justone

Oh jfuh you keep on impressing me. What did I say about your intellect and twisting and spinning? Can you remind to the audience? Oh, actually you have already reminded. Carry on.

Who did? The answer is in the posts one can read above.

For those who cannot read the answer is below, but one would have to turn the page up side down.












It is jfuh however you turn or twist the page.

galenrox

How so?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057644914-post141.html (Religion conflicting with Facts)
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.
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.

__________________

scourge99

I never said that you stated the bolded parts. I made a logical deduction of the premises that I believe you hold that COULD lead to the beliefs bolded.

Your statements have been quite vague and it appears I am still having difficulty understanding what your position actually is. I believe the next paragraph cleared things up a bit for me.

So which is your hypothesis?

A) God is literally energy.
B) God is not energy but he is able to manipulate energy because its supposedly in and of all things.
C) None of the above.

(Feel free to ignore the following paragraph if you answered 'B')

Then what about the Old Testament and all that proactive interfering with human affairs that God did? I'd say thats pretty characteristic of something intelligent.

Also, the divinity of Jesus had to come from somewhere. If you believe he is more than just a mere mortal and performed the miracles recorded in the New Testament then he couldn't of been born out of mere chance. It only makes sense that God caused his birth doesn't it?

That IS reality. As I said before we only know one thing for certain, self-awareness, the rest is merely inductively derived.

Isn't logic based on inductive premises?

When you said this:

I am demonstrating how the reality is that in all things you can still basically "know" things without fully understanding them. This is my and anyone else's understanding of God, and my and everyone else's understanding of everything else.

Since the first sentence was ambiguous about how you attained "knowing" and because you were talking about God, which is something that is purportedly incomprehensible, I could only assume that you were somehow trying to tell me you could know somehow know something without experience.

I'm still confused on what you meant by the sentences I quoted above.

lost me there

__________________
Petty Desire or Grand Ambition?

galenrox

It would be closest to A, considering the greatness of energy I do not presuppose to understand all of its traits to the point of making a negative statement as to what is possible through it (as you could say all things that happen happen through it, as all matter comes from it), but insofar as there are going to be scientifically observational aspects of nature which are significant in the Christian understanding of the world I think God is literally energy. I don't personify God with human concepts of manipulation and sentience, as the only personified aspects of God are actual people.
They're stories meant to reveal truths of life intermingled with actual events in the history of the Hebrew people. I think the history is important for the context of the stories, and I think the stories provide very powerful insights to the world and the placement of man within said world.
I think the divinity of Jesus comes from what Jesus represents other than some kind of supernatural concept of divinity (as I think once you're asserting that God is supernatural you're already heading in the wrong direction). Once again, I'm not going to state negatives as to what was possible, but I think were Jesus alive today he'd be the first to tell you that it really couldn't matter less whether or not he was able to perform miracles or if the descriptions of the miracles are meant to illustrate truths in the same way Jesus himself illustrated truth through parable. On top of that, the Gospels were all written a good while after Jesus's death by people who hadn't even lived in the same time as him, let alone were old enough to witness and understand his life. As they all told roughly the same story, we can assume that these stories were well developed, more than likely primarily through oral histories, and these people, among others, wrote their own versions of the stories they heard, and I don't think it'd be unheard of that when writing of the life of such a great man who's lived through tales of his greatness that at some point superhuman abilities were applied which were a product of the reason people think George Washington shat golden truth.

Yes it is. All I attempted to demonstrate was that it was possible to have some understanding of God while recognizing that the totality of God is beyond your understanding (and thusly there is an inherent fallibility to any claim as to the nature of God or belief as to God's attributes), and this demonstrates that that's possible as we have some understanding of the world even though we recognize the totality of the world (but as a product of this there is an inherent fallibility to any claim as to the nature of the world).
The overarching system in the world is beyond your comprehension, and yet you understand parts of it (while still recognizing your fallibility as a product of your lack of comprehension of the totality of the system). It's the same way with the understanding of God. That's what I was getting at.

jfuh

ARe you that academically lazy? I'm starting to see why you don't understand the simple concepts that have been explained to you here and attempt to assign sentience to inanimate objects.
Boiling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evaporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Religion conflicting with Facts)

Quote:

Originally Posted by galenrox http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057644914-post141.html

That's not presenting a negative argument, that's stating the obvious. You claim it to be god prove it.

