Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/23/10 04:18 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: I don't think any human construct is more imaginary than math. [...]

How much of your apologetic-ism is devil's advocation, and how much is genuine?

At 9/22/10 03:45 PM, poxpower wrote: Next time you reply to Cache, imagine you're replying to this guy: NephilimFree

No one, not even Ted Haggard or Kent Hovind could ever have such a misunderstanding of science or any of the fields that are directly or indirectly referred to creationism.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised if Cache blocked people he disagreed with or lied about describing recently occurred events.

At 9/23/10 12:39 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 9/23/10 04:18 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Pur math is but a mind game.

I'm not a matemathician, or even really good at it, but I'm offended.

Mathematics is logical. That is its sole purpose of existance. It is something you can trust. Numbers can't change their meaning. Two and two won't make five if you put a stress on a different syllable, if you allow a linguistic analogue. Sure, when you get into more and more untestable grounds, there's ambiguities, but just dismissing maths because it's abstract is just mindnubmingly stupid.

I have spend 7 years learning about maths and its relationship to physics. I know what I am talking about.

like you say, maths is about logic. Essentially it's taking a few basic assumptions and see how much you can conclude from all this. We try to use some input from our natural world and put it through logically constructed steps to see what we end up with. But this is a pure imaginary task. That's why math results in weird theories where you can play with the parameters and end up with stuff you will never see in the real world, like multiverses and negative energy solutions and all that.
In general, because math is imaginary, it is absolute, results you obtain are always true. But when people relate things to the real world, you end up with second order approximations that succeed in predicting a tendency. But to put it in practise, you still have a lot of experimentation to do to obtain a result that is only close to the prediction by approximation and only when you have perfect lab conditions.

Mathematics is about thinking in an imaginary world. I don't claim maths are useless.

i dont belive in god, but thats only because i see no evidence.

At 9/23/10 02:49 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Mathematics is about thinking in an imaginary world. I don't claim maths are useless.

Well, realize that while I acknowledge your point, it is a level of nuance I wasn't intimating with that comment. The conversation is still teaching a non-scientist about what the definition of "evidence" is... going into the ontology of integers and mathematics is about 16 steps beyond that.

At 9/23/10 12:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: They also can't seem to quantify what that feeling is or what it's like...but they feel it!!!

And this, is why you'll never know anything about it. I love my parents... I don't know how to quantify that felling or explain what it's like, but I do feel it.

The only reason you understand my feeling of love for my parents is because you too have a similar feeling. But if you didn't love your parents, how would I explain it to you? I can't... but that doesn't mean it's any less real.

Yeah, we just have to do whatever God tells us to do and not break any of his rules, or piss off anybody that claims to represent him.

That's not true at all. That's just a skewed perspective of the whole thing... in reality, all you have to do is accept God... period. You don't have to do anything other then that. I don't know of any religion that seperates you from God if you turn out to be imperfect.

At 9/23/10 05:15 PM, CacheHelper wrote: And this, is why you'll never know anything about it. I love my parents... I don't know how to quantify that felling or explain what it's like, but I do feel it.

The physiology of emotion can and has been described by quantifiable means.

What you are personally capable of describing isn't the issue here.

At 9/23/10 12:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: God can't just give you that love for free after all, that love is the kind of love that's conditional...which if it's conditional...how exactly is it truly love again?

In fairness, I think it goes more like this: while God's love is unconditional, our capacity to accept it and return it is not.

At 9/23/10 03:17 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 9/23/10 02:49 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Mathematics is about thinking in an imaginary world. I don't claim maths are useless.

Well, realize that while I acknowledge your point, it is a level of nuance I wasn't intimating with that comment. The conversation is still teaching a non-scientist about what the definition of "evidence" is

As far as this go, i do want to say that there is a point in the fact that a mathematical solution or proof is not really evidence for a theory.
But really, multiverses are an example of such a theory. But then again, no good scientist will claim that multiverses are proven just because of the mathematics. They remain a hypothesis until proven otherwise. that's something that Cache overlooked.

But as far as that goes, the hypothesis for God is no less valid, than the hypothesis of multiverses.

At 9/23/10 05:34 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 9/23/10 12:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: God can't just give you that love for free after all, that love is the kind of love that's conditional...which if it's conditional...how exactly is it truly love again?

In fairness, I think it goes more like this: while God's love is unconditional, our capacity to accept it and return it is not.

But if we have to return it for God's love to work properly then obviously his love is conditional. How can you call God's love unconditional if one condition for fulling embracing is that you have to be able to return the love?

If a husband tells his wife he loves her unconstitutionally, but she has to love him back, well, yeah....

At 9/23/10 05:41 PM, Drakim wrote: If a husband tells his wife he loves her unconstitutionally, but she has to love him back, well, yeah....

Somehow I wrote unconstitutionally instead of unconditionally. No, I don't use a spell check, my brain just stopped working.

At 9/23/10 05:41 PM, Drakim wrote: If a husband tells his wife he loves her unconstitutionally, but she has to love him back, well, yeah....

She has to love him back in order for ____?

At 9/23/10 05:15 PM, CacheHelper wrote: And this, is why you'll never know anything about it. I love my parents... I don't know how to quantify that felling or explain what it's like, but I do feel it.

I love my parents too. They love me in return. We CAN quantify this emotion because most people feel it but we can also OBSERVE it in practice and it's results. The love of God? Not so much...also there's all those conflicts that one can bring up to wonder how much God actually loves us.

