butterflyl1on:


How is it not relevant? You said Einstein is wiser than God so I asked you to give me the characteristics of God or your own characteristics of what A GOD should have.

A God should know Physics and teach it
A God should know the theory of relativity more than Einstein
A God should know tomorrow and not regret his future actions
A God should be able t avoid or avert tragedies or bad occurences

Do you want more?

Graycoder:


A God should know Physics and teach it
A God should know the theory of relativity more than Einstein
A God should know tomorrow and not regret his future actions
A God should be able t avoid or avert tragedies or bad occurences

Dop you want more?

A God is above the notions of men. A God cannot walk with the notions of men if he did then he is no longer a God but a mere mortal.

On the contrary, everything and anything science (as known to man and posited by man) cannot put a God in a bottle. A God breaks all man made boundaries and man simply creates those physics laws and chemical laws in order to better understand his (mans own) existence but not in any way does it define a God.

butterflyl1on:



A God is above the notions of men. A God cannot walk with the notions of men if he did then he is no longer a God but a mere mortal.

On the contrary, everything and anything science (as known to man and posited by man) cannot put a God in a bottle. A God breaks all man made boundaries and man simply creates those physics laws and chemical laws in order to better understand his (mans own) existence but not in any way does it define a God.

Game on, I'm glad you came out.

Let's start from the beginning. God or whoever cannot be above science. God cannot be above the notions of men because he expects us to know him through our notions. Everything about God, his existence, and exaltations emanated from the notions of men. Imaginations of fictional characters like David, visions of Daniel, prophecies of Ezekiel and Isaiah, Jeremiah etc. They all wondered and came to conclusions.

God has never been God, if there is an entity then it's energy or nature. There is no God, I can only wish you'll wake up someday.

I don't know which century you live in, and I am surprised you don't know that science has trapped your imaginary friend in a small box since the 20th century. Do you know how many theories of vitalism that were disproved by Science? You'll need to carry out a research on that.

If Science which describes the physical world we live cannot describe the person assumed by the ignorant ones to have created the physical world. Then the creator is a hoax. God does not exist and so does Satan, channel your energy into that and live your life freely.

author=Graycoder post=61387072]

Game on, I'm glad you came out.

Lmao such simplicity cannot be hidden from. It's DOA

Let's start from the beginning. God or whoever cannot be above science. God cannot be above the notions of men because he expects us to know him through our notions. Everything about God, his existence, and exaltations emanated from the notions of men. Imaginations of fictional characters like David, visions of Daniel, prophecies of Ezekiel and Isaiah, Jeremiah etc. They all wondered and came to conclusions

.

You are already straying from science to descriptive characteristics and worship by people like Daniel, Ezekiel, etc.

Anyway I will make this very simple.

Anything and everything scientific ever discovered or named were all based on the mortal and limited nature of men and for most of these scientific discoveries, were named after those who discovered them and not based on just a "ballot selected" system.

God who has been in existence before man cannot subscribe to mans limited intellect. Man is limited by mortality in:

1. Wisdom
2. Knowledge
3. Understanding
4. Strenght
5. Anything attributable to man

God is limited by INFINITY! infinity in itself is endless so in essence God is not limited by anything except that which is known and attributable to him and by him directly.

Man is a stranger to infinity so whatever limited scientific notions by man is absolutely not relatable to A GOD.

God has never been God, if there is an entity then it's energy or nature. There is no God, I can only wish you'll wake up someday

.

stop straying and goal post shifting already. It's too early for that. We just started conversing.

I don't know which century you live in, and I am surprised you don't know that science has trapped your imaginary friend in a small box since the 20th century. Do you know how many theories of vitalism that were disproved by Science? You'll need to carry out a research on that.

Refer to answer one above. One thing you need to realise is that the very nature of A GOD who isn't mortal kills off any so called claim about limitations being placed on him by a material world. It's not rocket science

If Science which describes the physical world we live cannot describe the person assumed by the ignorant ones to have created the physical world. Then the creator is a hoax. God does not exist and so does Satan, channel your energy into that and live your life freely.

As you said, science describes the physical world but cannot describe the one who is not of this physical world but made it. This is too simple really. There are two things here:

1. PHYSICAL which by definition is relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; things that are tangible or concrete.

2. SPIRITUAL which by definition is incorporeal which means not composed of matter; having no material existence.

The physical is corporeal while the spiritual is incorporeal so how can the physical control the spiritual when they have nothing in common? How can the physical be used to describe God when he is not of the physical and cannot dance to the tunes of corporeal man?

Science is a fabrication of man and every scientific term or discovery associated with it were all fabrications of man for sake of records keeping but they do not in any way bring A GOD to subjection.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61387072]
You are already straying from science to descriptive characteristics and worship by people like Daniel, Ezekiel, etc.

Anyway I will make this very simple.

Anything and everything scientific ever discovered or named were all based on the mortal and limited nature of men and for most of these scientific discoveries, were named after those who discovered them and not based on just a "ballot selected" system.

God who has been in existence before man cannot subscribe to mans limited intellect. Man is limited by mortality in:

1. Wisdom
2. Knowledge
3. Understanding
4. Strenght
5. Anything attributable to man

God is limited by INFINITY! infinity in itself is endless so in essence God is not limited by anything except that which is known and attributable to him and by him directly.

Man is a stranger to infinity so whatever limited scientific notions by man is absolutely not relatable to A GOD.

Scientific discoveries were based on the mortal who took it upon themselves than rely on a fictional character, God. If those mortals were to act as prophets of the 'storybook,' bible, do you think they would have discovered anything? The 'holy book' stated many times that 'everything god created was wonderful so why look for anything? After all, they are wonderful already and since they are the works of god which we have been warned not to tamper with because they are mysteries. But the question is why has science found contrary facts to what 'God' said he created wonderfully in the first place? This completely disproves the fact that your god created anything and stamps the fact that entropy is a reality.

Let me ask, do you have an alternative way of attributing scientific discoveries to the discoverers? Why bring this up at all?

'God has been in existence before man', we never agreed on this, this is not a good way to argue. I guess you are as guilty as I am only that I concluded what you don't want to read. But this assertion without proof is the biggest crime of all. How has God existed before man? When did his existence start? Did he come from something or nothing?

If God has existed long before man, then why did he create a very disordered world despite his overwhelming supposed experience of existence? Funny really.

Man is not limited in any of the listed attributes below because you cannot measure those attributes. A Limit comes when you know the overall measure of an attribute or a value.

