"I am NOT an animal"

[Zzyzx]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

[Blastcat]

Christianity teaches (some) to say NO to the wickedness IN us and in others, and directs us to The Perfect (undefined unbound) Objective, which is GOD.

Materialism, however intelligent, however "provable" will not over ride the reality of evil IN man, and as such MAN is not to be entirely trusted.

It's a fairly simple pretext to "hold" internally, and the basis of christian freedom, internal, directed to the non-material in recognition of the reality of evil and subjectivity.

In short, no christian will bow to any supposed PRIMACY of material impositions or the evil contained in the viewers.

We, for the most part know that something always smells "fishy" with man and it ain't fish. As much as the materialist seeks to dominate the sphere.

Ok... first off. Just an easy one for you to correct.
I'm sure you mean no disrespect BUT

could you at least quote my NICKNAME correctly?
It's Blastcat.. not blastc.

thank you.

Ok.. on to your points.

1. You now change your argument.

You now say that Humans ARE NOT PERFECT.. you just said above in the last post that humans WERE perfect. Can you make up your mind.. were you WRONG when you said that humans were perfect? Are you MAKING a correction here?

2.Your terms are vague and meaningless.

"The Perfect (undefined unbound) Objective, which is GOD."

- what does THAT mean?

We are going to be as undefined as GOD?.. were going to become gods?.. is that what Christianity says?

This is a new twist on Christianity.. the biggest SIN is to want to be like God.. so.. what's up with that?

I can't make heads or tails of this.

Undefined. unbound.. yes I know you don't like to be pinned down by any logic at all. You would prefer to just make statements. Forget if they make sense.. It's all about the fun of writing.

But debates are about discussing IDEAS using LOGIC and REASONING.

So, your dismissal of logic and reasoning.. means you aren't IN a debate.. so.. what ARE you doing here?

3. Your focus is still only on the evil in humans.

Materialism, however intelligent, however "provable" will not over ride the reality of evil IN man, and as such MAN is not to be entirely

trusted.

- WHAT IS THIS new dichotomy?

Materialism causes evil?.. I thought it was SATAN..

AND NOW.. YOU still focus ONLY on the EVIL IN MAN... this is your focus. this is what I was cautioning you about. Your VIEW OF MANKIND IS HORRIBLY FIXATED ON ONE SIDE ONLY.

and that's the evil side.

you focus on evil, it's as if you can ONLY talk about the evil in humans.

Just like the SHALLOW or superficial Christians you call HYPOCRITES...
I think when you read.. some words are invisible to you?

4. Word Salad

It's a fairly simple pretext to "hold" internally, and the basis of christian freedom, internal, directed to the non-material in recognition of the reality of evil and subjectivity. In short, no christian will bow to any supposed PRIMACY of material impositions or the evil contained in the viewers.

Again, I can't bring myself to unpack that for meaning. WHAT are you saying?
EVIL contained in the viewers?

BOW TO .. the supremacy of MATERIALISM?.. BOW TO?

As if you could change reality by holding a different OPINION about it?

This is what happens to someone who abandons reason. ANYTHING GOES NOW.
LOGIC is out the door, feeling is what really matters, and reality is anything and everything.. just an opinion.

I can't take any of this seriously, first off, I can't even UNDERSTAND most of it.. and second of all it QUITE LITERALLY MAKES NO SENSE..and in FACT

you seem to value irrationality and a lack of good logic.
So, when it comes to USING RATIONALITY AND GOOD LOGIC

you have FAILED UTTERLY.

Im not happy about this.
I think you have abandoned reason altogether. And that's not good.

LOVE IS GOOD.. abandoning reason is NOT good.

GIVE REASON another chance.. it wont bite.
Give the rules of logic a chance.
You might LIKE the results.. people might start to AGREE with you a bit more

Instead of.. constantly arguing and not comprehending you in any way.

Good luck with that

[Blastcat]

This little video is pretty good in explaining that there is more to man then this body:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk

That video explained no such thing. All it did is argue that the universe was designed. Design in no way implies mind/body dualism in humans.

Yes it does, to me anyways since it is clear that just by observing the universe around me reveals a 'Creator'.

Then your opinion has NOTHING to do with the video.
What you base your belief on is your revelation.

Now about that stunningly honest confession of a huge personal confirmation bias... we know. We know that creationists use bad reasoning.

What you have just said demonstrates it. Allow me to explain my reasoning to you.
NOTICE THAT I'VE SAID "EXPLAINED".. because this is what you DON'T do in your statement. You don't explain ANYTHING.. but you have and purport to give the ILLUSION of an explanation.

IT IS CLEAR TO YOU THAT ( so this is clearly explained? ) JUST BY OBSERVING THE UNIVERSE AROUND YOU.... ( because JUST observing does all the work ) REVEALS A CREATOR.

Ok.. we have

1. AN OBSERVATION of the universe ( this is the one and only premise )
and
2. A CREATOR. ( the conclusion )

We go from ONE to TWO.. these are your only two premises.. one and two.

AND WHERE IS THE EXPLANATION IN THE MIDDLE?

Where is the whole ARGUMENT .. that we can see.. WHERE YOU ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE how you GOT from premise one to your conclusion?

Where is your WORK.. where do you get your CLARITY FROM? You said it was CLEAR to you.. WELL.. HOW is it clear to you?.. I see NO clarity at all. I see NO explanation at all.

It's not AT ALL clear at all how you GOT FROM 1. TO 2.

So, you have explained nothing. You have DISPLAYED your weird logical leap.. and your HUGE confirmation bias.. but you have explained absolutely nothing at all by your declaration.

I could say the ATHEIST version and it would be JUST as utterly unconvincing to anyone.. here goes:

JUST by observing the universe, it's CLEAR to me that there is no creator.

It's JUST SO to you.. and it's JUST SO to me.

Now.. who wins the battle of the JUST SO STORIES?

[squint]

Ok... first off. Just an easy one for you to correct.
I'm sure you mean no disrespect BUT

could you at least quote my NICKNAME correctly?
It's Blastcat.. not blastc.

Just shorter to type.

Ok.. on to your points.

1. You now change your argument.

You now say that Humans ARE NOT PERFECT.. you just said above in the last post that humans WERE perfect. Can you make up your mind.. were you WRONG when you said that humans were perfect? Are you MAKING a correction here?

And I'd suggest you didn't pay attention to the details of what "man" is as presented by the scriptures.

2.Your terms are vague and meaningless.

"The Perfect (undefined unbound) Objective, which is GOD."

- what does THAT mean?

You are welcome to try to insert some "subjective" insistence on what God "IS."

There is no "subjective" sight that will capture or encapsulate God. Sorry to disappoint the intentions.

we are going to be as undefined as GOD?.. were going to become gods?.. is that what Christianity says?

The ultimate end game is presented here, where "all" of the subjective/collectivity of creation is in God and God in all things. The Divine Marriage as it is sometimes proposed of the sum of all things, of all subjectivity bound with the Supreme Objective. Scriptures propose this as the "many waters" scenario or the 'completion' of the ages cycles. We may even notice that the Son is also a "subject" therein.

1 Cor. 15:
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

This is a new twist on Christianity.. the biggest SIN is to want to be like God.. so.. what's up with that?

I'm really not interested in dealing with various christian caricatures that are used to invoke fear and manipulation and threaten others with, to which you refer. They really aren't even in the scriptures as it pertains to Gods children, but the temporal powers that currently exist that are NOT Gods children.

I can't make heads or tails of this.

As noted prior, theologians and most of science engages matters, subjective and attempts at Objective reality, but the latter is and will remain out of the grasp of the materialist approaches and even religious ones.

