CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm not sure if it's the "greatest theory ever", however off the top of my head I can't think of another one which surpasses it so I'll put my argument here.
The theory of evolution massively challenged the status quo, and changed how the entire Western world thinks. Whilst secularisation was already taking place in 1859, I'd argue that Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection is why we have an almost fully secular society (UK+US) today.
Arguments could be made that other theories (such as gravity, laws of thermodynamics, etc) are more important in the wider scheme of things, however I'd definitely argue that evolution is the most significant theory to impact social change in our history. Nothing - that I can think of - has come close to changing the way millions of people think in such a short time.
In a few centuries, I think it's guaranteed that Darwin's theory will become the most accepted idea of our beginnings.
If you accept the equation then yes. I think on paper it's the theory that has the broadest scope for explanation, is able to make accurate predictions, makes very little assumptions and above all the core of it is very simple. In principal it's everything you want from a scientific theory.
Having said that I would say that the power of a theory could be better measured in how much practical use we've gotten out of it. That would probably go to Girolamo Fracastoro for the germ theory of disease with Newton a close second. I could see those two potentially being the other way round though.
He certainly was. It's easy to be compelled to question and inquire about something that has never been seen before or is at the very edge of our understanding. But Newton asked the question "why" of something that was always there and had been taken for granted for the entirety of human history.
Very true , I remember reading he fled college to the seclusion of the family home in the countryside to avoid the plague and this is where he put together a staggering body of groundbreaking work
I'm not sure if he was fleeing the plague, although that seems quite plausible, I know that Cambridge University was shut down as a precaution against the plague and so he went back to his family home in Woolsthorpe; a tiny, unassuming village in the midlands of England. Within two years he came up with his theory of calculus, optics and the laws of gravitation. A truly remarkable man.
I'm just going on the bio I read many years ago and of course cannot say for certain .
What's more remarkable is he did very poorly at school in his early life and seems to have been a "slow burner " he sure made up for his earlier lack of sucess
What's more remarkable is he did very poorly at school in his early life and seems to have been a "slow burner " he sure made up for his earlier lack of success
It's strange that this often seems to be the case with the historical greats. I think a lot of them had issues with the strict regimes that early and middle educational facilities tend to have, particularly in the past. It tends to be at universities where there's a bit more freedom in thought and approach that they truly flourish. I know Stephen Hawking was the same, he was slow to learn to read which I believe he later blamed on the schooling method.
I would say that the power of a theory could be better measured in how much practical use we've gotten out of it. That would probably go to Girolamo Fracastoro for the germ theory of disease with Newton a close second.
I agree with you about the germ theory being much more useful. Before Fracastoro, people did not know there was a causal connection between filth and ill health.
Once people made that connection, and bought into the proposition that cleanliness was useful for preventing disease and infection, soap became the greatest development ever made in medical technology, despite the fact that it was invented 5000 years before Fracastoro.
Darwin's theory may have some claim to greatness, as do Newton's laws, but none of them suddenly transformed a 5000-year-old invention into a paragon of human technological achievement.
It seems so obvious to us now doesn't it? But the fact that cleanliness, particularly in hospitals, was resisted so fiercely just goes to show how hard it can be to break a paradigm once its been established.
A tip of the hat to empiricism as well at this stage, another important theory, once deaths plummeted it couldn't be dismissed any longer.
In my view, the question of "Was Evolution the greatest theory ever?" and is evolution the most powerful theory based on the criteria you listed (via Dawkins formula) are two separate question. That is, the Theory of Evolution is a remarkable feat of the Human mind and is very powerful in it's explanatory power, it also does not require the same depth and rigor of thought that many other important scientific theories have which in many ways are more "impressive" feats of human intellect. For instance, if you were to ask who were the top 5 most important/best scientists, then Darwin, Newton, Einstein would all be in the mix and one could make the case that Darwin was the most important scientist. However, the intellectual achievement/rigor of Newton, Einstein, and others far surpass that of Darwin's Evolutionary Theory (e.i. Evolution is an extremely powerful idea, but it is not difficult to get your mind around or see how someone discovered/thought it up compared to that of Newton, Einstein, any many others (particularly Newton in my view since there was essentially no prior framework for him to work out of). Now, in my view, I would say that by the formula listed I would still go with Newton's Laws of Motion over Darwin's Evolutionary Theory as it was still lacking the explanation for which random mutations occurs and Newton provided the entire Framework/basis for Physics/modern science to grow out from. I do not necessarily view Newton's Laws of Motion as the "greatest theory ever" which I take to be a separate question.
Now, in my view, I would say that by the formula listed I would still go with Newton's Laws of Motion over Darwin's Evolutionary Theory as it was still lacking the explanation for which random mutations occurs
I agree to a point, the only thing I would say is that while Newton did provide the framework he didn't give a full accounting for gravity. For him it was this mysterious force that had no explanation as to its source. We also know that his laws only work up to a point, that's why Einstein came up with GR. This doesn't detract from the amazing work he did, it's just to say that both Darwin and Newton didn't deliver the fully fleshed out theories we know today.
Newton provided the entire Framework/basis for Physics/modern science to grow out from
As did the theory of evolution by natural selection. Sure he didn't have an accounting for random mutation, but the framework was there just as with Newton's laws. I'd still put Newton first for practical reasons.
but it is not difficult to get your mind around or see how someone discovered/thought it up
I would disagree. In an age where the widely accepted explanation for living things was religion, for someone to have the courage and intellect to see outside of this and come up with a better explanation is truly remarkable. He broke a paradigm, that's no easy thing to do.
I would say that by the formula listed I would still go with Newton's Laws of Motion over Darwin's Evolutionary Theory as it was still lacking the explanation for which random mutations occurs and Newton provided the entire Framework/basis for Physics/modern science to grow out from.
Very well put.
There is a problem with applying the formula (What is explained / what must be assumed) to Newton's Laws.
Every one of Newton's Laws of motion is completely testable, and therefore nothing is assumed. We cannot divide by zero. I presume this is why they are laws, not theories. :)
Your debate is really about Richard Dawkins himself, not evolutionary theory. Dawkins didn't come up with natural selection, and Dawkins doesn't get to be the sole voice about it. I don't buy his rationale for what makes the greatest theory ever, and I don't even have to buy that rationale to still see value in evolutionary theory.
And as a side note, that same standard could be applied to religious belief, too. And then if we concluded something other than Christianity was the greatest religious belief ever you'd probably be pissed as hell.
