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.
Exactly, most religions focus on a really closed mindset, like Islam or Christianity, they block our imagination of what is beyond, or who created us and so on. It sets an answer that isn't even logical in some cases anymore. While other religions, Buddhism for example, focus on the complete opposite, and welcome opinions and assumptions about our universe.
Just out of curiosity, where would you say that something like Islam and Christianity teach a closed mindset? What about something like Buddhism with open opinions?
Irrespective of what faith one follows and irrespective of whether that faith is "right or wrong", adhering to such rigid doctrines requires the ignorance of many of the laws of nature and amazing scientific discoveries of mankind. To shut these things out I think is a shame.
It does both. It depends on the individual which effect is dominant.
It opens your mind when you learn the many ways to be good. It closes your mind when you become a dogma thumper screaming at the ways you believe are bad.
It all depends on your perspective. For some, religion opens doors and is a beatiful thing. For others, it holds them back. I dont deal in absolutes. I think there is always a grey area.
It really depends on the person. There are some people that use religion to bind them to only one train of thought, anything else is seen as wrong. But there are others that are capable of seeing both sides of a coin and entertaining thoughts beyond what the bible teaches. Religion is simply a tool, the wielder is the deciding factor on what it's used for.
Does atheism blind people and keep them from Christ?
No. That's a result of stupid people like you. Don't take that as an insult. Many of the people who believe in Christ say stupid things and cause others to be blinded and kept away from Christ. It isn't from the lack of belief in God.
Cartman is so weak that the words and actions of other flawed and imperfect humans actually decides whether he accepts theism or not. Explains a lot actually...
There is no other way for me to even learn about Jesus. Are you fucking retarded? The only way anyone can possibly know about Jesus is from the words and actions of other imperfect humans. You really should start thinking before you post.
If you would rather I tell you what the Bible says, as opposed to you actually going, picking one up, and actually reading it, I can't help it if you can't get it done. You have the intellect of a cucumber. That's on you.
if you would rather I tell you what the Bible says,
Actually I love it when you do that. It proves you don't have s fucking clue what the bible says
A person who openly admits they don't know much about Christianity claims to know when I am right or wrong on what the Bible says. Of course you'll provide no example, no quote, no anything. God you're a clueless dumbass..
You think that if you read the Bible no one sense had anything to do with you being able to get the Bible. That's fucking stupid
I don't think even you knows what you mean because you can't put together a coherant sentence or a logical argument on any topic in 17,000 pointless posts.
The only way anyone can possibly know about Jesus is from the words and actions of other imperfect humans
Bwahahahaha! Rather than read the Bible, you'd prefer to take my word for it... no wonder you're an atheist. You must be taking other atheists' words as gold...
I have opposed the religion of Islam. You have praised it and attacked everyone who has talked against Islam. Why do you have s love affair with Islam? It is an extremely ridiculous religion.
Stupid humans wrote down everything about Jesus. What mental gymnastics do you use to get around the fact that you can't rely on stupid humans and you rely on stupid humans to get the Bible right?
You didn't know Jesus was a Jew. You are rambling about crap you know nothing about. You're a clown and a stupid one at that. Of course, what kind of child should we have expected from your mom...
Not really. I'm simply good with tossing intellectual debate to the side and getting on my belly where I can see you eye to eye. I have to dumb it down a substantial amount to get down that far though.
I don't block you because I care about your grants, requests, stupidity, or your random mindless thoughts. I block you because you are a drive by poster who does so because they can't form an argument.
So "the Bible doesn't claim Jesus is a Jew", "you're an illiberal liberal" and "I'm young but remember Reagan and miss him" are facts? Bwahahahahaha! You're a twit.
Maybe you should join the circus. Wait. No one would pay to see a monkey with its head up its ass. On second thought maybe they would. So go ahead. Join the circus. It'd be better than McDonalds.
I see no need in wasting energy intellectually engaging a troglodyte.
Why is it that everyone who says that starts off not using intellect? Why not come to a debate website fresh
I'm not going to blindly interpret your ramblings here. I washed up this morning. Just because you didn't, that doesn't mean the rest of us are wearing an unchanged diaper currently, as you are.
Why did you decide to tell me that you weren't going to interpret what I wrote when you never have interpreted it before? It's your standard procedure to ignore what I say.
