A big-bang theory gets a big boost: Evidence that vast cosmos was created in split second
Options
Comments
-
@Bodhi it's not worth being polemic or recriminating, skillful means pleighboi.
I wish all of you the best aside from Bambu, you got dharma ? up B.
? please.......
I never even had a dialogue with your pie ass.........
The ? does not need or desire your well wishes.............
You mad cause Buddha shot fire and water outta his ass at the same damn time????
So many feelings, wikipedia has you punchdrunk. You should find a woman on this board you could harass and take your frustrations out on.
I prefer my women in the flesh.............
Why are you even addressing the ? without proper tribute.?.?.?.?
-
I'm regressing, but I have some questions...
Weren't you previously banned for your hostility toward Kai?
(Is that just something you are going to avoid, I know you have an aversion to truth.)
Anyone who displays that much hatred towards a woman on the internet, might hate women?
(Allah don't like ugly)
You have the same disposition as an angry toddler, I'm wondering how many Keyboards you go through a week... Five? Ten? (Or do you ? up your mouse more often with all that cut n' paste?)
-
I need to remind myself. -
I'm regressing, but I have some questions...
Weren't you previously banned for your hostility toward Kai?
(Is that just something you are going to avoid, I know you have an aversion to truth.)
Anyone who displays that much hatred towards a woman on the internet, might hate women?
(Allah don't like ugly)
You have the same disposition as an angry toddler, I'm wondering how many Keyboards you go through a week... Five? Ten? (Or do you ? up your mouse more often with all that cut n' paste?
No.....
I was banned for "being a bad debater" & "ignorant".......
However,
I have since won several debate series in this room.............
Proving that the ? was just politics..............
I was actually banned for ethering wack posters............
And where do you get the "hatred for women" ? ...........
-
Hold up, I got that photo for you...
-
? is mad cause they lausce.............
Fallback ? .........
-
The thing is their is nothing 'magical' that separates life from non-life. The hydrogen atoms that make up you and me are the same atoms in the heart of of star.
If there was always non-life there would still be non-life. Life produces life. Stop with the madness. ? is the uncaused cause who has always and will always exist. Life is ? and He has the power to create and destroy as He wills. The last day will put everybody in their rightful places. Amen. -
These guys are used to the kind of oversimplification that the Bible is saturated with and want to view actual science the same way. That is why its so difficult for them to comprehend a simple article and say things like life came from rocks or single cell organisms decided to turn into giraffes.
Your convoluted jargon is fruitless. There is simplicity in Christ Jesus. So simple that even a child can understand the truth of ? . The wisdom you kick is foolishness to ? because it's the wisdom of this world, the same wisdom that ? destroyes with His simplicity.
Case and point this thread. Amen. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Sin, ever heard of it? -
These guys are used to the kind of oversimplification that the Bible is saturated with and want to view actual science the same way. That is why its so difficult for them to comprehend a simple article and say things like life came from rocks or single cell organisms decided to turn into giraffes.
you probably never heard of abiogenesis before i brought it up.
prove it.
Its well documented that you've been the student on a great number of topics discussed between the two of us. You should humble yourself.
I can't prove it nor do i care too.
then you should have kept that comment to yourself. Try to have a mature conversation today without all the unnecessary bs
Me calling you a hypocrite is pertinent to the conversation because you cannot propose that what i believe is less worthy of consideration or irrational meanwhile you hold beliefs that are also not rational. As you say, we have had many other discussions about similar topics in the past and being that you have never brung up abiogenesis in any of these conversions, is it logical for me to assume that you never knew about the theory.
You never brought it up either.
And I don't believe in ? ; I think the whole theory is irrational, sure.. but that does not make me hypocritical just because you believe whatever theory you think I hold to is irrational.
The teachings of buddha are just as irrational as the teachings of any other religion because they are not objectively provable or testable.
Objectively speaking Buddhism is irrational, christianity is irrational so it's not about the THEORY I believe you hold. If you hold any theory that is not provable and testable you are being irrational, but IF you still bash others for also holding onto subjective theories then that is being hypocrirical.
I'm glad you've come to accept that Christianity is irrational. However, I don't think that way about the dhamma.
Its odd that you continue to follow an irrational theory.
Believing in it is irrational because you cannot prove the existence of ?
