Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#241  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 21, 2018 11:45 pm

Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
You can't logically refute Russell's teapot either, what's the point? Why are you pestering people with this?


I am not just positing non-existence, but that which is Real and universally solid.

But you can't demonstrate it, and we've established merely making a claim that isn't assailable by logic isn't difficult or any sort of indication that there's any truth at all to what you believe. I mean, I'll accept that your claim isn't logically refutable without having even read it. So what? Again, what's the point?


If I cannot demonstrate it then why don't you come and show this to be the case.

I don't have to, you said you couldn't demonstrate it. All you can allegedly demonstrate is that you came up with something that can't be logically refuted, which isn't much of an accomplishment and says nothing about the veracity of what you believe.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13233
Age: 39
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#242  Postby Macdoc » Dec 22, 2018 12:00 am

Watch out ....he's devolving to capital letters now..

but that which is Real and universally solid.


getting very wearisome.

Tho there is this....he is FAR worse than Jamest trying to "think" his way through the universe with logic instead of science.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15726
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#243  Postby scott1328 » Dec 22, 2018 12:16 am

The universe is replete with irrefutable propositions, some of them might even be true. Here is an irrefutable proposition: there is an even number molecules in the glass of wine I am drinking.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8484
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#244  Postby Hermit » Dec 22, 2018 3:49 am

Destroyer wrote:Paradox, not unit, has factual support; despite the illusion of phenomena.

On the contrary, the quantum matrix is bursting with meridians. This is why general relativity will harmonise with major catastrophe to form a surfeit of private joys. It is obvious to anyone who keeps in mind that attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation, which you obliviously do not.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2477
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#245  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 22, 2018 7:32 am

Hermit wrote:
Destroyer wrote:Paradox, not unit, has factual support; despite the illusion of phenomena.

On the contrary, the quantum matrix is bursting with meridians. This is why general relativity will harmonise with major catastrophe to form a surfeit of private joys. It is obvious to anyone who keeps in mind that attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation, which you obliviously do not.


What about inattention? How much inattention to Destroyer is enough? That said, you've captured Destroyer's point of view in a nutball.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28464
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#246  Postby Fallible » Dec 22, 2018 7:55 am

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Axiomatic logic or another system of logic?


Logic that demonstrably has factual support, albeit not phenomenal support. So there will be no axioms to draw upon from phenomena, only explanatory power that binds the whole.

Let XKCD explain proof by intimidation to you then: http://www.dorais.org/news/2011-11-27-x ... hoice.html


Whatever helps you sleep... However, when you awake there will still be me with knowledge that is irrefutable.


There won't.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49033
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#247  Postby Destroyer » Dec 22, 2018 9:35 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

I am not just positing non-existence, but that which is Real and universally solid.

But you can't demonstrate it, and we've established merely making a claim that isn't assailable by logic isn't difficult or any sort of indication that there's any truth at all to what you believe. I mean, I'll accept that your claim isn't logically refutable without having even read it. So what? Again, what's the point?


If I cannot demonstrate it then why don't you come and show this to be the case.

I don't have to, you said you couldn't demonstrate it. All you can allegedly demonstrate is that you came up with something that can't be logically refuted, which isn't much of an accomplishment and says nothing about the veracity of what you believe.

I have said that what I possess does indeed have solidity/universality; therefore, of necessity, it can be demonstrated.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1772
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#248  Postby Destroyer » Dec 22, 2018 9:40 am

="Hermit";p="2669143"]
Destroyer wrote:Paradox, not unit, has factual support; despite the illusion of phenomena.

On the contrary, the quantum matrix is bursting with meridians. This is why general relativity will harmonise with major catastrophe to form a surfeit of private joys. It is obvious to anyone who keeps in mind that attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation, which you obliviously do not.


The quantum matrix can burst with whatever it likes. But never will the quantum be reconciled as One with gravity.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1772
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#249  Postby newolder » Dec 22, 2018 9:57 am

Destroyer wrote:
="Hermit";p="2669143"]
Destroyer wrote:Paradox, not unit, has factual support; despite the illusion of phenomena.