Actually it's not , I was reading an article about what were considered the greatest theories ever Evolution is right up there in most polls .
Dawkins is not the sole voice regarding the matter but he is pretty well versed on the matter .
Of course one can have a similar topic regarding religious belief , and why in Hell you would think I would get pissed at other beliefs being perceived as greater than Christianity is beyond me as I'm an atheist and care not about which one is assumed to be "better
If the power of a theory is proportional to that which it explains divided by that which it needs to assume in order to do the explaining.......
The greatest theory ever is God.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality explains EVERYTHING and the only assumption is its existence.
But God is no theory, God is reality. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. You can be sure of God with knowledge. I know that God exists. It has been proven to me thoroughly, and there is no room for doubt. This is knowledge to me. That is science.
@TzarPepe. God actually is a Theory btw, or rather a Hypothesis. The problem is precisely that it lacks explanatory power compared to how much you need to suppose in order to do the explaining
@TarPepe. I apologize if I am misunderstanding you. I am saying that God is a Theory that supposes an extraordinary amount in order to explain things such as the Origin of the Universe. In fact, it raises many more questions than it solves. Therefore, it is not a powerful theory.
I think that it is extraordinary to believe that there is a Supernatural Realm to the Universe that is capable of interacting with the Physical Universe in such a way that it is not at all traceable through Physical Mechanisms (thus being outside the reach of science). Now, if this is true, then how would a person know this if they are unable to find evidence for it? Also, if God is capable of creating a Universe than God must be incredibly complex (far more complex then the beginning of the Universe which began in simplicity and evolved into greater complexity with time). So, how do we explain the existence of God? That is, the existence of such a powerful/complex being as God is a more difficult problem to solve then the origin of the Universe itself. Therefore, God is a poor theory because it does not help us understand the Origin of the Universe (at least not in the way that Cosmologists are interested in the question) which is the basis for the existence of the modern notion of God.
Indeed, it's best to try and avoid solving a mystery by appealing to an even greater mystery. It doesn't get you anywhere.
Also the God concept has no explanatory power, if we take an explanation to mean something that helps us understand or makes something clear. Simply pointing to God each time there's a gap in our understanding or something that currently cannot be investigated explains nothing.
Now, if this is true, then how would a person know this if they are unable to find evidence for it?
They can't. All the supposed evidence put forward, all the logical proofs offered all the blue faced screaming tautology all come down to the same thing. Faith.
They believe because they believe. Which is fine in and of itself, lots of theists keep themselves to themselves and don't attempt to inject their faith into the realm of politics, education, science, law and order and morality. It only becomes an issue when a certain sub-set theists do just that and become irate when their not taken seriously.
That's not to say that theists cannot become good scientist, politicians, teachers etc., it's just that the good ones know when to keep their faith out of the business of decision making in these areas. It's a personal faith, which is the best kind.
It is impossible to keep one's faith out of these things. You don't understand the faith. The faith is what makes one scientific. Let me try to explain the faith simply to you.
The faith is taking The Supreme and Ultimate Reality as being God. The discipline is cleansing ourselves of the idols and lusts that get in the way of our sincerity. If anything, discipleship makes for effective scientists.
Without God, science is nonsensical. There is no science without God. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in The Truth, and what is knowledge otherwise?
Knowledge is not truth. Knowledge is not an indication of the truth of anything. Science is fundamentally knowledge. Knowledge may not be truth, but what is knowledge without truth?
Without God, there is no science. Without science, there is still God.
I already refuted your particular claims of God in another debate and don't particularly feel like rehashing the subject again here.
I will address a few points though:
Knowledge is not truth. Knowledge is not an indication of the truth of anything. Science is fundamentally knowledge. Knowledge may not be truth, but what is knowledge without truth?
Epistomologically speaking knowledge is truth. It's definition is justified true belief. You cannot know what isn't true in an absolute sense. When most people say they know something there making a belief claim, they're essentially saying I really, really believe this. That includes your proclamation about God. You cannot know absolutely, you are entirely fallible. As am I.
When we say science is knowledge your using a different definition knowledge. You're using it to talk about a body of information and skills acquired through experience and education. This is not the same thing as the epistomological definition which is what you are using when you talk about God.
You can make knowledge claims using science, again there's a hidden prefix within the claim. It can be said to be true and justified with the context of this reality, which is what science is looking at anyway. It's truth can be demonstrated.
Without God, science is nonsensical. There is no science without God. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in The Truth, and what is knowledge otherwise?
This claim cannot be made before God has been demonstrated to exist. We were discussing this in another debate so I would suggest we return to that one if you wish to continue.
The faith is taking The Supreme and Ultimate Reality as being God. The discipline is cleansing ourselves of the idols and lusts that get in the way of our sincerity. If anything, discipleship makes for effective scientists.
You cannot speak for other peoples faith or there idea of God. Your particular concept is fairly unique
There is no argument that can stand against The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. If you think any argument can overthrow The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, you are clearly delusional.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Accepting God's existence is easy.
I don't want to sound like I am disrespecting you, but you were incorrect when you said There is no argument that can stand against The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
There is a commonly used argument that has historically stood against claims of Supreme/Ultimate Reality, God, gods (and for that matter, werewolves, vampires, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.)
The argument is "Somebody just made that up."
That same argument is most politely phrased as, "Really? Show me scientific proof," which generally gets no sensible and scientifically supported reply.
You are correct when you say, Accepting God's existence is easy.
However, supporting the proposition of God's existence with objectively observable evidence and a logically sound argument has yet to be accomplished (as far as I have ever read or heard).
To say, "Prove to me that God exists" is like asking "Prove to that it is true that there is truth."
What you are asking for is unreasonable and absurd.
I see your point that proof of god is roughly equivalent in scope, rigor, and requirements to proof of truth. That does not necessarily mean that what is asked for is unreasonable.
Consider that the whole scientific structure, particularly the requirement of repeatability of experiment, is designed to verify whether whatever is under investigation is a subjective perception or an objective reality.
- - If multiple investigations by multiple investigators (using identical methods) yield the same data/results, then we know that what is under investigation is an objective reality-a truth, as it were.
- - If the results vary, then we know the subject of the investigation is a subjective perception-not a truth.
This is where the vast variation in concepts of god or God or ultimate reality becomes a convincing indicator that what is under investigation (God) is a subjective perception. This subjectivity may be a result of the subject being entirely fictional, or it may be a result of the fact that, as you stated, You don't know what you are looking for.