1. Wisdom
2. Knowledge
3. Understanding
4. Strenght
5. Anything attributable to man

Wisdom and understanding have no measured value and cannot be estimated. You cannot possibly estimate the level at which the human race is now on a wisdom meter. Hence, it is better to understand that wisdom and knowledge are infinite. There have been substantial advancements in knowledge and wisdom through the centuries, undeniable from the changes in our immediate environs compared to the past centuries. I wonder why man continues to make the world a better place but your god can't despite his abundance of the listed attributes. You see, perhaps you are wrong.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61387072]
stop straying and goal post shifting already. It's too early for that. We just started conversing. [/qute]

You probably don't understand the utmost purpose of this converstaion, it's to show you that there is no God.


[quote author=butterflyl1on post=61387762]author=Graycoder post=61387072]
Refer to answer one above. One thing you need to realise is that the very nature of A GOD who isn't mortal kills off any so called claim about limitations being placed on him by a material world. It's not rocket science

How can something which is not material exist in a material world? Have you asked yourself this question? Have you considered the feasibility by erasing magic from it? There is nothing like magic, it is artistic, it births and dies in the mind and not reality.

But on the other hand, the fiction, God, has so many limitations, we will get there. The creators of the character did not really think it over when they created it many years ago, speaking of Abraham and co. Perhaps, that is a good pointer of how the human race grows in wisdom and knowledge. Consider the number of atheists we have in the world now to 2000 years ago.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61387072]
As you said, science describes the physical world but cannot describe the one who is not of this physical world but made it. This is too simple really. There are two things here:

1. PHYSICAL which by definition is relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; things that are tangible or concrete.

2.SPIRITUAL which by definition is incorporeal which means not composed of matter; having no material existence.

The physical is corporeal while the spiritual is incorporeal so how can the physical control the spiritual when they have nothing in common? How can the physical be used to describe God when he is not of the physical and cannot dance to the tunes of corporeal man?

You just nailed yourself here, I wanted you to read it again to see your failure of comprehension, but I'll help you by explaining it.

You seem to have a clumsy understanding of the pure science, I wondered why you argue the way you did before I came across this quoted piece. How can you type the (1) statement? Well, I'm glad to tell you that there is no mind without the 5 senses. They are responsible for activating your mind. Consider a deaf, dumb, blind person, in all honesty, will such a person know God? NO.

Thank you for the number (2) statement, it's just another pointer that the existence of an incorporeal god is just an imagination. Something which is not material cannot be involved in material processes. It is absolutely impossible for a spirit to touch that which is physical. You need to study physics and the physical laws guiding the universe.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61387072]
Science is a fabrication of man and every scientific term or discovery associated with it were all fabrications of man for sake of records keeping but they do not in any way bring A GOD to subjection.

Science is not a fabrication, it is a study of our nature and the rejection of the untrue and contrary theories religion preaches. Science has brought god or its idea to its knees. The world is waking up, only the ignoramuses are still in the dark because they want to. If god cannot be proved by facts but by mere assumptions, it means he does not exist and only lives in the imaginations of its followers.

If the spiritual can control the physical, then according to the rule of thumb, the physical should be able to control the spiritual. A two-way door.

Your denial is just a confirmation of the so many lies.

author=Graycoder post=61389198]

Scientific discoveries were based on the mortal who took it upon themselves than rely on a fictional character, God. If those mortals were to act as prophets of the 'storybook,' bible, do you think they would have discovered anything? The 'holy book' stated many times that 'everything god created was wonderful so why look for anything?

Again you attempt to shift the goal post. We are talking about science and God and here you are talking about the Bible. Okay o

Man on his nature has always been discovery driven. There is a reason it is called DISCOVERY. It means it was already existing but we at that moment just got to know about it. Discoveries do not mean creation or origination by man. It simply means uncovering what we were in the dark about initially.

After all, they are wonderful already and since they are the works of god which we have been warned not to tamper with because they are mysteries. But the question is why has science found contrary facts to what 'God' said he created wonderfully in the first place? This completely disproves the fact that your god created anything and stamps the fact that entropy is a reality

.

Need I remind you of the limited nature of man? You say man discovered contrary evidence to what God called good.

A being of infinite knowledge and vision who knows the end from the beginning may not interfere with anything that would jeopardize the end he has pre-planned or which he desires. What we as men see and term as evil or disorderly would definitely not be how A GOD would view it. A GOD may view it as a "NECCESARY EVIL" towards an ultimate good. Let me illustrate this by asking you this question.

If you are the driver of a car filled with 30 people and you are on top speed, and suddenly someone without looking out for oncoming vehicles dashes into the path of your high speed vehicle what would you do?

1. Swerve at top speed which would cause the vehicle to flip and kill everyone on board?

2. Slam on the brakes and also causing the vehicle to flip and killing everyone

3. Continue driving and "deliberately" knocking down the person who jumped into the road thereby killing only that person and saving all the other 30 passengers and yourself who are onboard.

Choose wisely

Note: you already have foreknowledge of what would happen if you swerved, or slammed on the brakes.

Let me ask, do you have an alternative way of attributing scientific discoveries to the discoverers? Why bring this up at all?

I brought it up because such named discoveries are not about the inherent qualities found in the discoveries but simply for sake of documentation. Eg

Law Field Person(s) Named After
Abel's theorem Calculus Niels Henrik Abel
Amdahl's law Computer science Gene Amdahl
Ampère's circuital law Physics André-Marie Ampère
Archie's law Geology Gus Archie
Archimedes' principle. Axiom of Archimedes Physics. Analysis Archimedes
Arrhenius equation Chemical kinetics Svante Arrhenius
Avogadro's law Thermodynamics Amedeo Avogadro
Bell's theorem Quantum mechanics John Stewart Bell
Benford's law Mathematics Frank Benford
Beer–Lambert law Optics

And so many more

'

God has been in existence before man', we never agreed on this, this is not a good way to argue. I guess you are as guilty as I am only that I concluded what you don't want to read. But this assertion without proof is the biggest crime of all. How has God existed before man? When did his existence start? Did he come from something or nothing?

This is common sense to me when though it may not be to you so I will argue based on my position. What I know of A GOD is that he has been before man as a creator. You can choose to believe what you want and argue what you want but my position is mine to uphold and we do not need to agree to it when it already was my position to begin with. Regarding whether he came from something or nothing, you can watch this video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

If God has existed long before man, then why did he create a very disordered world despite his overwhelming supposed experience of existence? Funny really

.

Already dealt with this above

Man is not limited in any of the listed attributes below because you cannot measure those attributes. A Limit comes when you know the overall measure of an attribute or a value.

1. Wisdom
2. Knowledge
3. Understanding
4. Strenght
5. Anything attributable to man

Wisdom and understanding have no measured value and cannot be estimated. You cannot possibly estimate the level at which the human race is now on a wisdom meter. Hence, it is better to understand that wisdom and knowledge are infinite. There have been substantial advancements in knowledge and wisdom through the centuries, undeniable from the changes in our immediate environs compared to the past centuries. I wonder why man continues to make the world a better place but your god can't despite his abundance of the listed attributes. You see, perhaps you are wrong

Anything attributable to man is limited. Limitations are set via

1. Exposure

2. Duration

3. Time

4. Mental ability

Etc

Any generation that passes has knowledge, wisdom, understanding etc all limited to their exposure level in that generation.

The next generation can pick up from the last generation but they also would be limited by the very same parameters.

There is no free roaming knowledge known to man. All are limited to the finite nature of man.

Graycoder:
If the spiritual can control the physical, then according to the rule of thumb, the physical should be able to control the spiritual. A two-way door.

Your denial is just a confirmation of the so many lies.

You assume there is a two way door and that is a wrong premise

The spiritual causes the physical to be. And since the spiritual caused the physical without being affected itself it clearly shows a one way door. (you can call it a catalyst).

[quote author=Graycoder post=61389198]

You just nailed yourself here, I wanted you to read it again to see your failure of comprehension, but I'll help you by explaining it.

You seem to have a clumsy understanding of the pure science, I wondered why you argue the way you did before I came across this quoted piece. How can you type the (1) statement? Well, I'm glad to tell you that there is no mind without the 5 senses. They are responsible for activating your mind. Consider a deaf, dumb, blind person, in all honesty, will such a person know God? NO.

Thank you for the number (2) statement, it's just another pointer that the existence of an incorporeal god is just an imagination. Something which is not material cannot be involved in material processes. It is absolutely impossible for a spirit to touch that which is physical. You need to study physics and the physical laws guiding the universe.

You keep jumping all over the place.

Your understanding of what the spiritual is viz a viz the physical is strictly limited to what you know about the physical and nothing more. So how do you know that the spiritual cannot touch the physical? Because you say so? Lmao

Science is not a fabrication, it is a study of our nature and the rejection of the untrue and contrary theories religion preaches. Science has brought god or its idea to its knees. The world is waking up, only the ignoramuses are still in the dark because they want to. If god cannot be proved by facts but by mere assumptions, it means he does not exist and only lives in the imaginations of its followers

.

Science is still a baby and cannot reject anything beyond its empirical scope.

Science has always validated the spiritual and God but of course you would deny this

What you call assumptions are facts yet unknown to science which in itself is limited by materialism. Only dummies would embrace science with all their heart even when science itself declares itself still a baby and limited.

butterflyl1on:



You assume there is a two way door and that is a wrong premise

The spiritual causes the physical to be. And since the spiritual caused the physical without being affected itself it clearly shows a one way door. (you can call it a catalyst).

Why should any body believe this nonsense? Because you said it?

segunojo866:
What do you think about Albert Einstein wisdom compared to God foolishness

Albert Einstein was actually a Jew

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61389198]



Again you attempt to shift the goal post. We are talking about science and God and here you are talking about the Bible. Okay o

Man on his nature has always been discovery driven. There is a reason it is called DISCOVERY. It means it was already existing but we at that moment just got to know about it. Discoveries do not mean creation or origination by man. It simply means uncovering what we were in the dark about initially.

You seem lost, we are not talking about science and god explicitly, we are disproving god. How can you talk about god without the book that created him? I don't know if you know what you are typing. You should read before you post and you should understand what we are discussing here. Stop using the excuse of drifting to console yourself.

Man discovered everything else except god. You see, that is where you missed it. The cavemen who formed religion lacked insight and drive, and their biggest achievement was god, lol. Man only started discovery when people started question nature. The lack of education in the forgotten centuries really promoted religion and god because people had nowhere to run to. Discovery and science work hand in hand. The issue is everything god said he created before Man's discoveries are bunch of lies. Ypu don't need to explain to me what drives man or what discovery means to avoid that fact.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61389198]
Need I remind you of the limited nature of man? You say man discovered contrary evidence to what God called good.

A being of infinite knowledge and vision who knows the end from the beginning may not interfere with anything that would jeopardize the end he has pre-planned or which he desires. What we as men see and term as evil or disorderly would definitely not be how A GOD would view it. A GOD may view it as a "NECCESARY EVIL" towards an ultimate good. Let me illustrate this by asking you this question.

If you are the driver of a car filled with 30 people and you are on top speed, and suddenly someone without looking out for oncoming vehicles dashes into the path of your high speed vehicle what would you do?

1. Swerve at top speed which would cause the vehicle to flip and kill everyone on board?

2. Slam on the brakes and also causing the vehicle to flip and killing everyone

3. Continue driving and "deliberately" knocking down the person who jumped into the road thereby killing only that person and saving all the other 30 passengers and yourself who are onboard.

Choose wisely

Note: you already have foreknowledge of what would happen if you swerved, or slammed on the brakes.

Here you go... . Very typical of a blind religionist. Is this what you tell yourself for consolidation that your god is good at all times?
Did you see that? 'good at all times.' Now, tell me what does 'good at all times' mean to you? After all, god has been said to be good at all times, so now you're saying god may employ a 'necessary evil' to achieve good? That means god is evil sometimes? Please, I need answers to these questions oooo . You better stop dragging what you cannot justify.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61389198]
I brought it up because such named discoveries are not about the inherent qualities found in the discoveries but simply for sake of documentation. Eg

Law Field Person(s) Named After
Abel's theorem Calculus Niels Henrik Abel
Amdahl's law Computer science Gene Amdahl
Ampère's circuital law Physics André-Marie Ampère
Archie's law Geology Gus Archie
Archimedes' principle. Axiom of Archimedes Physics. Analysis Archimedes
Arrhenius equation Chemical kinetics Svante Arrhenius
Avogadro's law Thermodynamics Amedeo Avogadro
Bell's theorem Quantum mechanics John Stewart Bell
Benford's law Mathematics Frank Benford
Beer–Lambert law Optics

And so many more

Chisos, lol. These discoveries were made solely because they wanted to document them and not because of the basic qualities found in them? If you continue arguing like this, I will be forced to reserve my energy for someone who wants to argue intellectually and will be honest.