I didn't state of any need to believe in the rubbish superstitious literal interpretation. No one here but you has. Yet your bible clearly says that god told them to do just that. Jesus christ is the embodyment of god, different persons yet one and the same - which you prescribe as being energy - nothing more nothing less. Hence you are indeed proclaiming that energy is sentient - as I've asked, prove it.

I'm not in a position? Why wouldn't I be in a position? You're not a scientist yet that does not prevent you from attempting to make scientific validations.

As I've said, you are the one making the claim that energy = god YOU bear the burden of proof. You claim god exists the burden of proof that god exists rests with you. You are the christian - though you throw out the bible as **** - so the burden of proof rests with you that there is a christian god. You can't cherry pick and say the christian god exists because the bible says this and this and that then in following posts also claim that the bible is "****". Fact of the matter is your god has as much substance of existence as the flying pink elephants brought up earlier.
ie, if I claimed that I was god the burden of proof rests with me to prove so - or should I just tell you, nope, don't question it, I am god you need to have faith in my being god. Spare me the ridiculous rubbish.

You initially did say H2O in fact you stated.
Then stated
But in fact even H2O is not an element, made up of elements certainly but not an element itself. As well as the fact that at 0C it's in a fluctuating state becoming a solid - structurally completely different as is the case with it at 100C becoming a gas or condensing into a liquid.
Water at 60C kills nearly all pathogens where as half that to 30C and it's a perfect temperature for growth.
You're understanding of these facts is clearly obfuscated by your desire to validate your religious beliefs. You are the perfect example of the title of the thread of religion conflicting with facts - but perhaps more sinister in how you have been dishonestly twisting the facts so as to match your arguments.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Cataclysmic 7.9 earthquake in China, how to donate to the relief fund.

galenrox

Once again, ad hominems will not make up for what you lack in terms of argumentation. Do you have any explanation as to why this distinction is pertinent to the topic of discussion?
Um, so it's not a positive statement of a negative because you call it obvious (which has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on whether it is a positive statement of negative under any possible interpretation). You're not helping your case!

I have proven that energy is God according to my definition of God, if you for whatever reason can't understand my arguments then there's nothing more I can say on the subject. Now it is up to you to prove the validity of your claims.
Which is rested upon the premise that the biblical description of God's interaction with humanity and the personification of God is intended to be literal, and I reject this premise on the grounds that throughout human history humans have used personification as a model for understanding forces beyond their comprehension.

It is the sign of a failed argument when one insists that another must justify a premise that he never stated.
Are you ****ing joking me?! You're not in a position because they're MY ****ing views! I can't believe that I'd actually have to explain that to another human being.
Right, man, no offense but you're really not in a position to lecture anyone about logical processes, considering the "That's not presenting a negative argument, that's stating the obvious." statement.
I gave you my definition, I explained how energy fits that definition, you haven't successfully rejected any of my premises nor have to pointed out any specific flaw in my logic. That is the definition of having proved it to you. You can attempt to insult me as much as you want if it makes you feel better, but you have to bear in mind that I recognize that the insults are coming from you, and I value them appropriately.
Once again, an insignificant distinction for the purposes of this discussion, how SURPRISING!

You're right, I misspoke, H2O is a molecule, not an element, I should've said it's still the same hydrogen and still the same oxygen.

I repeat my challenge to you to present an explanation how any of these distinctions has even the slightest significance to the topic of discussion.

jfuh

I say again, the science says only of the properties of energy - none of which call energy god. God is your claim - the burden of proof rests with you.

You've done absolutely nothing of the sort, all you've done is gone around and around in circles with a conclusion that says "look I did it I proved that energy is god".

YOU just stated that you've proved that god is energy and that this is the christian god that is written in the bible - all your statements shesh, have the ****ing balls to admit what you've already stated it's utterly rediculous of you here trying to dodge it.

You put your views onto the topic of this site. You put your views here and said that your christian god exists and is synonymous with what scientists have stated is the energy in the Universe and insist this as proof of the existence of your god; has this ceased being a debate site and become the site of galenrox personal **** views?. Please, drop the feigned outrage hurt dove routine.

Do you even know what a negative argument is?

You explained it only in one that is not supported by any factual evidence and proclaim it to be proof. Now you're feigning outrage when you're met with challenges on it. Look dude, you don't want people challenging on your views, don't post it. The obvious flaw of your logic is that you've not in anyway established that energy is god - in particular with the fact that you've simultaneously also stated that energy is just that, nothing more nothing less; but here you are assigning divinity to energy?