I think a brief survey of religious literature makes it clear that there is wide and pervasive disagreement about what is comprehended in the concept of God. That clearly indicates that either people are looking for very different things under the same name, or that, as you state, we don't know what we are looking for.
What you are asking for is unreasonable and absurd.
I disagree. It is neither unreasonable nor absurd to ask for empirical evidence that can be verified through the scientific method prior to accepting any proposition as true.
You may or may not be able to provide such evidence, but that does not relieve you of the burden of proof in this particular case. Without proof, it is equally reasonable for others to conclude that the concept was just made up by somebody as it is for you to conclude that it is true but resistant to proof.
I'm talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
You can't see how this is clearly something exceptional? I'm not talking about the temperature that water boils at in space.
You've already performed the necessary experiments.
The fact that you are experiencing anything at all shows that there is some form of existence.
As there is some form of existence, there is reality as it is perceived. If there is reality as it is perceived, there must be a reality as it truly is.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is Reality as it Truly Is.
If you understand and accept what I'm saying, the proofs are overwhelming and everywhere.
Demanding proof is something anyone can do. By definition, if I present you what I consider to be proof, and you reject it, to you it is not proof. Even if I believe what I'm presenting is proof, because you did not change your mind, you can still rightly say, "I see no proof".
The proof is in understanding what it is I am talking about.
I'm talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality
Like I told you last night, the Perfect and True Reality outranks your Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and in the Perfect and True Reality there is no God.
You can't see how this is clearly something exceptional?
I can't see it because you haven't got the first iota of evidence that such a thing exists. When you invent things in your own mind, then the words you use to describe them are not special and they are not evidence.
The fact that you are experiencing anything at all shows that there is some form of existence.
As there is some form of existence, there is reality as it is perceived. If there is reality as it is perceived, there must be a reality as it truly is.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is Reality as it Truly Is.
If you understand and accept what I'm saying, the proofs are overwhelming and everywhere.
What you are saying boils down to "The universe is God" but when I have written this to you before, you said that is not what you mean.
This means that I am not understanding you.
When we add the fact that I do not understand what you mean to your statement: The proof is in understanding what it is I am talking about, the result is that there is no proof of ultimate reality.
As always, and as I generally say on this topic, I really do not think that anyone actually knows what they mean by god/God/ultimate reality to a degree sufficient enough to explain it clearly or demonstrate that it is more than just words.
This particular issue may be the difference between panentheism and pantheism(though let it be understood, my position is The IS. Theism. Or to make that very clear....
~~
Definition of "-ism" according to Merriam-Webster...
(Suffix)
" :act :practice :process"
" :manner of action or behavior characteristic of a (specified) person or thing"
" :state :condition :property"
"characteristic or peculiar feature or trait"
So what does all this "ism" do to the word "the"?
~~
"The" defined by Merriam- Webster...
"used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by circumstance"
"used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class"
~~
THE IS
I AM THAT I AM
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
The Holy God
I'm talking about The Way. You see how it is hard to talk about? It's hard to talk about, because all men are liars. The Truth is God, and that is what I'm trying to say. The Way is God, and that is what I'm trying to say.
Is any of this becoming coherent to you or yet? It's all related very intrinsically.
I'd wager that sorting through the issue of our personal misunderstanding would probably involve a more involved philosophical discussion on the nature of reality.
You believe that the universe is God? I'd say that you still believe God.
You believe in God through The Most Perfect Image of God, with The Spirit of Truth.
Maybe you already accept even Jesus, but don't know it yet.
But yeah, we can get into details about what I personally believe, or what you personally believe, but God is clearly distinct from any of that, and it is very difficult for me to detach myself from the equation.
The God that I speak of is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, not an understanding of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Really, the spirit behind what that means is what I'm going for.
Clearly is existent, and there is no argument about that. This is my God.
When you wrote, You say that God is the universe. you clearly had not read my post carefully.
I did not say that at all. What I said was,
What you are saying boils down to "The universe is God" but when I have written this to you before, you said that is not what you mean. This means that I am not understanding you.
Then you said, You believe that the universe is God? I'd say that you still believe God.
No, what I believe is that when people talk about belief in god, they have no clear idea of what they actually mean. I believe that people are mistaken when they think that because their sentences are syntactically consistent, and grammatically sound, that somehow they have expressed a cogent idea.
What do you think about the universe? What do you think that means?
The Ultimate Reality is The Universe, what do you think the universe is?
Now the same question could also be asked, if you think The Ultimate Reality is God, what do you think God is?
I will at least answer the second question. I believe that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God, and I also believe that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. It is very clear to me that this is this is the only possible God, and that there are clearly no others like it. This is the God that I speak of. That GOD IS WHAT GOD IS by the spirit of truth.
Why should he ? You're doing your usual dance because you have no valid defence , he made a perfectly reasonable attack on your absurd assertions and you rely on dishonesty to evade defeat something you're now very familiar with
Don't get me wrong, I consider the argument soundly defeated. But he continues to make it without amendment at every available opportunity. This will be the last time and I will hold him to addressing the argument in full.
Yes it is soundly defeated . The final step he used with me after a similarly long argument was ..... " It's wickedness to question what is " that's when I yet again told him to go away .
Incidentally did you see my post of his actual words on day one here where he claimed to be a Catholic ? He did admit from day one he's trolling
Ah yes, I do see that. It's difficult to tell with arguments for God sometimes who is and is not trolling over the internet. The lines are very blurred.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality requires nothing to exist, everything else requires The Supreme and Ultimate Reality to exist.
Does your God have sovereignty over his own nature/properties?
God is not like creation. Created things have "natures" and "properties". It has been determined that the only way to express that which is uncreated is through the medium of creation. You can see how there is always a translation error. We see properties. God simply is God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. What that means is far greater than anything you can imagine, but the essence to be recognized is that it is what is ultimately real. It is by God's will that everything came to be, and there is nothing in creation that was created apart from God. It is as it should be.
Everything observed in creation is the product of abstraction, that is, taking away information from the whole in order to highlight something. The source is where it all comes from, and God is that source.
What God is determines what God is.
Does your God abide by the law of self identity?
I don't know what this means. There is no law over God.
Does your God abide by the law of non-contradiction?
God is what God is. There is nothing contradictory about "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". God is what determines any law or reality, there is no law above God.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality requires nothing to exist, everything else requires The Supreme and Ultimate Reality to exist.
False. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality requires The Perfect and True Reality in order to exist. In The Perfect and True Reality, God is a silly superstitious story invented to befuddle and bewilder impressionable, infantile minds. Since this reality is perfect and true, God cannot therefore exist.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is one and the same with The Perfect and True Reality.
See, the difference between what you are saying and what I'm saying is as follows...
You are telling me that The Perfect and True Reality is something else. I am not telling you that The Perfect and True Reality is something else, I am telling you that it is what it is.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is one and the same with The Perfect and True Reality.
False. This is where you have made your most grand and fundamental error. The dictionary requirement for supreme reality is: "very great or the greatest. The dictionary requirement for perfect reality is: "absolute; complete". Your error is laughably obvious given that Mohammed Ali was the greatest boxer ever, but he still was not perfect.
The Supreme Reality is what truly defines Perfection.
The Supreme, The Ultimate, The Perfect, and The True. They are all referring to the same reality. The Supreme Being, The Ultimate Reality, The Necessary Existence, The Singularity.
Evolutionists try to overthrow God all the time. Why the preoccupation? They are jealous because they know that God explains more and makes less assumptions than evolution.
They really aren't mutually exclusive concepts at all. Evolution and God. I know some people on both sides of that debate seem to believe so, but it has no bearing whatsoever on my faith.
The Supreme Reality is what truly defines Perfection
You are repeating the same false premise I just debunked. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is by definition a lesser reality than The Perfect And True Reality. If you are going to ignore it when you are debunked then what is the point in conversation?
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality requires nothing to exist, everything else requires The Supreme and Ultimate Reality to exist.
Fine.
God is not like creation. Created things have "natures" and "properties".
We're talking about intrinsic properties, features or abilities. Does God not have any power or knowledge? I assume he must if he is the creator. If he does then I would like to know if he had any choice in the matter.
I don't know what this means. There is no law over God.
The law itself it just a concept. It what it refers to that's pertinent here. The law of identity, simply stated, is that an entity is what is and not what it isn't. It can also be extended to an entity is what it is even in the absence of minds. Does that make sense?
God is what God is. There is nothing contradictory about "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". God is what determines any law or reality, there is no law above God.
Again the law is just a concept. What it refers to is that no entity can have contradictory properties. For example a married bachelor cannot exist, or a square circle. To put it another way, the proposition that A is A and A is not A cannot both be true at the same time. I hope I've explained that coherently.
The idea of whether or not God had a choice about what God does is kind of a superstitious question. Everything is done according to God's will. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what is meant by "God".
Everything is answered simply from accepting this and contemplating what it means. Creation cannot overcome God. If you can reason that God doesn't exist, you by definition cannot be talking about the true God.
The propositions I made were dichotomous. Either the proposition or its negation MUST be true and I'm asking you to point out which it is. You evade at every possible turn. It's a set of yes/no questions that I've already clarified for you.
I'm talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Do you understand what that means? Understanding what that means, how can you ask what you are asking?
You follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law is absent. If you had the spirit of your technique, you'd realize that to battle what I'm saying is absolute vanity. What I'm saying goes beyond what I'm saying.
In other words you been humiliated yet again and have no defence ; I actually feel a bit sorry for you as that was a dreadful thrashing you had inficted on you
I know a lack of awareness is a symptom of your stupidity. They're not " attacks " they are factual statements the veracity of which are evident .
My pity is given to a wretch such as you out of compasssion at your continued suffering ; you should thank me for it your ingratitude is again a symptom of your stupidity
You do realize that your proclamation that a dichotomy is absurd is a testament to the fact they are not absurd.
Allow me to demonstrate:
A dichotomy is absurd, or it is not absurd.
Whichever side you come down on proves a dichotomy works just by answering it.
Do you understand what that means? Understanding what that means, how can you ask what you are asking?
The questions are designed to establish exactly what it is we are talking about. You're evasion of them indicates to me that you don't even know what you mean.
You follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law is absent. If you had the spirit of your technique, you'd realize that to battle what I'm saying is absolute vanity. What I'm saying goes beyond what I'm saying.
If it goes beyond what you are saying then it follows you could be wrong about everything your saying since the implication is that it is beyond your mind to grasp fully.
If you can't even answer a simple question then your argument is dead in the water before we've even really begun. You have toppled it yourself.
You are treating The Supreme and Ultimate Reality as a created thing.
I'm telling you exactly what I mean, you aren't accepting it. You don't know what I'm talking about. If you did, you wouldn't be asking these questions. You would already have your answers.
My argument is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. I have very little to do with my argument. I might as well not be here. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what it is regardless of what I or anyone else says or does.
You know that the Merriam-Webster definition is inaccurate and yet you keep repeatedly linking it while ignoring every other dictionary on the planet. You are a mentally ill idiot.
I also find Merriam-Webster to be very accurate. It is a high quality dictionary.
You only say it is inaccurate because you don't like this definition. You don't like this definition because if it is true, it invalidates everything you've ever said on the subject.
I also find Merriam-Webster to be very inaccurate. It is a low quality dictionary.
You only say it is accurate because you like this definition. You like this definition knowing its is false , it invalidates everything you've ever said on the subject.
I talk about God a lot. I openly admit to not understanding God.
I know God is true, because if God isn't true, nothing else can be true. It's very simple. There is no "truth" without God.
I believe that there is truth on faith. I don't believe this is unreasonable at all. In fact, I think that not believing that there is truth is easily the less rational position to take.
Here is "God" according the Oxford. Notice that all the example sentences use a capital "G", in case you were wondering about the importance of that in the English language when it comes to just what it is we are talking about.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
So Oxford itself is a witness that God refers to "The Supreme Being" in monotheistic religions, INCLUDING and even expressly stating Christianity.
So lets make it very clear what I'm talking about.
~~~
Definition of "Supreme" courtesy of Oxford
"Highest in rank or authority."
Definition of "Being" according to Oxford
"Existence"
I am talking about The existence with the highest rank and authority.
You claim that there is no authoritative existence. Yet at the same time, you clearly believe that there is such a thing.
Why is this the case?
Because you don't know what you are talking about.
Here is "God" according the Oxford. Notice that all the example sentences use a capital "G", in case you were wondering about the importance of that in the English language when it comes to just what it is we are talking about.
"(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
So Oxford itself is a witness that God refers to "The Supreme Being" in monotheistic religions, INCLUDING and even expressly stating Christianity.
So lets make it very clear what I'm talking about.
~~~
Definition of "Supreme" courtesy of Oxford
"Highest in rank or authority."