Undefined. unbound.. yes I know you don't like to be pinned down by any logic at all.

Attempts to do so are pitiful, actually. Entirely subjective in their insistence that The Perfect Objective which is God must be subjected and subjectively pinned and proved, to make God their "known" slave of subjectivie encapsulations.

You would prefer to just make statements. Forget if they make sense.. It's all about the fun of writing.

But debates are about discussing IDEAS using LOGIC and REASONING.

Already noted the difficulties of subjective logic. Why are we circling?

Even some strict materialists have surmised for example that "all" of the knowledge of space, time, creation and the laws of the universe as we so far know it had to pre-exist, UNSEEN, in the theoretical void prior to creation.

Does that make it easier for you?

So, your dismissal of logic and reasoning.. means you aren't IN a debate.. so.. what ARE you doing here?

What are you doing here? Is that the sum of of sight?

3. Your FOCUS IS STILL ON THE EVIL IN HUMANS.

Uh, yeah. What's yer beef? Any blindman can derive that matter apart from any religion. Man's inhumanity is a scriptural presentation.

- WHAT IS THIS new dichotomy?

Materialism causes evil?.. I thought it was SATAN..

Materialism is what it is. The problems are always within the handlers regardless of any materialist quotients.

AND NOW.. YOU still focus ONLY on the EVIL IN MAN... this is your focus. this is what I was cautioning you about. Your VIEW OF MANKIND IS HORRIBLY FIXATED ON ONE SIDE ONLY.

Again, I note to you that "all" mankind are Gods children. But "in the flesh/mind and heart" that is not ALL that they consist of.

and that's the evil side.

No mystery there other than the fact that "man" is inherently drawn away from looking internally to the facts of it. Picture mans intelligence along side a nuclear explosion used to eradicate the masses and you'll see a picture of material science and the evil within man working in a nice little accelerated particle symbiosis.

you focus on evil, it's as if you can ONLY talk about the evil in humans.

And you appear to only hear what you want to hear.

Both good and bad come from within man. The direction of views are internal in nature. These are the directions that scriptures observe, the THOUGHT realm.

And within is where the power struggle always resided, as noted by many religions, legitimately. If material science can't prove it or control it, TOO BAAD.

It will remain a reality of man regardless.

[arian]

I don't consider evolution a religion, but a fact. The only point of contention is the origin of life. After that, we do evolve. People are different today that they were just 100's of years ago.

Different? So are domesticated dogs and horses, but they are still dogs and horses, right? Humans are different also, but they were humans and they remained humans, I believe we are talking about two different evolutions.

Regarding the idea (from the youtube video) that God must exist because the cosmological constant has to be so extremely fined tuned that it must have had a tuner -- to me this is simply another proof that man cannot understand infinity.

I myself would say that not only does man not understand infinity, he doesn't understand odds.

Infinity in itself doesn't have odds, nor does the Infinite Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit God, He dreams up, plans it all out, then designs and creates 'everything' that He created. He didn't create trillion things and see which one will become something useful, He Intelligently Designed everything down to the smallest particles, gasses, atoms, .. everything was planned out and designed.

So it is either an intelligent Designer, or 'nothing', and as Z said, I know a lot about nothing, it exists as 'nothing', .. not 'something', just as infinity is not some creative power, no matter how long we wait for something to appear in it? But since God is not just infinite, but an Infinite Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit who is aware of Himself as "I Am Who I Am", now we got the room; 'infinity', we got time as in 'Eternity', we have consciousness and the creative power of "I Am Who I Am", and now anything is possible, for as long as desired.

I would suggest that if the odds of everything occurring absolutely perfectly so that the odds of our universe being created by chance were one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion; then those would be good odds within the bounds of infinity!

You see, think about it my friend; what do you think that: one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion; Are?
What, dots on a dice?
Oh I know, it is everything we presently have in the universe, every atom and cell that makes up the universe!? But in this case the universe is already here, what does chance or odds have anything to do with it?

It's like that junk yard filled with old cars, refrigerators, toasters, old TV's etc, .. then having a tornado go through that and create by chance a brand new working 747 jetliner. Even though I used this example, this is NOT how I see what the Big-bang creationists visualize the odds in their chance out of 'infinity', and as you say, which would be pretty good odds, but you are assuming infinity is loaded with stuff, like what the universe is made out of?
It is NOT. Infinity is just that, infinity. Not dots on a dice, not infinite amounts of material we could create a universe out of, Infinite is the space finite created things can reside in!

Infinity is like an empty space to create things in. Your mind is Infinite, and what you dream and come up with are the things that appear in your infinite/mind.

Here is how in your case odds work; first you would have to create in your infinite mind, .. ah, let's say a Higgs boson, .. this will now give the odds of a Higgs boson appearing in 'Infinity' at 100%.

Now could we increase the odds of a universe evolving within Infinity by creating two Higgs bosons?
Nope, only now we have two Higgs bosons. There is no odds in having two Higgs bosons, we created them, so the odds are 100% that we have two Higgs bosons in Infinity.

Now can Infinity create a universe out of those two Higgs bosons?
Again, no.
All Infinity does is contain the Higgs bosons, it has no creative power. Infinity is like space, but we know even space is filled with stuff.
What's in Infinity? God, .. just as what is in your mind; "You".

And there are probably uncountable universes.

But man limits what he cannot understand. So that no other universes can exist by our definition of the universe as all of time and space.

I would say; 'Man makes up things for the things he cannot understand.'

I can think up of as many universes as I wish, or that you would ask me to imagine, so if even I could do that, then so can the Creator. I know there is Heaven which I doubt is part of this universe, so It's not me limiting the possibilities of creation.

But the possibilities of multiverses being formed in infinity, which were created by infinity itself, is ludicrous.

Now, some want to prove God by claiming that our universe could not exist without someone to do this fine tuning. That is, it could not happen by chance.

Lol, .. OK, let's say I gave you a trillion dice with trillions of sides on it, each numbered to a trillion, what would be the odds of rolling a '2015 Cadillac'??
Don't you need things, and something to make those things come together as a .. let's say a 747?
In that scenario we have a junk yard full of 'stuff', and then we have the tornado, but what you guys are saying is that 'no junk yard full of stuff, no tornado, no nothing except maybe a Higgs boson, and that because it is in 'Infinity' it will eventually, given enough time, will become our universe!? You see, now to me that's funny.

But if that's the case, that proof of God places limits on an omnipotent God as there is only the one universe by definition.

I don't put a limit on God, if He created a trillion different universes, one more amazing then the other, so be it. But to say that infinite created billions of universes, that is absurd.

========================================================================

Regarding man being more than an animal:

The false idea that all mankind is born with an immortal part which lives forever has destroyed what was meant to be Christianity. Here's why:

If man lives forever, he must reside somewhere. Christian theologians assign heaven as the eternal home of those who believe in Jesus Christ, while all others are condemned eternally to hell.

However, spiritual bodies such as the soul do not experience pain. It is simply not fair that nonbelievers live for eternity in hell with no corporal punishment! Therefore, let's reunite the soul with an incorruptible physical body at the resurrection. This physical body can suffer pain but never die. Now nonbelievers can experience excruciating pain every second for eternity.

I say that it is the body that doesn't experience pain. Yes, the skin, muscle maybe burning on the stove, and the sensation is sent to the brain and then the spirit/mind interprets it, so blasphemers and mockers of Gods Word will experience anguish and pain in that hell before they get their new bodies.

Ah, the complete and perfect system!

Yes, .. God doesn't disappoint anyone, He aims to please whether people choose Christ so they could spend eternity with God, or that 'other' place without Him.

"Christian" churches and organizations who teach such nonsense should be held accountable for the damage they cause.