Exactly. The Buddha said to only believe in what you can prove:
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
Open your eyes and the proof is there. Stop being blinded by the enemy. Amen. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »These guys are used to the kind of oversimplification that the Bible is saturated with and want to view actual science the same way. That is why its so difficult for them to comprehend a simple article and say things like life came from rocks or single cell organisms decided to turn into giraffes.
you probably never heard of abiogenesis before i brought it up.
prove it.
Its well documented that you've been the student on a great number of topics discussed between the two of us. You should humble yourself.
I can't prove it nor do i care too.
then you should have kept that comment to yourself. Try to have a mature conversation today without all the unnecessary bs
Me calling you a hypocrite is pertinent to the conversation because you cannot propose that what i believe is less worthy of consideration or irrational meanwhile you hold beliefs that are also not rational. As you say, we have had many other discussions about similar topics in the past and being that you have never brung up abiogenesis in any of these conversions, is it logical for me to assume that you never knew about the theory.
You never brought it up either.
And I don't believe in ? ; I think the whole theory is irrational, sure.. but that does not make me hypocritical just because you believe whatever theory you think I hold to is irrational.
The teachings of buddha are just as irrational as the teachings of any other religion because they are not objectively provable or testable.
Objectively speaking Buddhism is irrational, christianity is irrational so it's not about the THEORY I believe you hold. If you hold any theory that is not provable and testable you are being irrational, but IF you still bash others for also holding onto subjective theories then that is being hypocrirical.
I'm glad you've come to accept that Christianity is irrational. However, I don't think that way about the dhamma.
Its odd that you continue to follow an irrational theory.
Believing in it is irrational because you cannot prove the existence of ?
Exactly. The Buddha said to only believe in what you can prove:
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
Open your eyes and the proof is there. Stop being blinded by the enemy. Amen.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Nothing is wrong with death and being immortal the way you described it would be a huge imperfection and would also be limiting. Your idea of perfection is stagnation and would lead to real overpopulation and laziness.
If you are immortal, you wouldn't need kids. People create things every day even as they approach impending death. We are always attempting to get over an obstacle. If that wasn't our cause, then we would be content with letting the earth do with us as it will. Humans natural concern to wonder would still drive us. We would also have no concern for death and know pure nirvana in our current forms. All the other things we do now seems like a lot of struggle and if we were satisfied with it as a perfect system, we wouldn't look for ways around it.
I and other people don't want kids simply to reproduce I want them because i want to see them grow i want to teach them.
Our natural drive comes from the fact that we are going to die and quite frankly i like the struggle people like the struggle it's like playing a video game if it's too easy you get bored.
There is too much to do to get bored unless you don't want to do anything. The things that people create and the drive to create those things is do to the fact that they don't want to die. One of those things is habitat. If we knew we were going to die and felt there was no way around it, then know one be trying healthy things to extend their life. The happy picture that you paint with kids growing up isn't everyone's story. When u speak of nirvana which would be perfection, i speak of a lack of Boredem. I not talking about something we create, I'm saying, why didn't your ? create this? Btw, some organisms create children and keep it moving. It appears to me to be a mechanism for a different type of immortality which is one focused on keeping our species alive with the only method currently available to us. People don't like to struggle, people like to overcome. Too are too many fat people in America to believe that all people aim to struggle in life. The end result is them struggling anyway so i guess there is that.
What i was saying with the bolded is that life isn't a video game and you can't press reset. We avoid all opportunities for struggle by building things to prevent continued struggle. We build things to mitigate struggle because living in nature with no habitat would be a far greater struggle. Having no clothing and going all natural as ? supposedly made us would be a much greater struggle. Most try to avoid struggle which is why when people get rich, they pay others to struggle for them. People do things to slow their eventual doom and have no choice but to struggle. Look at what people do to keep their image. Most people would like it if their image always remained youthful so no one is looking forward to truly growing old which is not perfection, but an eventual weakness. People look at a point in life when they were young as the perfect moment. We are doing a lot to prevent this natural occurrence even when people don't admit it. If we were content with the way things are, we wouldn't go in for medical care. So no, we are no living in perfection because we are not satisfied with this life and its struggles. You can appreciate things without those things kicking your ass. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Sin, ever heard of it?
Ah yes, a perfect ? has struggles making perfect beings so it kicks them out of Eden for their willingness to learn. Unfortunate that that story is ? , it would have been a perfect land that ? created "perfectly". I guess your ? wasn't up to it.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Sin, ever heard of it?
Ah yes, a perfect ? has struggles making perfect beings so it kicks them out of Eden for their willingness to learn. Unfortunate that that story is ? , it would have been a perfect land that ? created "perfectly". I guess your ? wasn't up to it.
