Religion science

[Keith&Co.]

I support everything I say with evidence logic and reason.

Nope. I do admit, you're not a one-trick pony. You have a huge arsenal in your defense.

You make claims. When challenged you will

• Ignore the challenge (often by concentrating on only one other line in the post)
• Dismiss the challenge as using dismissed science, which you still haven't actually given anyone a reason to actually dismiss
• Misuse words
• Insult the challenger

And claim intellectual superiority.

You want mathematics? Do you realize every idea thought can be created and expressed with (1) I am in a (0) universe of nothingness? 100111000111

That's using binary notation, not math.
After assigning values, you have to actually DO something with the numbers for it to be math.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

I realize it’s useless to try to convince those to unintelligent to understand. I merely present an alternative point of view to consider.

The Earth is flat, an alternative view.

You can imagine what you like. One of my fvaorite quotes is from Kelvin essentialy if you can not quamtify what you are talking about with numbers your knowledge is 'of a meager and inferior kind'.

Ok particle physics is wrong, how do you support your alternative with experiment, data, and demonstration?

Philosophy and religion end with speculation. Science begins with mathematical models.

We have not a seen the science is all wrong and I know what reality truly is argument in a while.

So, when you say energy what do you mean exactly and how do you demonstare what energy is?

To be brief my last response was a detailed explanation of the consciousness energy we are using to create the universe with.

I support everything I say with evidence logic and reason.

Nope. I do admit, you're not a one-trick pony. You have a huge arsenal in your defense.

You make claims. When challenged you will

• Ignore the challenge (often by concentrating on only one other line in the post)
• Dismiss the challenge as using dismissed science, which you still haven't actually given anyone a reason to actually dismiss
• Misuse words
• Insult the challenger

And claim intellectual superiority.

You want mathematics? Do you realize every idea thought can be created and expressed with (1) I am in a (0) universe of nothingness? 100111000111

That's using binary notation, not math.
After assigning values, you have to actually DO something with the numbers for it to be math.

I do not use it as math.. I use it as intended. To create and communicate my understanding of reality. I merely present my own personal understanding based on my own research of the concepts involved. I support everything with evidence logic and reason. Please be specific with your questions instead of throwing unsupported assertions and claims and demeaning accusations about me.

 

[steve_bank]

We know that our memory is not perfect, but it is functional. And we know when it fails.

I don't recall that ever happening

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.. we are a product of every experience of our collective consciousness. I think therefore I am…

In your thinking what is energy? What is mass?

Those tems are parmont when you fly on a jst, drive a car, ot take an elevator.

The scince deniers are in a state of cognitive dissonance. Scince is wrong, but all technology I depend on is based in science. Without a grounding in science the line between philosophy, science fiction, and reality can blur.

Popular impressions of what energy is comes from the use of the term energy as a fictional plot devices in scifi.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

We know that our memory is not perfect, but it is functional. And we know when it fails.

I don't recall that ever happening

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.. we are a product of every experience of our collective consciousness. I think therefore I am…

In your thinking what is energy? What is mass?

Those tems are parmont when you fly on a jst, drive a car, ot take an elevator.

The scince deniers are in a state of cognitive dissonance. Scince is wrong, but all technology I depend on is based in science. Without a grounding in science the line between philosophy, science fiction, and reality can blur.

Popular impressions of what energy is comes from the use of the term energy as a fictional plot devices in scifi.

Scientists refuse to understand there is no mass.
m=E/C2. There are no physical properties.
Just perception our consciousness creates this perception of reality with.
Angstroms colours vibrating w
Decibels sounds vibrating w
Firing synapses thoughts vibrating energy.
Our consciousness creates a physical perception of vibrating energy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I realize it’s useless to try to convince those to unintelligent to understand. I merely present an alternative point of view to consider.

The Earth is flat, an alternative view.

You can imagine what you like. One of my fvaorite quotes is from Kelvin essentialy if you can not quamtify what you are talking about with numbers your knowledge is 'of a meager and inferior kind'.

Ok particle physics is wrong, how do you support your alternative with experiment, data, and demonstration?

Philosophy and religion end with speculation. Science begins with mathematical models.

We have not a seen the science is all wrong and I know what reality truly is argument in a while.

