Prove there's a god.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#620254 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
A triple negative? Nice.
What is not nice is that you don't know what a double negative is, but you think you do, so you think you are correcting errors in what I write despite that they are errors which do not exist.

AGAIN:

Here is a double negative:

I don't have nothing.

Here is another double negative.

I don't have none.

Need more? Really, RR- you're great when it comes to googling when it suits your agenda- I would think 47 year old man would be interested enough to google to find out what defines a double negative.
Bartholomew Oglethorpe

Haslet, TX

#620255 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's probably why God denied you children.
Thank God you don't!
What a nut you are. What a disgusting thing to write. What a terrible parent you must be, married to Topix as you are. You are disgusting.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#620256 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand. <SHOCKER>
Babies don't know what rude means, but they do act rude without even knowing it. YOu have to train them not to be.
<quoted text>
I started training my sons as soon as I could, just a few months old. I'm a diligent dad.
<quoted text>
Who are all these "many people"?
<quoted text>
What are you doing? You want a "GOTCHA" post?
I stand behind what I posted. It's never too early to start training your child.
<quoted text>
Oh, well you're a rainbow.
<quoted text>
I will.
<quoted text>
Yale is a blog?
huh...
<quoted text>
I don't care - I ain't keeping score like you are. Post all you want.
What a bunch of blowhard nonsense.

A baby crying is not a baby being "rude".

A baby fussing is not a baby being "rude".

That you would attribute the characteristic of rudeness to a 6 month old baby only further serves to confirm just how warped and perverse you are.

I didn't say ALL of your sources were blogs and if you could read, you would know that.

I said MOST of them were blogs- or maybe I said SOME of them were blogs- but I sure didn't say they were ALL blogs.

Who are these many people? Obviously you're more insulated and isolated than I originally thought.

Thanks- I will post all I want- but quite a change of tune for you from a week or so ago when you dug out posts of mine from 3 years ago and tried to make an issue out of how much I post which as I then had to explain to you AGAIN is FAR less than how much you post.

No surprise that you changed your tune on this....you also tried to change your tune regarding spanking 6 month old babies and the reasons why they should be/need to be spanked.

'K- this distraction of Topix to kill some time has come to a close- gonna go live my life now.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620257 Apr 27, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
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.
From "nothing" aye? Well you sound pretty confident. Where's your proof? Your buddy tim already admitted that he believes they can't come from nothing (only a moron would believe something could come from nothing).

How does science define "nothing"? And more importantly, what is the mechanism by which something comes from nothing? Kinda like 'awareness from non-awareness'. Oh and what is the experimental method by which we can even determine with any certainty that we have isolated "nothing"?

It takes more faith for you to believe that BS than it does for someone to believe in "God". Yet you make fun of people tat do believe in a higher power.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620258 Apr 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
You're full of shit point blank. I'm telling you the view from neuroscience. You have brought garbage and rode a single concept into the ground and cannot even say how this could possibly effect your being, nor describe it. I can see you are exactly what you are saying here. Good riddance go annoy another forum with your complete utter bullshit.
How does any of this explain how awareness can come from non-awareness?
Saying consciousness is quantum is the equivalent of saying there's a god causing it.
Saying 'awareness came from non-awareness' is like saying magic is causing it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620259 Apr 27, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>You delusional fool. No god denied me children. That was MY choice and MY decision and a totally autonomous one at that.
I bet that's how you have sex, too. Autonomously.

<monotone> ooh baby oh baby ya do it like that hmmm

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620260 Apr 27, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it does. Of course, as you have no understanding or even interest in how being a Jew is about MUCH more than religion and greatly encompasses culture and heritage as well, I'm not surprised you would say someone who is a Jew as well as a Deist doesn't exist.
Last time- I was born INTO the Jewish religion. I was raised very non-religiously and any emphasis on being Jewish was placed on it from a cultural level in that I was taught quite a lot about Jewish culture,Jewish cultural traditions and Jewish cultural lore.
My beliefs about a god are much more closely aligned to that of Deism than any other organized religion and frankly, I don't lump Deism in with Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Islamism or any other organized religion.
Anyway, it is simply your myopic thinking and tunnel vision which cause you to make such ignorant statements- that someone who is Jew and a Deist doesn't exist.
It's okay that you're ignorant about all that Judaism stands for and encompasses; it would be even more okay if you would admit to that ignorance.
HA HA!

For the last time the is the last time I'm gonna tell you it's the last time.

O_o

Jewish is a religion, not a race. Give it up.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620261 Apr 27, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Really....
Ummm....you seem to think that is how all kids are.....
And you would be wrong of course, if you do think that.
Nope, I was talking about my two sons...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620262 Apr 27, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Really....
Ummm....you seem to think that is how all kids are.....
And you would be wrong of course, if you do think that.
But you seem to know that ALL babies are stupid and that NO baby know anything and that NO baby can be trained....

Even though you've never raised a child on your own...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620263 Apr 27, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>What is not nice is that you don't know what a double negative is, but you think you do, so you think you are correcting errors in what I write despite that they are errors which do not exist.
AGAIN:
Here is a double negative:
I don't have nothing.
Here is another double negative.
I don't have none.
Need more? Really, RR- you're great when it comes to googling when it suits your agenda- I would think 47 year old man would be interested enough to google to find out what defines a double negative.
Thanks, Mrs Teacher.

May I interject?

A double is a writing form using two negatives to express a positive, like the examples you gave.

However, "That does not mean that you are not ignorant" is also a double negative. You used two "nots" when you shouldn't have. The correct sentence would be "That means you are ignorant".

You're welcome.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620264 Apr 27, 2013
OCB wrote:
A baby crying is not a baby being "rude".
A baby fussing is not a baby being "rude".
Thanks for the words of wsdom, mom.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620265 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
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?
No one is arguing that molecules are not associated with life. We are waiting for you to give us an indication of how molecules could ever become aware of themselves. You'd think I'd get tired of typing tat but I'm not. You wanna keep avoiding it then I got fingers.
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.
No it isn't besides the point and no you haven't suggested anything because it is unapproachable. Please direct me to proof of your claim. All you have is association. And since that's your only "evidence" then I can use it too, as evidence that awareness may have quantum roots. I actually have more evidence since, as I've said so many times, the quantum state is more fundamental than the molecular state.
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.
So how is this "lighting up" providing us with any insight as to how molecules could ever become aware of themselves?
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.
This is so besides the point, but for the record, it can be meant to determine anything just that we cannot make any real conclusions from it yet, at least as far as the actual subjective experience of any particular animal.
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.
And yet again you commit the same oversight. I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm saying you cannot know you are right.

And as far as awareness from non-awareness, you can't even venture a guess.'Association' of molecules with 'life that displays awareness' is not evidence of any mechanism by which awareness could come from non-awareness.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620266 Apr 27, 2013
OCB wrote:
I said MOST of them were blogs- or maybe I said SOME of them were blogs- but I sure didn't say they were ALL blogs.
You said: "And keeping posting your moronic links- many of which were simply blogs-"

So what I posted from Yale was either a moronic link or a blog.

nice.
OCB

United States

#620267 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA!
For the last time the is the last time I'm gonna tell you it's the last time.
O_o
Jewish is a religion, not a race. Give it up.
LOL! YOU telling ME that Jewish is not a race- I know that better than you do.

But a unique culture or unique traditions has nothing to do with race and you really are ignorant if that's what you think.

But your ignorance about many things is well known so continue doing what you do best- staying as ignorant as you are.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620268 Apr 27, 2013
I have this giant set of legos. I never thought of them as "conscious" or "aware". I was haphazardly putting them together, off and on through the years, and one time they came out in the shape of what looked like a long double helix. And then, I blinked, and there were two of them, then four, then eight, and by the next day, it was moving about my living room. I tried to catch it but it kept running away as if it knew what was going on.

People keep asking me what the mechanism is but I saw it with my own eyes. Why won't anyone believe me?
OCB

United States

#620269 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, Mrs Teacher.
May I interject?
A double is a writing form using two negatives to express a positive, like the examples you gave.
However, "That does not mean that you are not ignorant" is also a double negative. You used two "nots" when you shouldn't have. The correct sentence would be "That means you are ignorant".
You're welcome.
You are wrong.

To say "that does not mean you are not ignorant is grammatically correct".

YOU are welcome.
OCB

Orlando, FL

#620270 Apr 27, 2013
I am an idiot. Please tell me that am so stupid. What can I do to fix it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620271 Apr 27, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text> You are wrong.
To say "that does not mean you are not ignorant is grammatically correct".
YOU are welcome.
What's wrong with this sentence?

"that does not mean you are not ignorant is grammatically correct"

Or am I not supposed to correct you anymore?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620272 Apr 27, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>LOL! YOU telling ME that Jewish is not a race- I know that better than you do.
But a unique culture or unique traditions has nothing to do with race and you really are ignorant if that's what you think.
But your ignorance about many things is well known so continue doing what you do best- staying as ignorant as you are.
Jewish is not a race because Jewish people do not share a common ancestory or biological distinction.

People from many different races over the centuries have become Jewish.

People of many different nationalities have become Jewish.

Being Jewish is more like being part of a religious movement.

If you were not born to a Jew, you can become Jewish through conversion.

It's a religion, of people that share many different cultures and/or unique traditions.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#620273 Apr 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I love about you fundies, you can talk yourselves into believing anything!
LOl,, funny i can say the very same thing about you... But here is the kicker,, you have "evidence" that prove what you believe in is all based on a corrupt and dishonest method!! Its here for all to see,, BUT yet you still ignorantly defend and uphold it..
You just can't trust science,
Absolutly!!! And why should any ''smart'' person put trust in a false and corrupt method such as that?? Its you who is so easly to believe that a man with a degree, can term a word and method and you follow him/them to whatever conclusion they provide..
but you can trust the mythical book of historical fiction , written by ancient ignorant superstitious warmongering tribal power hungry cultists.
No, i trust in GOD! I dont worship a book,or a church bulding..

Your pride and hatred toward God shows tremendously.
They never lie like those peer reviewed scientists who arrive at conclusion by consensus and systematic verification through repeated observation updated at every opportunity.
You must go pray to see if it will rain tomorrow, you can't trust those danged meteorologists radar and satellite imagery.
You just hate it, when people show evidence, and corupt evidence at that, that dosent support your claim, i get it.. So the best you can do is mock and make fun..

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min Joe Fortuna 99,849
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 7 min bad bob 184,265
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min Robert F 670,211
the new gay skype 59 min thedarkone40 3
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr ChromiuMan 6,135
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Evanka Dump 286,442
Wife is gonna experience another man Sunday. 11 hr The Guy 1
More from around the web