According to the Bible, there are two type of bodies, physical and spiritual. And the physical comes first and may be followed by the spiritual. Man is an animal which will perish unless he is born again into the everlasting spiritual world.

Man was created in Gods 'image', as an animal? OK!? So animals do go to Heaven?

It's the old KISS principle. But man likes to complicate things so he can falsely appear to be intelligent when he explains these "mysteries."

KISS principle?

Hello Myth-one, hope all is well with you.

All is really great! Thanks for asking.

Hope it's the same with you and yours!!

God Bless!

God bless you too my friend.

[Blastcat]

Ok... first off. Just an easy one for you to correct.
I'm sure you mean no disrespect BUT

could you at least quote my NICKNAME correctly?
It's Blastcat.. not blastc.

Just shorter to type.

So, forget about my request for RESPECT.. FOR ONE LETTER... YOU'RE too LAZY TO TYPE ONE MORE LETTER OR HUMOR MY SMALL REQUEST TO BE TREATED RESPECTFULLY?

I have no respect for that kind of behavior.

Ok.. on to your points.

1. You now change your argument.

You now say that Humans ARE NOT PERFECT.. you just said above in the last post that humans WERE perfect. Can you make up your mind.. were you WRONG when you said that humans were perfect? Are you MAKING a correction here?

And I'd suggest you didn't pay attention to the details of what "man" is as presented by the scriptures.

I'd suggest otherwise. Now what.. do you think you've made a POINT here by your pointless accusation?

2.Your terms are vague and meaningless.

"The Perfect (undefined unbound) Objective, which is GOD."

- what does THAT mean?

You are welcome to try to insert some "subjective" insistence on what God "IS."

I don't DO that because I don't think that any GOD exists.. but if you can't even DEFINE what it is you are trying to PROVE exists, then you have FAILED.. so, now what?

There is no "subjective" sight that will capture or encapsulate God. Sorry to disappoint the intentions.

If your intentions was to CLARIFY anything .. you have disappointed, utterly.

we are going to be as undefined as GOD?.. were going to become gods?.. is that what Christianity says?

The ultimate end game is presented here, where "all" of the subjective/collectivity of creation is in God and God in all things. The Divine Marriage as it is sometimes proposed of the sum of all things, of all subjectivity bound with the Supreme Objective. Scriptures propose this as the "many waters" scenario or the 'completion' of the ages cycles. We may even notice that the Son is also a "subject" therein.

When you use weird terms like subjective/collectivity that aren't defined at all... I have to wonder if you intend to be understood at all. NO.. I don't know what you mean. And the rest of that paragraph seems to BATHE in vague generalities that I can't be bothered to decipher.

Again... indulging in word salad does NOT help your case. You are trying to CONVINCE me or make me understand your position. You are failing to do so repeatedly. And it doesn't seem to concern you at all. When I ask for clarity on one point, you pretend to explain it by saying something even MORE vague and incomprehensible.

This is a new twist on Christianity.. the biggest SIN is to want to be like God.. so.. what's up with that?

I'm really not interested in dealing with various christian caricatures that are used to invoke fear and manipulation and threaten others with, to which you refer. They really aren't even in the scriptures as it pertains to Gods children, but the temporal powers that currently exist that are NOT Gods children.

And again, you have no problem invoking the No True Scotsman Argument. .. No respect for logic.. making logical fallacies is NOT a problem for you. You don't intend to be understood at all... repeating logical failures means nothing to you.

But they DO TO ME... and to anyone ELSE who values reason.

"Genesis 3:4 “You will certainly not die,� the serpent said to the woman. 5 “God knows that when you eat fruit from that tree, you will know things you have never known before. Like God, you will be able to tell the difference between good and evil.�"

As it says in the Bible.. the talking snake tells Adam that he will be "like god"... knowing right from wrong.. apparently, knowing right from wrong LIKE THIS GOD is a sin.

Go figure. But that's what it says. Dispute the Bible if you want.

I can't make heads or tails of this.

As noted prior, theologians and most of science engages matters, subjective and attempts at Objective reality, but the latter is and will remain out of the grasp of the materialist approaches and even religious ones.

Again. WHAT?

You think that science is engaged in SUBJECTIVE truths?... You don't think science is interested in what can be known OBJECTIVELY...

And EVEN RELIGIOUS thinkers can't figure out what a god is?... or how to prove that one even exists?

So.. we should listen to YOUR advice about all of this?... WHY THEN SHOULD WE?

I think we most certainly should NOT.

Undefined. unbound.. yes I know you don't like to be pinned down by any logic at all.

Attempts to do so are pitiful, actually. Entirely subjective in their insistence that The Perfect Objective which is God must be subjected and subjectively pinned and proved, to make God their "known" slave of subjectivie encapsulations.

You can't define GOD and then you define God.. ohhh boy.
And you know that this GOD of yours is PERFECTLY OBJECTIVE and ... what?

Subjected and subjectively pinned down?... AND PROVED ?????

How..?

What subjective method are you using?... And why should anyone CARE about your subjective method?... Why should ANYONE care about a purely subjective "proof"? I can't even tell if you are a Christian or not, by this paragraph.

You meant to communicate something?.. Well, it didn't work.. All I got was ... word salad YET AGAIN.

And, yes, attempts at proving god ARE pitiful.. at least I can understand and agree with THAT statement. You've demonstrated that logic has NOTHING to do with your god belief.

And you STILL want to pretend to be logical about subjectivity?... you can't do that by embracing CONTRADICTIONS and making all sorts of logical errors.

I would suspect EACH AND EVERY idea of yours to be grounded in NO LOGIC at all.. or poor logic at best. Sorry, but this is simply an admission of abject failure on your part to prove anything at all.

You would prefer to just make statements. Forget if they make sense.. It's all about the fun of writing.

But debates are about discussing IDEAS using LOGIC and REASONING.

And you have completely abandoned logic and reasoning.. so yeah.. what are you DOING in here? You don't MAKE SENSE. You don't USE LOGIC.. So.. what?

Already noted the difficulties of subjective logic. Why are we circling?

Subjective logic...The kind YOU use?.. this subjective kind of logic where TRUTH equals FALSEHOOD?

You can't communicate ANY kind of idea using purely subjective language and logic. Sorry. I am not circling. You are avoiding logic.

That makes you completely irrelevant to any LOGICAL discussion. You are OUT of the reasoned debate.. because you IGNORE the use of proper logic and reason.

You've ABANDONED reason altogether.. So, no, you are not discussing logically, you aren't discussing at all.. you are merely presenting your ideas.. with no REGARD as to their logic.

Even some strict materialists have surmised for example that "all" of the knowledge of space, time, creation and the laws of the universe as we so far know it had to pre-exist, UNSEEN[/u], in the theoretical void prior to creation.

Does that make it easier for you?

NOT AT ALL.. and I don't even know what you are referring to by "IT".. what is the IT that you want to make easier for me?

What does your weird view of science have anything at all to do with this discussion?.. Is it just NON SEQUITURS with you?

So, your dismissal of logic and reasoning.. means you aren't IN a debate.. so.. what ARE you doing here?

What are you doing here? Is that the sum of of sight?

No, it isn't. I am asking you why you are in a debate site if you don't or can't debate. You WONT use logic.. so what's the point?.. Any reasonable person will shoot you down immediately for NOT USING LOGIC.

You can't pretend to be LOGICAL when you DISSOCIATE yourself from logic.
So, that was a question.. what are you DOING here?

Because it can't be DEBATE..and it can't be REASONED discussion.. it certainly isn't going to be discussing LOGIC... You have ABANDONED logic.

So .. what's left?.. I'm actually asking. that's what I DO when I want to find out an answer from someone.

