science is wrong about something, then it is just wrong; no harm done. But if it threatens any presuppositions you have, then one just may fight ? to keep it alive.
-
blue falcon wrote: »2. But nothing can be wrong in your wold view as you've already stated. Things such as ? aren't acutally wrong but you just feel they are. Society deems what is right or wrong. So since that is the case nothing acutally made ? wrong because society said mass murder was fine. Lets not pretend there aren't corrupt legal systems that judge right and wrong with a rubber ruler and it doesn't hurt if you line the judges pocket a little too.
3. But again you cannot prove reason and logic imerpcally there fore it doesn't exist in the impericist world view.
4. Says who?
5. So basically so long as society condones it that makes it right and when it doesn't that makes it wrong? What a wicked way of thinking.
6. Because ? ordered it and it was to fulfill His judgement on those people for the wickedness they were doing.
7. ? only gave such orders to Israel because He was directly in control. The first and only real theocracy. ? can choose how he will deliver his judgment. Wether it be by natural disaster (The world flood, ? and Gamorrah), plauges (Egypt), raising Israel up to ? them (Midianites and Amalekites) or being taken into slavery (the Israelites after their many transgressions against ? ). However we must remember that ? audibly told theIsraelites to do what they did. ? didn't order single people to go in and do whatever. Also the teachings of the OT and NT both teach love, compassion and caring for one another. ? in the bible isn't a wanton killer but when ? feels that a people or nation has reporbated themselves and aren't capable of turning from their wickedness He will do what He has to. One example that people never talk about is Ninveah where ? sent a prophet to tell them to repent and flee Gods wrath and they did and He did. The bible being the moral compass by following the teachings of Jesus Christ is prefect because there is no glossy grey area where we can manuver or any room for relativism. It says what it says and that is final.
2. Please quote the part where I state nothing can be wrong. If you believe wrong must be objective then state that and argue it not your misunderstood concept of my 'world view'. You have not yet address the weakness that objective moral produice. Chiefly that an agent of the divine can alter your moral compass at thier discretion. If an angel tells you you must ? a child and you are convinced it is geniune divine revelation you would not consider the act wrong. This is a stunning weakness of externalized morals.
3. I have to prove logic to myself which I have done. It is sad that I can not construct a simple arguement to convince you of this a thing that actually exists, however I do not believe you are entirely argueing in good faith. That is you can not change your mind or admit you are wrong.
4. I assume this is to "All people have a right to life" statement. This is one of my assumption that I accept as true to build my moral compass. I arrive at it using reason and logic. I will start with several our selfish assumption and use deductive logic to arrive at the position.
I want to be alive.
I want to be happy.
I want to be safe.
I want control over my life.
I can only achieve these desire if the following statement is true 'I have a right to my life' or 'I am the owner of my life'. I prefer the first but any statement like this works.
Now the logic part.
Some people have a right to thier life.
I am someone.
Therefore I might have a right to my life.
No one has a right to their life
I am someone.
Therefore I do not have a right to my life.
Everyone has a right to their life
I am someone.
Therefore I have a right to my life
Only I have a right to my life.
I am someone.
Arguement fails due to special pleading.
The only logical conclusions is everyone has a right to their life.
5. Yet it is vastly superior to assigning your morals based on the teaching of a Sky Daddy. Question why to atheist make up 5 ot 6% of the nations population and .2% of the prison population?
6-7. Handing waving trying to explain ? homocidal rages. If the Jesus stand is crystal clear on morals why does no one seem to agree on what those stands are? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Your wrong Whar 67. All of our lineages can be traced back to 2 people, Adam and Eve. Adam was formed from the dust of the ground by ? and Eve was formed from Adams rib. All of mankind has sprung forth from them. Life brings forth life my friend. And the source of all life can be traced back to the Father in Heaven, who is the beginning and the end. Now can you provide your evidence of life sprouting forth from non-life.......im waiting.....
Bold = Game ... Set ... Match -
bless the child wrote: »You find a ? and a Lord ? , when you see ? it really means Elohiym which is ? in plural. Then you have Lord ? which mean Yhovah, which is ? in the singular im assuming, dont quote me on that. Read Genesis and notice that the name chances from ? to Lord ? which if you were reading it in hebrew would change from Elohiym to Yhovah. Why is this? And yes im talking to you Douwanttogo2heaven but of course anyone can give their input.