'

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61389198]
This is common sense to me when though it may not be to you so I will argue based on my position. What I know of A GOD is that he has been before man as a creator. You can choose to believe what you want and argue what you want but my position is mine to uphold and we do not need to agree to it when it already was my position to begin with. Regarding whether he came from something or nothing, you can watch this video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

Have you seen the video yourself? Then you should be an atheist by now. Thank you for showing me the video, it only solidified my stance that there is no god.
That was how I started in the first place, explaining to my friends the forces that created the universe and not a spirit in high places. Not a being that is jealous and biased toward us. Not a being that created hell so that some of us can. Forces are the ones responsible and that is basically why the world is in a state of disorder. But you will not understand, you can keep your position and I'll keep mine. But Science has not discovered god. Don't go about spreading false rumors. The forces discovered by science don't have angels, they don't have sons and slaves or messengers. This is a waste of time.



.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61389198]
Already dealt with this above

Yea, you already escaped it.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61389198]
Anything attributable to man is limited. Limitations are set via

1. Exposure

2. Duration

3. Time

4. Mental ability

Etc

Any generation that passes has knowledge, wisdom, understanding etc all limited to their exposure level in that generation.

The next generation can pick up from the last generation but they also would be limited by the very same parameters.

There is no free roaming knowledge known to man. All are limited to the finite nature of man.

Wisdom and knowledge are not limited oga. Man, as it was in your post, talks about Man as a race and not individuals. And you never mentioned generations. Can't you be sincere with this convo or I'm bruising your ego?

Whatever we learn today is inherited from past generations, generations to come will also learn from us and it will continue in advancement for millions of years. Einstein, Newton, Galileo etc came centuries ago, past generations, we still read their works. Did the knowledge they acquired pass with their generation? You have to know what you are saying, this is absolutely unacceptable.

At this juncture, it is established that you don't even know what you are saying. I cannot keep up with lack of comprehension it slows me down. If at your age you are declaring that God is a fact, then what can I say? It is the generations that are limited, knowledge continues, hence, it's not limited. If it were it would stop.

butterflyl1on:



You assume there is a two way door and that is a wrong premise

The spiritual causes the physical to be. And since the spiritual caused the physical without being affected itself it clearly shows a one way door. (you can call it a catalyst).

Someone actually answered below. So, I must accept this because you said it?

I believe religious people commune with their gods and spirits, and the spirits and gods also respond to them. And despite knowing this you still don't think it's not a two-way door? I laugh in Swahili. I repeat, if you continue this way, by raising unintelligent points. I may be forced to stop.

Graycoder:


Someone actually answered below. So, I must accept this because you said it?

I believe religious people commune with their gods and spirits, and the spirits and gods also respond to them. And despite knowing this you still don't think it's a two-way door? I laugh in Swahili. I repeat, if you continue this way, by raising unintelligent points. I may be forced to stop.

why do you insist on goal post shifting at all costs?

You began talking about science and God and creation (be it real or not) and how science has allegedly proven that the earth is not a good place as stated in "the holy book ".

Now you are talking about a two way door in communication with God (prayer)

What has prayer got to do with the physical affecting or causing a change to the spiritual origin of the physical (which is my position)?

We are talking about the spiritual affecting the physical per creation and not prayer. Prayer only enables the spiritual to affect the physical (which is Still a one way door when it comes to effect) but not a two way door when it comes to the physical affecting the creative spirituality which brought the physical to reality.

You have been making extremely unintelligent comments all through your posts and I have tried repeatedly to call you to order but you seem set on that course. I should have stopped a while back seeing the obvious goalpost shifting attempts you attempted but why do that when conversing with an obviously simple minded fellow?

butterflyl1on:

You keep jumping all over the place.

Your understanding of what the spiritual is viz a viz the physical is strictly limited to what you know about the physical and nothing more. So how do you know that the spiritual cannot touch the physical? Because you say so? Lmao

How do you know that the spiritual can touch the physical because whichever holy book you read said so?

I know so because I have dared so many gods, Jehova, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, Olodumare, Obatala etc to say a simple hi or tilt my back. None of them have been able to do so. Besides, there is no spirit realm because there is no proof for it. It stays in you people's head.

butterflyl1on:

Science is still a baby and cannot reject anything beyond its empirical scope.

Science has always validated the spiritual and God but of course you would deny this grin

What you call assumptions are facts yet unknown to science which in itself is limited by materialism. Only dummies would embrace science with all their heart even when science itself declares itself still a baby and limited.

Science is young, yes no argument on that. But the young always grow and the old always die, isn't it.

Religion is older and it's dying. According to demographics, there are more than a million atheists in the world right now. The 3rd set of people on set of beliefs. What do you think about that? Atheism saw an increase from 2001 to now. People are becoming wiser.

Your god must be out of clue, after all, he set laws 8000 years ago and doesn't want to change them since then. Was the world the same as it is now 8000 years ago? Lol

Third largest

butterflyl1on:



why do you insist on goal post shifting at all costs?

You began talking about science and God and creation (be it real or not) and how science has allegedly proven that the earth is not a good place as stated in "the holy book ".

Now you are talking about a two way door in communication with God (prayer)

What has prayer got to do with the physical affecting or causing a change to the spiritual origin of the physical (which is my position)?

We are talking about the spiritual affecting the physical per creation and not prayer. Prayer only enables the spiritual to affect the physical (which is Still a one way door when it comes to effect) but not a two way door when it comes to the physical affecting the creative spirituality which brought the physical to reality.

You have been making extremely unintelligent comments all through your posts and I have tried repeatedly to call you to order but you seem set on that course. I should have stopped a while back seeing the obvious goalpost shifting attempts you attempted but why do that when conversing with an obviously simple minded fellow?

Spiritual affecting the physical eh? Why should any body takes this nonsense fiction you are spewing seriously? Should we accept this nonsense fiction of yours because you are saying it or because you have evidence to back up your mythical tale?

butterflyl1on:



why do you insist on goal post shifting at all costs?

You began talking about science and God and creation (be it real or not) and how science has allegedly proven that the earth is not a good place as stated in "the holy book ".

Now you are talking about a two way door in communication with God (prayer)

What has prayer got to do with the physical affecting or causing a change to the spiritual origin of the physical (which is my position)?

We are talking about the spiritual affecting the physical per creation and not prayer. Prayer only enables the spiritual to affect the physical (which is Still a one way door when it comes to effect) but not a two way door when it comes to the physical affecting the creative spirituality which brought the physical to reality.

You have been making extremely unintelligent comments all through your posts and I have tried repeatedly to call you to order but you seem set on that course. I should have stopped a while back seeing the obvious goalpost shifting attempts you attempted but why do that when conversing with an obviously simple minded fellow?

I can see your dogma, it's not hidden at all. You have been mentioning shifting since as if your points depend on it. Just let me know.

You said the physical does not connect with the spiritual, now I brought an instance where you people say it does, you tagged it prayer. So, you knew it was possible before you said it was impossible? Someone who is honest would know I just buttressed my point and the fact that you people claim. Why would I bring prayer into the argument, what I highlighted there was a two-way door between the physical and the spiritual, now you know I got you in a corner you're trying to cry foul. Lol, I understand you perfectly bro.

So, there is a creative spirituality and and an effectual one?

Go and practise more. Lol

author=Graycoder post=61395286]

You seem lost, we are not talking about science and god explicitly, we are disproving god. How can you talk about god without the book that created him? I don't know if you know what you are typing. You should read before you post and you should understand what we are discussing here. Stop using the excuse of drifting to console yourself.

Man discovered everything else except god. You see, that is where you missed it. The cavemen who formed religion lacked insight and drive, and their biggest achievement was god, lol. Man only started discovery when people started question nature. The lack of education in the forgotten centuries really promoted religion and god because people had nowhere to run to. Discovery and science work hand in hand. The issue is everything god said he created before Man's discoveries are bunch of lies. Ypu don't need to explain to me what drives man or what discovery means to avoid that fact

.

You have been lost right from the start

You are trying to disprove God and not "we" so try not to cast your burden on me. If man "discovered " God as you claimed can you show me the origin of this discovery? I mean can you show me the first man who originated the God idea? Do you have a verifiable history of this?

Ironically, knowledge has increased today and so has religion and it is still growing exponentially. By the way it has been projected that atheism (which you feel is based on knowledge) will massively decline by 2020 by as much as 30 million.
The numbers show that in 1970 there were 165,500,000 atheists worldwide, about 4.5% of the global population. In 2010, the number of atheists had fallen to 136,582,200 or 2.0% of the population. If trends continue, according to the study, there will be 136,685,000 atheists in 2020, or about 1.8% of the world population.

How come increased knowledge isn't causing as much damage as you postulate but rather moving more toward him?

Here you go... . Very typical of a blind religionist. Is this what you tell yourself for consolidation that your god is good at all times?
Did you see that? 'good at all times.' Now, tell me what does 'good at all times' mean to you? After all, god has been said to be good at all times, so now you're saying god may employ a 'necessary evil' to achieve good? That means god is evil sometimes? Please, I need answers to these questions oooo . You better stop dragging what you cannot justify.

This is the point you never will get. Neccesary evil does not mean absolute evil to a God who sees the bigger and final picture. If Tampering with an event would affect the end of all results which would mean an ultimate good then why tamper with it especially when those being affected are still simply products of this God and he has the right to do with them as he pleases.

I still insist you answer my question. Which of the choices would you take?

Chisos, lol. These discoveries were made solely because they wanted to document them and not because of the basic qualities found in them? If you continue arguing like this, I will be forced to reserve my energy for someone who wants to argue intellectually and will be honest.

Do not blame me for your senility. Discoveries are named after their discoverers for sake of documentation and this does not deny their attributes but the attributes are not found in the names they are given but in their explanations which eventually are linked to the name thereafter. ( say this repeatedly until you understand it).

'

Have you seen the video yourself? Then you should be an atheist by now. Thank you for showing me the video, it only solidified my stance that there is no god.
That was how I started in the first place, explaining to my friends the forces that created the universe and not a spirit in high places. Not a being that is jealous and biased toward us. Not a being that created hell so that some of us can. Forces are the ones responsible and that is basically why the world is in a state of disorder. But you will not understand, you can keep your position and I'll keep mine. But Science has not discovered god. Don't go about spreading false rumors. The forces discovered by science don't have angels, they don't have sons and slaves or messengers. This is a waste of time.

Deny all you want but science has confirmed scriptures and by extension, God. The video you deny carefully used science to corroborate the book of Genesis which offered a summary of what science gives in detail based on man's perspective. Scripture cannot start explaining relativity or the laws of cause and effect to man when man is yet ignorant so let man use his own language to explain to man in a way man can understand. Simple!



.


Yea, you already escaped it.

Wisdom and knowlwdge are not limited oga. Man, as it was in your post, talks about Man as a race and not individuals. And you never mentioned generations. Can't you be sincere with this convo or I'm bruising your ego?

When we talk about man why would you assume we were individualising it? Man means all of humanity so where is the insincerity or are you desperate to tag me as an insincere person in order to garner cheap points when you have been the insincere one all this while and I have tried setting you straight repeatedly? your desperation is evident and you know your ego is the one in the ringer not mine.

Whatever we learn today is inherited from past generations, generations to come will also learn from us and it will continue in advancement for millions of years. Einstein, Newton, Galileo etc came centuries ago, past generations, we still read their works. Did the knowledge they acquired pass with their generation? You have know what you are saying, this is absolutely unacceptable.

Knowledge builds on past knowledge! Science builds on past scientific advancements and do not work in isolation. Every kind of knowledge is limited to the parameters available in their time. If you cannot grasp this simple thing then I certainly cannot help you.

I suppose the cars and the technology found in them today existed 100 years ago or they evolved from what was available in limitation years ago. Every knowledge known to man is limited to the finite nature of man. Period!

At this juncture, it is established that you don't even know what you are saying. I cannot keep up with lack of comprehension it slows me down. If at your age you are declaring that God is a fact, then what can I say? It is the generations that are limited, knowledge continues, hence, it's not limited. If it were it would stop

.

At this juncture I can boldly say you just had some spare time to make some empty noises with and not even to say anything remotely sensible. I have coped with your shallow reasoning and believe me it was not hard at all. It was actually fun. God is a fact and you can take that to the bank. My age has nothing to do with anything likewise your age has nothing to do with the fact that science with all you claim they know cannot create one single DNA string or code but can only analyse what already is.

Knowledge is limited to generations. Without people there would be no knowledge. Take away the people and knowledge dies. Knowledge cannot thrive outside people and knowledge is limited to what we are exposed to and how long we run with it in our mortality.

Word of advice: Go get stronger, more intelligent arguments next time. These ones are below par.

Graycoder:


I can see your dogma, it's not hidden at all. You have been mentioning shifting since as if your points depend on it. Just let me know.

You said the physical does not connect with the spiritual, now I brought an instance where you people say it does, you tagged it prayer. So, you knew it was possible before you said it was impossible? Someone who is honest would know I just buttressed my point and the fact that you people claim. Why would I bring prayer into the argument, what I highlighted there was a two-way door between the physical and the spiritual, now you know I got you in a corner you're trying to cry foul. Lol, I understand you perfectly bro.

So, there is a creative spirituality and and an effectual one?

Go and practise more. Lol

SMH

Creative spirituality aka God and his creative power is a one way door and we on the creation side cannot influence the creator side based on this creative spirituality. Am I speaking Hindi?

You are drowning and do not even see it.

Graycoder:


How do you know that the spiritual can touch the physical because whichever holy book you read said so?

I know so because I have dared so many gods, Jehova, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, Olodumare, Obatala etc to say a simple hi or tilt my back. None of them have been able to do so. Besides, there is no spirit realm because there is no proof for it. It stays in you people's head.



Science is young, yes no argument on that. But the young always grow and the old always die, isn't it.

Religion is older and it's dying. According to demographics, there are more than a million atheists in the world right now. The 3rd set of people on set of beliefs. What do you think about that? Atheism saw an increase from 2001 to now. People are becoming wiser.

Your god must be out of clue, after all, he set laws 8000 years ago and doesn't want to change them since then. Was the world the same as it is now 8000 years ago? Lol

Third largest

I will make this short. Atheism is as old as religion FYI but somehow religion has grown in leaps and bounds leaving atheism in the dust.

Increase in knowledge has not affected the growth of religion but has actually brought an increase and growth.

Technology which has helped push knowledge has taken Religion to places it was not able to get to initially and this has brought acceptance and growth.

You think knowledge is a curse to religion?

It is a blessing and I thank God for it and you know why?

Habakkuk 2:14

For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea

This spread of knowledge is today being aided by scientific advancement as a partner

Awesome isn't it?

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61395286]
.

You have been lost right from the start

You are trying to disprove God and not "we" so try not to cast your burden on me. If man "discovered " God as you claimed can you show me the origin of this discovery? I mean can you show me the first man who originated the God idea? Do you have a verifiable history of this?

I can't show you because he is dead, but the lie started from Abraham. So you don't even know? Lol.

I have seen that there is no point going back and forth with you, you can rot in your ignorance but I'll address some of the lies you posted here but not all{/quote]

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61395286]
Ironically, knowledge has increased today and so has religion and it is still growing exponentially. By the way it has been projected that atheism (which you feel is based on knowledge) will massively decline by 2020 by as much as 30 million.
The numbers show that in 1970 there were 165,500,000 atheists worldwide, about 4.5% of the global population. In 2010, the number of atheists had fallen to 136,582,200 or 2.0% of the population. If trends continue, according to the study, there will be 136,685,000 atheists in 2020, or about 1.8% of the world population.


How come increased knowledge isn't causing as much damage as you postulate but rather moving more toward him?

Where is your source? I just posted daily mail as my source that atheist became the third most embraced faith in the world, but your lying mind crafted a decline. Weldone. Just post your source and let's see its credibility.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61395286]
This is the point you never will get. Neccesary evil does not mean absolute evil to a God who sees the bigger and final picture. If Tampering with an event would affect the end of all results which would mean an ultimate good then why tamper with it especially when those being affected are still simply products of this God and he has the right to do with them as he pleases.

I still insist you answer my question. Which of the choices would you take?

Lol, of course, I will never get it and you also will never spill it. But what I understand there is that whether it is absolute evil or a necessary evil, evil is evil. And you have succeeded in making me understand that although god told you he is good, sometimes he peeks at evil and commit some evil to end up good. In other words, god does evil sometimes.

I don't want to get it more than that, you have said enough.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61395286]
Do not blame me for your senility. Discoveries are named after their discoverers for sake of documentation and this does not deny their attributes but the attributes are not found in the names they are given but in their explanations which eventually are linked to the name thereafter. ( say this repeatedly until you understand it).

Keep your trash to yourself, I'm done with your ignorance in this aspect.

'

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61395286]
Deny all you want but science has confirmed scriptures and by extension, God. The video you deny carefully used science to corroborate the book of Genesis which offered a summary of what science gives in detail based on man's perspective. Scripture cannot start explaining relativity or the laws of cause and effect to man when man is yet ignorant so let man use his own language to explain to man in a way man can understand. Simple!

Lol, the video you posted described the universe to an extent it said there are forces which created something from nothing, that I agree on. Then it said the forces are familiar with god, a bunch of people like you? Nothing is corroborated there, the forces can't be god because where will you put the angels, the holy spirit and jesus the son of god? You are really lost, take time to find yourself. What is man's language, that there is a spirit in heaven with a kingdom of angels and his son is coming soon? That's the language of fools.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61395286]
When we talk about man why would you assume we were individualising it? Man means all of humanity so where is the insincerity or are you desperate to tag me as an insincere person in order to garner cheap points when you have been the insincere one all this while and I have tried setting you straight repeatedly? your desperation is evident and you know your ego is the one in the ringer not mine.

Looks who's talking... Lol

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61395286]
Knowledge builds on past knowledge! Science builds on past scientific advancements and do not work in isolation. Every kind of knowledge is limited to the parameters available in their time. If you cannot grasp this simple thing then I certainly cannot help you.

I suppose the cars and the technology found in them today existed 100 years ago or they evolved from what was available in limitation years ago. Every knowledge known to man is limited to the finite nature of man. Period!

I think you need to help yourself instead, your straying is superb, top notch and first class.

If knowledge builds on knowledge, does it not continue? We are not talking about Man or time, we are talking about knowledge. It is continuous and that is how it will be. Knowledge is not limited and can't. Those who lived in the past generations and those who are living now are still regarded as unified 'Man' to avoid individualizing. You need a knock to understand this?
Knowledge survives generations and continues, the knowledge used to produce Rolce Royce of today emanated from the one used to make it in the 20th century. Man(unified) inasmuch as he survives every generation that passes will continue to grow in knowledge until infinity. If you don't comprehend this, I give up on you.

.

butterflyl1on:
author=Graycoder post=61395286]
At this juncture I can boldly say you just had some spare time to make some empty noises with and not even to say anything remotely sensible. I have coped with your shallow reasoning and believe me it was not hard at all. It was actually fun. God is a fact and you can take that to the bank. My age has nothing to do with anything likewise your age has nothing to do with the fact that science with all you claim they know cannot create one single DNA string or code but can only analyse what already is.

Knowledge is limited to generations. Without people there would be no knowledge. Take away the people and knowledge dies. Knowledge cannot thrive outside people and knowledge is limited to what we are exposed to and how long we run with it in our mortality.

Word of advice: Go get stronger, more intelligent arguments next time. These ones are below par.

Someone, who believes a fairy god exists said I have a shallow thinking, lol what can be funnier?
Is God a fact? Is he no more a force according to your video? If he is such a fact, why not invite him to dinner? Lol, he lives in your imagination you mean to say.

Can science not create a DNA? lOL, ANOTHER IGNORANT STATEMENT. How many Journals have you even read?

You should be reading my links, you'll learn a lot.

Synthetic DNA created

butterflyl1on:


I will make this short. Atheism is as old as religion FYI but somehow religion has grown in leaps and bounds leaving atheism in the dust.

Increase in knowledge has not affected the growth of religion but has actually brought an increase and growth.

Technology which has helped push knowledge has taken Religion to places it was not able to get to initially and this has brought acceptance and growth.

You think knowledge is a curse to religion?

It is a blessing and I thank God for it and you know why?

Habakkuk 2:14

For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea

This spread of knowledge is today being aided by scientific advancement as a partner

Awesome isn't it?

Nothing is funnier than this unintelligent post.
Read my links.
Read on vitalism and see how Knowledge in science has destroyed religion, it's a gradual process.

Graycoder:


I can't show you because he is dead, but the lie started from Abraham. So you don't even know? Lol.

I have seen that there is no point going back and forth with you, you can rot in your ignorance but I'll address some of the lies you posted here but not all{/quote]



Where is your source? I just posted daily mail as my source that atheist became the third most embraced faith in the world, but your lying mind crafted a decline. Weldone. Just post your source and let's see its credibility.




Lol, of course, I will never get it and you also will never spill it. But what I understand there is that whether it is absolute evil or a necessary evil, evil is evil. And you have succeeded in making me understand that although god told you he is good, sometimes he peeks at evil and commit some evil to end up good. In other words, god does evil sometimes.

I don't want to get it more than that, you have said enough.






Keep your trash to yourself, I'm done with your ignorance in this aspect.

'





Lol, the video you posted described the universe to an extent it said there are forces which created something from nothing, that I agree on. Then it said the forces are familiar with god, a bunch of people like you? Nothing is corroborated there, the forces can't be god because where will you put the angels, the holy spirit and jesus the son of god? You are really lost, take time to find yourself. What is man's language, that there is a spirit in heaven with a kingdom of angels and his son is coming soon? That's the language of fools.




Looks who's talking... Lol




I think you need to help yourself instead, your straying is superb, top notch and first class.

If knowledge builds on knowledge, does it not continue? We are not talking about Man or time, we are talking about knowledge. It is continuous and that is how it will be. Knowledge is not limited and can't. Those who lived in the past generations and those who are living now are still regarded as unified 'Man' to avoid individualizing. You need a knock to understand this?
Knowledge survives generations and continues, the knowledge used to produce Rolce Royce of today emanated from the one used to make it in the 20th century. Man(unified) inasmuch as he survives every generation that passes will continue to grow in knowledge until infinity. If you don't comprehend this, I give up on you.

.


Someone, who believes a fairy god exists said I have a shallow thinking, lol what can be funnier?
Is God a fact? Is he no more a force according to your video? If he is such a fact, why not invite him to dinner? Lol, he lives in your imagination you mean to say.

Can science not create a DNA? lOL, ANOTHER IGNORANT STATEMENT. How many Journals have you even read?

You should be reading my links, you'll learn a lot.

Synthetic DNA created

I will simply say one thing about all your ignorance here.

Since I have already responded to all the above except your last comment to let me do so very simply.

Synthetic DNA consists of genes that are isolated from the natural world, "captured," and then copied.

You seem not to know what the word CREATE means and you thought synthetic meant actual creation and not a copy or clone.

Synthetic DNA is simply a copy of an existing one. Your ignorance is appalling .

Even your link speaks about copying and tinkering with what already existed and you seem overjoyed?

Why don't they try getting it done from scratch and not based on an already existing blueprint or copying from that which already existed.

This singular ignorance of yours shows that your entire post is a farce

Graycoder:




Nothing is funnier than this unintelligent post.
Read my links.
Read on vitalism and see how Knowledge in science has destroyed religion, it's a gradual process.

You are so ignorant it hurts

Vitalism is the philosophical doctrine that life has a quality independent of physical and chemical laws, such as an immaterial soul. It therefore is opposed to naturalism, the belief that only the natural world exists.
Vitalism is also the basis for the modern spiritual belief in a "life force" or energy. This "force" has been roundly rejected by science,

This is the position which supports fundamental Christianity and the new age and you in your ignorance feels it is destroying religion when it clearly supports life exists outside the material world as science knows it.

Why do you think science rejects it?

Science cannot accept what it cannot prove materially and vitalism is an immaterial philosophical position.

Go and borrow some intelligence you clearly have a deficit.

Whatever made you think vitalism was science did you a great disservice. Vitalism is philosophy and philosophy last time I checked is not science and because it isn't scientifically proven is often rejected and seen as simply a personal opinion.

You need help especially since you are now throwing shoes and spoons at me all to get cheap points. Your slogan seems to be "throw anything at him so as to fake intelligence".

Well I know better.

butterflyl1on:



I will simply say one thing about all your ignorance here.

Since I have already responded to all the above except your last comment to let me do so very simply.

Synthetic DNA consists of genes that are isolated from the natural world, "captured," and then copied.

You seem not to know what the word CREATE means and you thought synthetic meant actual creation and not a copy or clone.

Synthetic DNA is simply a copy of an existing one. Your ignorance is appalling .

Even your link speaks about copying and tinkering with what already existed and you seem overjoyed?

Why don't they try getting it done from scratch and not based on an already existing blueprint or copying from that which already existed.

This singular ignorance of yours shows that your entire post is a farce

there is a different between synthetic cloning and the original.... Science has a limitation...

butterflyl1on:


You are so ignorant it hurts

Vitalism is the philosophical doctrine that life has a quality independent of physical and chemical laws, such as an immaterial soul. It therefore is opposed to naturalism, the belief that only the natural world exists.
Vitalism is also the basis for the modern spiritual belief in a "life force" or energy. This "force" has been roundly rejected by science,

This is the position which supports fundamental Christianity and the new age and you in your ignorance feels it is destroying religion when it clearly supports life exists outside the material world as science knows it.

Why do you think science rejects it?

Science cannot accept what it cannot prove materially and vitalism is an immaterial philosophical position.

Go and borrow some intelligence you clearly have a deficit.

Whatever made you think vitalism was science did you a great disservice. Vitalism is philosophy and philosophy last time I checked is not science and because it isn't scientifically proven is often rejected and seen as simply a personal opinion.

You need help especially since you are now throwing shoes and spoons at me all to get cheap points. Your slogan seems to be "throw anything at him so as to fake intelligence".

Well I know better.

science was known as natural philosophy but it branch off out of the main stream philosophy....therefore science isn't philosophy now.....

butterflyl1on:



God is a fact and you can take that to the bank

Firstly which of the Gods is a "fact"? How have your disproved the existence of the other Gods and established the one your were indoctrinated with since childhood and shown that it is a "fact"? Why should any one accept your nonsensical claims just because you are making them?

Secondly if your God is a fact then why are you the one making his case for it? You've been arguing and trying to make a case for something you claim is a fact. Why don't you allow this fact to make its case by itself since it is a fact, remember this God that you claim is a fact according to you exist, besides existing, it is all powerful, can do things for itself aand also WANTS people not to only know about its existence but also WANTS people to be in a personal relationship with him so that they can attain salvation if they engage in this personal relationship with him.

If all the above is true then why are you the one making a case for this God as described here on nairaland and trying to show that he exist? Why will such a God with all this claimed abilities ever allow someone like you to ever make a case for it if it is a fact that exist outside your head or of it is alive and exist outside your head. ONLY a God that lives in your head and the head of other believers like you will do that which your God is doing.

Graycoder:




Nothing is funnier than this unintelligent post.
Read my links.
Read on vitalism and see how Knowledge in science has destroyed religion, it's a gradual process.

When I say you desperately want to shift the goal post you say I am a liar.

Here you began talking with me about science and here you are branching off to philosophy via vitalism

Is philosophy science?

Deny your goal post shifting again.

dalaman:


Firstly which of the Gods is a "fact"? How have your disproved the existence of the other Gods and established the one your were indoctrinated with since childhood and shown that it is a "fact"? Why should any one accept your nonsensical claims just because you are making them?

Secondly if your God is a fact then why are you the one making his case for it? You've been arguing and trying to make a case for something you claim is a fact. Why don't you allow this fact to make its case by itself since it is a fact, remember this God that you claim is a fact according to you exist, besides existing, it is all powerful, can do things for itself aand also WANTS people not to only know about its existence but also WANTS people to be in a personal relationship with him so that they can attain salvation if they engage in this personal relationship with him.

If all the above is true then why are you the one making a case for this God as described here on nairaland and trying to show that he exist? Why will such a God with all this claimed abilities ever allow someone like you to ever make a case for it if it is a fact that exist outside your head or of it is alive and exist outside your head. ONLY a God that lives in your head and the head of other believers like you will do that which your God is doing.

Simple observation would have shown you that I am deliberately avoiding responding to your posts which are directed at me. You move in a circular motion and shift goal posts at will and randomly. So from experience I know you are a waste of effort.

I would have simply gutted your post but nothing I would say here that you haven't been told before even in more eloquent ways. So seek your answers elsewhere since no answer is sufficient for you and has not been for the past 9 years you have been posing as an atheist.

Once you hit a brickwall you start monotonously repeating "you are a liar" before any further comment toward me or anyone opposed to you. So good riddance.

Thanks for the attention sha.

butterflyl1on:



Simple observation would have shown you that I am deliberately avoiding responding to your posts which are directed at me. You move in a circular motion and shift goal posts at will and randomly. So from experience I know you are a waste of effort.

I would have simply gutted your post but nothing I would say here that you haven't been told before even in more eloquent ways. So seek your answers elsewhere since no answer is sufficient for you and had not been for the past 9 years you have been posing as an atheist.

Thanks for the attention sha.

Shut up Mr noise maker. Seems I just touched a nerve.

So God is a fact with all the acclaimed abilities and yet it is a self confessed mentally ill person that is making his case for it abi? Only a God that lives inside your head and the head of other believers like you will allow that. You've been trying to defend and make a case for this God with all the claimed abilities for how long now on nairaland? How many atheist here have you been able to convince? What has been your success rate? Why will a God with all the alleged power and abilities that WANTS to be in a relationship with humans rely on a total FAILURE like you to ever make its case for it? Only a God that lives inside your head and no where else will do that.

So it's Yahweh the God of the Jews that you happened to be indoctrinated with since childhood that is a fact abi? Where did you keep Allah and Brahma? Your akuya mentality is truly entertaining.

butterflyl1on:


When I say you desperately want to shift the goal post you say I am a liar.

Here you began talking with me about science and here you are branching off to philosophy via vitalism

Is philosophy science?

Deny your goal post shifting again.

And yet the goal post shiftings are responses to your posts. Look for a better and responsible way to gain points. You have been crying goal shifting in every post you've made.

So in your own world Vitalism is Philosophy? Lol, you should always check for meanings of words before you use them.

Go check for the meaning of vitalism and come back.

And can you even imagine, you don't even know the meaning of vitalism! I give up on you.

What have you been arguing since??

Graycoder:


And yet the goal post shiftings are responses to your posts. Look for a better and responsible of gaining points. You have been crying goal shifting in every post you've made.

So in your own world Vitalism is Philosophy? Lol, you should always check for meanings of words before you use them.

Go check for the meaning of vitalism and come back.

Are you new here? I just defined vitalism for you up there and you still dont get it? Let me post it again in a different form

This is from Wikipedia

Vitalism is the belief that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things".[1] a Where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the "vital spark", "energy" or "élan vital", which some equate with the soul.

OR

https://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/philbio/vitalism.htm

Vitalists hold that living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things. In its simplest form, vitalism holds that living entities contain some fluid, or a distinctive ‘spirit’. In more sophisticated forms, the vital spirit becomes a substance infusing bodies and giving life to them; or vitalism becomes the view that there is a distinctive organization among living things.

OR

http://www.chem.ucla.edu/~harding/IGOC/V/vitalism.html


Vitalism: A theory that an organic molecule cannot be produced from inorganic molecules, but instead can only be produced from a living organism or some part of a living organism. The theory was disproved in the early part of the 19th century.

OR

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/chemistry/VitalismTheory.html

Vitalism Theory

The belief dating to around 1600 that matter was divided into two classes based on behavior with respect to heat: organic and inorganic. Inorganic material could be melted but could always be recovered by removing the heat source. Organic compounds changed form upon heating and could not be recovered by removing the heat source. The proposed explanation for the difference between organic and inorganic compounds was the Vitalism Theory, which stated that inorganic materials did not contain the "vital force" of life and lasted until the mid-nineteenth century.


Need I say more?

Which of those definitions disagrees with your own version of vitalism?


I ask you again, is philosophy science?

You are the one who does not even know what vitalism is.

Vitalism is a discredited hypothesis that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things".

Go back and get your head straight.