3. Your FOCUS IS STILL ON THE EVIL IN HUMANS.

Uh, yeah. What's yer beef? Any blindman can derive that matter apart from any religion. Man's inhumanity is a scriptural presentation.

MY BEEF is that you are horribly inconsistent and illogical, and seemingly oblivious to this one point. Man's INHUMANITY?...

Materialism is what it is. The problems are always within the handlers regardless of any materialist quotients.

WITHIN THE HANDLERS.. what HANDLERS are you talking about?.. animal trainers?.. Materialist QUOTIENTS? Is it just me ... or do other people tell you that you talk exceedingly strangely?... you sound like an alien. I can't understand HALF of what you say..

AND NOW.. YOU still focus ONLY on the EVIL IN MAN... this is your focus. this is what I was cautioning you about. Your VIEW OF MANKIND IS HORRIBLY FIXATED ON ONE SIDE ONLY.

Again, I note to you that "all" mankind are Gods children. But "in the flesh/mind and heart" that is not ALL that they consist of.

You couldn't BE less clear.

and that's the evil side.

No mystery there other than the fact that "man" is inherently drawn away from looking internally to the facts of it.

I don't understand.

Picture mans intelligence along side a nuclear explosion used to eradicate the masses and you'll see a picture of material science and the evil within man working in a nice little accelerated particle symbiosis.

So you DO think that mankind is evil then?.. You seem to IMPLY that humans are the same as a nuclear blast.. kinda destructive.

THAT WAS MY POINT.. that you ONLY focus on the negative aspects of humans.. and IGNORE the good. AS IF THE GOOD was non existent in humanity.

You are simply wrong. Humans are good too.
But you can't seem to STOP portraying mankind as ONLY EVIL.. that's all you do.. you OVER FOCUS ON EVIL.. it's like an obsession. And it's completely unrealistic.

And it's NASTY too.. what a horrible view of mankind you have .

you focus on evil, it's as if you can ONLY talk about the evil in humans.

And you appear to only hear what you want to hear.

No, I can ONLY READ WHAT YOU WRITE.. and that is SO VAGUE as to be almost meaningless from top to bottom. You even DISCOUNT logic and reasoning. It' not my fault that I don't understand your position. You aren't TRYING to communicate clearly.

Both good and bad come from within man. The direction of views are internal in nature. This are the directions that scriptures observe, the THOUGHT realm.

But mankind, in the VIEW of your religion, is evil. This is what you FOCUS ON.. and this is what the BIBLE focuses on. and the preachers.. Mankind HAS FALLEN according to your religion.. this is NOT a positive view of mankind.. THAT WAS MY POINT ALL ALONG HERE.

And within is where the power struggle always resided, as noted by many religions, legitimately. If material science can't prove it or control it, TOO BAAD. It will remain a reality of man regardless.

You say something has been NOTED as if it meant proved or even demonstrated. NOTING SOMETHING IS NOT PROVING SOMETHING IS TRUE or even an ATTMEPT AT giving any evidence for your position at all. It has been NEITHER.. What you say about religions and your own position are mere OPINIONS about mankind.. and it's a NASTY VIEW OF MANKIND.

I NOTE that you are wrong. How's THAT for noting something?

And IF science can't prove it .. IT'S all suddenly TRUE?

No.. that's just another logical failure.. this one is called the ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.. and you FAIL in your reasoning if you use that.

And you just HAVE used it.

LOGICAL FAILURE is NOT an endorsement for your position.. and it's a particularity NASTY position.

[squint]

Perhaps you can whittle down your response to a couple of points of reference.

[arian]

This little video is pretty good in explaining that there is more to man then this body:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk

That video explained no such thing. All it did is argue that the universe was designed. Design in no way implies mind/body dualism in humans.

Yes it does, to me anyways since it is clear that just by observing the universe around me reveals a 'Creator'.

Then your opinion has NOTHING to do with the video.
What you base your belief on is your revelation.

Now about that stunningly honest confession of a huge personal confirmation bias... we know. We know that creationists use bad reasoning.

You see, you just throw me in there with 'creationists'. Since I mention the Bible, .. I am religious, and since I mention God, hey I must be a theist, and in no way could I be scientific, .. unless, .. unless I was a Catholic or a Jesuit like Georges Lemaitre.

I explained what the video was about, reveals more paradoxes in the Big-bang story.
I have explained that my understanding of God is based on scientific observation rather than 'religion', remember? Religion requires that you believe in their interpretation of God on faith alone, they even admit that their god/gods are not comparable/comparable to any 'scientific explanation', nor could their god/gods be explained through science.

Could it be that you are just labeling me before you even understand what I am saying? I am probably the most misunderstood person on this forum, and even though I admit that I have very little formal education, I can reason and I see that it is not me, but the power of education/religious indoctrination that has blinded you intelligent people from seeing what I am saying here.

I have addressed the contradictions in dictionary/encyclopedia definitions of 'infinite', of the meaning and existence and the importance of 'nothing', of eternity, of time, the mind, and many other things which are critical in first understanding my concept, it is the very foundation in understanding our Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit God, but I keep getting the same-o, same-o bad categorizing.

What you have just said demonstrates it. Allow me to explain my reasoning to you.
NOTICE THAT I'VE SAID "EXPLAINED".. because this is what you DON'T do in your statement. You don't explain ANYTHING.. but you have and purport to give the ILLUSION of an explanation.

OK, .. stop right there, "illusion of an explanation". What if, what you see as an 'illusion' is actually the real explanation, but you only see it through the fog. This would make sense right?
I know that you believe I may be wrong, or just another religious rant or whatever, sure, but I am telling you that I see you don't understand me by what I read from your responses. I KNOW this because of the fog I see in your eyes, which I call programming which is heavily influenced by the religions so prevalent in society today. And yes, especially today, just look around you. Look at people, what they wear, what symbols they portray, the tattoos, the media, the music, the movies, .. all these are massages of how we think, or what the ruling party want's us to believe. Churches Christian or otherwise have their victims totally fooled.

IT IS CLEAR TO YOU THAT ( so this is clearly explained? ) JUST BY OBSERVING THE UNIVERSE AROUND YOU.... ( because JUST observing does all the work ) REVEALS A CREATOR.

Ok.. we have

1. AN OBSERVATION of the universe ( this is the one and only premise )
and
2. A CREATOR. ( the conclusion )

We go from ONE to TWO.. these are your only two premises.. one and two.

AND WHERE IS THE EXPLANATION IN THE MIDDLE?

You see, what you are looking for, that information in the middle is a physical explanation you have gotten used to, like the mind being the product of the brain, .. which of course evolved over the 4 billion some years by this Evolution story. Fog, all fog and no evidence.

Here is the basics, the foundation; "The Mind of man is who man IS, the body is a tent, a real nice tent to be able to experience, or actually to be able to better and more fully experience the world around us. Evolution is of the mind, NOT the body, but the mind.
To what heights we can 'evolve' to would sound like a sci-fi Star-Trek and beyond story. Imagine living out every fantasy man could imagine, including what he already imagined? But instead, we are constantly at war with our own mind, denying it and with it denying who we are.
It's the flesh against the spirit/mind, and until we look at this outside of religious indoctrinations, with a scientific mind as a reality, those religious stories will be the only thing we'll ever see.

What I meant was that if you look at creation (the things we can see, feel) is a good indication of a Creator, which I told you, that you can observe with your own mind, or with the spirit of your mind. Your mind IS of the Creator, and that we can create is proof.

