(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.

(January 16, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 16, 2017 at 3:11 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The difference is that saying "the universe created itself" is not what he said. His implication is that the universe started by some as yet unknown natural process whereas theists not only believe that it was not a natural process but some magical figure that somehow poofed the universe into existence by some undetermined way and for some reason hates the gays.

You can't refer to it as a 'natural' process if the process is unknown, you assume the process to be natural, yet there are absolutely no examples of nature producing anything from nothing.

This would be in violation of the law of Conservation of Energy/ mass

What you describe falls in the realm of supernatural... in other words, magic.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural

Quote:supernatural
1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Face it, your belief requires just as much faith as mine.

In order for a supernatural causation to be considered, supernatural has to be proved to be a thing.
We know that things occur by natural processes, so this would be the most, and at this stage, only logical possible solution.
My beliefs are based on what can be proven, your faith is despite what can be proven.
Get the difference.

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?

Quote:In order for a supernatural causation to be considered, supernatural has to be proved to be a thing.

I wonder how many people are/were aware of the "James Randi Million Dollar Challenge".  It's no longer being offered, but for several years the JREF  offered a one million dollar prize for anyone who could demonstrate a  legitimate supernatural or paranormal occurrence.

This would include anything such as mental telepathy, dowsing, psychic ability, the existence of ghosts or even miracles.  The prize was never claimed, not even once.  Are not those who believe in the supernatural the least bit curious as to why this is???  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge