Nature's Laws

[comet]

Not even wasting my time.   To you apologists is a bad thing.  I see them as at least trying to change based on new information.

you have a belief of no god.

I have no belief in a god; it's a subtle but important distinction.

  you really are not interested in things like space being "something" (as shown by nasa), the laws of thermodynamics, or information being stored in states of matter and being expressed while the states change.  so in the end you, like most, won't care what the facts are and will just say "nope I don't believe that.".  Just like theist do with evolution. 

I don't feel much need to respond to a post that's more interested in dictating to me what I think, rather than addressing what I actually think. Have we even met, that you can be making these pronouncements about my thoughts? Or are you just being a presumptuous ass?

lmao, nature doesn't "know" but human sure do. That's just funny. 

What, pray tell, is funny about that? Humans have minds to know, whereas nature is just an overarching conceptual label, without a mind of its own. How could it know anything?

Hell, why do I even need to say that? Shouldn't it be obvious that things without minds don't know things?

yes, definitely I am presuming. I will wind up being correct too. weather you think I am ass because I know is irrelevant to the statement being correct or not.  A non-belief is a cop out.  Either you have a belief or you don't.  I don't believe their god exist as they describe.  I hold this belief because when I list what we do know and tie all the pieces together an Omni thing never "shows" up.  

Things I have a non-belief about never come up in conversation. I don't even know what I have a non belief in.   I mean I could make shit up and "not believe it", but that's nonsense.  I think its best to base a belief on something you do know.  Even if they are basic facts.  I am even ok with when people say, "I don't know so I am holding off believing in it".

let me try you on for size.  I hope your cute.

I will only talk about earth but you can extend the notion further if you need t.  You can't really shrink it this notion.  The particle interactions that make you are not isolated.  They (we) are in a field of interactions that make up our surroundings.  Everything is connected through particles and forces.  From chemical signatures, photons, electrons, neutrino's, and others.  All of these particles are interacting on planet earth.

Now, space is "something" as shown by nasa.  What that means we are in something akin to a three dimensional "screen" type structure.  They have no idea what it is but they think it is there. So we probably are "connected" and "interacting" on a deeper level than those I just described above. 

Now, if we apply that facts to the biosphere of earth and compare that to a cell there is an interesting outcome.  It is reasonable to from a conclusion that the biosphere looks like a life form. That is not an irrational stance.  Linking notions of hierarchy structure and emergence leads us to only a few reasonable conclusions.  It can lead to many other very stupid conclusions too when we don't know what we are talking about.  That's when ya whip out logical fallacy.  The person is stupid and the only thing you cry  logical fallacy. maybe they will understand, but I haven't ever seen stupid  let up.   


What does it/can it mean? No-nothing and Omni-god are not rational conclusions.   "I don't believe it means anything" is a cop out.  And how we feel about that is quite another matter.

why when I cut and paste the font change?