? created free moral agents, not robots who do as their programmed to do. That is why you have the ability to choose to love ? or hate ? . I pray that you will come to the light while the door is still open. Amen. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Sin, ever heard of it?
Ah yes, a perfect ? has struggles making perfect beings so it kicks them out of Eden for their willingness to learn. Unfortunate that that story is ? , it would have been a perfect land that ? created "perfectly". I guess your ? wasn't up to it.
? created free moral agents, not robots who do as their programmed to do. That is why you have the ability to choose to love ? or hate ? . I pray that you will come to the light while the door is still open. Amen.
Robots are programed with binary code, on and off (not to mention the quantum programing being developed that is based on statistics).. Seems like the choice you are giving me. Is there a third option? You should learn more about Quantum mechanics before limiting the potential scope of robots. -
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Sin, ever heard of it?
Ah yes, a perfect ? has struggles making perfect beings so it kicks them out of Eden for their willingness to learn. Unfortunate that that story is ? , it would have been a perfect land that ? created "perfectly". I guess your ? wasn't up to it.
? created free moral agents, not robots who do as their programmed to do. That is why you have the ability to choose to love ? or hate ? . I pray that you will come to the light while the door is still open. Amen.
Robots are programed with binary code, on and off (not to mention the quantum programing being developed that is based on statistics).. Seems like the choice you are giving me. Is there a third option? You should learn more about Quantum mechanics before limiting the scope of robots.
Again, let's keep things simple. No need to complicate something that is fundamental.
1. Robots=programmed to do what programmer programmed them to do
2. Humans= made in the image of ? , thus they have a will to freely choose to obey or disobey.
Love can thus only be known by creatures with the ability to choose to accept it or reject it. Therefore ? made human beings with a will, so that they could experience what true love is all about. Do you want to know the love of the Father today? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Sin, ever heard of it?
Ah yes, a perfect ? has struggles making perfect beings so it kicks them out of Eden for their willingness to learn. Unfortunate that that story is ? , it would have been a perfect land that ? created "perfectly". I guess your ? wasn't up to it.
? created free moral agents, not robots who do as their programmed to do. That is why you have the ability to choose to love ? or hate ? . I pray that you will come to the light while the door is still open. Amen.
Robots are programed with binary code, on and off (not to mention the quantum programing being developed that is based on statistics).. Seems like the choice you are giving me. Is there a third option? You should learn more about Quantum mechanics before limiting the scope of robots.
Again, let's keep things simple. No need to complicate something that is fundamental.
1. Robots=programmed to do what programmer programmed them to do
2. Humans= made in the image of ? , thus they have a will to freely choose to obey or disobey.
Love can thus only be known by creatures with the ability to choose to accept it or reject it. Therefore ? made human beings with a will, so that they could experience what true love is all about. Do you want to know the love of the Father today?
Love is a chemical reaction. -
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Sin, ever heard of it?
Ah yes, a perfect ? has struggles making perfect beings so it kicks them out of Eden for their willingness to learn. Unfortunate that that story is ? , it would have been a perfect land that ? created "perfectly". I guess your ? wasn't up to it.
? created free moral agents, not robots who do as their programmed to do. That is why you have the ability to choose to love ? or hate ? . I pray that you will come to the light while the door is still open. Amen.
Robots are programed with binary code, on and off (not to mention the quantum programing being developed that is based on statistics).. Seems like the choice you are giving me. Is there a third option? You should learn more about Quantum mechanics before limiting the scope of robots.
Again, let's keep things simple. No need to complicate something that is fundamental.
1. Robots=programmed to do what programmer programmed them to do
2. Humans= made in the image of ? , thus they have a will to freely choose to obey or disobey.
Love can thus only be known by creatures with the ability to choose to accept it or reject it. Therefore ? made human beings with a will, so that they could experience what true love is all about. Do you want to know the love of the Father today?
Love is a chemical reaction.
That is your limited meaning of it , love encompasses more than just the chemicals in your brain. -
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Sin, ever heard of it?
Ah yes, a perfect ? has struggles making perfect beings so it kicks them out of Eden for their willingness to learn. Unfortunate that that story is ? , it would have been a perfect land that ? created "perfectly". I guess your ? wasn't up to it.
Freewill is part of perfection a sentient creature can hardly be said to be perfect it it cannot make it's own choices. -
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Sin, ever heard of it?