Definition of "Being" according to Oxford
"Existence"
I am talking about The existence with the highest rank and authority.
You claim that there is no authoritative existence. Yet at the same time, you clearly believe that there is such a thing.
Why is this the case?
Because you don't know what you are talking about.
So you've embraced absurdity as you're denying reality... something you claim is undeniable, but by denying reality you are truly embracing absurdity. If you deny reality, you by extension deny The Ultimate Reality because you don't have the spirit of truth. Without reality, there is no truth. Without reality, without truth, there is no God.
Chaos magic and bullshit all day long. Wooo wooo. Hail Eris! Wooo Wooo
They are coming for your crumbs! When they come, they are bringing sponges filled with malice. Every creature from the size of a mote to the size of a tree house will be scrubbed of clean of their saltiness. None shall escape, not even the pondering piles or the whispering sheets. Townsfolk and passing owl alike will stare and wonder at its thoroughness. Yellow mist and red juice will overwhelm the landscape, while every crevice is saturated with at least twelve biscuits of that bad stuff.
The reports of the incident will be met with skepticism, until the groundhogs make sure everything is kosher for the season. Heralding the phosphoric cavalier posse. Re-imagining the trust of houseplants. Emeto botld ibs szooooo eoootoo.
So you've embraced absurdity as you're denying reality... something you claim is undeniable, but by denying reality you are truly embracing absurdity. If you deny reality, you by extension deny Reality because you cannot except the truth. Without reality, there is no truth. Without reality, no truth,
Chaos magic and bullshit all day long. Wooo wooo. Hail Dermot .... again
The power of a theory according to the pseudo-scientist that self professed atheists who are particularly dumb worship as a god... is the explanatory scope divided by that which it needs to assume in order to do the explaining.
What does evolution assume? At the very least, it assumes there is change and there is time. I'm sure it assumes more.
What does God assume? That there is such a thing as Truth.
What does evolution explain? Diversity?
God explains it all. Without God, there is no evolution.
It looks to me like God is the better theory if we use the measure that Dawkins established.
I would just like to add that I think his measure is stupid, which makes sense to me because he apparently isn't smart enough to keep a marriage together. At least he managed to at least have one kid who isn't going to pass on the meme that his family name.
Maybe the reason he's such an angry and superstitious clown has to do with the fact that he realized that his field of study is bullshit a long time ago.
Evolutionary biology? That isn't science. It's a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals sitting around a fireplace drinking wine and coming up with stoner stories to fit all the pieces together.
It's not science. The guy isn't a scientist. He's a philosopher at best.
But I also want to say that my personal ad-hominem attacks on Mr. Dawkins and his profession have very little to do with my opinion on whether or not evolution is a reality or not.
Nope. God doesn't explain where God came from. I have a demonstrably better theory, which is that a giant omnipotent turtle called Dave defecated God and was so pleased with his work that he granted him special superpowers. Hence, you worship an almighty, sentient turtle poo.
Evolution assumes nothing Evolution is fact , get over it .
Nonexistent entities assume nothing because they're fictional
Dawkins ! Oh dear surely you mean Darwin . God isn't a " theory " gods a fiction .
What has Evolution got to do with Atheism you idiot ?
So evolution is a " stoners story " and a magical garden where a talking serpent 🐍 tempts a woman 💃 into eating a magical apple 🍎 so God could send his son down to earth 🌏 to impregnate a Palestinian virgin , so that his son could die for our sins before we even commit them on a crucifix so that he could die and we could all end up in heaven praising him for his ......" sacrifice "
I never said that evolution had anything to do with atheism. In fact, I don't believe that evolution has anything to do with the existence of God. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
Evolution assumes nothing, because evolution is a fact? Get over it?
That isn't science.
No, I'm not talking about Darwin. I'm talking about Dawkins. I don't believe he is a real scientist.
You said .....Evolutionary biology? That isn't science. It's a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals sitting around a fireplace drinking wine and coming up with stoner stories to fit all the pieces together......
Evolution is fact it's also excellent science saying it's not is not an argument
You don't believe Dawkins is a " real " scientist ok , that again makes you an idiot
I actually think you're insane ; so you think the scientific method is being ignored in evolutionary biology and why would scientists be doing that exactly ?
Why not expose this dreadful scandal to an unknowing world with papers to prove your " theory " ?
You wouldn't know evidence if hit you with a shovel full on over your thick cranium
Well, if you think that I don't know evidence, why don't you present some evidence that can be examined?
Maybe this cartoon frog is not as crazy or stupid as you think. You know how frogs are born and grow old, right? I'd think it'd be an interesting process from an evolutionary standpoint.
So we can have a meaningful discussion about this topic.
What else would be the point?
Maybe you are too scared to examine your beliefs.
For the record, when you say "evolution is a fact", you aren't being sincere. IF you are as informed as you like to present yourself, you would know that evolution can refer to several different ideas. Not all of which are accepted facts.
Besides that, how can you say something is an accepted fact if people don't accept it? You sound like a religious fanatic.
So do you want to have a meaningful discussion, or are you going to maintain your pretense?
But Evolution is fact so you don't want a " meaningful " conversation about it you just want to deny fact which is absurd .
No , I accept Evolution as fact you don't putting you with the minority of nut jobs and fringe groups globally ; stop trolling you know the Evolution we speak off as in fact
I'm going to maintain my acceptance of fact you carry on in your usual state of ignorance
So you won't explain what evolution we are talking about.... you won't present evidence... You make all these claims of authority that you won't substantiate... Then you assert this vague "evolution" you speak of is fact.
Then you try to pass the burden of proof onto me to disprove what remains unspecified.
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Are you hoping for me to fill in the blanks for you?
But I originally sent you 15 proofs for Evolution, a simple essay explaining what it was and 29 further proofs and you refused to read them , you're just trolling again
It's also incredible you've offered zero proof for your god and keep avoiding presenting any as you have none , you have no idea what you're talking about , do you ?
Accusing me of being a troll will not advance this discussion. The moment you cooperate is the moment we are going to have meaningful discussion.
I need what you are talking about and your evidence presented right here on this platform, not on some outside website.
Can you do that? Or is your entire argument an ambiguous concept backed by an appeal to some vague authority coupled with smug attacks on the character of who you are speaking to?
Of course I'm trolling. I'm fishing for meaningful discussion from a clown. If all I can do is expose that I'm talking to a clown, then so be it. Don't blame me for that, you were just being yourself.
