(April 5, 2014 at 10:56 am)Thackerie Wrote:

Too damn funny! This guy is calling people out for "vulgarity, ridicule and insult" with a short little post full of vulgarity, ridicule and insult.

Yeah, I know, this is a really old thread, but I couldn't help but make a note of this. Christian hypocrisy is comedy gold.

It's OK you're a stupid atheist you aren't meant to understand hard stuff like irony

(April 1, 2014 at 8:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I and literally billions of other people regularly talk to God.

Odd. My impression is that you are talking to yourself.

I talk to my cats all the time. So far, they haven't talked back.

---

(April 5, 2014 at 11:06 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 5, 2014 at 10:56 am)Thackerie Wrote:

Too damn funny! This guy is calling people out for "vulgarity, ridicule and insult" with a short little post full of vulgarity, ridicule and insult.

Yeah, I know, this is a really old thread, but I couldn't help but make a note of this. Christian hypocrisy is comedy gold.

It's OK you're a stupid atheist you aren't meant to understand hard stuff like irony

Eh. Not sure if you're trying to be nasty or funny. So, I'll just let it go for now until I read more from you and determine what kind of person you seem to be.

Look at his avatar. Trollin' for Jesus, plenty of put downs and burden shifting, but no real substance or intellect.

(April 5, 2014 at 11:09 am)Thackerie Wrote: Eh. Not sure if you're trying to be nasty or funny. So, I'll just let it go for now until I read more from you and determine what kind of person you seem to be.

I'll try to keep to words of one syllable

(April 5, 2014 at 12:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 5, 2014 at 11:09 am)Thackerie Wrote: Eh. Not sure if you're trying to be nasty or funny. So, I'll just let it go for now until I read more from you and determine what kind of person you seem to be.

I'll try to keep to words of one syllable

Well, do try to make them interesting at least. Otherwise, there's no reason why I should waste my time communicating with someone who just throws out one liners in an apparent attempt to insult people or just to get some attention. Trolls are boring.

Will do my friend. In future please try to understand what it is you're trying to mock, just so's you don't end up making a fool of yourself again.

(April 6, 2014 at 2:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Will do my friend. In future please try to understand what it is you're trying to mock, just so's you don't end up making a fool of yourself again.

As you say in your religious views,

intelligent people ignore

This is likely the last response you'll ever get from me. Treasure it always.

Or not. I don't care.

(April 6, 2014 at 2:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Will do my friend. In future please try to understand what it is you're trying to mock, just so's you don't end up making a fool of yourself again.

Since my last post, there has been continuing evolution of data and thought regarding the multiverse theory, which provides a basis for God which is grounded in physical science reality, as opposed to magical mysticism. Link to the Part 1 of a 2 part review of current status of multiverse theory is shown below. First, I'll provide an executive summary of my own hypothesis, relating the multiverse theory to the general topic of theism, which has received much thoughtful commentary, earlier on this thread:

In a multiverse containing an infinite number of universes, it's inevitable that one or more of these universes will be comprised of exotic energy states, which self organize into sentience.

The human brain is simply "wired" bioelectric energy, organized into sentience. The human brain is the size of a loaf of bread. Imagine the power of an organized wireless sentience on the scope of an entire universe. If this sounds fanciful, read the story below and Google "Boltzmann Brain." It provides a "model" for God which is not only plausible, but actually inevitable, if the multiverse does exist, and which doesn't depend on supernatural magic.

Doctrinal religions may be the equivalent of radio frequencies, which allow different individuals, living in different times, places, and circumstances, to establish communication channels to a sentient power existing on the scale of a universe. What's important is not the dogmas and doctrines themselves, which are most probably human constructs, but that these dogmas and doctrines provide frameworks for facilitating communication between minuscule packets of sentient energy (humans) and sentient energy on an unimaginable scale (God).

http://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-i...-the-odds/

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

So... essentially William Lane Craig's version of the modal ontological argument, tarted up in some slightly more appealing multiverse science-words?

Sorry, but "sentience existing in another universe," no matter how powerful, does not read as any meaningful concept of god, because it contains none of the other attributes of god. What you've got there is a powerful mind, but not all powerful things are gods, and you don't even know if it's physically possible for energy to self-organize into sentience. All this is merely meaningless speculation based around defending the vaguest, blandest possible concept, before switching it out for "a god," when we both know that's an entirely different kettle of fish.