On the contrary, the quantum matrix is bursting with meridians. This is why general relativity will harmonise with major catastrophe to form a surfeit of private joys. It is obvious to anyone who keeps in mind that attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation, which you obliviously do not.


The quantum matrix can burst with whatever it likes. But never will the quantum be reconciled as One with gravity.

And yet you provide no Evidence that you have ever tried the Reversing of the Polarity. :doh:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6394
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#250  Postby Destroyer » Dec 22, 2018 10:02 am

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
="Hermit";p="2669143"]
Destroyer wrote:Paradox, not unit, has factual support; despite the illusion of phenomena.

On the contrary, the quantum matrix is bursting with meridians. This is why general relativity will harmonise with major catastrophe to form a surfeit of private joys. It is obvious to anyone who keeps in mind that attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation, which you obliviously do not.


The quantum matrix can burst with whatever it likes. But never will the quantum be reconciled as One with gravity.

And yet you provide no Evidence that you have ever tried the Reversing of the Polarity. :doh:


I have all the Evidence I need right here.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1772
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#251  Postby GrahamH » Dec 22, 2018 10:18 am

Destroyer wrote:
I have all the Evidence I need right here.


Good for you.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19876

Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#252  Postby Fallible » Dec 22, 2018 11:34 am

Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
But you can't demonstrate it, and we've established merely making a claim that isn't assailable by logic isn't difficult or any sort of indication that there's any truth at all to what you believe. I mean, I'll accept that your claim isn't logically refutable without having even read it. So what? Again, what's the point?


If I cannot demonstrate it then why don't you come and show this to be the case.

I don't have to, you said you couldn't demonstrate it. All you can allegedly demonstrate is that you came up with something that can't be logically refuted, which isn't much of an accomplishment and says nothing about the veracity of what you believe.

I have said that what I possess does indeed have solidity/universality; therefore, of necessity, it can be demonstrated.


I have said that I didn't go into my sister's room and use her nail polish without permission; therefore I didn't (I did).
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49033
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#253  Postby The_Piper » Dec 22, 2018 12:41 pm

:lol: :lol:
"Tourists make their way thru the foothill landscapes as if blind to all their best beauty, and like children seek the emphasized mountains..." John Muir
Self Taken Pictures of Wildlife
Self Taken Pictures of Scenery
User avatar
The_Piper
 
Name: Fletch F. Fletch
Posts: 26073
Age: 45
Male

Country: Chainsaw Country
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#254  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 22, 2018 1:33 pm

Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
But you can't demonstrate it, and we've established merely making a claim that isn't assailable by logic isn't difficult or any sort of indication that there's any truth at all to what you believe. I mean, I'll accept that your claim isn't logically refutable without having even read it. So what? Again, what's the point?


If I cannot demonstrate it then why don't you come and show this to be the case.

I don't have to, you said you couldn't demonstrate it. All you can allegedly demonstrate is that you came up with something that can't be logically refuted, which isn't much of an accomplishment and says nothing about the veracity of what you believe.

I have said that what I possess does indeed have solidity/universality; therefore, of necessity, it can be demonstrated.

I get that's what you want to believe, but until you can actually demonstrate it you're just jerking off.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13233
Age: 39
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#255  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 23, 2018 8:02 pm

Destroyer wrote:
I know next to nothing about the workings of the phenomenal universe

From the evidence free content of your posts it is obvious you know nothing about the workings of the Universe
You claim you are not posting to convince anyone which is just as well because so far no one has been convinced
Then why are you posting ? Is it to convince yourself that you know what you are talking about ? Serious question
If you are so interested in physics why not actually study it so that you might end up knowing what you are talking about ?
Then productive discourse might follow. At the moment all we have is the proverbial pigeon knocking over all of the chess
pieces then crapping on the board and with a pathological lack of irony professing a certainty of which only it is convinced
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#256  Postby Destroyer » Dec 23, 2018 11:38 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
I know next to nothing about the workings of the phenomenal universe

From the evidence free content of your posts it is obvious you know nothing about the workings of the Universe
You claim you are not posting to convince anyone which is just as well because so far no one has been convinced
Then why are you posting ? Is it to convince yourself that you know what you are talking about ? Serious question
If you are so interested in physics why not actually study it so that you might end up knowing what you are talking about ?
Then productive discourse might follow. At the moment all we have is the proverbial pigeon knocking over all of the chess
pieces then crapping on the board and with a pathological lack of irony professing a certainty of which only it is convinced


Good post. But if it was not for the blind-spot within brains preventing the processing of information, these questions would not be asked because the answers have been given on numerous occasions on the open forum. So please pay careful attention.