So, when you say energy what do you mean exactly and how do you demonstare what energy is?

To be brief my last response was a detailed explanation of the consciousness energy we are using to create the universe with.

I support everything I say with evidence logic and reason.

Nope. I do admit, you're not a one-trick pony. You have a huge arsenal in your defense.

You make claims. When challenged you will

• Ignore the challenge (often by concentrating on only one other line in the post)
• Dismiss the challenge as using dismissed science, which you still haven't actually given anyone a reason to actually dismiss
• Misuse words
• Insult the challenger

And claim intellectual superiority.

You want mathematics? Do you realize every idea thought can be created and expressed with (1) I am in a (0) universe of nothingness? 100111000111

That's using binary notation, not math.
After assigning values, you have to actually DO something with the numbers for it to be math.

I do not use it as math..

But you posted that RIGHT AFTER saying, "You want mathematics?"
If you were NOT using it as math, you should have said so before.
NOW it just looks like you're trying to cover your egregious mistake.

Please be specific with your questions instead of throwing unsupported assertions and claims and demeaning accusations about me.

Jesus fuck, what a waste of photons.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

Another unsupported assertion. Too bad you don’t support anything you say with evidence logic and reason…

 

[steve_bank]

Mass is unit of measure, like inches and meters. When y0u buy vegetables you pay by units of mass. Kilograms per dollar.

If I stretch out my hands and declare the distance between fingertips to be the SB standard unit of measurement, objects can be comoared quantitative in size. The units of measure and the standards for time, distance, and mass are a bi more complicated but essentially the same principle as stretching out my arms as a unit o measurement. Arbitrary definitions.

Further, Einstein showed all observations are relative to a reference point, and there are no absolute reference points or frames except for C. As such there can be no absolutes in science.

When you buy a 2kg of potatoes it is relative to the international standard of mass. The mass standard is a cinvient regernce pount that is agreed upon. The same for a voltage or current. A battery measured at 12 volts is not absolute, it is relative to the volathe standard.

In a broad sense mass does not exist physically, reality exists. Mass is a unit of measure created by humans. I can not get a bag of kilograms, but I can get a bag of tomatoes that weighs 1kg.

People like you on the forum who are 'science deniers' usually just do not understand what science is and how the process works.

There is a saying 'the map is not the countryside', you can look at science as a map of reality but not reality itself. It is how I look at science as someone who appllied science for a living.

If you are in the USA take a look at te NIST site on standrds and Sytem International. It may be informative for you.

 

[bilby]

Ignorant physicists are too lazy to seek the true reality

I would be very careful about throwing such stones, given the materials used in the construction of your dwelling.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

My materials are evidence logic and reason ? Feel free to prove me wrong using the same criteria .. you have not done so in any way.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

Mass is unit of measure, like inches and meters. When y0u buy vegetables you pay by units of mass. Kilograms per dollar.

If I stretch out my hands and declare the distance between fingertips to be the SB standard unit of measurement, objects can be comoared quantitative in size. The units of measure and the standards for time, distance, and mass are a bi more complicated but essentially the same principle as stretching out my arms as a unit o measurement. Arbitrary definitions.

Further, Einstein showed all observations are relative to a reference point, and there are no absolute reference points or frames except for C. As such there can be no absolutes in science.

When you buy a 2kg of potatoes it is relative to the international standard of mass. The mass standard is a cinvient regernce pount that is agreed upon. The same for a voltage or current. A battery measured at 12 volts is not absolute, it is relative to the volathe standard.

In a broad sense mass does not exist physically, reality exists. Mass is a unit of measure created by humans. I can not get a bag of kilograms, but I can get a bag of tomatoes that weighs 1kg.

People like you on the forum who are 'science deniers' usually just do not understand what science is and how the process works.

There is a saying 'the map is not the countryside', you can look at science as a map of reality but not reality itself. It is how I look at science as someone who appllied science for a living.

If you are in the USA take a look at te NIST site on standrds and Sytem International. It may be informative for you.

