(January 16, 2017 at 8:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: However God is a spirit. A spirit does not exist within the laws of nature, it is a supernatural being, and therefore not affected by natural law, particles, fields, or time...

If your god is a spirit that does not exist within the laws of nature and is not affected by natural law, particles, fields, or time ... then nor can it interact with them making your god completely and utterly non-existent in this reality and irrelevant to your life.

If supernatural existed then it wouldn't be supernatural.

We can never know what the "laws of nature" are. We just model them. If something doesn't fit our models, that doesn't mean it's breaking a law of nature. This equivocation seems to be more invulnerable than God. How is it a law, if something breaks it? It's just dumb word games.

People are just trying to say "it does impossible things".

I always find it amusing when some shitwad says "but that violates the conservation of energy!" as some sort of un-resolvable issue when referring to any theory x.  You'd think that physicists might have picked up on that.  Nope, apparently, that level of observation is reserved for religious nuts scouring their sacred texts for answers.

That's the problem when you're trying to use parts of science you don't understand to try and disprove other parts you also don't understand.

They're only trying to convince themselves. They stop as soon as they satisfy all their own personal doubts. Which means that they stop questioning their own religion when they reach their own personal level of ignorance.

I was walking into town on Saturday and there was a preacher with a megaphone asking what came first, the chicken or the egg, what brought together all the elements etc. All the usual arguments from ignorance.

An excellent example was when I argued with my zealous brother at Christmas. We asked him why he didn't worship Zeus or Thor. He replied that he doesn't know anything about them. As if that was an adequate answer. His ignorance doesn't change the nature of reality, but it did allow him to believe in one fairy tale rather than another.

(January 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm)Mathilda Wrote: They're only trying to convince themselves. They stop as soon as they satisfy all their own personal doubts. Which means that they stop questioning their own religion when they reach their own personal level of ignorance.

I was walking into town on Saturday and there was a preacher with a megaphone asking what came first, the chicken or the egg, what brought together all the elements etc. All the usual arguments from ignorance.

An excellent example was when I argued with my zealous brother at Christmas. We asked him why he didn't worship Zeus or Thor. He replied that he doesn't know anything about them. As if that was an adequate answer. His ignorance doesn't change the nature of reality, but it did allow him to believe in one fairy tale rather than another.

The egg came first.

(January 17, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: No I used the word RELATIVE dummy not RELATIVITY, which simply means 'in relation to something else', I'm not talking about the damn theory.  

Time being relative is the Theory of Relativity, you fucking simpleton.  But, hey, continue to insult people because you're talking about things of which you're obviously clueless.  It's not like you'll surprise us and show that you actually have an ounce of shame.

And once again, Huggy avoids the actual point being discussed because he's clearly wrong in order to focus on an irrelevant detail.  It's okay, Hugster.  We've come to expect nothing less from you.

(January 17, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...en-we-die/

Quote:a 2008 paper published in Mind and Matter by University of California, Irvine, cognitive scientist Donald D. Hoffman: Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem. Conscious realism asserts that the objective world, i.e., the world whose existence does not depend on the perceptions of a particular observer, consists entirely of conscious agents. Consciousness is fundamental to the cosmos and gives rise to particles and fields. It is not a latecomer in the evolutionary history of the universe, arising from complex interactions of unconscious matter and fields, Hoffman writes. Consciousness is first; matter and fields depend on it for their very existence.

Oh, gee, a guy who is championed by Deepak Chopra.  Excuse me if I'm unimpressed.

Also, it appears this guy spends a lot of time talking about the evolution of consciousness and evolutionary psychology.  So, I guess you're just picking and choosing what this guy believes in.  If it supports what you believe, he's right.  If it doesn't support what you believe, he's wrong.  Is it too much to ask for some intellectual integrity from you? Oh, wait, what am I saying...

I take it that's a "no" on the brain fillet?