Quote:
Originally Posted by jfuh  Boiling something and evaporating are different processes and leans to the validity of your statements on the issue. |
How so?
Quote:
Where did I state negatives? As I've said, that energy is not sentient is the default position. That is not stating a negative as that would suggest that the opposite is somehow valid. You are claiming that energy is god hence the burden of proof rests with you. Quoting biblical passages is not scientific and goes beyond the realm of what is already established through scientific principles.
Now if you are going to claim that the christian god is not sentient then who the hell is Jesus? A demigod? A non-sentient being created the heavens and earth and everything else in 7 days? A non-sentient being told Abraham to sacrifice his son? Told Noah to build an ark? Told Moses to lead his people out of egyptian slavery?
If the christian god is not sentient then the religious belief is completely pointless - you might as well say that you worship the lightbulb, a cloud or whatever.
You're making quite a perfect demonstration of the very topic of this thread.
|
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057644914-post141.html (Religion conflicting with Facts) Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jufh If energy is not sentient as you rightfully recognize... |
Jesus is the one who understood God. It is your mistaken assumption that to believe in a Christian God you must believe that the Earth was created in 7 days, that there was a literal voice coming down telling Abraham to kill his son, told Noah to build an ark or any of that ****. As I am a Christian who follows the teachings of the Christian bible, you're not in a position to assign me positions. If you have any logical justification to your position you would not need to resort to such an illogical tactic.
Quote:
This is not semantics argument. You are attempting to dishonestly obfuscate the established differences of scientific knowledge to validate an irrational premise.
Your claim has been that all energy is one and the same as well as that of matter when it is anything but. I've clearly demonstrated to you that these energies are not one and the same and given you a more easily recognizable example of water in it's various phases. You have thus refused to accept that your understanding has been in err. But instead of honestly accepting your err you're here trying to twist this into some kind of argumentative spin on a choice of vocabulary.
|
You've clearly demonstrated that I should've said H2O when I said water, which is why you are incapable of presenting an argument which would connect what you've claimed to demonstrated together to demonstrate what you've claimed. Sprinkling in ad hominem doesn't change the fact that you've said nothing of value.