And people say the trinity isn't in the old testament. lol. -
Do you really "street preach" or was that a joke? I'm being serious.
No I really do. -
blue falcon wrote: »And people say the trinity isn't in the old testament. lol.
I had an argument wit a reverend about this is she got so ? screaming at me saying THE TRINITY is NOT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!!! She wanted to ? me. -
fiat_money wrote: »Simply stating "we know exist" does not will something into a special state of existence. These concepts do exist, in the human mind alone, not separate from it. Were the concepts of "Right and wrong", logic, ideas, and science used before humans existed? Surely not, because humans created them; meaning they are products of humans.
"Concepts" are defined as 1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion or 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.
Nowhere does this assert that they are things that exist in nature or that they are anything other than mental. You're the one making that incorrect assertion, because your argument relies on it being true.
The fact that you are attempting to compare what you refer to as "? " to human-created concepts, only shows the lack of evidence you have that this "? " actually exists.
1. How do you know? That is an assumption. I say they were because before existed ? created and used logic in ordering the natural system of things.
2. Logic does exist in nature. This is the very foundation of science. If nature weren't logical science would be worthless. As far as right and wrong it is no mistake that many peoples from different places around the world have similar moral and ethical codes to live by. People try to say that the 10 commandments ripped off spell 144 from the book fo the dead. I say that is attestation that ? has put the inate understanding of right and wrong in our hearts by nature.
3. No not at all. There are sciences based on logic, a code of justice based on right and wrong, and people who live their lives in accordance to the will of ? . All these things logic, right and wrong, and ? cannot be imperically proven but exist non the less. You are assuming logic, right and wrong are human created concepts. can you prove that? Who created the idea of logic or right and wrong? -
bless the child wrote: »I had an argument wit a reverend about this is she got so ? screaming at me saying THE TRINITY is NOT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!!! She wanted to ? me.
really? Thats simply absurd. What you mentioned here is part of it.
In Genesis ? says let US make man in OUR likeness and in OUR image.
In Genesis 18 ? appears to Abraham in 3 persons. -
Can you prove this? Concepts are tools used by humans, fact. Concepts are based on cognition; which is defined as 1. cognitive mental processes; also : a product of these processes. Since both of these terms (concept and cognition) are defined as occurring mentally, one can derive that before brains existed they could not possibly exist. I'll admit, this is quite generous as it can credit the earliest of bilateria with creation of concepts/cognition. However, what this does, is set a finite limit on the earliest that mental-based process could've existed; the only way to challenge this is to prove that things without brains are capable such mental processes.blue falcon wrote: »1. How do you know? That is an assumption. I say they were because before existed ? created and used logic in ordering the natural system of things.
Can you prove this? That logic exists in nature separate from the mind?blue falcon wrote: »
2. Logic does exist in nature...
It is already understood that concepts are mental; meaning that, at most they require a mind to exist. To refute this requires evidence that concepts can exist separate from minds.blue falcon wrote: »...All these things logic, right and wrong, and ? cannot be imperically proven but exist non the less. You are assuming logic, right and wrong are human created concepts. can you prove that? Who created the idea of logic or right and wrong?
And lastly:
You've used this term a lot, it is actually "empirically"; which is the adverb form of "empirical". Empiricism is based on cognition; meaning it is something that is a result of some form of mental process as are concepts. To use a mental-based thought process to prove (proof is also a concept) that mental-based thought processes exist is a paradox, as you'll need to prove the tool you are using to prove the existence of such tools actually exists. Thereby making it illogical to do so.blue falcon wrote: »...imperically...
This means your very first post in this thread is illogical in nature. -
Bold = Game ... Set ... Match
lol. and to think about it, ? created everything from nothing, meaning non living>living. but it won't count because you don't really have to make sense or have proof when the bible is involved. -
fiat_money wrote: »Can you prove this? That logic exists in nature separate from the mind?
I'll take a stab at this.
Logic is the product of the mind
Minds exist in nature
Logic exist in nature