But just as Richard Dawkins who opens up his sermon/seminar/debate or whatever with that God, or a Creator is stupid to even consider, he knocks that down right off the bat, because that is not part of his religion, he, like so many other religious priests fog up the real meaning of science. And since he claims to speak in the name of science (LOL) peoples minds are slowly brainwashed to think on those terms; science = stories of long, long time ago, so when truth is revealed by observation of the here and now, it's ignored, just as I said people do since the mention of God is associated with religion. It's all messed up, so this way religion can be passed off as science, and the religious gods and created-creators continue to rule the mind.

Where is the whole ARGUMENT .. that we can see.. WHERE YOU ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE how you GOT from premise one to your conclusion?

Where is your WORK.. where do you get your CLARITY FROM? You said it was CLEAR to you.. WELL.. HOW is it clear to you?.. I see NO clarity at all. I see NO explanation at all.

Tell me how much you understand of the Blue-Brain Project or any other associated project going on today in the world? what do you know of 'consciousness'?
Do you believe if a ladder goes off into infinity, that it is infinite? Another words how do you understand infinity? So far everyone I debated here believe there can be 'infinite numbers', or infinite this, or infinite that, do you believe we could have infinite number of stars, or anything finite/created as infinite?
Do you also believe that there can be multiple Infinites with different sizes?

If yes, the we haven't reached step 1. yet, and anything between 1. and 2. would not make any sense to you.

Just like explaining the un-Biblical Trinity Doctrine to a person who belongs to the Christian Religion, one guy who was Ministering on TV, internet, had his newspaper, taught and debated Christianity front of Colleges, has hundreds of YouTube Videos on all kinds of Christian vs. other religion subjects and debated other religionists for like 30 years, told me that "Even if God came down and told him Himself that the Trinity Doctrine was demonic (I told him it was demonic), I wouldn't believe it!"

You see, even though he admitted that the doctrine was un-Biblical, he accepted it more Biblical than the words in the Bible, .. the same with BB and the Evolution stories, people accept this un-observed unscientific stories more than my scientific explanation of Creator God.

It's not AT ALL clear at all how you GOT FROM 1. TO 2.

Like I said, it's because 1. is not yet clear to you.

So, you have explained nothing. You have DISPLAYED your weird logical leap.. and your HUGE confirmation bias.. but you have explained absolutely nothing at all by your declaration.

I could say the ATHEIST version and it would be JUST as utterly unconvincing to anyone.. here goes:

JUST by observing the universe, it's CLEAR to me that there is no creator.

I say if it works, it was created, who created it is besides the point at this early stage. If you can dissect, break or smash something and observe how it fits together and can take notes on it, wouldn't it be CLEAR it was created?

Besides, mine is NOT a theist version, that would be the Big-bang theory, a guy who believed in many theistic gods. He even studied theology, and one of those gods spoke to him from the supernatural realm and told him the BB story. I am a scientist, and anyone can have a scientific mind and do science.

Don't you see that science is now defined by the Big-bang theory and the Evolution theory?
Evolution = science
BB-theory = science, .. and this is without question, .. lol.

Just ask some College kids to give you an example of what science means to them, and they will tell you; "Well ah, .. the Big-bang Theory, or the Evolution theory would be good examples of science."

It's JUST SO to you.. and it's JUST SO to me.

Now.. who wins the battle of the JUST SO STORIES?

Science is not just so, but if I told you that this fruit under the cherry tree came about by fungi having sex over the past 600,000 years and a bunch of made up stories how it all evolved under that tree, THAT would be 'Just So Stories' my friend.

This is also the reason I know who I am, scientific observation tells me I am not just me body and brain, but even that DNA will tell you that I am NOT an animal. Just as if I put a leaf above my ear doesn't make me a tree, or just because a monkey has hands like me doesn't make me a monkey. Yes, every animal has the same breathing, eating, defecating construction, as if the same Creator made us all. But I know what a shock this is to you, but we men have been designed over all better then the animals, something like a big knife compared to a small Swiss Army Knife. We got a little bit of everything, but what really makes man different is the part created, or given from the Creator Himself, our 'mind'.

If you still have doubts as to who you are, weather an animal or a man, just go and talk to a monkey, debate with it, all shadows of doubt should vanish.

Take care.

[Blastcat]

This little video is pretty good in explaining that there is more to man then this body:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk

That video explained no such thing. All it did is argue that the universe was designed. Design in no way implies mind/body dualism in humans.

Yes it does, to me anyways since it is clear that just by observing the universe around me reveals a 'Creator'.

Then your opinion has NOTHING to do with the video.
What you base your belief on is your revelation.

Now about that stunningly honest confession of a huge personal confirmation bias... we know. We know that creationists use bad reasoning.

You see, you just throw me in there with 'creationists'. Since I mention the Bible, .. I am religious, and since I mention God, hey I must be a theist, and in no way could I be scientific, .. unless, .. unless I was a Catholic or a Jesuit like Georges Lemaitre.

No, I didn't throw you in with the creationists. If you talk LIKE a creationist.. sorry... It's only reasonable to call you one. Because if your beliefs match THEIR beliefs.. then you are a match....

I have explained that my understanding of God is based on scientific observation rather than 'religion', remember? Religion requires that you believe in their interpretation of God on faith alone, they even admit that their god/gods are not comparable/comparable to any 'scientific explanation', nor could their god/gods be explained through science.

Science doesn't go around proving god, so I have no idea what kind of science you would HAVE that proves a god. Creationists believe in a creator god and DENY evolution, just the way you do. You do the same as creationists.

And they also claim to use science.. that's the same as you.

You and they use the same arguments.. the same failed logic.

Scientific observation proves your god exists? .. HOW? YOU NEED TO TELL US HOW?.. if you have no HOW.. then you have not made a CASE AT ALL..

You SAID that you observe the universe and that makes it CLEAR TO YOU that a creator exists.. no explanation.. just an assertion..

Could it be that you are just labeling me before you even understand what I am saying?

It could be .. but it isn't the case. I READ your sentence.. and that's what I commented on. THAT ONE SENTENCE IS WHAT I COMMENTED ON...

I understand exactly what that sentence means.
I broke it down to you in DETAIL.. remember that part?

I am probably the most misunderstood person on this forum, and even though I admit that I have very little formal education, I can reason and I see that it is not me, but the power of education/religious indoctrination that has blinded you intelligent people from seeing what I am saying here.

It must be harsh to be so misunderstood.
You can reason.. but you can learn to reason WELL.. I've been trying to show you that you haven't done that in that one sentence.. and I tried to explain it to you.

You don't seem to understand how an argument works, and I'm sorry that I haven't been able to help you in that regard.

I tried.

But NO.. education is NOT a barrier to thinking.. it's the contrary. Learning really helps people think. And even though I am not formally educated, I have spent considerable time TRYING to learn how to think clearly. I know a thing or two about that.

I tried to help you. I'm no teacher. Sorry. But that does NOT mean that you have made a good logical case. It just means that you haven't been convinced by my argument.

But.. when I make an argument.. I at LEAST know that there has to be a BECAUSE before the conclusion.. an actual explanation.

Because anyone can just make conclusions.. The world is flat.. and so on.. but PROVING that our conclusions are true.. now.. that takes an explanation ..

You might think that

The sky is blue, therefore I like pizza is a valid argument. But it isn't.

That's exactly the formulation you've used for your creation argument. And make no mistake IT IS a creation argument. Just the kind of creation argument the CREATIONISTS make.

So, that's why i would lump you in with the creationists.. because you TALK EXACTLY LIKE ONE.

No other reason at all.. none. No prejudice.. no indoctrination.. i didn't get indoctrinated to say that your argument lacks an explanation. We didn't GET that in indoctrination school.

No, I was ONLY commenting on that one sentence. It's creationism. I've heard that kind of bad thinking over and over again from creationists.