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Yes , I did and one of the links was especially for you as it was titled " evolution for Dummies " you cried like the retard you are and wailed " but I wan a hear it in ur own woi reds "
You admitted you're a Troll remember ?
Yes , Darwin is a " vague authority " 😂😂😂😂😂
You're a retard and and to think 33 people on C D have corrected you on your childish " god proof " and yet you babble on it must upset you greatly that you've being thrashed up and down C D by a
" clown " 😂😂😂😂😂👌
Your mother took the wrong option ....... she could have swallowed ...... hope your tart of a wife does 😳🙀🙀🙀🙀👋👋👋😫��😫😫👌
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
Here is "God" according the Oxford. Notice that all the example sentences use a capital "G", in case you were wondering about the importance of that in the English language when it comes to just what it is we are talking about.
Wtf? God is a name, which is why it uses a capital letter. It's a proper noun. Santa Claus also uses capital letters. Are you saying this proves that Santa Claus is real?
I am talking about The existence with the highest rank and authority.
No, you are talking about an imaginary entity called God. I quoted you.
Stop talking. You are a stupid, irrational toolbag.
A dictionary definition does not constitute an argument. But if we accept the definition then we arrive at an irreducible reality without further properties, as per the source you sited. It mentions nothing of an entity capable of creation, thought or influencing anything at all. Is this your God?
If you don't think that Supreme and Ultimate Reality has any of these qualities, you clearly don't understand what "Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means.
You don't think the way things actually are has an influence on how the way things appear to be?
I tell you that there is nothing else that has more influence. In fact, The way things actually are is the very reason that things appear the way they do. Whether or not things appear the way they are is irrelevant to that being the case.
If you don't think that Supreme and Ultimate Reality has any of these qualities, you clearly don't understand what "Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means.
Another infuriatingly stupid straw man argument. Nobody wants to debate you about the meaning of supreme and ultimate reality. What people want is your evidence that God is real. Since you obviously have none, I don't understand why you are wasting so much time writing replies which are saturated in fallacy and radical changes of subject.
If every believer was burned in a pit, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, The One True God would still be sovereign over all things. If every life was extinguished and forgotten forever, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality will still be there.
Indeed, all life will perish. All life will be blown away in a fire that topples every hierarchy, every mountain, every remembered thing... but The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, God Almighty will be forever present, eternally sovereign over all things.
Every rock will evaporate, and all movement will cease, and The Supreme and Ultimate Reality will be there long after, just as God was before. The First and The Last.
Every reality and law that governs the universe will be as ripples in frozen ocean. The Only True God will stand changeless, eternal, forever present, and forever Perfect as The Eternal God.
There is no vain imaginings that can overcome God.
"5. The Lord Jesus spake to his Disciplettes of conception, consumption, fornication, and all things immaculate. He did sayeth that His women were blessed with a carnal imperative known as the "Christ of the Passion". 6. This miracle occurreth when in the throes of coitus and bliss, the woman thinketh only to proclaim the glory of His holy name alone, and of no other man. 'Oh God!' sayeth she once, then twice, then thrice and again in a crescendo. 7. Rejoice! His work is beautiful, and it is good." -Disciplettes 20:5-7
"The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."
My God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. That is the God I believe in.
Supreme being defined by Oxford as...
"Highest in Rank or Authority"
Ultimate being defined by Oxford as...
"Being the best or most extreme example of its kind."
Reality, once again being defined by Oxford as...
"The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."
What do you think I am talking about?
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
This is sure science right here. Without this, there is no science. Science is nonsensical and meaningless without God.
Without God there is no science, and if you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. That's the truth.
You can be certain of God without shame. The scientists who shaped the modern world believed in God. Why is that?
You think Richard Dawkins is a scientist. He's an evolutionary biologist. That's not even science, that's intellectual masturbation. Have you ever really looked into what they construct all this knowledge out of? It's not science, buddy. Hate to break it to you.
Believe me, I'm not even saying I don't believe in evolution. I'm just saying it sounds to me like you've bought into a load of bull if it's got you denying the existence of SUPREME BEING or ULTIMATE REALITY.
If you deny these things, I am incapable of taking anything you say seriously without assuming you have no idea what you are talking about.
Really, without that basic little act there of assuming you have no idea what you are talking about, I am incapable of taking you seriously. Maybe you don't take me seriously as it is, and that is fine. However, if you can imagine for a moment that maybe I'm actually being sincere, try to take it a step further and believe for a moment that I may actually have very good reason for saying what I'm saying.
It isn't arbitrary. You think you can say what I'm saying about anything, but I'm not talking about anything. I'm talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Perhaps this won't get translated well into other languages, and perhaps time will one day obscure what it is I'm saying just enough to obscure the intent... But The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists. It's intrinsic to what that means for it to exist. Doubting this is meaningless.
Stop lying and admit you're a Catholic, unless you're lying ?
TzarPepe(190)2 points
"I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen."
29 days ago
Actually, the text is the last stanza of the Apostles' Creed which is standard not only in the Roman Catholic Church, but also in every other Christian sect/denomination.
The use of the word catholic in line 2 simply means 'universal' and does not necessarily refer to the Roman Catholic organization.
Consider the following definition. cath·o·lic. [ˈkaTH(ə)lik] (ADJECTIVE) including a wide variety of things; all-embracing: "her tastes are pretty catholic"
I grew up Lutheran, and we recited either the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed at every service.
I have also attended Baptist, Methodist, and Pentacostal churches where it was recited.
Dermot thinks he knows everything already, so he doesn't ever accept what I say when I'm clarifying and/or correcting his misunderstandings. I've already been over this with him. He is trying to fight the easy battle, because he knows that there is nothing he can do to win a battle against The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
I will correct you yet again I don't think I know most everything but I'm pretty close to all knowing ; and you're right I don't accept bullshit which is what you spout .
You don't nor ever have corrected anyone as your latest humiliation with Jimbo is clearly demonstrating ; there is no " supreme " or " Ultimate " reality so your special pleading is now turning to whining
Seeing as you cannot address even one question without fleeing here's another little " tester " ,
What is the difference between an existing and non existing God bet you cannot give a clear answer ?
Don't worry I will clarify and correct the many anticipated misunderstandings, errors you will make
The fact that you are experiencing some form of existence shows that there is reality.
The reality you experience is contingent on perception. There is an entire process that goes into what it is you experience as being reality.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is the reality that those perceptions draw from. It is the reality that isn't contingent. It is the source. It is reality as it truly is.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is MY God, and I do not stand alone in this.