Ah yes, a perfect ? has struggles making perfect beings so it kicks them out of Eden for their willingness to learn. Unfortunate that that story is ? , it would have been a perfect land that ? created "perfectly". I guess your ? wasn't up to it.
? created free moral agents, not robots who do as their programmed to do. That is why you have the ability to choose to love ? or hate ? . I pray that you will come to the light while the door is still open. Amen.
Robots are programed with binary code, on and off (not to mention the quantum programing being developed that is based on statistics).. Seems like the choice you are giving me. Is there a third option? You should learn more about Quantum mechanics before limiting the potential scope of robots.
The most complex quantum computer can only do simple adding. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Nothing is wrong with death and being immortal the way you described it would be a huge imperfection and would also be limiting. Your idea of perfection is stagnation and would lead to real overpopulation and laziness.
If you are immortal, you wouldn't need kids. People create things every day even as they approach impending death. We are always attempting to get over an obstacle. If that wasn't our cause, then we would be content with letting the earth do with us as it will. Humans natural concern to wonder would still drive us. We would also have no concern for death and know pure nirvana in our current forms. All the other things we do now seems like a lot of struggle and if we were satisfied with it as a perfect system, we wouldn't look for ways around it.
I and other people don't want kids simply to reproduce I want them because i want to see them grow i want to teach them.
Our natural drive comes from the fact that we are going to die and quite frankly i like the struggle people like the struggle it's like playing a video game if it's too easy you get bored.
There is too much to do to get bored unless you don't want to do anything. The things that people create and the drive to create those things is do to the fact that they don't want to die. One of those things is habitat. If we knew we were going to die and felt there was no way around it, then know one be trying healthy things to extend their life. The happy picture that you paint with kids growing up isn't everyone's story. When u speak of nirvana which would be perfection, i speak of a lack of Boredem. I not talking about something we create, I'm saying, why didn't your ? create this? Btw, some organisms create children and keep it moving. It appears to me to be a mechanism for a different type of immortality which is one focused on keeping our species alive with the only method currently available to us. People don't like to struggle, people like to overcome. Too are too many fat people in America to believe that all people aim to struggle in life. The end result is them struggling anyway so i guess there is that.
What i was saying with the bolded is that life isn't a video game and you can't press reset. We avoid all opportunities for struggle by building things to prevent continued struggle. We build things to mitigate struggle because living in nature with no habitat would be a far greater struggle. Having no clothing and going all natural as ? supposedly made us would be a much greater struggle. Most try to avoid struggle which is why when people get rich, they pay others to struggle for them. People do things to slow their eventual doom and have no choice but to struggle. Look at what people do to keep their image. Most people would like it if their image always remained youthful so no one is looking forward to truly growing old which is not perfection, but an eventual weakness. People look at a point in life when they were young as the perfect moment. We are doing a lot to prevent this natural occurrence even when people don't admit it. If we were content with the way things are, we wouldn't go in for medical care. So no, we are no living in perfection because we are not satisfied with this life and its struggles. You can appreciate things without those things kicking your ass.
not wanting to feel pain is not a flaw not wanting to get sick is not a flaw. The system is set for us to choose to create our world you cannot press reset in life but without struggles in life you cannot appreciate anything so in that respect it is like a game. spend sometime around spoiled children and then spend sometime around poor children and you will get my meaning.
When we speak of struggle we don't just mean the fight against physical things like getting old or getting sick. You have a very shallow way of seeing things and I never said humanity was perfect but the system as designed is perfect meaning the physical world as designed is a perfect system and is the reason why human life has improved over time. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Nothing is wrong with death and being immortal the way you described it would be a huge imperfection and would also be limiting. Your idea of perfection is stagnation and would lead to real overpopulation and laziness.
If you are immortal, you wouldn't need kids. People create things every day even as they approach impending death. We are always attempting to get over an obstacle. If that wasn't our cause, then we would be content with letting the earth do with us as it will. Humans natural concern to wonder would still drive us. We would also have no concern for death and know pure nirvana in our current forms. All the other things we do now seems like a lot of struggle and if we were satisfied with it as a perfect system, we wouldn't look for ways around it.
I and other people don't want kids simply to reproduce I want them because i want to see them grow i want to teach them.
Our natural drive comes from the fact that we are going to die and quite frankly i like the struggle people like the struggle it's like playing a video game if it's too easy you get bored.