You talk about a CREATOR.. and you "see" creation everywhere. This is what the creationists tell me almost every day. So, if you AREN'T a creationist.. then you've adopted one of their favorite tropes.

I have addressed the contradictions in dictionary/encyclopedia definitions of 'infinite', of the meaning and existence and the importance of 'nothing', of eternity, of time, the mind, and many other things which are critical in first understanding my concept, it is the very foundation in understanding our Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit God, but I keep getting the same-o, same-o bad categorizing.

And creationists talk about infinity too. Again, you agree with what they say. And they say it a lot. Infinity? you have problems with the concept? Well, JOIN the club.. but that problem does NOT prove any creator god in any way.

What you have just said demonstrates it. Allow me to explain my reasoning to you.
NOTICE THAT I'VE SAID "EXPLAINED".. because this is what you DON'T do in your statement. You don't explain ANYTHING.. but you have and purport to give the ILLUSION of an explanation.

OK, .. stop right there, "illusion of an explanation". What if, what you see as an 'illusion' is actually the real explanation, but you only see it through the fog. This would make sense right?

No, it makes NO sense.
You didn't explain anything at all.. and I tried to show you how you completely missed that part of your argument. Sorry that you don't know what a logical ARGUMENT should look like. At least I tried.

But if you don't believe me, you can look it up.. what is a logical argument and how to make one.. it's on the internet.. in a LOT of places.. Maybe in some places you can trust.. who knows?

In your non religious but scientific web sites?... go look there for logical arguments.

I know that you believe I may be wrong, or just another religious rant or whatever, sure, but I am telling you that I see you don't understand me by what I read from your responses. I KNOW this because of the fog I see in your eyes, which I call programming

Oh boy... you see a fog in my eyes.. and you have a name for that. Never mind my reasoning.. let's not talk about that.. let's talk about the fog you see.

In my eyes.

IT IS CLEAR TO YOU THAT ( so this is clearly explained? ) JUST BY OBSERVING THE UNIVERSE AROUND YOU.... ( because JUST observing does all the work ) REVEALS A CREATOR.

Ok.. we have

1. AN OBSERVATION of the universe ( this is the one and only premise )
and
2. A CREATOR. ( the conclusion )

We go from ONE to TWO.. these are your only two premises.. one and two.

AND WHERE IS THE EXPLANATION IN THE MIDDLE?

You see, what you are looking for, that information in the middle is a physical explanation you have gotten used to, like the mind being the product of the brain, .. which of course evolved over the 4 billion some years by this Evolution story. Fog, all fog and no evidence.

FIRST OFF. no the theory of evolution isn't fog.. it's TONS of reliable evidence.

No, what I am MISSING is your explanation that would enable us to follow you from 1 to 2.

There is NOTHING at all to connect 1 and 2.

This isn't an argument.. your conclusion isn't even demonstrated to be WRONG.. because it isn't EVEN wrong.. but it most certainly hasn't been DEMONSTRATED ( that's the middle part you've left out, the actual explanation ) to be TRUE.

With this LOGICAL structure.. we CANNOT say if you are right or wrong.
Ever.

Because you simply did not supply a method for us to verify your logic.
It's simply a non sequitur.

IT LITERALLY DOES NOT FOLLOW.. and that's the death of any case youre trying to make.

So, this isn't a failure on your part to show us any physical EVIDENCE for your claim, ( although you DON'T give us any of that ) but it's a COMPLETE FAILURE OF LOGIC.

This isn't about science not being able to demonstrate your god exists or not.. it's about your logical failure to make a cohesive and valid argument. So no matter WHAT your conclusion might be.. the way you went about to MAKE it.. means that we cannot agree with you.

It's not that we are saying your conclusion is wrong.. we are saying that you haven't SHOWED how it could be right. You haven't SHOWN us your reasoning. You've just SHOWED us your conclusion.

NOT your reasoning. There is NO reasoning here to LOOK AT... it should be placed between 1 and 2.

it should be 1. PREMISE, 2, PREMISE, 3, conclusion... at LEAST... it needs 3. Not 2.

You just cant GET to any kind of conclusion with just ONE premise.. it's not POSSIBLE logically.

That was my point. That the structure of your sentence wasn't at all LOGICAL.

And a statement that is ILLOGICAL.. just doesn't make any sense. That's what it means to not make sense.. That's why we have logic. Propositional logic helps us understand when someone makes a case.. if it even WORKS the way the person making it hopes it does.

And in your CASE.. no, you've completely failed to do that. I suggest a small course in argumentation. You will be very pleased with the results, I assure you.

Otherwise, you are stuck with ILLOGIC..
I hope you see a problem with denying logical structures.
I was trying to help you avoid that HUGE pitfall.

Debates are ABOUT using logic in the best possible way. So logic is IMPORTANT to you if you want to prove a point.. ANY POINT.. atheist or theist or.. whatever you call yourself.

Here is the basics, the foundation; "The Mind of man is who man IS, the body is a tent, a real nice tent to be able to experience, or actually to be able to better and more fully experience the world around us. Evolution is of the mind, NOT the body, but the mind.

The body is a tent. Wow.. amazing. What a lovely metaphor.. and that is supposed to serve as WHAT? Some PROOF.. some EVIDENCE.. so reason ?

If so.. can you explain HOW that works?

You now make another claim you need to defend.. now you have made your case MORE difficult to prove, NOT easier.

EVOLUTION IS OF THE MIND...

no, its a mechanism by which life changes over time... and speciation happens. If you mean that evolution is a CONCEPT.. yes, it's of the mind.. BUT EVOLUTION ISN"T ONLY in the mind.. it's in REALITY TOO.. science is about what is real..

And they can PROVE it... and they have for more than a hundred and fifty years of research and careful observations.

NONE of the data indicates the theory is wrong. ... IT ALL WORKS PERFECTLY... in fact, most scientists ( at least most biologists ) agree that it is probably the BEST scientific theory we humans HAVE.

So, it's not a trivial thing to deny that it's true. It's a HUGE claim to say that evolution isn't true.. And that's because of the overwhelming evidence FOR it.. that's evidence we can touch and see .. NOT just imagination...

We are talking about OBJECTS... not just speculation.. WE HAVE REAL DATA....

not just fantasy.... sorry.. you may have strange ideas about what scientists DO....

To what heights we can 'evolve' to would sound like a sci-fi Star-Trek and beyond story.

Science isn't about fantasy.. science isn't science FICTION.. Science is about the FACTS.. no fiction allowed. NONE.. so you have a weird idea of science if you think that science and science fiction are the same thing.

Imagine living out every fantasy man could imagine, including what he already imagined?

Science has nothing to do with your fantasies.

But instead, we are constantly at war with our own mind, denying it and with it denying who we are.

Constantly at war with our own mind? Please, feel free to speak for yourself. I am not at war with my own mind. I do NOT deny reality, I do NOT deny the science that studies reality, and I do NOT deny WHO I AM... don't project. Projecting your own problems onto others does NOT help your case.

It's the flesh against the spirit/mind, and until we look at this outside of religious indoctrinations, with a scientific mind as a reality, those religious stories will be the only thing we'll ever see.

We know that religions have been very wrong about a very large number of things.. SCIENCE has disproved many religious beliefs. And it continues to do so.

What I meant was that if you look at creation (the things we can see, feel) is a good indication of a Creator, which I told you, that you can observe with your own mind, or with the spirit of your mind. Your mind IS of the Creator, and that we can create is proof.

NO, your claim that my mind IS of the creator needs to be proved now.. you haven't explained anything, you've complicated your task to explain your first proposition greatly.

This didn't help you.. it hurt your case.

It's a clear INDICATION.. a hint.. ok.. well, you're going down in your certainty .. that's a start. Just don't stop .. Youve got a long way to go to catch up with actual science.