Ronald Reagan was president in the 80s. You say he was president in the 70s.
You accuse a Trump supporter who is anti Islamic immigration of being liberal. Pure stupidity and ignorance? Ignore.
You have proven that you don't understand the definition of liberal. The only stupidity and ignorance is being shown by you.
You make nonsensical claims
No. I provide claims that you don't like. They aren't nonsensical just because you don't like them.
Citations and sources are requested?
So you are asking me if they are requested. So, you recognize that your requests are worthless.
You don't provide them, then go to your default setting: cursing fits. Ignore.
I have provided you plenty of information on the past and you completely ignored it. Then you showed you are afraid of words and intellectual debate. Then I just start pointing out how stupid you are. Your requests are worthless.
So that's how that works. It's a rather simple process
You didn't answer the question. That just proved that you don't know.
No. I provide claims that you don't like. They aren't nonsensical just because you don't like them
No. They are nonsensical claims, like "I'm a kid but remember Reagan and miss him." And the famous "I don't know Jesus is a Jew but am a Biblical scholar who knows when well studied people on the Bible are wrong"...
And even better still, the creature that you created: the "anti Islamic immigrant, anti socialism, anti BLM, anti welfare, anti political correctness liberal". Bwahahahahahaha! That one is the best. I should make a highlight real of your stupidity.
I guess I should feel honored that you treat me exactly like you treat Milo Yiannopoulos. You seem to agree with him even though you misrepresent what he says, too.
I have provided you plenty of information on the past and you completely ignored it. Then you showed you are afraid of words and intellectual debate. Then I just start pointing out how stupid you are. Your requests are worthless
False, more stupidity, blah blah blah, more stupidity. Wash, rinse, repeat...
What mental gymnastics do you use to get around the fact that you can't rely on stupid humans and you rely on stupid humans to get the Bible right
1)The same stupid humans that you rely on to tell you that something came from nothing, that hooved hyenas became 80,000 pound whales, and that you should ignore the Fermi Paradox...
2)You rely on humans to give you accounts of history. So do we. It's like magic.
You made the stupid fucking claim. I acknowledge that we rely on imperfect humans. You are the stupid one claiming we can't rely on imperfect humans. Now you make your stupid statements without thinking them through at all. You don't win the debate by admitting you do something you said it is stupid to do.
When mental midgets get huffy and puffy, and rail on and on in unintelligable tirades of emotion... I just laugh at them for the dumbass clowns they are. I'm laughing at this very moment point of fact. I'd say I know what it's like to be here for years without making hardly a debate and having no ability to develope an argument on a debate site, but I don't. Of course that's why I block you. I'll debate an idiot, but debating someone who can't even take a position like a man or back their words? Naaa... I have no need to continue to make someone who is mentally helpless and constantly butthurt to the point of childlike cursing fits look even stupider than they already are.
When mental midgets get huffy and puffy, and rail on and on in unintelligable tirades of emotion... I just laugh at them for the dumbass clowns they are.
How do you explain all the times you have whined like a little bitch when you have been insulted?
I'm laughing at this very moment point of fact.
Yeah, idiots don't know when to laugh.
'd say I know what it's like to be here for years without making hardly a debate and having no.ability to develope an argument on a debate site, but I don't
Do you really think time makes much of a difference? Just because you have only been doing it for a few months doesn't mean you can't relate.
Of course that's why I block you.
You blocked me last time because I pointed out that you failed to read the definition of liberal.
I'll debate an idiot, but debating someone who can't even take a position like a man or back their words?
You never fail to describe yourself when talking about me. I don't know if I should feel honored or not.
Naaa... I have no need to continue to make someone who is mentally helpless and constantly butthurt look even stupider than they already are.
Seriously, it is insane how much you describe yourself when attacking others.
You never fail to describe yourself when talking about me. I don't know if I should feel honored or not
That's called not being a man. You literally need someone to tell you when to be honored, that Jesus was a Jew, and that Milo is a gay conservative troll because you're as dumb as a box of kangaroo shit.
Calling someone an idiot who had to tell you that Jesus was a Jew is not something to go on about. Or perhaps you are proud that you thought Jesus was some Muslim from Pakistan. No normal human being can tell.
Fartman, if you know people are saying stupid things that keep you away from Christ, then you must understand the correct thing which is the standard you use to call other things stupid.
