Prove there's a god.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620124 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Your fate is not predetermined.
Again, just because God knows what you're gonna do, that doesn't mean He controls what you do.
You're talking about listening to a song - where you have no control over it.
I'm talking about writing a song.
Understand?
You still aren't understanding. I have addressed this point several times - it does not matter if god is in fact controlling every detail of our lives - that he knows the outcome of every event and has the ability to change the outcome of any event necessarily removes free will from the equation. It's not that hard to understand.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620125 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. God allows us to do what we want. That in no way means we have His approval to sin.
I like how you don't even address the point I was making. Just "wrong." Lol. Seriously though, I don't think you are understanding what is meant by approval. I'm not saying that god must "like" sin (although it is strange that a god would create a universe filled with things he doesn't like), but I am saying that if he knows what will happen and has the power to change it, then anything that happens necessarily has his tacit approval. He knew, from day one, exactly how everything would turn out, exactly which sins would be commited and by whom, and he could have adjusted the variables to prevent any sin from occuring with a snap of his fingers. And he didn't. Therefore, sin has his tacit approval, or else sin wouldn't exist.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620126 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Dudette....
How could one person prove to another person that God is real?
<quoted text>
'anything'?
Then why can't you prove that you have hands?
Ughhh. I'm not sure if you actually think this is an intelligent argument or if you are just being difficult. I could *conceivably* prove my hands to you - we could set the conditions for what would constitute proof, and then I could fulfill those conditions. Simple. You could not *conceivably* prove god to me without resorting to an appeal to the strength of your belief. If you could, god's existence would no longer be in question. My "hand proof" would not involve the strength of my belief in the existence of my hands.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#620127 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. But they DO learn quickly.
A 6 month old baby can know either:
If i cry, mommy will pick me up.
OR
I shouldn't bother crying,'cuz mommy won't pick me up.
They know, they learn very quickly how to manipulate their folks.
They have to cry to get what they need before they learn to talk. What's wrong with a baby wanting to be held?

They do learn very quickly that crying gets them what they want and some babies do go to the extreme but they don't deserve a smack for being manipulative.

Not that duct taping them to a wall doesn't sound appealing when I hear some brat screaming bloody hell in a store. ;)

Usually a crying baby is a baby that doesn't get enough *good* attention. A clean, dry, well fed baby should be a happy baby.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620128 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What's with all the "answers" without any explanations?
Are we to just take your word for it?
It doesn't need any explanation. It is a self evident statement. If you aren't capable of realizing that, I don't think you are capable of accepting any amount of justification I could offer you.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620129 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Example?
Really? Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act (as well as many other examples of absurd legislation ostensibly passed to "protect our freedom," ie the military commisions act, also CISPA which was introduced by a repub), our incursions in latin america during the regan administration, the support of saddam prior to, during, and after the iranian revolution, etc. etc. etc. The left bears some responsibilty too, both for being full of lame ducks and for, lately, actively supporting this kind of crap. But the conservative base is full of war hawks who jump at the opportunity to "defend our freedom" from the threat of the week. They are, as a group, much easier to get riled up about some "evil force" that finds itself in the proverbial scope.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620130 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. But they DO learn quickly.
A 6 month old baby can know either:
If i cry, mommy will pick me up.
OR
I shouldn't bother crying,'cuz mommy won't pick me up.
They know, they learn very quickly how to manipulate their folks.
RR, dude. No. You are projecting the way you think on to a baby. They don't "manipulate." They might learn to associate certain behaviors with certain responses, but this is simple conditioning that any animal is capable of.

If they cry, it's because that is pretty much the only way they know how to communicate, and they are trying to tell you something. They do not have ulterior motives, and they do not consider *why* you respond to them the way you do. If you spank a baby for crying, it will become scared to cry. It will not understand "I was crying at a bad time for 'no reason' and I shouldn't do that again." It will simply associate the act of crying with the result of getting hit.

Seriously, I recommend you learn a little bit about infant psychology, because you clearly are just making shit up as you go.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#620131 Apr 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Something from nothing is exactly what happens with virtual particles.
And, in general, I'm pretty sure that the more massive the particle, the shorter it's lifespan.
They happen in pairs. A particle and an antiparticle and they come from...nothing.
Holy fking hell! How many times do I have to tell you guys that a "virtual particle" is not really a particle?

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-pos...

The disturbance does not "come" from *nothing*, there is no such thing as *nothing* existing in the quantum world.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620132 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I do. Just as I expect a 6 week old puppy to understand discipline.
What is it with people nowadays thinking babies are stupid?
First of all, dogs do not understand the concept of discipline in general no matter the age, but that's neither here nor there.