You want to tell me that a MIND is a SPIRIT.. I don't see the usefulness in switching words like that. I know minds exist. I don't know anything at all about any spirits. Do you have any evidence that any spirits exist?

But just as Richard Dawkins who opens up his sermon/seminar/debate or whatever with that God, or a Creator is stupid to even consider, he knocks that down right off the bat, because that is not part of his religion, he, like so many other religious priests fog up the real meaning of science.

Sorry, that diatribe against Dawkins doesn't prove your point. It only proves that you are willing to make an ad hominem attack on Dawkins JUST LIKE THE CREATIONISTS DO.

And you are saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is presupposing that a god does not exist. That's exactly what the CREATIONISTS say.. yet again, you align yourself almost perfectly with what the creationists say.

ALL THE TIME the creationists say these kinds of things..
You talk JUST like any creationist I have ever talked to.

And since he claims to speak in the name of science (LOL) peoples minds are slowly brainwashed to think on those terms; science = stories of long, long time ago, so when truth is revealed by observation of the here and now, it's ignored, just as I said people do since the mention of God is associated with religion. It's all messed up, so this way religion can be passed off as science, and the religious gods and created-creators continue to rule the mind.

You talk EXACTLY like a creationist. You aren't?

Are you SURE that you aren't?

But as to your point here.. You wont find many scientists who disagree with his take on science.. He gets criticized for a lot of things.. but his SCIENCE isn't one of them. He gets HIGH marks for his accuracy. You can TRUST Dawkins on the science. So, youre wrong there.

Where is the whole ARGUMENT .. that we can see.. WHERE YOU ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE how you GOT from premise one to your conclusion?

Where is your WORK.. where do you get your CLARITY FROM? You said it was CLEAR to you.. WELL.. HOW is it clear to you?.. I see NO clarity at all. I see NO explanation at all.

Tell me how much you understand of the Blue-Brain Project or any other associated project going on today in the world? what do you know of 'consciousness'?

I am talking here about your argument and how it fails.. I can understand that you might want to change the subject.. but I wont bite.. no i have NO idea about the Blue Brain thing.. and that's ok for now.. because the blue brain has NOTHING to do with your failed attempt to make a logical argument.

Do you believe if a ladder goes off into infinity, that it is infinite?

Infinity has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR FAILED ATTEMPT AT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT and neither does the blue brain thing.. and no i haven't heard of it. BUT MY IGNORANCE of something does NOT prove your point in any way at all.. you are making a logical fallacy. TO BE AVOIDED.. the argument from ignorance is a failure at logic.. not a win.

Another words how do you understand infinity?

I wasn't talking about infinity.
I have NO idea why you bring that up.

Your argument fails.. it's the same kind of argument I hear all the time from the creationists.

So far everyone I debated here believe there can be 'infinite numbers', or infinite this, or infinite that, do you believe we could have infinite number of stars, or anything finite/created as infinite?

No.. I don't HAVE an opinion about infinity. And this has NOTHING to do whatsoever with your failed attempt at making a logical argument.

Remember that sentence I was criticizing?.. yeah.. that one.

Do you also believe that there can be multiple Infinites with different sizes?

No.. I have no opinions about infinity. I will leave that up to the mathematicians.. who at least have a grasp of the subject. I don't take you as a mathematician.

So, I don't know what your point is.

If yes, the we haven't reached step 1. yet, and anything between 1. and 2. would not make any sense to you.

So, you admit to have LEFT SOMETHING OUT OF YOUR ARGUMENT.. and now what.. we have to debate what infinity means?.. WOW.. YOU will now claim to understand the concept of infinity?.. really?

And then demonstrate how it helps your case?... WOW.. big .. no HUGE task you have. Good luck with that. Are you a mathematician who specializes in infinity, by the way? I'm not.

Just like explaining the un-Biblical Trinity Doctrine to a person who belongs to the Christian Religion,

And so, you are too intelligent and learned to prove your point. Gotcha. I'm too dumb, possibly. If only I knew what YOU knew.. right, right.

NO. You have to demonstrate that your premises are TRUE.. not just state them as if they JUST WERE.

You see, even though he admitted that the doctrine was un-Biblical, he accepted it more Biblical than the words in the Bible, .. the same with BB and the Evolution stories, people accept this un-observed unscientific stories more than my scientific explanation of Creator God.

WHAT scientific explanation for a creator god.. that you have trouble with the concept of infinity?

That's no scientific explanation. That's just you having trouble thinking straight.

That you have special knowledge of your bible?. THAT'S no explanation..
Where is the explanation?..

You don't PROVE your conclusion by stating that you are superior in knowledge and wisdom.

No, sir... you actually have to DEMONSTRATE your methods.. and leave the boasting at home. I don't CARE how incredibly knowlegable or wise you are.. You actually just have to DEMONSTRATE YOUR MEHOD that you used to arrive at your conclusion.

Just like everyone else.

It's not AT ALL clear at all how you GOT FROM 1. TO 2.

Like I said, it's because 1. is not yet clear to you.

NOT CLEAR.. that's right. It's not CLEAR AT ALL.. but it was YOUR JOB to make it clear. so you have CLEARLY FAILED ...

The universe EXISTS.. we both agree on that. .. what we DON'T agree on is that the universe has anything at all to do with your creator.

PROVE some creator exists.. and then we will talk.
But don't pretend that you have DEMONSTRATED some creator does exist.

You NEGLECTED to do that.. you simply AFFIRM IT. Well, I am GLAD that you agree with yourself. But MAYBE you might want to SHARE your reasoning.

So, you have explained nothing. You have DISPLAYED your weird logical leap.. and your HUGE confirmation bias.. but you have explained absolutely nothing at all by your declaration.

I could say the ATHEIST version and it would be JUST as utterly unconvincing to anyone.. here goes:

JUST by observing the universe, it's CLEAR to me that there is no creator.

I say if it works, it was created, who created it is besides the point at this early stage. If you can dissect, break or smash something and observe how it fits together and can take notes on it, wouldn't it be CLEAR it was created?

No, it wouldn't at all be clear. You are jumping from 1 to 2 again without any explanation.

Everything proves a creator.. apparently. That's what a creationist says.

Don't you see that science is now defined by the Big-bang theory and the Evolution theory?
Evolution = science
BB-theory = science, .. and this is without question, .. lol.

You are confounding what science DOES and what science IS.. these are not the same.

A scientific THEORY is a product of science, but not science itself. I am not too sure you understand just what science is. Science is a body of work.. and some knowledge, but MOST of all.. its' a method.

You seem confused about science, and this is TYPICAL of creationists.

Just ask some College kids to give you an example of what science means to them, and they will tell you; "Well ah, .. the Big-bang Theory, or the Evolution theory would be good examples of science."

Good examples of the products of science, of what science DOES. what science PRODUCES.. but not what "science" is. Science is a bit broader in definition than just theory.

It's JUST SO to you.. and it's JUST SO to me.

Now.. who wins the battle of the JUST SO STORIES?

Science is not just so, but if I told you that this fruit under the cherry tree came about by fungi having sex over the past 600,000 years and a bunch of made up stories how it all evolved under that tree, THAT would be 'Just So Stories' my friend.

And.. it would not match at all with the theory of evolution. Getting the theory wrong and then attacking it.. making a straw-man out of the theory, is precisely what creationists do.

You just match so perfectly with the creationists.. are you SURE you're not one of them?

This is also the reason I know who I am, scientific observation tells me I am not just me body and brain, but even that DNA will tell you that I am NOT an animal.

How does the DNA tell me that? Again, you forget to explain how you got to your conclusion.. which is.. really weird, and contrary to actual science.