Since you know the correct thing which is reason to trust Christ as your Savior, you should trust Christ as your Savior or place the blame for not doing so where it belongs.....on yourself.
I don't care what you "NEED" to know.. Who in the hell do you think you are?? I owe you NOTHING! Never ONCE in our brief relationship have I DEMANDED to know stuff about Christianity.. First off, it's a PRIVATE matter. And, secondly, in this great country of ours, you're FREE to believe whatever you like, and I DON'T question it.. We don't TALK about your beliefs, because they're NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I've NEVER told you that you're wrong.. Our dialogue has been ONE way - and ONE way only.. And, that's ME telling YOU about my atheism..
Clearly, you haven't understood a word I said. You're NOT interested in learning FROM me about atheism.. You're interested in TELLING me about atheism.
And, secondly, in this great country of ours, you're FREE to believe whatever you like, and I DON'T question it.
So if I planned mass rape assaults and literally believed I had been communicated with by space aliens that told me to blow up the Superbowl, you wouldn't question it...
I've never said Atheism is false. I simply have opposed the logic used to declare it as true because it is based on logical fallacies. And I have done it on a debate site. I don't discuss religion with atheists in normal life.
If anything allows you to question and ponder upon things, it opens minds, on the other hand if something wants you believe in something without questioning, and typically comes down to "that's the way it is" , it blinds people. It is completely a person's opinion whether to be blinded or question what's in front of him/her..
Of course it is plausable. You believe you have great grandparents even though you haven't met all of your forfathers or saw any evidence for them. We simply say there must be a first father in order to take away the paradox of infinite causality or "infinite fathers. There must be afirst chicken to get any more chickens. It's simply deductive logic.
Of course it is plausable. You believe you have great grandparents even though you met all of your forfathers or saw any evidence for them. We simply say there must be a first father in order to take away the paradox of infinite causality or "infinite fathers. There must be afirst chicken to get any more chickens. It's simply deductive logic.
exactly, you seem to get my point now.. i can deduce that.
Not if he predates our reality or is the creator of it. Cells may not be a part of his reality if he created them. Computer game programmers aren't made up of binary code simply because the Sims are.
Not if he predates our reality or is the creator of it.
you simply can't talk about things that predates one's reality simply due to the fact that it "predates " your reality. That is why we say the idea is an imagination.
Cells weren't "a part of imagination" prior to proof. They were real pre proof.
prior to proof, we didn't know if they existed. So to put forward arguments that said they were a part of imagination would've been right, If the cells were not discovered. And you are right, they weren't a part of imagination, they were deduced to be in a certain way..
They might in the future as technology advances. I would assume that God has better technology than us for making matrixes and simulated virtual realities.
The most widely accepted theoretical concept isn't true by default.
The space time continum model was laughed at for decades. So was relativity. The same with anyone who thought the Earth was a round sphere
Sure, the most widely accepted theory isn't true by default, but the one that I believe in, is perfectly logical and I can reason for things if I wanted to, that's the reason I call it correct. It doesn't involve emotions.
The space time continum model was laughed at for decades. So was relativity. The same with anyone who thought the Earth was a round sphere.
yes, and we see that somehow all of them were laughed upon simply because people were blinded by religion.
Sure, the most widely accepted theory isn't true by default, but the one that I believe in, is perfectly logical and I can reason for things if I wanted to, that's the reason I find call it correct. It doesn't involve emotions
I couldn't care less about emotional appeals. I can use basic logic to say that nothing doesn't produce something from magic.
I can also say an infinite reality and/or a finite reality are nonsensical without being abstract rather than "physical" as we define "physical".
In other words, how can a thing never end in a "physical" reality? It can't.
How can a thing exist inside of a literal "nothing" in a "physical" reality? It can't.
So I can deduce that it is abstract. If it's abstract, such as a matrix, in someone's mind, etc, atheism is nonsensical.
I couldn't care less about emotional appeals. I can use basic logic to say that nothing doesn't produce something from magic.
I can also say an infinite reality and/or a finite reality are nonsensical without being abstract rather than "physical" as we define "physical".
In other words, how can a thing never end in a "physical" reality? It can't.
How can a thing exist inside of a literal "nothing" in a "physical" reality? It can't.