There is too much to do to get bored unless you don't want to do anything. The things that people create and the drive to create those things is do to the fact that they don't want to die. One of those things is habitat. If we knew we were going to die and felt there was no way around it, then know one be trying healthy things to extend their life. The happy picture that you paint with kids growing up isn't everyone's story. When u speak of nirvana which would be perfection, i speak of a lack of Boredem. I not talking about something we create, I'm saying, why didn't your ? create this? Btw, some organisms create children and keep it moving. It appears to me to be a mechanism for a different type of immortality which is one focused on keeping our species alive with the only method currently available to us. People don't like to struggle, people like to overcome. Too are too many fat people in America to believe that all people aim to struggle in life. The end result is them struggling anyway so i guess there is that.
What i was saying with the bolded is that life isn't a video game and you can't press reset. We avoid all opportunities for struggle by building things to prevent continued struggle. We build things to mitigate struggle because living in nature with no habitat would be a far greater struggle. Having no clothing and going all natural as ? supposedly made us would be a much greater struggle. Most try to avoid struggle which is why when people get rich, they pay others to struggle for them. People do things to slow their eventual doom and have no choice but to struggle. Look at what people do to keep their image. Most people would like it if their image always remained youthful so no one is looking forward to truly growing old which is not perfection, but an eventual weakness. People look at a point in life when they were young as the perfect moment. We are doing a lot to prevent this natural occurrence even when people don't admit it. If we were content with the way things are, we wouldn't go in for medical care. So no, we are no living in perfection because we are not satisfied with this life and its struggles. You can appreciate things without those things kicking your ass.
not wanting to feel pain is not a flaw not wanting to get sick is not a flaw. The system is set for us to choose to create our world you cannot press reset in life but without struggles in life you cannot appreciate anything so in that respect it is like a game. spend sometime around spoiled children and then spend sometime around poor children and you will get my meaning.
When we speak of struggle we don't just mean the fight against physical things like getting old or getting sick. You have a very shallow way of seeing things and I never said humanity was perfect but the system as designed is perfect meaning the physical world as designed is a perfect system and is the reason why human life has improved over time.
The physical world system is perfect? It actually seems very flawed to me. I'm in great health and you may be too but there are tons of people who have horrible emotional, mental, and body defects that they were born with. The Earth is a predatory system in which many people and animals suffer for the "greater goals" of society. Where is the perfection in this? A little kid walking around the Sahara desert or forest has a good chance of being eaten alive by hyenas, parasites, jackals, and even crocodiles, not to mention the horrible storms that affect Earth, killing many people in brutal ways. Not sure where this perfection is, the world is VERY flawed. One of my clients was a doctor but due to multiple sclerosis, her life is unbelievably cruel now. ? or the gods could have done a much better job making the world.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis.
That's just my point. How can you discount such a thing when it is obvious that we are made up of the same materials that you claim to be simple rocks.
Life being composed of many elements is clear but those things coming together by themselves to create a self producing organism is one of the problems with abiogenesis.
Why use those same elements then? Why the convoluted process of requiring a continuation of their use to stay alive? You don't know the process entirely to discount it. What is accurate is that some how those things did come together and we still need to consume more of those things to keep together.
Are you seriously asking me why life was made the way it is? Lol. Non-life does not eat non-life only life consumes non-life to keep on living. life needing to consume non life does not explain the genesis of life.
Yes, why use the material in such a way to make us an force us into a pattern of continuous consumption to stay alive. Seems pointless as a goal for perfect creation in the likeness of a ? .
I can never tell you why ? created the universe the way he did,
But actually when i think about it continuous consumption of life and non-life is a perfect system of life sustainability. We are the food of future life and we consume the life and non-life that life of the past was composed of.
That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me. Sounds like to many steps in a process. Perfect to me would be never requiring consumption and having a body that can never be injured or loose form. Of course, you would loose adaptation at that point, but perfect wouldn't require a need to adapt. We would work out of the box in all environments. Matter fact, perfect is having spring day and never experiencing a Winter.
Nothing is wrong with death and being immortal the way you described it would be a huge imperfection and would also be limiting. Your idea of perfection is stagnation and would lead to real overpopulation and laziness.
If you are immortal, you wouldn't need kids. People create things every day even as they approach impending death. We are always attempting to get over an obstacle. If that wasn't our cause, then we would be content with letting the earth do with us as it will. Humans natural concern to wonder would still drive us. We would also have no concern for death and know pure nirvana in our current forms. All the other things we do now seems like a lot of struggle and if we were satisfied with it as a perfect system, we wouldn't look for ways around it.
