[1 second conversion] Convert theist to atheist, in 1 second

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@Drich

---

This encompasses the uncertainty principle, showing that humans observe things probabilistically (empirically observed science, ie the same science that built your computer).

I think you are following the teachings of the wrong Heisenberg sport, in that you are trying to 'smoke' or B/S your 'understanding of science' into this topic, with the help of the blue methman. Rather than with a modicum of common sense.
Allow me to slow things down for you a little because it seems to me you got caught up buying and smoking too much of that blue meth.

Now look a here boy, it real simple. If You and I are Humans and not computers, or one of those 'science robots.' Then we are bound by the laws that contain and define our humanity. Which in this case would include probabilistic observation. Now a meth head may think well that aint how, no science robot works! If they is a better way we must follow it like herd of sheep being driven by a single Shepard dog.

Now I'd say, if you were one of those science robots, or a computer built on a-nother set of rules that don't include truth, but programed to operate on a trivial scale of standards then you'd have a whole nuther heap of things to worry bout. Meaning you couldn't operate to your fullest if'n you were a science robot, try'n to work like we do!

But, since you is a product of your mammy and diddty, you fall under and follow human rules, get it? Now some of us, is smart enough to understand dey's other 'rules' out there that the universe can work on, but that has nuthn to do with how we as people work. However that don't mean we as people gotta abide by them. Or that they E-ffect us in any way outside of where our plains boarder each other.

So to answer your rudimentary question. Is their truth. in Humanity yes. Is their absolute truth, yes. Is it a universal truth that applies to science robots/Is it's Heisenberg's defination, truth? No.

Pay close attention cause here's the simple part sport, don't let it kick you in your teeth when you respond.

Now, just because there's other rules to other realms/Other aspects to our known universe that seem to operate on a different level different rules. however it does not mean we are responsible for them. Meaning we do not all have to know nor identify Heisenberg's version of 'truth.'

Now even if you are one of the smarties who knows there are several seemingly different 'laws' governing how everything works and overlaps in conjunction with everything else. doesn't mean you are bound by them. Meaning if 'truth' is a variable or unquantifiable to a 'science computer/robot' DOES NOT MEAN The English Word Takes the Same Meaning When Measuring The Accuracy Of A Fact in the Human world/realm.

(Did you see what I did there? Do you see the distinction?)

Science/Heisenberg changes the defination of the english word true/truth to make it a universal principle that spans all realms.'

The problem as Mr. white saw it? 'we' currently do not have a 'string' big enough to tie all the different 'realms' together. Meaning the physics and 'science' that are used to plot plan and predict how planets move seems to be at complete odds on the mircro/subatomic level physics/science. So what it true in one realm may not be true in another hence the uncertainty as we have relative truths that span the different realms.

But again, taking the word 'truth' back from you meth heads and setting back into it's original intended use, we have a work that simply describes the accuracy of a fact. Because in truth what care does an atom or a planet have in knowing God?

So just because a 'fact' in realm of humanity does not hold to a literal universal wide truth standard does not diminish the validity of the truth contain with in the statement found in the human world.

Your boy Heisenberg, simply took a common human word to describe something that does not exist in the realm he observed. And you meth heads aren't smart enough to separate his misuse he used of the word truth.

Simply, you claim that the existence of God is true, (SCRIPTURE OR NOT) without asking whether or not truth is possible.

Again, in this realm, (The realm not governing how computers work) Truth is a simple principle used to measure the accuracy of a statement. That is the contextual definition of the word found in the bible. Therfore that is the measure or way we can know "truth.'

By failing to follow my initial post, (which states that humans are NOT OMNISCIENT OF ANY EVENT) you in contrast appear to claim omniscience.[/quote]

Small minds...

Again not looking for a fact that ties all realms of known existence together, nor how it correlates with other known theories.

The Truth of God does not need to come from a personal position of omniscient. The Truth of God only need be verified by the attributes listed, and the covenants/promises kept. If and when one sees God, then the truth of what was written is evident and subsequently verifiable. That is how we know God exists. The bible says God is ABC/123 and we goto God on His Terms and we see for ourselves God is ABC/123 then we can decern what we have been told is accurate. For the contextual definition of the word truth as the bible uses it, and how we are to perceive it. is the statements concerning God accurate.

how are you aware that absolutes/truth is possible (ie the existence of god is TRUE/ABSOLUTE),[/b] without being able to detect absolutes yourself?

Well dude, when one is not high/one has not drank from the Heisenberg cool aide, and or can retain a contextual definition of truth/ἀλήθεια or Absolute truth the goal posts get placed back from where Heisenberg originally moved them, to what the words originally mean. That defination being: Truth= to vet and verify the accuracy of a given fact. So then the statement God is real, can be vetted by anyone through the procedures God has put into place for anyone seeking him. Once someone goes though those procedures then one can say what the bible stated about God is indeed accurate or ἀλήθεια/True.

That is how it is done sport. We subdivide the word truth and place it in a contextual use. Concerning God we are looking for accuracy of the statements concerning God given by people and the bible. We do not try and super impose Heisenberg definition of universal proof that he describes in his uncertainty principle.

However if we are 'science robots' then Heisenberg's definition would so apply.

Same word two completely different standards and levels of meaning. The only thing you need to know is which being are you. Human or robot of science? Humans follow a contextual TRUTH they have known from the exodus of the Garden while robots of science follow whatever truth tickles their ears...

[/quote]

---

SIMPLE QUESTION: Can you measure any event to absolute/true degree (ie are you omniscient of any event) ?


NOTE: The above appears to be yes or no question.