So I can deduce that it is abstract. If it's abstract, such as a matrix, in someone's mind, etc, atheism is nonsensical.
nothingness is more than just absence of something.
and btw, nobody ever told things came from nothing, it's one of those interpretations that's screwed up. They say, we can deduce back until then, for we cannot speak about things before that, simply because "before" doesn't exist, as time started at that very moment.
just because we can't see things "end" doesn't ,mean that things don't (irrespective of whether things do/do not), our life span is way too short to sit and watch things end, if there is. So as of now, things are expanding, and the evidence we have "suggests" it will continue to do so, ten thousand million years is an enormously huge number, and until we find any evidence to oppose this, this is what we say about things "ending".
In other words, how can a thing never end in a "physical" reality?
numbers? I don't see any problem with that.
okay, things need not be abstract when they have reasoning and deductions to follow, but when you make a statement completely of an emotional appeal, it either needs to be abstract, or it needs some reasoning. let me clear this with an example,
let's say we have two classmates, barry and jim.
barry hates math, jim loves it. (both are emotional appeals)
now both of them go shouting in their class, jim says "love math, it's amazing"
barry says "math sucks".
now think about why they're making those statements, emotional appeal, that's the reason.
now keep those feelings aside and let's think about the issue, like it or not math is useful.
we can say we have deduced in the second part(on why math is useful), but when their classmates pick a side, it's completely based on their personal interest on math, which is, certainly emotional. And where one is biased , there can't be logic..
emotional appeal: Emotional appeal is a logical fallacy, whereby a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent and audience
Dude, slow down, do you even see the context we were talking about? and I don't care how I am greeted, how does that even change what I said? I think you need to read it again, this time please google what a fallacy means.
Not really. The atheist needs an answer that can be explained by nature. We do not because we say God created nature. We have no way to then define a reality that created ours. They may be nothing alike. Time, being born, etc may simply be concepts designed by God. The atheist cannot give us a supernatural answer without envoking God.
Nobody knows. We are told there was a small point that exploded into the expanding universe we see today. Where did the point come from? Ask atheists. You'll get everything from a theoretical "quantum field"(that still needs a cause) to a theoretical "multiverse"(that still needs a cause). Most intelligent atheists know something cannot exist inside of nothing. Space is a thing, not "nothing". It moves and bends as things move through it.
Nobody knows. We are told there was a small point that exploded into the expanding universe we see today. Where did the point come from? Ask atheists. You'll get everything from a theoretical "quantum field"(that still needs a cause) to a theoretical "multiverse"(that still needs a cause). Most intelligent atheists know something cannot exist inside of nothing. Space is a thing, not "nothing". It moves and bends as things move through it.
see, this is similar to what we talked about the sims argument, we live in and are "enclosed" within "things". to travel beyond and actually find out "beyond" the "things", even though we can deduce till the "beginning", to know "before" it is not possible, simply because it is the beginning.. when we say time started at that moment, you can't use the word "before" as "before" at the maximum can only refer to the initial moment..
The universe isn't spreading because it is being pulled by an outside force. There was no big bang. I can derive that from deductions. Is it true?
If you actually believe you can do that, and if you are willing to attempt to do that, why don't you publish papers? and you know, argue and tell them (scientists) why they are wrong.. please go ahead and try, you are most welcome to. good luck with that.
I don't believe it, but you can deduct it is true. That's why deductive reasoning that is missing 90+% of the needed information isn't deductive at all. It's a guess that may fit what we know, but time has shown again and again that early guesses and hypothesis are often dead wrong.
Plausible is a semantical word. I can say the theoretical "quantum field" or the theoretical "multiverse" are not plausible. It doesn't matter if they happen to be true.
Emotions toss a creator out of the equation. It's the same logic. Things hoped for. The atheist doesn't want a judgement or accountability, thus their logic is based from that concept, not math. It's an emotional response.
Hope is the reason, we have religions, which is based on"belief".. clearly, it has an emotional foundation. Atheism doesn't start from emotions, it started by logically trying to deduce on the issue "god" and not finding logical answers.
People don't believe in god simply because they have deduced and not found him. Those you talk about were at some point people who believed in god and later, just because they didn't get what they want, they find the side of atheism, since even they have questioned the existence of god. Atheism as an ideology,has started by logical deductions.
Plausible is a semantical word. I can say the theoretical "quantum field" or the theoretical "multiverse" are not plausible. It doesn't matter if they happen to be true.
hmm, so according to what you say, nothing is "plausible".
You haven't a valid deduction why Leftist support Muslims have you ? Open floor go for it
okay, first of all, I would like to ask you this: no matter where I see your arguments, irrespective of where and which topic, there are leftists linked with muslims. I've tried explaining, but people just don't want to understand what they read.
leftists don't support them because they are all muslims or all of the left have some feeling for muslims.
the definition of being a "leftist" says that one should support social equality, in order to be a "leftist"... and what is happening with muslims is completely against that, which is the reason the left wants to talk for muslims.
Plausible doesn't mean the same exact thing to any 2 people, so it has no objective definition. What is plausible to person A is not plausible to person B, thus "is it plausible?" is a riduculous question.
Plausible doesn't mean the same exact thing to any 2 people, so it has no objective definition. What is plausible to person A is not plausible to person B, thus "is it plausible?" is a riduculous question.
Nevertheless, math doesn't make dogmatic assessments. Atheists do. All humans have confirmation biasis. Math cannot assess a plausibility without a flawed human involved.
however, the way to interpret what equations mean, is different, which I agree, but that clearly, can be overcome with comparing interpretations to practicality...
Not really. Gravity affects space as well. There's a reason two parralel lines will always intersect in space at some point. And if you put two lines out there again, they wouldn't intersect at the same point because the fabric of space is always in motion. The math would look like the national debt clock, constantly in flux.
when you write down equations for all you said, we either write them under specific conditions, which are clearly mentioned and when they are mentioned, it is meant to be utilized under those very conditions.. and of course all this still doesn't cahnge the fundamentals of math. When we talk about equations, we write them in general such that it is usable throughout or we write them under specific conditions, which clearly doesn't "change" math.
That's the point. Said "specific conditions" don't exist. Everything is in motion at the subatomic level at all times. Observing an atom staying put is impossible. Sometimes they even seem to disappear. If the atoms were all magically turned off you and I would completely disappear.
Observing an atom staying put is impossible. Sometimes they even seem to disappear.
we observe, math doesn't.
Said "specific conditions" don't exist. Everything is in motion at the subatomic level at all times.
we don't use the same equations we do in the case of macroscopic objects and microscopic objects. idea of forming an equation is ours, math is the way we describe it in pure logic..
we don't use the same equations we do in the case of macroscopic objects and microscopic objects. idea of forming an equation is ours, math is the way we describe it in pure logic..
If a microscopic person saw our math measurements, they'd think it was based off of no logic. If a giant human cut you pieces of metal that he saw as precision, you'd wonder why all his measurements were so far off compared to your measurements.
We talk about two parallel lines on a "plane"/"a 3-d coordinate system". Not on the actual space itself. and when we talk about that 3-d coordinate system, we take it to be uniform throughout.
When we talk about this flux, we are talking about the bredth of our entire reality, not just Earth. In a debate about God or the entire universe, Earthly conceptualizations of math die because you would never get the expected result. Things don't fit together in vast space like they do in a confined environment like Earth because the volume of space is infinitely large and variables of objects and gravity are all over the map. Even on Earth the math is constantly influx. You don't notice it because it is toos mall for a human to detect. Precission instruments do notice it though, but even they could always go smaller, so even they are off, but just by less than us.
Measurements are math. And if what you are measuring is never not in motion, your math is never 100% true, and in more chaotic environments, it's even more off. You think precission measuring devices are not using math? Every thing at the subatomic level is constantly in motion. Everything.
Seriously? I'm done here. While measurements use math, they are not math by itself. Math isn't flawed because of our inabilities. Observations can vary, I have never disagreed, Math, no matter where, stays the same. In other words, maths is pure logic. It stays the same everywhere.
Sure, theoretically, there could be a "perfect math", but the device it would take to keep up with all of the data is theoretical and doesn't exist.
You are using a flawed human version of mathematics to describe the universe or God. That "math" is not dependable or consistent in the vastness of the universe or something beyond the universe.
You are using a flawed human version of mathematics to describe the universe or God. That "math" is not dependable or consistent in the vastness of the universe or something beyond the universe.
this whole argument of math came from things not being plausible. the word plausible means something that is rational and is probable, math is perfect, humans are flawed,universally plausible things exist.
Yes there is. "Math" in theory is perfect, but if you can't perfectly measure, then your math isn't that math, so to use perfect math in an argment that doesn't include perfect math is a fallacy of logic. It's like measuring parts with .0000000000001 tolerance with a ruler.
And if you keep adding those .0000000000001s in infinite space, your human math becomes more off as you go along, until your math is defectively incorrect. It might "get you by" on Earth, but anywhere else, or over vast space, those minor mismeasurements become a massive mismeasurement.
Ues there is. "Math" in theory is perfect, but if you can't perfectly measure, then your math isn't that math, so to use perfect math in an argment that doesn't include perfect math is a falkacy of logic. It's like measuring parts with .0000000000001 tolerance with a ruler
What is 1+1? certainly 2. It will never change irrespective of what you measure.
It depends on what "1" is. If 1 is a half, then 1+1=1. If 1 equals a quarter then 1+1= 1/2. If you just say 1+1 to a scientist who is measuring something, he would ask 1 what?" 1 inch? 1 foot? 1 mile? And those aren't precision measurements. They are relative estimates. Even a machinist uses mics to measure within .0001 accuracy. But if you need .000000000000001 accuracy that would get you a bad measurement. If you needed .000000000000000000000000000001 accuracy, the device to measure it would have to be able to measure that precisely. In other words, microscopic humans would say your math is waaaaaay off. And spread that "amount off" over vast space and you have horrible math that eventually catches you in a different environment, a different gravity, different celestial objects, even unnoticeable tiny tugs of gravity from here or there, much less massive tugs of gravity.
so you're questioning what numbers denote? seriously? one inch or one foot, the functioning of "+" doesn't change. and we take approximations that make things convenient for us, we choose to do that, that doesn't make math wrong. And we take
different approximations in different cases, so that we can "predict", observe what we have calculated.
And spread that "amount off" over vast space and you have horrible math that eventually catches you in a different environment, a different gravity, different celestial objects, even unnoticeable tiny tugs of gravity from here or there, much less massive tugs of gravity.
Wow. We have been able to predict and observe a lot with the approximations we make and it is meant to be "convenient" for us, not microscopic men.
If 1 is a half, then 1+1=1
nope. think. You said one is half, so what you wrote is 0.5+0.5=0.5
and that's why we have different symbols for different numbers.
It doesn't matter what abstract numbers denote. Math doesn't do anything until it measures something. So it doesn't come into play until it makes an act. And those acts are not precise because the measurer is not precise. Math that isn't in action is a math that isn't being used. Math that is in use is in use by a flawed measurer, thus the math that was abstractly perfect when not in use, is no longer perfect because of the measurer. Sure the math in theory is staying abstractly perfect, but the numbers, measurements, and outcomes are severely flawed over deep space and time. Those calculations can never truely be "correct".
Not really. Slow human Math is based off of a relative position. Space and time are always in flux, thus what was correct a nano-second ago is incorrect now mathematically. The greater the opposing variables are, the more obvious it all is. We don't notice it here because Earth is relatively small and not in a chaotic environment. What is seemingly mathematically correct here on Earth is demonstrably false somewhere else in the universe. Time and space itself did not even exist pre big bang, thus saying how long ago something was or where is futile at best and completely innacurate at worst. A perfect math does not exist unless we have a perfect measuring device, and such a device is only theoretical.
Time and space itself did not even exist pre big bang, thus saying how long ago something was or where is futile at best and completely innacurate at worst.
exactly!!!!! time and space "started" there, that's how we can deduce how long it has been since it has started.
What is seemingly mathematically correct here on Earth is demonstrably false somewhere else in the universe.
when you add zero to anything, you get the very number, you added to. it doesn't matter where or when. you are talking about "observations" of space and time to vary, math doesn't. and by math I'm talking strictly about math itself..
exactly!!!!! time and space "started" there, that's how we can deduce how long it has been since it has started
We have no idea "when it started". There is no way to know if our deductions dismiss variables that we cannot even see, observe or calculate. Based on the speed of light alone, we have no way to even know if what we see all over the sky even still exists. It would take an eternity just for data to reach the Earth, and what you are measuring or observing may have changed by the time we observe it. We could be millions or billions of years off.
when you add zero to anything, you get the very number, you added to. it doesn't matter where or when. you are talking about "observations" of space and time to vary, math doesn't. and by math I'm talking strictly about math itself
You've mentioned math in terms of 1+1 = 2, but if I could somehow be spot on to the quark of a measurment, by the time you measured it, it would be 1.00146788999. + 1.00146789999 rather than my perfect 1+1.