Just as if I put a leaf above my ear doesn't make me a tree, or just because a monkey has hands like me doesn't make me a monkey.

You think this has anything to do with the theory of evolution?.. Well , no WONDER you don't like the theory.. your version is very WEIRD...

Yes, every animal has the same breathing, eating, defecating construction, as if the same Creator made us all.

Made us all?.. why would that be the same.. a creator could even just as easily make us all DIFFERENT.. but evolution actually describes the process by which we can have so many similarities.. Common descent explains it perfectly.. and matches reality.. and all of the data...

But I know what a shock this is to you, but we men have been designed over all better then the animals, something like a big knife compared to a small Swiss Army Knife.

We aren't designed "better".. we haven't BEEN designed. Remember the part when I try to help you understand that you HAVEN'T explained this at all in any way, shape or form?...

This is what the science has demonstrated and keeps ON demonstrating .. bit by bit.. millions of bits of data all confirming the theory of evolution. YOU may be shocked by the science.. but the science is real. And the data is real.

We got a little bit of everything, but what really makes man different is the part created, or given from the Creator Himself, our 'mind'.

No, you haven't demonstrated that a creator exists, that this creator gave us ANYTHING AT ALL.. you might BELIEVE this.. but you most certainly haven't demonstrated it. A MIND is what a BRAIN does.. and other animals have lesser evolved BRAINS.. and lesser evolved minds.

We aren't different in KIND.. we are just different in DEGREE.. nature is all about degrees of differences. A GOD could have done differently.. but not NATURE.. nature has NO CHOICE in the matter. NATURE has no mind.

Not even close.

How can you demonstrate that this creator DID anything?.. what is YOUR data for that?

If you still have doubts as to who you are, weather an animal or a man, just go and talk to a monkey, debate with it, all shadows of doubt should vanish.

Evolution explains the differences AND the similarities. Science knows PRECISELY the differences between monkeys and humans AND can explain just how many of these differences came to BE. WITH DATA.. tons and tons of DATA.. That's how they know that evolution is true.

WHAT DATA do you have for your god.. the universe?

SCIENCE HAS THE UNIVERSE TOO.. and DOESN'T conclude any god.. not any.. and not yours.

You can learn how evolution works and why it is true.
it's all available online, too.

[arian]

No, I didn't throw you in with the creationists. If you talk LIKE a creationist.. sorry... It's only reasonable to call you one. Because if your beliefs match THEIR beliefs.. then you are a match....

Hay thanks Blastcat for that long response, I will try to sum it up ok?

Googled it:
Like evolution, creationism can have more than one meaning. At its most basic, creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity of some sort - but after that, there is quite a lot of variety among creationists as to just what they believe and why. People may lump all creationists together in one group, but it is important to understand where they differ and why. Not every critique of creationism and creationist ideology will apply equally well to all creationists.
here are the 6 basic ones:

1. Scientific Creationism
2. Flat earth Creationism
3. Young Earth Creationism
4. Old Earth Creationism
5. Theistic Evolution & Evolutionary Creationism
6. Intelligent Design Creationism

- At its most basic, creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity of some sort

Well no, you see not even at its most basic definition of creationism does my understanding of creationism being defined here, since man can only understand God through some religious doctrine. My God, the God of the Bible, the One who Created everything and that's why He is called the 'Creator' is Not, .. I repeat is not a deity.. I explain, but how could you understand when you tag me with definitions that were created by thousands of years of heavy religious indoctrinations.

Again, look at your next answer:

I have explained that my understanding of God is based on scientific observation rather than 'religion', remember? Religion requires that you believe in their interpretation of God on faith alone, they even admit that their god/gods are not comparable/comparable to any 'scientific explanation', nor could their god/gods be explained through science.

Science doesn't go around proving god, so I have no idea what kind of science you would HAVE that proves a god. Creationists believe in a creator god and DENY evolution, just the way you do. You do the same as creationists

you see the bolded part? I rest my case. Maybe in 20, or 30 years from now as more scientific study goes into defining the mind/consciousness, someone will come across my debates and say: "Oh my God, this guy had it all right 30 years ago, but no one could understand him!?"

And they also claim to use science.. that's the same as you.

(I thought you just said: "Science doesn't go around proving god, so I have no idea what kind of science you would HAVE that proves a god?") but never mind, ..

I claim to know and explain God, the same God and Creator as in the Bible through science.
Georges Lemaitre explained a 'creator' through science, and he believed in God, the same God in the Bible, or so he claimed.
My God is as I did my best in defining Him more accurately, is the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am", .. while Lemaitre understood god as a deity, or the result of some multi-god-plural-deities ideology like the one mentioned in the Bible, "Legion". But oh well, it's all the same to you, right?

So, arian says God, Lemaitre says God, .. so god, god, god, .. it's all the same, right?

arian reads the Bible, Lemaitre reads the Bible, which makes them religious, .. unless you play tennis every day before work for exactly one hour religiously, then you are also religious, only not that kind of religious, you know, the god-type! .. who cares about the details, as long as you leave God out of it.

arian claims to be Christian, .. Lemaitre claims to be Christian, only because Lemaitre leaves God out of his Big-bang evolution scientific observation, he is a real scientist, .. but arian doesn't leave God or the Bible out of his observation, nor does he have a degree in science, so he has no right to claim his observation as scientific. Besides, what does arian's mind separate from the brain has to do anything with science or the existence of the universe? Especially the definition of the word 'infinity'? What does infinite have anything to do with God, the mind, or the universe?

arian claims he understands how the universe appeared through scientific observation, .. Lemaitre claims and explains how he believes the universe appeared through science (he doesn't claim by 'scientific observation', only by science) but hey science is science, who cares about the minute details like observed science or billion year old stories claimed as science, right? Because:

Mentioning the word 'God' is automatically religion, because the only way you can talk about God, or Creator, or Creation is from religion, and that's that. Now arian, if you wish to leave out any reference to the Bible, or God, or Creator, or even the word 'creation', then we will consider your scientific study, you know, like Lemaitre did.

"So arian, .. can you define a god for us through science that has nothing to do with 'creation', or 'God', .. well er, .. you know, that God, or the Bible, or Christianity, or Jesus, unless you mean that other Jesus, you know, the son of the morning Lucifer one that the Jesuit priests are waiting and watching for to come out of the sun with their LUCIFER telescope lens!?"

You and they use the same arguments.. the same failed logic.

Yes, I agree to the failed logic, the same-o religious thinking.
This really is futile since it seems that no one is able to go beyond religious thinking. Everything has to be within religious context or it doesn't seem to make sense??

Scientific observation proves your god exists? .. HOW? YOU NEED TO TELL US HOW?.. if you have no HOW.. then you have not made a CASE AT ALL..

You SAID that you observe the universe and that makes it CLEAR TO YOU that a creator exists.. no explanation.. just an assertion..

Oh Lordie! ..How, Really? How many times do I explain it?

I read someone say: "Look, things are being pulled to the ground, I seen this apple fall out of the tree and an idea came to me, I call it gravity!"

"Assertion after assertion Newton, show us this, .. this what do you call it, aahh .. gravity? LOL! Hey guys, Newton seen gravity pull an apple to the ground, but we asked him to show us, but all he ever does is make wild assertions! He, he, he."

[Zzyzx]

.

Maybe in 20, or 30 years from now as more scientific study goes into defining the mind/consciousness, someone will come across my debates and say: "Oh my God, this guy had it all right 30 years ago, but no one could understand him!?"

Those whose brilliance allows them to be "ahead of their time" are far outnumbered by those who think or claim they are brilliant ahead of their time.

Which applies in this case?