“Science denier” obviously you have not even read messages. But science only deals withe physical perception of reality.
It is only beginning to consider the quantum perception of reality.
Our consciousness which creates this perception of reality from vibrating energy is only vaguely eluded to… we are (1) consciousness in a universe of nothingness (0) vibrating to create and communicate everything you think say and do. Seriously,
Thoughts firing synapses vibrating energy
Sounds decibels vibrating energy
Sight angstroms vibrating energy.
Our consciousness creates our perception of a physical reality in order to ease the loneliness and boredom of being a singularity in a universe of nothingness. 100111000111
Go ahead prove my hypothesis wrong using evidence logic and reason.. all I hear are insults and unsupported assertions and accusations that I am stupid and wrong. The keyword is UNSUPPORTED… feel free to ask me my understanding of any aspect of our existence… I support all I post with evidence logic and reason.

 

[bilby]

My materials are evidence logic and reason ? Feel free to prove me wrong using the same criteria .. you have not done so in any way.

They really aren't.

Your major construction elements seem to be leaps of faith.

Very large leaps of faith.

That's not a very good way to get your mental exercise.

Nobody has to prove you wrong; It's your job as the claimant to prove yourself right. And so far you are only doing so to your own satisfaction, which is amusingly futile.

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

Ha

My materials are evidence logic and reason ? Feel free to prove me wrong using the same criteria .. you have not done so in any way.

They really aren't.

Your major construction elements seem to be leaps of faith.

Very large leaps of faith.

That's not a very good way to get your mental exercise.

Nobody has to prove you wrong; It's your job as the claimant to prove yourself right. And so far you are only doing so to your own satisfaction, which is amusingly futile.

haha once again assertions and claims with no evidence logic or reason to support them. It is so sad reading your messages knowing you must be emotionally exhausted by your failed attempts to try and support your hypothesis.

 

[Rhea]

Sight angstroms

What is a sight angstrom?

Is it like a smell joule?

 

[steve_bank]

My materials are evidence logic and reason ? Feel free to prove me wrong using the same criteria .. you have not done so in any way.

You are not comprehending probably due to a lack of science and experience.

I can not prove you wrong, peove Bigfoot and Loch Ness monster wrong, or prove th eChrtian god does not exist.

What I can do is ask for evidence. Without evidence that withstands scrutiny I will say your claim is not supported by anything but subjectve feelings, ides, and perceptions. Same as I say to theists.

I have not disproved your claim, nether have you proved it.

You can restart the philosophy thread on objective vs subjective evidence.

Objective/Subjective

Hi there! Can you give me your general thoughts on the difference between objective and subjective? You don't have to get too detailed, or much in depth. Just give me your thoughts. Stray if you like - be as discursive as you please. But you don't have to. I thought this article might serve...

iidb.org

A valid logical argument meaning no logical falacies alone is not sufficient to prove an assertion. It is logic, reason, and evidence.

Logic is udes to support a conclusion based on evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

Sight angstroms

What is a sight angstrom?

Is it like a smell joule?

What do you say we do stand up comedy?

 

[AGodForTheAtheist]

My materials are evidence logic and reason ? Feel free to prove me wrong using the same criteria .. you have not done so in any way.

You are not comprehending probably due to a lack of science and experience.

I can not prove you wrong, peove Bigfoot and Loch Ness monster wrong, or prove th eChrtian god does not exist.

What I can do is ask for evidence. Without evidence that withstands scrutiny I will say your claim is not supported by anything but subjectve feelings, ides, and perceptions. Same as I say to theists.

I have not disproved your claim, nether have you proved it.

You can restart the philosophy thread on objective vs subjective evidence.

Objective/Subjective

Hi there! Can you give me your general thoughts on the difference between objective and subjective? You don't have to get too detailed, or much in depth. Just give me your thoughts. Stray if you like - be as discursive as you please. But you don't have to. I thought this article might serve...

iidb.org

A valid logical argument meaning no logical falacies alone is not sufficient to prove an assertion. It is logic, reason, and evidence.

Logic is udes to support a conclusion based on evidence.

You seem to ignore the evidence logic and reason I present.
1: Evidence; I think therefore I am.
2 : Logic; if I exist something created me
3: Reason; It is reasonable to suggest a creator/god exists.
I have put this as simple as possible.
Please use evidence logic and reason to show why a god does not exist. I can also do that for you if you want.

 

[steve_bank]

Ok, we are down to the usual debate.

1, Not evidence, an unprofitable hypothesis. For Descartes I believe it was about avoiding being hung up in destructive self doubt. Philosophical discourse as to whether we exist or not being absurd. The principle is not unique to Descartes.

2. If A Then B is logical statement, but uprlovable. I could say the unverse is choatic, violent, and comppex to the point there is no possible god, spirit, or entity that could have designed it. Both staements are logically valid, neither are provable.

3. I agree it can be a reasonable logical question to ask if there is or was a creator. However there is no way to prove it.

Christians say things like it is obvious there is a god but that too is not proof, it is a statement of faith.

If you have faith why do you have to prove god exists

Like Descarte' I think therefore I am, faith in a god is supposed to alleviate doubt. I worked with a Chrian engineer who said without his faith he woud be plagued with questions all the tme.

Like philosophy religion can be carried to a ridiculous extreme. Trying to prove god which is an article of faith IMO is a rodiclous exteme.

If you believe, kick back and enjoy how it makes you feel.

 

[atrib]

Religion is a disgusting creation of theists and atheists arguing fighting and killing in the name of god. Or lack there of.
Science is an ignorant creation that stops at the physical perception of our existence ignoring the subatomic electromagnetic energy waves of our non physical existence.
Here is my understanding.
Hi . I have been researching for many years and I believe I have the answers for you.
What who when how and why we exist.
I will try a short summary of my conclusions.
1.deconstruction… flesh>atoms>subatomic particles >
Subatomic electromagnetic energy waves > consciousness…..

You have the order wrong. Consciousness is always associated with complex arrangements of neurons. In the case of a typical human, about 90 billion of them. There are no consciousness at the subatomic level that we are aware of.

2. Physical is just a perception of vibrating energy.

OK. Most scientists use the word field, but I can go along with energy. For the purposes of disambiguation, energy is an emergent phenomena associated with the underlying scalar field that pervades the universe. Also, mass and energy are just different manifestation of the same thing, depending on the nature of the interaction with the field. I think that is what you were getting at.

10011100011 angstroms decibels firing synapses > all just subatomic electromagnetic energy waves.
We are a singularity that is creating our consciousness by vibrating.

This is the part that makes no sense. The word singularity is used in science to describe scenarios where some variable approaches a value of infinity, often due to limitations of our ability to model the variable accurately. I don't understand how our existence/consciousness can be described as a singularity. It would appear that you are using the word singularity to mean something else altogether, not in the way it is commonly used.

Electromagnetic waves are not subatomic - this statement makes no sense. EM waves are waves, not particles, and they are continuous and pervade the macroscopic realm. And I don't believe our consciousness arises from the vibration of EM waves, but you are welcome to provide citations to support your claim.

I think therefore I am.. everything is a product of our thinking.

The movie playing inside our heads is a product of our "thinking". But the reality we perceive is not. Perhaps you are talking about the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM which states that the quantum wave function collapses into the particle state we observe when we look at it, but this is a terrible way to say it.

There is more such as the past is over doesn’t exist anymore > the future doesn’t exist yet.

Actually, no. All moments in time exist simultaneously as described by special relativity - thus the spacetime continuum (do you know what the word continuum means?). Its just that we can only experience reality in one direction due to the arrow of time.

Only now ever exists.. now after now .. we are an ever expanding singularity consciousness.

What is a singularity consciousness? And what do you mean by expanding - are you saying I am getting fat? I think you are just making up shit to try to sound profound.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed so the purpose of the universe is to make our existence as a singularity (1) in a universe of nothingness (0) 1100011100
A more enjoyable experience…. Eternity is a long time to be lonely and bored.

Facts not in evidence. The universe doesn't appear to have a purpose.

 

[atrib]

we created the god that created us in order to explain our existence.

God is an inflating scalar field?

 

[atrib]

Lazy physicists just threw a (p) into Einstein theory of relativity .. which I am not surprised is nonsense to you. Only just now physicists are starting to look into what they refer to as “quantum” sadly they still think subatomic electromagnetic energy waves are physical instead of forces.. like the force that holds two like magnetic poles apart.

There is no such thing as a force, only interactions. So much for your self professed knowledge of what scientists are thinking today.