So the thing you measured as 1 would not measure 1.0014678999 if you used it as a relative measurement. This is why a machinist uses a block to "zero out" their mics. Everything is constantly in microscopic flux. Even the measuring block itself is in flux, but it's the best we have, so we make it work. In the fine tuning of our universe, being off by that much would have yielded no universe and no life.
You've mentioned math in terms of 1+1 = 2, but if I could somehow be spot on to the quark of a measurment, by the time you measured it, it would be 1.00146788999. + 1.00146789999 rather than my perfect 1+1.
Nobody measures numbers, physical quantities are measured.
That would depend on how you approach the question. If trying a new religion one could say that it opens minds. It opens the person to a new realm of beliefs, morals, new concepts, etc. It can also be said that religion blinds people to the world around them. It blinds people to primarily scientific based explanation of the world, but mostly to anything that doesn't even appear to align with their religion. Religion can blind people from the opinions of others and possibly even the person hood of another.
Your religion, be it atheist or Catholic or Hindu or Muslim or whatever, makes you feel like you have the right to exist outside of the eternal condemnation of the fire of Hell. It is based on what you do, and it blinds you to reality. In reality, you have the right to nothing good and are worthy of nothing but eternal condemnation in the fire of Hell. In reality, only God can save you from Hell; religion can't save you, you cannot earn the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell and you cannot justify your existence outside of the fire of Hell be telling yourself that you are really not bad enough to deserve capital punishment.
I feel like you want people to go to Hell. I bet you would enjoy being the guy who pulls the switch on the electric chair after reading a quote from the bible.
You are the one who said you want to be in Hell with me. It seems that you are the one who wants people to burn in Hell forever. I know how you can be forgiven and have eternal life, I know I am forgiven and I know I am on my way to Heaven and am saved from Hell. I want you to know the same for yourself but you are fighting against your own forgiveness, you are trying to justify yourself which is an impossibility.
If you are a murderer, convicted with no challenge of capital murder, it would not bother me in the least to quote to you some Bible passages telling you how you can be forgiven by God and saved and go to Heaven before I pull the lever to end your time in the electric chair. If you don't care enough about yourself to seek and know God's forgiveness which He offers you, then you will wake up in Hell.
Really you are in the electric chair now, awaiting execution. The only person wanting that lever to be pulled is you with your chip on your shoulders and if you keep asking for it God is going to knock that chip off of your shoulders and let you go to Hell.
How many times does it need to be brought to the attention of Leftist ? The Religion of Islam blinds people and opens their mind to the terrorist nature of the religion but yet you have the Leftist support a religion they really cannot understand.
A Complete List of Radical Islamic Terror Attacks on U.S. Soil Under Obama
Below is a list of the major, verifiable radical Islamic terror attacks "successfully planned and executed" on U.S. soil since Obama first took office in 2009
Little Rock, Arkansas, June 1, 2009. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot and murdered one soldier, Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, and injured another, Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, at a military recruiting station in Little Rock. Muhammad reportedly converted to Islam in college and was on the FBI's radar after being arrested in Yemen–a hotbed of radical Islamic terrorism–for using a Somali passport, even though he was a U.S. citizen. In a note to an Arkansas judge, Muhammad claimed to be a member of al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, the terror group's Yemen chapter.
Fort Hood, Texas, November 5, 2009. Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot up a military base in Fort Hood and murdered 14 people. Hasan was in contact with al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack and shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he fired upon the soldiers on the Fort Hood base. After being sentenced to death, Hasan requested to join ISIS while on death row. It took six years for Obama to acknowledge the shooting as a terror attack instead of "workplace violence."
Boston, Massachusetts, April 15, 2013. Tamerlan and Dhozkar Tsarnaev set off two bombs at the 2013 Boston marathon, killing three and injuring over 260 people. The Tsarnaev brothers later shot and murdered Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer Sean Collier. The Tsarnaev brothers were self-radicalized through online jihadist propaganda and through a mosque with ties to al-Qaeda.