It does not matter how proficient I become in the physical sciences, I will still accept the physical universe as valid-in-itself: i.e.; the physical universe is an independent/autonomous system. No amount of education in the sciences will alter this fact. Nevertheless, despite that, I still posit God as the fundamental Nature of Existence... This is clearly nonsense, and does not logically compute: how can the physical universe be independent/autonomous and yet not be fundamental Itself?

The absurdity of the claim I insist has factual support. Not only is the physical universe autonomous/independent but God is still its source. If, as I claim, this is true, then clearly it cannot be logically supported. However, if it can be factually supported then logic will be able to demonstrate that absurdity is at the heart of Nature. That is precisely what QM and GR are attesting to: the absurdity of a single unit that contains duality. But since phenomena attests to homogeneity, scientists logically expect to reduce the duality to One... I say this can never happen because at the heart of Nature we have a God who is absurdly opposed to His own Self.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1772
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#257  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 24, 2018 12:37 am

Destroyer wrote:
It does not matter how proficient I become in the physical sciences I will still accept the physical universe as valid in itself : ie the physical universe is an independent / autonomous system. No amount of education in the sciences will alter this fact
Nevertheless despite that I still posit God as the fundamental Nature of Existence ..... This is clearly nonsense and does not logically compute : how can the physical universe be independent / autonomous and yet not be fundamental itself ?

The Universe is an isolated system [ one where energy cannot exit or enter ]
And as it is all that exists then it is also indepedent / autonomous as you say

But then you go commit a logical fallacy [ non sequitur ] by introducing God
Who has got absolutely nothing to do with the Universe as a physical system

The fact that you say it is a paradox does not invalidate the non sequitur since you lay claim to both your statements

You have also asserted God exists without any evidence so have committed another logical fallacy [ God Of The Gaps ]

So you either therefore need to :

A ] Provide actual evidence for this God

B ] Remove him from the equation entirely

Failure to do so renders your argument invalid
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#258  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 24, 2018 12:57 am

Destroyer wrote:
Not only is the physical universe autonomous / independent but God is still its source. If as I claim this is true then clearly it cannot be logically supported. However if it can be factually supported then logic will be able to demonstrate that absurdity
is at the heart of Nature. That is precisely what QM and GR are attesting to : the absurdity of a single unit that contains duality. But since phenomena attests to homogeneity scientists logically expect to reduce the duality to One ... I say this
can never happen because at the heart of Nature we have a God who is absurdly opposed to His own Self

You cannot say with absolute certainty that a Theory Of Quantum Gravity will NEVER be discovered
If it is actually discovered then your argument [ or evidence free assertion ] will be rendered invalid

Please also note the incompability between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is ONLY with the map not the territory
Because in actuality there is no incompatibility at all so whether the unifying theory is ever discovered is entirely academic

Reality is not dependent on our ability to understand it and functions perfectly well regardless of any gaps in our knowledge
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#259  Postby OlivierK » Dec 24, 2018 1:04 am

So, Destroyer, let me see if I've got this right. You're saying that...

1) There are phenomena for which we have, as yet, no coherent explanation
2) You have an incoherent explanation
3) Therefore, your incoherent explanation must be correct.

Am I close?
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8829
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#260  Postby Destroyer » Dec 24, 2018 8:56 am

OlivierK wrote:So, Destroyer, let me see if I've got this right. You're saying that...

1) There are phenomena for which we have, as yet, no coherent explanation
2) You have an incoherent explanation
3) Therefore, your incoherent explanation must be correct.

Am I close?


No. Absurdity, having factual support means that it can be logically and coherently accounted for.

It is this complete account that I have only ever been willing to disclose in PM.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1772
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest