Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[KenRU]

We have already gone round in a circle numerous times, Arian. Did you fancy another go round?

No, .. no sir I do not wish another go round, .. I'm getting dizzy. I was hoping to debate, you know where you prove to me where I am wrong,

How can anyone prove you wrong when you have yet to present evidence?

just as I prove to you where you are wrong, especially in your understanding of Infinite, Eternal, 'nothing', brain vs. mind,

You have not proven that the mind exists outside (or is separate from) the body. Where have you proved me wrong, btw?

and the plethora of other definitions that you religiously (on faith alone, not on evidence) hold on to, which I explained exhaustibly to you (and others here)

Sorry, Arian, but the only one proven wrong here was you, via dictionaries. You change the definitions of words and expect people to accept tenuous logic in order to “prove� your point.

It doesn’t.

You have not presented evidence. You presented unverified claims and specious logic at best. I was curious as to dukenha's response.

I did not answer for dukenha, he is more than capable to answer for himself. I responded to your comment.
"You have not presented evidence arian"
"We have already gone round in a circle numerous times, Arian. Did you fancy another go round?"

This reminds me of the recent Manny Pacquiao vs. Mayweather fight; "You lost graciously Manny, you did your best but Mayweather is just a better fighter than you. Want another go round, .. Mayweather is a better fighter than you, you getting our drift? .. better fighter, .. you tried your best, .. you keep going in circles Manny, that's practically is all you did because of your arm injury, .. you robbed your fans Manny, .. you just went round and round, .. and this Warning will cost you 5 million $$".

Now you see the similarity?

Yes, but I don’t think we will agree on who is who in your analogy.

Arian claims "Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of The Creator", and after presenting hundreds of undeniable scientific evidences, "we are still waiting for evidence".

As multiple people here have said to you, yes, we are all still waiting.

Next post should be something like; "Can the undeniable be denied?"

Is this a semantics riddle?

How about this one: How does one expect to communicate when the meanings of words are intentionally and erroneously changed?

That we have a mind is proof,

No it is not. Sentience is not proof of a creator, no matter how much you wish it to be.

Yes sir, sentience is not proof of a creator;

I’m glad you agree.

Sentience: In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts "about" something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.

Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism". They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained.

.. it says it right there, sentience will never be understood, .. subjective experiences will never be explained, .. so arian, do you really want another go round?

Oh, because McGinn argues it, it must be right. I didn’t realize that was how you play the game.

That is not proof, Arian. You want to present the arguments of a philosopher as proof? It would seem to me that a neuroscientist might be a better source, but that’s just me and my crazy predilection for evidence before deciding something.

I don't think so, I realize it is futile to argue against blind faith.

Pot meet kettle.

and that scientists are spending billions trying to capture it is another proof, both that the mind is outside of the brain, and that it is a scientific endeavor.

I have shown that our mind is both Infinite and Eternal, which can create things within (because there is nothing beside the Infinite).

You cannot verify that the mind exists outside the brain. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite.

Ah.. but, .. but, .. yes sir, evidence of something that can never be understood, or could ever be explained can never be verified to exist outside the brain, .. got it.

(unless science downloads it on disk, puts it in a program where the individual can now live eternally outside the body/brain in a robot or a computer Matrix) Sorry again, I was just thinking aloud.

Playing along, in order to prove your point, if that happens, wouldn’t it just be a copy?

You know, is it live or Memorex?

... yet the mind remains infinite proven by the fact that we can dream and create concepts both in size and in numbers that can go on throughout Infinity.

That we can create and dream already exists in nature in many forms.

Yes, I have read of the stories the 40,800 year old cave-paintings nature has created, many forms indeed.

Yet, I never presented that to you. I sent you links on apes creating new words, teaching their young sign language (without the help of humans). Evidence of our creativity is found in nature, and not just for our amusement. There are many examples of interspecies altruism and cooperation. This is evidence for a natural explanation, not a supernatural one.

This also proves that man (physical body with the breath of life, or spirit that gives it life) is created IN the Creators Image.

Unfounded conclusion, based upon ...what? No evidence provided for such a claim.

I explained this in detail remember, .. many times.

You’ve explained, but no evidence or proof was provided.

Observing the created creator man reveals two things;
1. there is a physical/biological element, and
2. there is a spiritual, limitless, unmeasurable element, the mind.

Point #2 is baseless. Please provide evidence of a spiritual mind.

Upon analysis we notice that the physical body responds to the spiritual commands of the mind.

Please provide evidence of “spiritual commands�.

Stephen Hawking's is a good example what dominates, or rules, but I know, .. I know, no evidence provided.

I have no idea what you mean here.

Logically a CREATOR would have to be un-created, with the ability to create anything and everything without any restrictions, which I have shown is the Mind, which is Infinite.

Why? If, by your logic, man creates and imagines (like god in your analogy above) and man was created, so why not god also being created? Your logic breaks down.

No, my logic never past stage one with anyone here, even though I explained it many times remember, in the difference between the Creator and the created creator. But we would have to pass the "ladder going into infinity being called an infinite ladder (numbers, sets, etc), or the universe expanding into infinity being called Infinite.
Or the hands on a clock rotating keeping time throughout eternity being called Eternal clock.

This just seems like you dodged my point.

And all the different scientific studies and attempts to capture the 'mind' is another proof that it is outside, or besides the brain.

You were presented with proof showing the brain in a creative mode, in other words proof that the mind can create and it originates within the brain. Please present proof that the mind is outside the body.

And remember I refused that 'brain created mind' as an erroneous claim, because the brain is connected to all the organs, muscles, extremities, which would mean that they too would have to have individual memory, to be able to reason and express their desires and send it to the brain. Like I said if the hand wanted to create something, it would have to tell the brain, and the brain would then have to summon all the other parts to help out the hand.

You can refuse all you want, all that means is that you are putting your head in the sand and denying evidence. Not a strong argument to make. You were presented evidence that it happens. Denying it doesn’t change the fact that it happened.

I said the mind is separate from the body, not actually outside of it.

And yet you were shown proof that the brain did create.

Also, because the mind is spirit, you could put a thousand minds/spirits into a body.

Your opinion is noted.

The problem is not that there is not enough evidence of our Creator, but that man refuses to humbly accept it.

I submit that god then isn't trying hard enough. As you say, if it is easy for him to make a donkey talk, it should be even easier for him to show me he exists. Why not a little nudge when I was still unsure about my faith? And yet .... nothing.

That's exactly how I used to think, until I realized that He was always 'nudging' me, and He is also nudging all of us. Only it's not to a point to interfere with our free will, that would be annoying. Even though God is not pushy, He gets blamed for it anyways, even from those that swear up and down that God does not exist.

Well, then. I submit that the picture you paint of god is one that is woefully incompetent. Hey could very easily show me (or many others) proof without impacting free will. Or is your god not that powerful?

To deny the Creator, one has to deny the created,

If, by Created, you mean original thought, I disagree. I don't believe in god, and I do not deny original thought. It is completely compatible with how I see the world working.

Yes, .. you are correct that you only see the world, like you can only imagine the brain, .. and you are OK with that. Just like Newton's gravity, people have lived out many generations before gravity was identified, and if we took the word gravity out of the universe, what would change?

Describing gravity is only useful, or of any worth to those that work with it, consider it, use it, .. the same with God. People can go on living without the knowledge of God,

You seemed to have ignore my point. Did you mean that the created equals original thought?

.. and that is exactly what we have in this Big-bang Evolution fairytale. The word 'created' is slowly being removed from creation and replaced with: "It just happened!" Now how it happened is replaced with stories of assumptions which could never be proven since it happened billions of years ago. Hey, .. it's not the scientists fault for not being able to live for 14 billion years and to have observed and document the Big-bang,

The only assumption I see here is yours linking Big Bang and Evolution. This shows you don't understand either.

The circle continues ...

For the life of me I don't see how the gasses that you guys claim evolved our universe and Earth within the 14 billion years cannot include biological evolution?
When you say 4.5 billion years ago that life appeared on earth, is that 9.5 billion years 'after the Big-Bang'?

No, it is just like your sentence says: "4.5 billion years from now�. Why is that hard to understand?

Or it really has no connection with the expansion and the evolution of the universe? Like could we say; "2 billion years after the Big Bang biological life appeared and time passed at different speeds for the universes evolution and biological evolution, and that's why it is not a good idea to conflict the two?

I grow tired of continuously separating Big Bang and evolution for you. I no longer have the desire to respond to your continuous mish-mashing of the two (different) scientific principles.

Either you can debate in good faith, or you can’t. Your choice.

All the best,

[arian]

Note to Moderators and our fellow readers:

Since it doesn't seem like my opponents on this topic desire to honestly and fairly debate, but belittle, alter, ignore and even mock my in-depth and clear analogies, and me pointing out the clear dictionary contradictions which came over the so called New Age One World Order 'modern' revisions over the past hundred "we know how everything came to be" years, I will face their puns, denial, cheap-shots the same way. Since the subject has been derailed anyways, might as well have some fun, right? This is in no way to disrespect my fellow Debaters here, I love every one of you, and am very grateful for having been allowed the honor to debate with you. This is strictly a response to: "Hey, we don't believe in a Creator God, but what the hell, let's see him present his "Undeniable and scientific Evidence THE Creator" anyways, .. lol"

And yes, moving this response (and the past I don't know how many debates on this topic) to the "Daily Laugh" Sub-Forum would be appropriate, and expected.
So let's have some fun!

We have already gone round in a circle numerous times, Arian. Did you fancy another go round?

No, .. no sir I do not wish another go round, .. I'm getting dizzy. I was hoping to debate, you know where you prove to me where I am wrong,

How can anyone prove you wrong when you have yet to present evidence?

OK, let's go with the Manny Pacquiao vs Mayweather analogy;
"Yeah Manny, how could you think you have won when you haven't even thrown a connecting punch yet?"
(same way that you guys keep me chasing you in circles around the debating ring)

just as I prove to you where you are wrong, especially in your understanding of Infinite, Eternal, 'nothing', brain vs. mind,

You have not proven that the mind exists outside (or is separate from) the body. Where have you proved me wrong, btw?

I axed you: "Where do ideas come from?"
Then I gave you choices: From the hands, arms Gluteus Maximus, .. or from who you are, from you the infinite creative mind? You keep ignoring and denying the latter.

And where did I prove you wrong? Let's go with Manny on this too, how many fighters were laying on their backs and still swinging slow punches, .. acting as if they're kicking Manny's butt? In their mind they're winning.
It's useless to explain the situation to someone like that until they wake up, take a good look around and analyze the reality around them.

You look at the world and the universe and you see chaos and mutation, while I see beauty in I.D.
I can't 'make you see what I see, and as sure as hell you can't make me see what you see, .. until of course you guys do succeed in turning the world into total chaos, and biological man into a mutating horrific mess, just to prove your Big-bang Evolution beliefs.

and the plethora of other definitions that you religiously (on faith alone, not on evidence) hold on to, which I explained exhaustibly to you (and others here)

Sorry, Arian, but the only one proven wrong here was you, via dictionaries. You change the definitions of words and expect people to accept tenuous logic in order to “prove� your point.

It doesn’t.

Still dazed or high on religion, .. so for now I see it's still useless to try to explain the reality and the truth that it is the "Big-bang Evolution Religion" that's altering and changing dictionary definitions, laws, and even recorded history, not me. I'm just trying to bring back the original meanings.

You have not presented evidence. You presented unverified claims and specious logic at best. I was curious as to dukenha's response.

I did not answer for dukenha, he is more than capable to answer for himself. I responded to your comment.
"You have not presented evidence arian"
"We have already gone round in a circle numerous times, Arian. Did you fancy another go round?"

This reminds me of the recent Manny Pacquiao vs. Mayweather fight; "You lost graciously Manny, you did your best but Mayweather is just a better fighter than you. Want another go round, .. Mayweather is a better fighter than you, you getting our drift? .. better fighter, .. you tried your best, .. you keep going in circles Manny, that's practically is all you did because of your arm injury, .. you robbed your fans Manny, .. you just went round and round, .. and this Warning will cost you 5 million $$".

Now you see the similarity?

Yes, but I don’t think we will agree on who is who in your analogy.

.. oh you'll come around to it! Need some smelling salts?

Arian claims "Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of The Creator", and after presenting hundreds of undeniable scientific evidences, "we are still waiting for evidence".

As multiple people here have said to you, yes, we are all still waiting.

.. so it's unanimous? All from the atheistic judges/responders who "don't believe in God" in the first place!? Still waiting for what? To change your religious preferences? I tried that with Christians worshiping the Divine in the supernatural realm going on 10 years now, and nothing yet. So somehow deep down I know you are not waiting for no evidence, .. evidence is not part of any organized religion, 'blind faith' IS, .. or have you forgotten?

Next post should be something like; "Can the undeniable be denied?"

Is this a semantics riddle?

How about this one: How does one expect to communicate when the meanings of words are intentionally and erroneously changed?

Let's change them back, why just leave it, they will just change it even more! It's what they've been doing since WWII, destroying meanings, laws, where good is bad, and bad is good. Hmm, where did I read about this, .. oh yea, from that Bronze aged Book called the Bible.

That we have a mind is proof,

No it is not. Sentience is not proof of a creator, no matter how much you wish it to be.

Yes sir, sentience is not proof of a creator;

I’m glad you agree.

Yes, only I doubt you understand why, or would even want to since you stated many times that: "I don't believe in god"!?

But for the sake of other readers here; Sentience is why God created/begot/ (like Adam begot Eve) His Son Word. Just as Jesus explained that "all things come from the Father", and the Bible explains how: '.. through the Son".

Our mind (of God) can create through our body. Also God the Creator (our mind which is of God) can feel through and from the senses, and receptors in the body, or through His created/finite creation.

This is why God explains to us that all things were created by, through and for the Son. So what the Son (also man) feels through His created senses/body, God (mind) interprets this and enjoys, .. (or suffers).

The mind interpreters the sensations coming from all over the body, and experiences them.
When the mind comes up with an idea, he creates this through and with the body (or like in creation, through the Son).
But this is only "knowing who our Creator is, and how He creates and is able to feel" 101. But to even understand this, it takes one small step for man, which would be a giant leap for mankind to step outside of his millennia of religious indoctrinations, not clinging to them like a sweater to Velcro. And then try to remove the sweater from the Velcro with wool gloves (try to get out of one religion with another religion)

Sentience: In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts "about" something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.

Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism". They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained.

.. it says it right there, sentience will never be understood, .. subjective experiences will never be explained, .. so arian, do you really want another go round?

Oh, because McGinn argues it, it must be right. I didn’t realize that was how you play the game.

That is not proof, Arian. You want to present the arguments of a philosopher as proof? It would seem to me that a neuroscientist might be a better source, but that’s just me and my crazy predilection for evidence before deciding something.

Hasn't all concepts derived from philosophy? The Evolution theory, Big Bang theory (see, I separated them right there) the Fabric of Space, Parallel Universes, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, E=mc2, .. Special relativistic effects, The Blue Brain Project, LHC, Agenda 21, .. they all came from philosophy.

I don't think so, I realize it is futile to argue against blind faith.

Pot meet kettle.

.. says Pot to his image in the mirror.

and that scientists are spending billions trying to capture it is another proof, both that the mind is outside of the brain, and that it is a scientific endeavor.

I have shown that our mind is both Infinite and Eternal, which can create things within (because there is nothing beside the Infinite).

You cannot verify that the mind exists outside the brain. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite.

Ah.. but, .. but, .. yes sir, evidence of something that can never be understood, or could ever be explained can never be verified to exist outside the brain, .. got it.

(unless science downloads it on disk, puts it in a program where the individual can now live eternally outside the body/brain in a robot or a computer Matrix) Sorry again, I was just thinking aloud.

Playing along, in order to prove your point, if that happens, wouldn’t it just be a copy?

You know, is it live or Memorex?

Oh no, .. read it, this is no longer just creating a computer program that mimics a human brain, but to capture the person, who he really is. They actually believe (once completed) that they could take that persons soul/spirit and place it in another body, be it a robot or a simulated universe, like a Matrix, where that actual person will be able to live the same way he did in this body and in this world.

The Blue Brain project is headed by the founding director Henry Markram and co-directed by Felix Schürmann and Sean Hill. Using a Blue Gene supercomputer running Michael Hines's NEURON software, the simulation does not consist simply of an artificial neural network, but involves a biologically realistic model of neurons. It is hoped that it will eventually shed light on the nature of consciousness.

I have been working on this also in my own mind, like when I looked into the mirror asking "who am I? If I was created in Gods image, I should be able to figure this out, right?" Then I stumbled across the Blue Brain project, and was blown away by the actual scientific effort in defining, and then attempting to capture the human mind/soul, and move it to another body.

This idea is actually a good one, and fits right in with how the Bible reveals God to us. I know what they are trying to do, the problem is that instead of trying to understand the Creator, they are desperately trying to become 'creators themselves' missing the whole science part, you know, where science 'observes the world around them', and not try to 'create it'.
It was the same with the Big-bang and the Evolution so called theories, and the Blue-Brain project, attempting to create a universe in the LHC is the perfect example of "man trying to become God", .. where he denies THE Creator of the universe and man, by hoping to become THE creator themselves!

There are a number of sub-projects, including the Cajal Blue Brain, coordinated by the Supercomputing and Visualization Center of Madrid (CeSViMa), and others run by universities and independent laboratories.
Does that sound like a simple Philosophical idea, or a serious multi-billion$$ ongoing serious scientific endeavor?

The ultimate plan is 'eternal life', the Movies "The Matrix" explains the concept excellently, IMHO to a 'T'.

... yet the mind remains infinite proven by the fact that we can dream and create concepts both in size and in numbers that can go on throughout Infinity.

That we can create and dream already exists in nature in many forms.

Yes, I have read of the stories the 40,800 year old cave-paintings nature has created, many forms indeed.

Yet, I never presented that to you. I sent you links on apes creating new words,

Yes I know all about apes creating new words, like; here I am happy and gay drinking my coffee and looking at the beautiful sunny day, .. listening to the birds outside .. now makes me a 'homosexual'.

Now if you mean the real apes creating new words, why aren't they speaking it with us? I mean they've been around for a lot longer then us hairless apes? What's the holdup? Unless throwing some poop at people is consider some deep philosophical song that could fill many books trying to explain it? You know, like the 'Whale songs', which I read contains the whales entire life-story including his ancestors lives, sharing the joys, the fisherman tragedies, everything many books worth.

teaching their young sign language (without the help of humans). Evidence of our creativity is found in nature, and not just for our amusement.

Yeah, like I said 'sign language', .. I had to cover my kids eyes at the zoo on a few occasions on that one. But look how differently you and I perceive all this, you call that 'creativity', while when you observe this beautiful planet, with all the beautiful birds and animals, flowers, majestic mountains to valleys to waterfalls, and all you see is 'unplanned chaotic accident'. But the monkey screeching, or a whale squealing, ..oh it's poetry, a whole new language. Its not even called words, but whale-song.

There are many examples of interspecies altruism and cooperation. This is evidence for a natural explanation, not a supernatural one.

Yes, I enjoy watching nature shows, like when the African Buffalo come to the aid of another buffalo being attacked by lions, man, i find it amazing, or what dogs do to protect their owners, what natural or supernatural explanation is needed in that? Animals are amazing. But I sure as heck wouldn't watch an hour of adult humans do those things! I would expect a lot more from humans. I could watch monkeys throw their crap at people all day, but wouldn't spend a minute watching adult humans do that no matter how some artistic/scientific Evolutionist study may present it, whether in a song, a poem, rap, .. whatever. I give credit where credit is due; God created the animals for our amusement, and after the fall we use them too, like horses, farm animals for food and so on. But that's another topic.

This also proves that man (physical body with the breath of life, or spirit that gives it life) is created IN the Creators Image.

Unfounded conclusion, based upon ...what? No evidence provided for such a claim.

I explained this in detail remember, .. many times.

You’ve explained, but no evidence or proof was provided.

You mean none that could be accepted by someone whose religion doesn't allow him to believe in God, right?

Observing the created creator man reveals two things;
1. there is a physical/biological element, and
2. there is a spiritual, limitless, unmeasurable element, the mind.

Point #2 is baseless. Please provide evidence of a spiritual mind.

Keep following the Blue Brain project, and the hundreds of other Trans human, Post-human billion $ projects, maybe you'll see what I mean? Surely there has to be something besides the billions of years ago Big-bang theory and the Evolution theory that you can accept as evidence? You do believe in gravity I hope? Well do you believe that, they have found that gravity may have waves too? You know, if boats and ducks can have waves, then why couldn't gravity and light have waves?

I explained the mind, there are literally hundreds of scientific projects working on extracting the mind from the brain (no they are not spreading brain on a CD disk with a butter knife) so it's not the brain they are hoping to capture but the spiritual mind.

Upon analysis we notice that the physical body responds to the spiritual commands of the mind.

Please provide evidence of “spiritual commands�.

When you tell your wife; "Honey, can you get me a beer from the fridge, NOW! .. sorry, Hon, .. I meant pleease?"

Stephen Hawking's is a good example what dominates, or rules, but I know, .. I know, no evidence provided.

I have no idea what you mean here.

Since you didn't show what I was responding to, .. neither do I. Let's just put a pin in that one too; 'pop!' gone, who cares, .. not like suddenly you would accept anything I say as evidence, right?

Logically a CREATOR would have to be un-created, with the ability to create anything and everything without any restrictions, which I have shown is the Mind, which is Infinite.

Why? If, by your logic, man creates and imagines (like god in your analogy above) and man was created, so why not god also being created? Your logic breaks down.

No, my logic never past stage one with anyone here, even though I explained it many times remember, in the difference between the Creator and the created creator. But we would have to pass the "ladder going into infinity being called an infinite ladder (numbers, sets, etc), or the universe expanding into infinity being called Infinite.
Or the hands on a clock rotating keeping time throughout eternity being called Eternal clock.

This just seems like you dodged my point.

Do you know how many times you and others asked that already? Look, I mention it again, the difference between the Eternal Creator and the finite creator, .. and no, I'm not chasing you any longer.

And all the different scientific studies and attempts to capture the 'mind' is another proof that it is outside, or besides the brain.

You were presented with proof showing the brain in a creative mode, in other words proof that the mind can create and it originates within the brain. Please present proof that the mind is outside the body.

And remember I refused that 'brain created mind' as an erroneous claim, because the brain is connected to all the organs, muscles, extremities, which would mean that they too would have to have individual memory, to be able to reason and express their desires and send it to the brain. Like I said if the hand wanted to create something, it would have to tell the brain, and the brain would then have to summon all the other parts to help out the hand.

You can refuse all you want, all that means is that you are putting your head in the sand and denying evidence. Not a strong argument to make. You were presented evidence that it happens. Denying it doesn’t change the fact that it happened.

Please show that the body parts have memory, or retract your claim, .. lol, like that would ever happen from someone who believes that time alone created man from a single celled bacteria, .. lol.

I said the mind is separate from the body, not actually outside of it.

And yet you were shown proof that the brain did create.

You know very well that you showed no such thing. Now again, .. what is it that they want to put on disk, or on a memory stick? Is it a brain, or the mind the soul of man? If the brain creates the mind, they would be spreading that 'creative part' of the brain on disk with a butter knife, and that's not what I see them doing!?

I know what they're doing, there is the magic-delusion part of creating a brain in a computer, then they will take all the information they can on a person, character traits, job, family history, .. then they will make a program to mimic that human with a 3-D hologram of his face, and fool people like the psychic readers/witches talking to the dead do, and wha-la, daddy is eternal now.

Johnny: "Hello daddy! How are you feeling? Is the cancer gone?"

Daddy: ".. he .. hello! is that you Elizabeth? Hi kids, .. Johnny, did you do your homework?"

Family: "YEEEAAAaaa! Daddy is OK living in a Matrix, yeah! Me too mommy, I want to go with Daddy, pleeeasee?"

Also, because the mind is spirit, you could put a thousand minds/spirits into a body.

Your opinion is noted.

Just explaining how things are and how they work.

The problem is not that there is not enough evidence of our Creator, but that man refuses to humbly accept it.

I submit that god then isn't trying hard enough. As you say, if it is easy for him to make a donkey talk, it should be even easier for him to show me he exists. Why not a little nudge when I was still unsure about my faith? And yet .... nothing.

That's exactly how I used to think, until I realized that He was always 'nudging' me, and He is also nudging all of us. Only it's not to a point to interfere with our free will, that would be annoying. Even though God is not pushy, He gets blamed for it anyways, even from those that swear up and down that God does not exist.

Well, then. I submit that the picture you paint of god is one that is woefully incompetent. He could very easily show me (or many others) proof without impacting free will. Or is your god not that powerful?

He could stop all evil deeds, evil intentions, even us thinking about anything evil, .. but then you would just say: God is too powerful! We want to have free will, we want to hide from this All-seeing All-knowing God!
Read your Bible, it explains all that in there.

To deny the Creator, one has to deny the created,

If, by Created, you mean original thought, I disagree. I don't believe in god, and I do not deny original thought. It is completely compatible with how I see the world working.

Yes, .. you are correct that you only see the world, like you can only imagine the brain, .. and you are OK with that. Just like Newton's gravity, people have lived out many generations before gravity was identified, and if we took the word gravity out of the universe, what would change?

Describing gravity is only useful, or of any worth to those that work with it, consider it, use it, .. the same with God. People can go on living without the knowledge of God,

You seemed to have ignore my point. Did you mean that the created equals original thought?

Original Thought, do you mean like in Descartes' Theory of Ideas?
I just read about this in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it sounds interesting, only (the little I read, didn't see his conclusion, or if he came to a conclusion at all?)

My understanding of first thought, or that 'beginning of all creation' is the Son of God Word, for it was through whom all things were created by the Creator God.

Descartes paper on this looks like a 'worksheet', trying to define where ideas come from, categorizing them and so forth. I don't have such education, nor do I need it to explain God, creation, and who I am, I see it (understand it) but unfortunately you are either unable or unwilling to understand the basic foundation where all this is built on.
If you read and understood 1/2 of what these guys like Descartes and the rest wrote, you should be able to understand what I am trying really hard, .. and genuinely explaining to you in very simple terms, but (for the hundredth time) you refuse to leave your years of indoctrination even long enough to consider what I'm telling you, and I am sorry, but it is your belief that there is no God, no Creator, Big-bang is it because off the bs that has been built up on the wacked idea, it just has to be right!
Fine then, if you guys insist on your childish "I rather die then believe in God" faith so 'religulously' before you even give me a chance, .. it's your call. Just don't blame me, because I have thought about this, tested it, debated it enough to know that what I see both in the physical reality, and what I see with my mind is correct, and not ONE of you even came close to proving anything I said wrong.

Go ahead, you guys can pretend you did prove me wrong, .. or that I didn't give you enough evidence, but I really believe we all know I did. Yes, I also hate religion and all their ideas of gods that has distanced man from his Creator, but sorry to tell you buddy, you have never left your religious beliefs, you just found and reinforced yourself in another religion.

As far as I am concerned, I have proven my claim on the "Undeniable and Scientific evidence of The Creator"

I did NOT, not in any way said He was any of the Christian gods, or the Christian interpretation of Bible God, and I have made that very clear, time and again. I have revealed the Creator, the Only God Possible, and patty general comments like "no you didn't, .. were still waiting for evidence, .. you can't change dictionary definitions of words (because as I have shown the Religions of the world have done enough of that already)

.. and that is exactly what we have in this Big-bang Evolution fairytale. The word 'created' is slowly being removed from creation and replaced with: "It just happened!" Now how it happened is replaced with stories of assumptions which could never be proven since it happened billions of years ago. Hey, .. it's not the scientists fault for not being able to live for 14 billion years and to have observed and document the Big-bang,

The only assumption I see here is yours linking Big Bang and Evolution. This shows you don't understand either.

The circle continues ...

For the life of me I don't see how the gasses that you guys claim evolved our universe and Earth within the 14 billion years cannot include biological evolution?
When you say 4.5 billion years ago that life appeared on earth, is that 9.5 billion years 'after the Big-Bang'?

No, it is just like your sentence says: "4.5 billion years from now�. Why is that hard to understand?

You mean 4.5 billion years ago from now? Wouldn't that be 9.5 billion years after the Big-bang?

As I asked here next:

Or it really has no connection with the expansion and the evolution of the universe? Like could we say; "2 billion years after the Big Bang biological life appeared and time passed at different speeds for the universes evolution and biological evolution, and that's why it is not a good idea to conflict the two?

I grow tired of continuously separating Big Bang and evolution for you. I no longer have the desire to respond to your continuous mish-mashing of the two (different) scientific principles.

Either you can debate in good faith, or you can’t. Your choice.

All the best,

Then why don't you show me why the two are so important to KEEP SEPERATE? Can you at least tell me what are the different scientific principles used in determining one story, .. sorry, 'theory' from the other?

Could biological evolution have happened even without a universe? (I believe someone actually mentioned something like that!?)

I know why, but hey, at least you could give it a shot and see if you guys can come up with a reasonable excuse why keep them separate? And then you can put it into Wikipedia to blind the next sucker, .. I mean seeker with.

Good faith? You mean accept your "there is no God, the universe and biological life was NOT created, and please present us your Undeniable scientific Evidence of The Creator, keeping our theories and stories of the BB and Evolution as WE defined them, and as scientifically proven facts,.. your choice arian?

Love you guys, take care.

[arian]

Since religion took over science, where all science is interpreted by and through the Big-bang Evolution religions indoctrination, you will most likely never hear a headline "Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator", but you still have no excuse, because the evidence is right before you!

So, not only are most scientists in on the global conspiracy, but all the news media as well. Gotcha.

And since I have never seen, nor has anyone claimed to see things popping out of nothing and just creating itself, only can mean one thing; everything was created, even if we don't see them Japanese make the cars, .. most likely they too designed it like we do here in US.

You don't like the idea that things can pop out of nothing. I feel for you.
But just because you don't like some idea, means NOTHING about any other idea. Sorry, kid. That doesn't add up. You are making a huge non sequitur leap of logic that cannot be followed. Would you LIKE to make a reasoned argument?

So these religious people come up with some really laughable billions of years ago, before time existed, in a point in space before space existed and BANG! A Really BIG BANG stories and pass it off as scientific observation

So, no. You don't understand the science you want to talk about.

Hello Blastcat, did you mean this post for me, because I'm the one who said those things? Or you want YahDough to answer them?

Thanks.

[lamar1234]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

What a true statement.

So, when someone does, you and I will both cheer for them, no?

[lamar1234]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

So already the hypothesis that life had not always existed has a clear advantage of being more likely to be true.

Please tell me who debates this with you and you and I shall utterly defeat them.

If anyone were to claim that there were, in fact, life, then you and I will close them down with our iron-clad logic.

I'm on your side, here, dude.

[lamar1234]

[Replying to post 454 by lamar1234]

I spoke so poorly.

If anyone were to claim that there was life before there was, in fact, life.

Clearly a ridiculous proposition.

[KenRU]

Since it doesn't seem like my opponents on this topic desire to honestly and fairly debate, but belittle, alter, ignore and even mock my in-depth and clear analogies,"

I hope this wasn't directed at me, Arian. If so, please find a post of mine and show me where I didn't debate "honestly and fairly", "belittled" "altered" or "mocked" and I will promptly apologize.

In fairness, I have ignored some of your posts, but it was mostly as a result of a hopeless feeling of redundancy.

Our posts have gotten tediously and pointlessly long. So, for expediency's sake, I'm only responding to one passage that I feel important. If you feel that you would like to pursue a different one, please query it again, and I will be happy to respond.

The problem is not that there is not enough evidence of our Creator, but that man refuses to humbly accept it.

I submit that god then isn't trying hard enough. As you say, if it is easy for him to make a donkey talk, it should be even easier for him to show me he exists. Why not a little nudge when I was still unsure about my faith? And yet .... nothing.

That's exactly how I used to think, until I realized that He was always 'nudging' me, and He is also nudging all of us. Only it's not to a point to interfere with our free will, that would be annoying. Even though God is not pushy, He gets blamed for it anyways, even from those that swear up and down that God does not exist.

Well, then. I submit that the picture you paint of god is one that is woefully incompetent. He could very easily show me (or many others) proof without impacting free will. Or is your god not that powerful?

He could stop all evil deeds, evil intentions, even us thinking about anything evil, .. but then you would just say: God is too powerful!

Actually, no I wouldn't. If an omnipotent being revealed himself to me (along with the knowledge of which religion were accurate), I would immediately head to the nearest Mosque, Temple, Church, or Sacred Grove.

But you dodged my question. He could easily reveal himself (like in many of the bible tales) without impacting free will. I could have easily remained a believer, with a little nudge in the right direction at the right time.

We want to have free will, we want to hide from this All-seeing All-knowing God!

Perhaps you do. But I'm not hiding from anything. In fact, most atheists I know search for knowledge, and would welcome new information. This is counter to what most major religions desire.

Read your Bible, it explains all that in there.

I have read many parts (but not all) of the bible. And so far, no, the answers are not forthcoming.

-All the best,

-Ken

[Blastcat]

Hello Blastcat, did you mean this post for me, because I'm the one who said those things? Or you want YahDough to answer them?

Thanks.

Yes, I am new here and still quite challenged as to how to quote someone.. and respond. So, if you did write the things I'm quoting incorrectly ( working on that )..you can assume that I am writing to you. Sorry for being such a newb at this.

[Starman]

You don't like the idea that things can pop out of nothing. I feel for you.
But just because you don't like some idea, means NOTHING about any other idea. Sorry, kid. That doesn't add up. You are making a huge non sequitur leap of logic that cannot be followed. Would you LIKE to make a reasoned argument?

So you DO "like the idea that things pop out of nothing?" Please provide evidence of things on earth "popping out of nothing." Explain such events using scientific precepts and considerations. Don't just MOUTHE the word "science" and pretend that it makes you erudite. SHOW IT. For a change.

So, no. You don't understand the science you want to talk about.

Your ad hominem attack of course goes unchallenged by the moderators. The leftist hypocrisy is sickening. You spoke not a single word of science and then talk down on others, as is so common not only here, but nationwide. Stalin would have approved. He and Hitler loved Darwinian racism and the prospect of a superior breed, or ubermenschen. Today leftists consider themselves ubermenschen.... "understand(ing) the science" even when they don't mention a word of it.

[Danmark]

Don't just MOUTHE the word "science" and pretend that it makes you erudite. SHOW IT. For a change.
....
Your ad hominem attack of course goes unchallenged by the moderators. The leftist hypocrisy is sickening. You spoke not a single word of science and then talk down on others.... Stalin would have approved. He and Hitler....

If you think a post deserves moderator attention, pleas. report it. The rest of your post is full of personal attacks and blanket statements. Comparing people to Hitler and Stalin is not civil.

Moderator Warning



Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.