Further evidence you do not know what you are talking about. Though the letters representative of hydrogen and oxygen remain the same, however hydrogen that is covalently bound to oxygen is far from being the same as it's elemental form. To allow you to better understand this look at iron vs rusted iron - it's not in anyway the same.

The entirety was given to show you of the variation between the different energies. Mechanical energy is not the same as chemical energy and so on.

galenrox

So I see once again you've chosen not to present an explanation as to why said distinction was in any way, shape, or form significant to the topic of discussion. I wonder why...

And what is God? I have presented my definition derived from the Christian bible where God is that which is in and of all things and which all things are in and of, which by Einstein's insight that all matter is convertible into energy fits said description. I have stated this many times, and so either you've got a problem reading or a problem understanding if you are forced to continually ask questions which have already been answered.
You know, that's exactly what I did, I just went around in circles with a conclusion that says "look I did it I proved that energy is god". What an astute observation.
As I've defined God I've shown energy is God, so either you can challenge the definition of energy or the definition of God. You've chosen to do neither and to instead whine and insult me while contributing absolutely nothing of merit to this conversation. And if that's the best you can do, well, at least you tried.
Oh wow, you really got me here

So let's once again go through what you've asserted as a supposedly relevant argument - that you are in a position to tell me what I believe against my statements to the contrary because I'm able to make statements about science, and to suggest otherwise is to undermine this forum. Pretty flawless logic there!
Yes, do you?
Right, because pages and pages of answering every argument presented against me is really indicative of my fear of having my views challenged! You found me out! I only present counterpoints out of a secret rage that anyone would have the gall to challenge my positions, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your arguments consisting of nothing other than nonsense and insults!

Define divinity.
So you admit that this is an ad hominem string of argumentation?
It is, just in a different form as a product of environmental features (evidenced by the ability of conversion).

I could throw in a string of insults to if it would help hammer this **** through your ****ing skull, but I've had discussions with you before and so I'm fully aware of your tenuous (at best) relationship with any form of logic or argumentation that nothing could hammer it into your skull.

jfuh

Can't help you there if you can't understand the relationship.

See you just can't do that. That's called cherry picking. You derive bits and pieces of the christian bible and ignore everything else and manage to call that logical? Einstein did not ever say that energy was god, nor does the bible ever say that god is energy. You're fickle dishonest attempt is just that - rubbish.

I'm glad recognize such. Took only what - 50million posts - better late then never

Then your definition is utterly pointless. I could say by my definition I am god.

Rather that you chose to make up a definition of god and make up a definition of energy then proclaim that it all fits in perfectly by your definition and that thus it is so - aka bull****.

Yet you're here proclaiming that since I'm making the statement that the default position of energy is that it is without any form of sentience or deity that it's a claiming a negative? Keep telling yourself that gal.

No rather that your argumentative style is to say - it's all my own definition and hence you can't challenge it and thus I am right. Typical of some one that has no clue as to that which they are discussing about but attempting to seem relevant.
The definition to which you provided of god and energy is neither rational scientifically nor rational in the christian community - only in the mind of gal and gal alone.

You're the superstitious theist you should know.

Showing that you do not know what you are talking about is not ad hominem. If I said simply stated that you are dumb and that's the end of it yes that would be ad hominem. However what I am doing instead is showing how your statements show that you don't know what you are talking about.
Liken to the way of seeing the sun rise in your mirror that faces west and saying ah ha "the sun rises in the west" kind of thing. You have some knowledge about certain objects but the knowledge is only half the story. Yet most likely due to academic laziness you don't care to dwell any deeper into the concepts and simply use a half arse understanding of the principles and proclaim it is so. ie all energy is the same and comprises of everything - since god is everything thus energy is god.
Utterly absurd, you might as well worship something more material such as toilet paper.

Again, after having shown you how it's not the same you go right back again in a full circle and proclaiming it is the same. Academic laziness.

I'm shivering in my little shoes. There you go again, the old gal is back, continuous insults because it's just so cool to be hurling them around like some wannabe badarse who's raging against the system threatening members to go on and challenging members to follow track and turn it into a **** tossing fest where you get to throw warnings.
I'm attacking your ideas and depth of knowledge in the scientific principles not you personally, you needn't toss around borderline insults to prove that you're some kind of tough guy.
What happened to civility a must? So can you keep this to the ideas or do you have to make this about individuals?