Jump to content

Yahawah, ancient name of God.


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

People who can't fit a square peg into a square hole are not able to see the evidence of GOD.  People who can't see outside the bandwidth of their own little contrived universe of "whatever goes on in your head" can't find evidence of God or anything.  The evidence is there, you just can't see it or you can't understand it.

The ancients saw the so called  evidence of god all around them...in the Sun, the Moon, Mountains, rivers, etc etc. We know better these days and have shown evidence that these things are simply applications of gravitational collapses, supernovas, abiogenesis, and evolution, and we can take those evidence backed solutions back to 10- 43 seconds after the BB. So you see science has logically and reasonably pushed any need for any god explanation back to near oblivion.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

See the (well referenced) Wikipedia article on Yahweh. I assumed everyone knew this. And the fact he used to be married!

Same shit, different thread.  What do you think the bible is trying to teach? Let me take a stab at it: For those who understand the message; it teaches people how to be content with li

Eratosthenes showed it was round ca 240 BC by measuring its circumference. The Greeks already knew it was spherical https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm

12 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

What's it called when people face reality, when they stop hiding behind "logical fallacies" and absolute physics constants that are set to 1, and actually figure out how the physical universe is being implemented (like what is time, what is space, what causes the invariance of the speed of light, so that they can actually get around to inventing anti-gravity?  Because the practioners of "science" aren't doing it.

That is pretty much outside the scope of since. That is for philosophers and religions to argue about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

.  I could list all of the tropes and tricks in your atheist bag.  Because it's not reasonable to think that consciousness can emerge from molecular machines by accident or without planning.  That is not reasonable.  That is brainwashing.

And how did this divine intelligence that just happened to create all we see come about?

Isn't that unreasonable and brainwashing?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, beecee said:

And how did this divine intelligence that just happened to create all we see come about?

He was one of the sons of El. (And then killed his father. Brutal.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, beecee said:

And how did this divine intelligence that just happened to create all we see come about?

Isn't that unreasonable and brainwashing?

Just because you can't understand how it could happen, doesn't mean it can't happen.  And a Holy Spirit with unlimited Intelligence that can figure out how to create a physical universe with entertaining life forms is a lower threshhold to reach, then a fine tuned physical universe in one shot.  Atheists have already calculated that it would take 10^10^147 attempts get a universe with life by accident.  Nature doesn't waste action or resources the way atheists require.  You just have to use a little common sense to understand.  It is not reasonable to not understand the argument.

Which is more unlikely to exist.

A.  A fine tuned universe with complex lifeforms, by accident.  Probablity by accident 1 in 10^10^147.

B.  A Holy Spirit with Infinite Intelligence that can design, plan, engineer, and then big bang a fine tuned universe with complex lifeforms, into existence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Atheists have already calculated that it would take 10^10^147 attempts get a universe with life by accident.

Source?

Even if that is correct, M-theory solves that issue without a god.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, beecee said:

And how did this divine intelligence that just happened to create all we see come about?

Isn't that unreasonable and brainwashing? 

 

We know scientifically that the universe was not always here.  There was a big bang 13.7 billion years ago.  So Carl Sagan is engaging in a logical fallacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Source?

Even if that is correct, M-theory solves that issue without a god.

Does the M stand for "Magic" theory?

1 minute ago, Strange said:

No we don't.

A moderator of a science forum doesn't believe the big bang happened? Please explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

We know scientifically that the universe was not always here.  There was a big bang 13.7 billion years ago.  So Carl Sagan is engaging in a logical fallacy.

Or perhaps you are engaging in ignorance?

The BB only applies to the observable universe, and also says nothing about before 10-43 seconds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

A moderator of a science forum doesn't believe the big bang happened? Please explain.

The big bang model starts with the universe in a hot dense state. We don't know what happened before then. There are several models where the universe is infinitely old. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Just because you can't understand how it could happen, doesn't mean it can't happen.  

Which is more unlikely to exist.

A.  A fine tuned universe with complex lifeforms, by accident.  Probablity by accident 1 in 10^10^147.

B.  A Holy Spirit with Infinite Intelligence that can design, plan, engineer, and then big bang a fine tuned universe with complex lifeforms, into existence?

We cannot fully understand that probably our universe arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam. But I prefer that scenario over some magical deity that has existed forever and ever amen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

In M-theory 'branes' create big bangs constantly. Each with it's own unique natural laws. We could also call it a multiverse.

You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

First of all, where is the proof.

Second, why is it that particles and photon can find the shortest path, the least action, least time path.  But M-theory is the least efficient and there is no evidence to support it? 

Edited by Wulphstein
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wulphstein said:

First of all, where is the proof.

This is science. There is no such thing as proof. 

However, it is a hypothesis based on evidence. Unlike your god hypothesis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, beecee said:

We cannot fully understand that probably our universe arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam. But I prefer that scenario over some magical deity that has existed forever and ever amen. 

Does quantum foam show up in the near death experiences of atheists?  No, actually, sometimes GOD shows up to meet atheists who are on death's door.  So, there is zero evidence for foam, but their is testimony from millions of witnesses that God shows up, and sometimes Jesus. 

So, why are you trying to put a square peg in a round hole?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wulphstein said:

First of all, where is the proof.

Second, why is that particles and photon can find the shortest path, the least action, least time path.  But M-theory is the least efficient and there is no evidence to support it? 

M-theory is not some funny idea someone thought of suddenly. It is the result of calculating nature.

We don't know if those calculations represent reality, but they are a lot more valid than some ancient Hebrew texts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wulphstein said:

Does quantum foam show up in the near death experiences of atheists? 

Non sequitur. 

1 minute ago, Wulphstein said:

No, actually, sometimes GOD shows up to meet atheists who are on death's door.  So, there is zero evidence for foam, but their is testimony from millions of witnesses that God shows up, and sometimes Jesus. 

People's hallucinations under stress/trauma do not really count as objective evidence. You can find millions of reports of people encountering aliens, faeries, monsters , etc. Doesn't make any of them real.

1 minute ago, Wulphstein said:

So, why are you trying to put a square peg in a round hole?

Bizarre non sequitur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am frustrated by your complete determination and strong will to not use common sense, intelligence and reason. 

It takes a lot of determination and will to be an atheist.  I mean. You have to make yourself violate common sense and reason, intelligence.  Atheists would make good flat earthers! 

 

Edited by Wulphstein
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wulphstein said:

Does quantum foam show up in the near death experiences of atheists?  No, actually, sometimes GOD shows up to meet atheists who are on death's door.  So, there is zero evidence for foam, but their is testimony from millions of witnesses that God shows up, and sometimes Jesus. 

So, why are you trying to put a square peg in a round hole?

:rolleyes: The mind is a tricky thing, and that would apply particularly when someone is near death. Some people also believe they have been kidnapped by Aliens, believe in ghosts, even Bigfoot. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We have no extraordinary evidence of Bigfoot, ghosts, Aliens or any magical deity that just happens to have ben here for eternity. Delusions, illusions and brainwashing plays a big part in what people believe in and what they imagine. Your god and your supposed afterlife may give you a nice cozy warm inner feeling, but that is all it is. 

No we have no direct evidence for any quantum foam, but we have plenty of evidence for the BB and the universe evolving from a hot dense state, and plenty of evidence for your own scientific ignorance. Again your god of the gaps is just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.