Second, no, babies do not understand the concept of discipline. At all. To understand the concept of discipline requires the ability to think abstractly, which is not something babies can do. I really can't believe you think this.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#620133 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
DAYUM! For smackin her butt during sex?!
No WONDER your husband hires hookers....
It all makes sense now.
Ride 'em hard, cowboy! ;)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620134 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's the point, isn't it? You want your baby to learn the difference between crying when hungry or in pain or something versus crying for attention (which is usually the case).
Babies will learn quickly that there's other ways to get the parent's attention without being bratty.
No, man, you aren't understanding what I'm saying. Babies are not capable of learning the difference between crying "for a reason" and "crying for attention/no reason." If they get hit for crying, all they know is they got hit for crying. All they can do is make simple associations like that.

And what in the world is wrong with a baby crying for attention in the first place? They aren't being "bratty" when they cry, that's just one of the only ways they know how to communicate. Sometimes babies need attention. They are babies. They don't manipulate.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620135 Apr 26, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> Thank you. Now I know your definitions. And then we'll have to add one more. The sense of being. You know, the sense that you are "there" or 'alive' in the present time. <quoted text> What observation have you made that leads one to believe that molecules could ever become aware of themselves if 'awareness' was never a property of matter prior to that point? That is not moving goal posts. That's where it began; you can't just skip that part and assume molecules cause consciousness because they are associated with it. There are other things associated with it that we know of, and who knows, maybe even plenty of things are associated with it that we do NOT know of. Get it?
<quoted text>Again, you speak of observations; what observation/s have we made to give us a clue how molecules could ever become aware of themselves? You are sticking molecules into the same gap that others are sticking God into. Wake up.
<quoted text> "Tests"? Please. It's interesting to work with it but there is no "test" for subjective experience of another being. We might get an idea how they feel or what they think but not the whole experience. This really is not relevant to what we are talking about anyway.
<quoted text>Well what would you propose it means then? Is it jumping out of the way because it thinks it is another cat? Why would it care? It senses that it is in the freekin way so it moves. Obviously it senses itself as being there. Call it reflex call it whatever; it senses it is there. This is also irrelevant.
Neither was "life" a propery of molecules prior to life, but now it is. Do I need to prove how life arose from non living matter to make observations on current life "count?" Is it wrong to assume that molecules are associated with life until we have a proof of how abiogenisis occured?

And again, I do not know how molecules became aware of themselves - I have suggested several ways that this could have happened, but that's besides the point. When I say "observations" on the correlation between molecules and consciousness, I mean that we have a brain that "lights up" when we think. That's not a gap, that is a simple observation.

The mirror test is not meant to give us an understanding of the subjective experience of another being, as I already said. It is meant to determine whether or not it experiences itself as a distinct "I" in the first place.

It means that it can observe and react to it's environment. That does not mean it has a sense of self. There is a distinction here that I think you are missing. It can think, that does not mean it can "think about thinking," or think about the "I" inside their head.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620136 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I didn't say that.
But not being a parent, I can understand your confusion.
<quoted text>
"crying comes naturally"? lol, true.
But so does laughter.
So does silence.
Again, I don't expect you to understand.
<quoted text>
Frankly, how YOU conceptualize what a 6 month old does or doesn't do is indicitive of a person who's never reaised one.
RR, take a child psych class. Please. They don't pop out of the womb with a fully realized human brain.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#620137 Apr 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
It's sort of funny these all mirror what I have written and focus on what can be learned and not what maybe.
Taking the aproach that consciousness is a system of nervous system functions and comunications within it.
Saying consciousness is quantum is the equivalent of saying there's a god causing it.
There is nothing but highly controversial theoretical and unfounded conjecture to support it.
AND BTW , to be free thinking on any subject, you must be affluent and recognize the works of others on the subject at hand,
as to not form blind opinion based on belief and superstition, but upon solid ground backed by the known and research
relevant to understanding the subject you are representing.
Which you do not even attempt to qualify in your assertions of quantum brain hypothesis.
So hand wave away some more Mr. Quanta Cupcake.
So much that is considered to be real now was once only fantasy in some person's mind.
Have a cookie...relax....notice how the cookie shimmers....take a deep breath....
xD

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620138 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The PATRIOT Act was not about "pilaging" another country, as timn implied. It was about fighitng terrorism.
So yes,'more' would be nice - as long as they're relevant.
I didn't imply that - there were two parts of my statement - "pillaging other countries" and "removing our freedoms in the name of freedom."

And the patriot act was totally about taking away our freedoms. Terrorism is not something that can be "fought," that's absurd, you can't go to war with a concept or a method. The best way to "defend" against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized, which we failed at miserably. We turned on eachother and allowed the government and the media to instill paranoia and fear in us all, so that they could have their wars and force their ridiculous legislation on to the populace. And in fact, they took advantage of the fear so well that people like you actually asked for their freedoms to be taken away - you, a so called "conservative" who sees no problem with letting the government have unprecedented power to spy, arrest, torture, and otherwise trample our freedoms under the guise of "security."

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#620139 Apr 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>So much that is considered to be real now was once only fantasy in some person's mind.
Have a cookie...relax....notice how the cookie shimmers....take a deep breath....
xD
You mean like tiny miniature people on some island ?
Or like Tesla envisioning cheap wireless transmitted electrical energy to light up homes across America?
One of these was really real at least, to my fascination.
I delete cookies every now and then, even if sometimes I can almost see or even taste them.

Since: Mar 11

Australia

#620141 Apr 27, 2013
GoodRabbit wrote:
This guy fell 8, count em' EIGHT stories to his doom and survived. YOU CANT TELL ME GOD DOESNT EXIST. It take a lot of bravery to see God in the LIttle things
http://youtu.be/4wYSfP6JokY
This doesn't ever prove the existence of a God. This proves that guy was really lucky.

Since: Mar 11

Australia

#620142 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the opinion of one attorney, not the law.
I'm no criminal.
Here's CA law:
Law not intended to prohibit the use of reasonable methods of parental discipline, or to prescribe a particular method of parenting. Serious physical harm does not include reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks where there is no evidence of serious physical injury. Welf. and Inst. Code Sec. 300.[Ci.] Abuse includes unlawful corporal punishment or injury. Penal Code Sec. 11165.6.[Cr.] "Unlawful corporal punishment or injury" is any person willfully inflicting upon a child any cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or injury resulting in a traumatic condition. Penal Code Sec. 11165.4.[Cr.]
Why on earth would a 6 month old need to be smacked? They can't walk or talk. There is nothing any 6 month old baby would need to be smacked for. Did it pick it's food up by it's left hand instead of the right hand?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620143 Apr 27, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> You forgot something. "There is a neural net".....AND a quantum reality.
<quoted text> Ok, I'll repeat myself, what observations do you have that molecules could ever become aware of themselves?<quoted text>Alright I'll explain but you have to attempt to understand; it's not that hard, even though I have been explaining and explaining over and over. First, "my point" is that the quantum state is the father of all things; it makes up atoms and molecules and everything else. You can't just have molecules without a more fundamental reality behind it. So my point is you are talking about 'association', and the quantum state accompanies everything, and it can also stand alone, unlike any molecules. So you can't rule it out until you can come up with a way that molecules can become aware of themselves. And you can't. That's my point. Notice how I address your comments? Time you try that.
What do I mean by quantum consciousness? Same as you mean by molecular consciousness just that it originates in the quantum state not the molecular state. You really still don't know that? It's not any more magic than saying moleculesdidit.
The last question is easy, and I explained it already, but for the slow ones I'll do it again. The quantum state is eternal as far as we know. Remember, matter cannot be created or destroyed?(Oh and "virtual particles" are not known to be an example of matter being created, they simply become detectable and vice versa), and neither can motion be destroyed (there is always a ground state energy), so it seems. So do I have to fill in the obvious blank? I better. Energy is eternal, therefore if consciousness is quantum then it is eternal also because of it's quantum nature, and it may even be one and the same as energy, we do not know.
WTFFFF... I just tryped out a long ass response to this and then I hit post.. and it redirected me back to the home page and when I tried to go back to salvage it the webpage had expired.. Fuck.. I'm not doing that again right now.. I'll re type it in a little while.

Since: Mar 11

Australia

#620144 Apr 27, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people would know beating a dog makes them violent. You are lying that you have dogs.
Beating a dog makes them frightened. Makes them not trusting of humans including there owner. A frightened dog is more likely to bite.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min truth 687,174
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 26 min Clearwater 30,719
Popcorn time for movies and shows using VPN 3 hr clayvligon 2
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 7 hr LAWEST100 184,840
Anthony Bragg 8 hr Oic yes 28
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 9 hr Anonymous 286,539
Clinton Foundation Scandals 11 hr Hiddn Numbrz 2
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 23 hr Here For Now 619,788
More from around the web