Moore, Oklahoma, September 24, 2014. Alton Nolen beheaded a woman, Colleen Huff, at a Vaughan Foods plant and stabbed and injured another person. While Nolen's motives are unclear, he appears to have been another radicalized Muslim who was obsessed with beheadings.
Queens, New York, October 23, 2014. Zale Thompson, another self-radicalized Muslim, injured two police officers with a hatchet before being shot dead by other cops. Thompson reportedly indoctrinated himself with ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Shabab–a Somali jihadist terror group–websites and was a lone wolf attacker.
Brooklyn, New York, December 20, 2014. Ismaayil Brinsley shot and murdered two police officers execution-style and his Facebook page featured jihadist postings and had ties to a terror-linked mosque.
Garland, Texas, May 3, 2015. Two gunmen shot up the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, where a Mohammed cartoon contest was taking place, and were killed by a police officer. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.
Chattanooga, Tennessee, July 16, 2015. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed four Marines and a sailor at a military base in Chattanooga and was believed to have been inspired by ISIS.
San Bernardino, California, December 14, 2015. Two radical Islamists, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, shot and murdered 14 people and injured 22 others at an office holiday party.
Orlando, Florida, June 12, 2016. Omar Mateen, 29, opened fire at a gay nightclub, killing 49 and injuring 53. The FBI investigated Mateen twice before his rampage, but did not take any substantive action. Officials believe Mateen was self-radicalized but he pledged fealty to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi before his death. "The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west," Mateen posted on his Facebook page after committing his heinous act at Pulse nightclub. "I pledge my alliance to (ISIS leader) abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me," he wrote.
St. Cloud, Minnesota, September 17, 2016. Dahir Ahmed Adan, a 20-year-old Somali refugee, began hacking at people with a steak knife at a Minnesota mall, injuring nine people before he was shot dead by off-duty police officer Jason Falconer. The FBI said numerous witnesses heard Adan yelling "Allahu akbar!" and "Islam! Islam!" during the rampage. He also asked potential victims if they were Muslims before inflicting wounds in their heads, necks, and chests. The FBI believe he had recently become self-radicalized. (As the Daily Wire highlighted, the Minneapolis Star Tribune attempted to blame "anti-Muslim tensions" for his murderous actions.)
New York City/New Jersey, September 17, 2016. Ahmad Khan Rahami, a 28-year-old naturalized citizen from Afghanistan, set off multiple bombs in New York and New Jersey. In Chelsea, his bomb resulted in the injury of over 30 people. Rahami wrote in his journal that he was connected to "terrorist leaders," and appears to have been heavily influenced by Sheikh Anwar, Anwar al-Awlaki, Nidal Hassan, and Osama bin Laden. "I pray to the beautiful wise ALLAH, [d]o not take JIHAD away from me," Rahami wrote. "You [USA Government] continue your [unintelligible] slaught[er]" against the holy warriors, "be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Sham [Syria], Palestine ... "
Columbus, Ohio, November 28, 2016. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, an ISIS-inspired 20-year-old Somali refugee who had been granted permanent legal residence in 2014 after living in Pakistan for 7 years, attempted to run over his fellow Ohio State students on campus. After his car was stopped by a barrier, he got out of the vehicle and began hacking at people with a butcher knife before being shot dead by a campus police officer. He injured 11 people, one critically. ISIS took credit for the attack, describing Artan as their "soldier." Just three minutes before his rampage, Artan posted a warning to America on Facebook that the "lone wolf attacks" will continue until America "give[s] peace to the Muslims." He also praised deceased al-Qaeda cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki as a "hero."
I'm an athiest, and I have read the Quran. I completely disagree with what you said about it opening minds to terrorism, that is absolute bs sorry. Islam actually focuses on peace and equality. It's well known now that "muslim terrorists" didn't really sprout more from islamic countries than America itself, referring to politics or other circumstances that just tend to make Islam look bad infront of the world, and because unfortunantely Western media is a lot more progressive and developed, it was an easy task.
I don't think that it is the Quran alone that opens minds to terrorism, any more than the Bible does for that matter. It is the faith itself and how that faith interprets the Quran that must be held accountable. People who maintain raconian principals and cultures are to blame for radical terrorist tendencies and the Quran is used as a pillar.