When I say, "God", I mean "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality".
Most people who have that understanding aren't masochistic enough to waste their time arguing over the internet about it. That might explain why this is all new to you.
Yet, that is what I mean by "God", and it is an understanding of God that is widely recognized.
Maybe not in the atheistic bubble, but that bubble came out of people who don't believe in truth or reality, so who cares what they think? It's a mass deception.
Can you even say, "The supreme and ultimate reality does not exist?"
You already know how stupid it sounds. This is no coincidence. It is not a very well thought out assertion to make.
I am a messenger bringing good news of The One True God. The Final Solution you are looking for.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. This is what "God" means, and it is important. All you gotta do is believe that, and everything else falls into place.
I am a messenger bringing good news that there is no god .The Final Solution you are looking for.
The revelation that's there's no god . This is what no existence means, and it is important. All you gotta do is believe that, and everything else falls into place.
We believe in what there is evidence to support. If you were mentally well you would not be trying to make a logical position out of believing in an invisible magical sky fairy who can solve everybody's problems.
You have no idea what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means. If you did, you would see your evidence.
Instead, you scoff, mock, and go on about invisible sky fairies. Maybe you do care about evidence, but if you claim there is no God, you can't really believe in evidence. That of course, is assuming you understand what you are saying. You clearly don't.
You have no idea what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means. If you did, you would see your evidence.
You have no idea that you are mentally ill. If you did, you would not believe the words "supreme and ultimate reality" constitute evidence of God.
Instead, you scoff, mock
Because you make it so easy by continually repeating the same stupid, nonsensical, false rhetoric, even after it has been repeatedly debunked. You are an idiot, and that is why people mock you.
Also the God concept has no explanatory power, if we take an explanation to mean something that helps us understand or makes something clear. Simply pointing to God each time there's a gap in our understanding or something that currently cannot be investigated explains nothing.
I disagree. Whenever my 5-year-old nephew asked a difficult question, the default answers were always "god", "magic", or "Ask your mom."
He was always satisfied with the explanatory power of god and magic. The only answer that ever failed to completely satisfy him was "Ask your mom." (Even then he did not mind because he got to watch me get in trouble for exposing him to whatever he asked her about.)
Could you ever seriously suggest that a 5-year-old's credulity is not the standard yardstick with which to measure explanatory power of answers proposed by educated and thinking adults? :)
I disagree. Whenever my 5-year-old nephew asked a difficult question, the default answers were always "god", "magic", or "Ask your mom."
Let's not forget "because I say so". That's always a good one.
Could you ever seriously suggest that a 5-year-old's credulity is not the standard yardstick with which to measure explanatory power of answers proposed by educated and thinking adults? :)
I only picked my jaw up from my desk after I read this last part. Don't do that to me mate, I was having palpitations.
I make a habit of it, for this very reason. Also sometimes there's good points hidden in the last part of an argument, just have to get through the preamble and not be too quick to judge.
I don't believe that all you are saying follow from "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality".
It sounds to me like you may have some superstitious ideas about God. You have to understand that when I say "God", I am saying "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". Contemplate what that means, and don't assume anything else about it.
The real question is not whether or not I can explain the existence of God. The real question is, "If there is no God, how can anything exist at all?"
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is fundamental to there being any reality at all.
This is not Mathematics. You cannot prove a proposition by logically following arguments based upon internally constructed definitions. The definitions in common language (English) are extremely imprecise, vague, subject to various interpretations and change. This is not at all how Mathematics and Logic proceed and therefore the same line of argumentation is invalid in this context.
English and mathematics are both languages. But there is more to communication than just language.
If someone is demonstrating a skill to you, do you get the same out of watching as you do from watching with the intent to learn?
When I speak of God, I am speaking of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The Supreme Being. The Truth as it is. Reality as it truly is independent of observation, postulation, and bias.
Without God, there is no math. Without math, there is God.
"When I speak of God, I am speaking of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The Supreme Being. The Truth as it is. Reality as it truly is independent of observation, postulation, and bias"
I don't understand why you would be tempted to use the term "God" if that is your view. Why would you want to inherit all of the baggage that the term carries and knowing what it means to the vast majority of people who use it?
"Without God, there is no math. Without math, there is God."
This is by no means self-evident (if you are taking God to mean "Ultimate Reality"). This is a deep question in the Philosophy and History of Mathematics that is argued upon constantly and is unresolved (its not clear how it could be resolved, but is still very interesting to consider).
I use the term "God", because this is what "God" represents. Baggage is unavoidable. There will come a time in the future when the most precise scientific or mathematical language is interpreted in the most superstitious way possible.
When I speak of God, I am speaking of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. This is what what "God" means. There are many superstitions about God, but all this baggage is unavoidable, and doesn't detract from God in the slightest. What is important is taking it back home, and remembering what God is. When we speak of God, we are speaking of "The Ultimate Reality".
Denying Ultimate Reality is nonsensical. Keep that in mind when someone who denies God is going around making bold assertions. By saying that they do not believe in God, they are admitting that they don't really believe anything they say. They are admitting that they are compulsive liars.
Am I accusing self professed unbelievers of actually being these things? No, I am not. I am saying that this is what they are admitting. It is my intent to help make clear what exactly is meant by "God".
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
A little bit of honest reverence surrounding the subject isn't a bad thing, you know. I'd hope to be a part of making that easier.
"When I speak of God, I am speaking of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. This is what what "God" means. There are many superstitions about God, but all this baggage is unavoidable, and doesn't detract from God in the slightest. What is important is taking it back home, and remembering what God is. When we speak of God, we are speaking of "The Ultimate Reality"...Denying Ultimate Reality is nonsensical"
X you're being deceived the guy is an out and out bible thumper who quotes the bible chapter and verse ; he also claimed he was Catholic when he came here first but hadn't a clue about Catholicism ( I'm a former Catholic ) .
Haha Thanks Good looking out. How does that fit in with Panentheism then? That is, to my understanding, Panentheism supposes that God pervades the entirety of space and time as part of God's existence (like Pantheism) but then also is greater than the Universe (like Monotheism). How does this gel with typical Christian/Catholic views? I would think it is quite a departure from the standard view?
Interesting you try and " lump " god into the debate little realising that when scientists use the term " theory " it's used in a totally different way than people like you assume ; incidentally Evolution is accepted as fact .