I and other people don't want kids simply to reproduce I want them because i want to see them grow i want to teach them.
Our natural drive comes from the fact that we are going to die and quite frankly i like the struggle people like the struggle it's like playing a video game if it's too easy you get bored.
There is too much to do to get bored unless you don't want to do anything. The things that people create and the drive to create those things is do to the fact that they don't want to die. One of those things is habitat. If we knew we were going to die and felt there was no way around it, then know one be trying healthy things to extend their life. The happy picture that you paint with kids growing up isn't everyone's story. When u speak of nirvana which would be perfection, i speak of a lack of Boredem. I not talking about something we create, I'm saying, why didn't your ? create this? Btw, some organisms create children and keep it moving. It appears to me to be a mechanism for a different type of immortality which is one focused on keeping our species alive with the only method currently available to us. People don't like to struggle, people like to overcome. Too are too many fat people in America to believe that all people aim to struggle in life. The end result is them struggling anyway so i guess there is that.
What i was saying with the bolded is that life isn't a video game and you can't press reset. We avoid all opportunities for struggle by building things to prevent continued struggle. We build things to mitigate struggle because living in nature with no habitat would be a far greater struggle. Having no clothing and going all natural as ? supposedly made us would be a much greater struggle. Most try to avoid struggle which is why when people get rich, they pay others to struggle for them. People do things to slow their eventual doom and have no choice but to struggle. Look at what people do to keep their image. Most people would like it if their image always remained youthful so no one is looking forward to truly growing old which is not perfection, but an eventual weakness. People look at a point in life when they were young as the perfect moment. We are doing a lot to prevent this natural occurrence even when people don't admit it. If we were content with the way things are, we wouldn't go in for medical care. So no, we are no living in perfection because we are not satisfied with this life and its struggles. You can appreciate things without those things kicking your ass.
not wanting to feel pain is not a flaw not wanting to get sick is not a flaw. The system is set for us to choose to create our world you cannot press reset in life but without struggles in life you cannot appreciate anything so in that respect it is like a game. spend sometime around spoiled children and then spend sometime around poor children and you will get my meaning.
When we speak of struggle we don't just mean the fight against physical things like getting old or getting sick. You have a very shallow way of seeing things and I never said humanity was perfect but the system as designed is perfect meaning the physical world as designed is a perfect system and is the reason why human life has improved over time.
The physical world system is perfect? It actually seems very flawed to me. I'm in great health and you may be too but there are tons of people who have horrible emotional, mental, and body defects that they were born with. The Earth is a predatory system in which many people and animals suffer for the "greater goals" of society. Where is the perfection in this? A little kid walking around the Sahara desert or forest has a good chance of being eaten alive by hyenas, parasites, jackals, and even crocodiles, not to mention the horrible storms that affect Earth, killing many people in brutal ways. Not sure where this perfection is, the world is VERY flawed. One of my clients was a doctor but due to multiple sclerosis, her life is unbelievably cruel now. ? or the gods could have done a much better job making the world.
The natural world functions perfectly for what it should be, people are supposed to die. death now is part of the system and for good reason. It pushes us to create the world we want to live in and forces us to think about our place on earth and in the universe. Death is a part of life and helps life grow strong and gives us meaning. -
Something is perfect when it does what it is susposed to do
-
I agree death is part of life but the "perfection" of the natural world still has imperfections lol. Lots of suffering and misery occur. Wars over limited resources, horrible diseases, the list is endless. Is this supposed to be the way the world was designed?? In that case it's no wonder so many people are atheist these days (I'm not atheist though, I believe there is some kind of higher power or powers)
Why do we need to create medicines if the system is so perfect? Why are so many kids around the world suffering from ? or parasites in drinking water in this so called perfect system? If the system was perfect, people wouldn't need to find ways to beat the harsh odds of life all the time. Word to my friend from Nigeria who grew up there some days with parasites sticking out of his skin because of bad drinking water. This happens in many parts of the world, is this intentional? People and animals are supposed to die but for so many to suffer as well is questionable. Why should a being have to suffer in a perfectly orderly world? The world has lots of great beauty, but it has a very equal amount of horror. Not judging your opinion, I see many positives in the world but I question its shoddy design. I'm sure most people do, and that's why we keep trying to change this world. A world that is perfect wouldn't need changing....