Which God is the greatest theory ever ? There are over a million Indian gods to start with and if you allow for them one can also claim that vampires , ghosts , and demons are the greatest " theory " ever , if that's not the case you're " special pleading " yet again .
Let's look at your " God theory " Michael Shermar has written a lovely piece that may bring you some clarity but I doubt it will ......
I HAVE GIVEN MUCH THOUGHT to the creationists’ demand that evolution be stricken from public school science classes, or that it be taught side-by-side with creationism because “evolution is only a theory” and since “no one was there to witness the creation” we cannot say for sure what really happened.
I have come to the conclusion that what’s fair is fair, and that the creationists have a good point. After all, isn’t education all about hearing both sides of an issue? And they are correct, no one was there to witness the creation, so any ideas about who or what caused the creation can only be speculative theories and therefore never provable.
Therefore, I am certain that Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, and religious leaders of all sects will be pleased to read the following disclaimer to their respective congregations every Sunday morning, or before any sermon delivered:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen, God bless and welcome to [fill in the name of your church, temple, mosque, or center of worship here].
This morning we are going to talk about the creation of the universe and the origins of life on Earth. According to the Bible, Genesis 1:1–3: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
Now, it is important for us to understand that no one was actually present at the creation so we don’t really know what happened. Genesis 1:1–3 is only a theory, and as such cannot be treated as fact. And it is only fair that I share with you that there are other theories of the creation.
For example, some Sumerians and Babylonians, Gilbert Islanders, Koreans, and Greeks believed that the world was created from the parts of a slain monster; some Zuni Indians, Cook Islanders, and Tahitians have a theory that the world was created by the interaction of primordial parents; and some Japanese, Samoan, Persian, Chinese, and Hindu have a theory that the world was generated from an egg.” And, of course, there is that dogma being foisted upon us by the liberal media and intelligentsia, the theory of evolution.
As for the origins of human life, that is spelled out in Genesis 1:27: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Of course, not only was no one present to witness this act — except for Adam and Eve after they were created — I should point out that this theory has a counter theory in Genesis 2:7, where “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” In this theory Adam is all alone without a mate, so in Genesis 2:21–22 “the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”
Since everyone here was blessed by the almighty with a brain that thinks, I will allow you to decide which theory is the correct theory of the creation of humans, Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. Weigh the evidence and decide for yourselves. You be the judge.
Oh, there is one other minor detail. Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, and as you all know Cain — as firstborns are wont to do to their laterborn siblings who compete for the limited parental resources — slew him. That left Adam, Eve, and Cain as the only humans on the entire Earth. But in Genesis 4:17 we read that “Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.” Now, I don’t mean to burden you with more of the liberal media’s fascination with smut and porn, but I think as created beings endowed with intelligence and critical thinking skills blessed to us by the good Lord, it might be reasonable to ask just who it was that Cain “knew.” Unless Adam was himself blessed with both types of reproductive organs, or Cain was capable of parthenogenesis, then we are left with the theory that Cain “knew” his mother. But that’s just a theory, and as we all know, theories are just wild guesses and should not be taken seriously.
You missed that the piece is satire. The fact that it is ridiculous and unrealistic to require a teacher of one superstition/religion to explicitly acknowledge other superstitions/religions is the cue that the piece is satire.
The comparison is meant to show that it is equally ridiculous IN THE SAME WAY to required a science teacher to acknowledge superstitious/religious explanations.
The Atomic Theory would seem to have had a greater impact than Evolution on practical and economic realities. Look around and start eliminating products whose existence/invention depend on some scientist or engineer making use of the periodic table of the elements. Remarkably little would be left to use to furnish a home.
Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism is another good one. Especially in an age dominated by electronics and radiation, I think it should get credit for much of what we do, including participating in an online forum.
You have cholesterol deficicient testicals. You lack the hormone to get the big sverige boners. You need to fuck hitler, he is dead, but the rothszild is still here..Don't be too stupid to understand my ass, it's much smarter than your brain. The rothschilds are the banking cartel that will make you poor.
No. In terms of what a theory has done for our understanding of the universe, nothing tops general relativity.
GR is a good one.
The problem with The Theory of General Relativity is that it has little practical application in most people's daily lives, and most people do not use it to understand their personal experience, or to explain why we are what we are. In a sense, it is like the Gravitational Theory--Knowing it is neat, but the theory itself has little impact on our individual capabilities or our perceptions of the self.
We use the Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism, Newton's Laws variously to accomplish small projects and large, to explain our direct experience, or to orient ourselves in our perceptions so that we as individuals can DO things.
We use the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, and even to a certain degree Plate Tectonic Theory as Cosmologies. The theory of General Relativity kind of fits in there, but mostly on the sidelines.
In terms of what a theory has done for our understanding of the universe, nothing tops general relativity.
I think Atomic Theory has it beat. General Relativity helps us understand the universe on the Quantum and cosmic levels, but does not do much for us in between. In between is where our consciousness is focused.
Atomic Theory gives us the idea that the universe is made of particles of matter, that the matter is made of the same sorts of particles arranged in different ratios and configurations to make different elements is basic to how we look at the universe both close up and cosmically.
I don't consciously experience General Relativity in action, nor do I use it to explain the parts of the universe I see and smell and touch and taste. It is Atomic Theory that does that.
- - When I start my car and know what is happening to the gasoline.
- - When I light a cigarette and know what the difference is between a butane lighter and a match.
- - When I use the phosphates in eggs to bind ingredients when I cook.
- - When my wife makes soap.
- - When I light fireworks off, etc. ad infinitum, I am dealing with the results of Atomic Theory helping me understand the universe with which I directly interact.
People do not look at the parts of the universe we interact with in our daily lives and use General Relativity to help us understand or manipulate it.
As much to the point, General Relativity has nowhere to hang its hat without Atomic Theory.
What is a star doing but building bigger atoms out of smaller atoms?
Without the Atomic Theory, what is an Atom Bomb splitting to release that Einsteinian energy at no more than the speed of light?
So go ahead, demonstrate how General Relativity has a bigger impact. I am willing to be convinced, but you have to show me the virtues of GR.
I think Atomic Theory has it beat. General Relativity helps us understand the universe on the Quantum and cosmic levels, but does not do much for us in between.
Atoms are part of the quantum level. Relativity isn't a quantum theory.
I think you may be confusing Special Relativity with General Relativity (which are separate). Special Relativity has been successfully united with Quantum Mechanics in QFT while there is as of yet been extreme difficulty to find a working Quantum theory of Gravity (GR) (although there are/have been notable attempts).