The only reason you understand my feeling of love for my parents is because you too have a similar feeling. But if you didn't love your parents, how would I explain it to you? I can't... but that doesn't mean it's any less real.

Again, we can observe it, it is something common and observable. The Love of God is not, it is a completely abstract and imaginary concept.

That's not true at all.

Really? Why hell? Why doesn't he just forgive us? Why does he burn cities, murder the human population and visit all sorts of miseries on those who piss him off and don't follow the rules? Why why why if I'm so wrong?

That's just a skewed perspective of the whole thing... in reality, all you have to do is accept God... period.

Then why the 10 Commandments? Why all that crap in the bible about testing us? Why why why?

See, here's the problem. You have YOUR Christianity and it's true to YOUR sect. But your sect is one of MANY and therefore you might have different rules and ideas then the other sects. That's the whole problem with arguing religious absolutes to begin with. You can't really argue a universal absolute, you can only really argue the absolutes of your sect.

You don't have to do anything other then that. I don't know of any religion that seperates you from God if you turn out to be imperfect.

All the ones that don't believe in God. I have actually been told this by those who claim to worship God. In fact, I've even been told you aren't a true Christian unless you're with that particular sect so...I think once again you're proving there's a whole world of information out there you just haven't absorbed yet.

may i point out that we have fallen for an argument that was not originally intended to be argued, but rather one that came about because Cache assumed the issue was over how athiests are outraged that they cannot feel God's love.

At 9/24/10 12:54 AM, SolInvictus wrote: may i point out that we have fallen for an argument that was not originally intended to be argued, but rather one that came about because Cache assumed the issue was over how athiests are outraged that they cannot feel God's love.

I also fell for the fact that the little prick ignored my very direct question to pick a point he felt more comfortable arguing. I would like that original direct question answered.

At 9/24/10 01:01 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
I also fell for the fact that the little prick ignored my very direct question to pick a point he felt more comfortable arguing. I would like that original direct question answered.

He has also avoided answering my direct questions as well. I guess he wasn't up to my dare.

At 9/24/10 12:14 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: We CAN quantify this emotion because most people feel it but we can also OBSERVE it in practice and it's results.

You can with someone who loves God too. it's all about understanding. The problem is, you're a turtle... one who has zero love for his family... and you're trying to tell me my love for my parents isn't real. If you where a human, you'd understand.

Really? Why hell? Why doesn't he just forgive us?

According to the Bible, he does. Hence the whole "Jesus" thing.

Then why the 10 Commandments?

They're just guidlines to live by. We're all guilty of sin... nobody is perfect.

See, here's the problem. You have YOUR Christianity

I'm not Christian.

That's the whole problem with arguing religious absolutes to begin with.

I'm not. You are.

At 9/24/10 08:24 AM, Ravariel wrote: He has also avoided answering my direct questions as well. I guess he wasn't up to my dare.

Because they're pointless. You, as a scientific person, can believe in the possibility of multiple universes without proof based only on the limited evidence you've observed from aspects in the universe that don't have answers yet.

But if a religious person does the same, you call them stupid. Why? Because the evidence we see doesn't count to you. Well, that's a personal problem.

At 9/24/10 12:30 PM, CacheHelper wrote: You can with someone who loves God too. it's all about understanding.

Ahem. Knowledge of emotion is not limited to anecdotal evidence.

I'm not Christian.

You should be sure to acknowledge the point of the argument, particularly when the point stands regardless of some triviality, when you are refuting said triviality. Otherwise it looks like you're avoiding the point.

I'm not. You are.

Posted at: 9/23/10 05:15 PM, by you: "That's not true at all. That's just a skewed perspective of the whole thing... in reality, all you have to do is accept God... period. You don't have to do anything other then that."

At 9/24/10 02:18 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: You should be sure to acknowledge the point of the argument...

I did... below... when I said "I'm not. You are".

Posted at: 9/23/10 05:15 PM, by you: "That's not true at all. That's just a skewed perspective of the whole thing... in reality, all you have to do is accept God... period. You don't have to do anything other then that."

To have a spiritual belief all you have to do is accept it.... believe it. What you do after that is up to you.

At 9/24/10 12:32 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 9/24/10 08:24 AM, Ravariel wrote: He has also avoided answering my direct questions as well. I guess he wasn't up to my dare.

Because they're pointless.

Actually, the definitions of those words are EXACTLY the point. Your entire argument hinges on your misunderstanding of those words.

But you have proven, for the final time, that you are unwilling to learn new information if it contradicts your worldview. Yet another disappointing theist arguing with blinders on.

At 9/24/10 03:47 PM, Ravariel wrote: But you have proven, for the final time, that you are unwilling to learn new information if it contradicts your worldview. Yet another disappointing theist arguing with blinders on.

Pot... meet the kettle.

Like I said, NephilimFree : P

50% insane
50% stupid

At 9/24/10 04:15 PM, poxpower wrote: Like I said, NephilimFree : P

50% insane
50% stupid

Not really. Nephilimfree is 90% stupid and 10% insane.

This man is a geocentric, faith healer, financial mooch of a disabled woman, hydroplate theorist (including the belief that the moons craters were caused by the flood), believes people with 6 fingers are descendants of angels and doesn't understand anything about science at all, in the slightest. His education extends from 'claimed' training as a photographer in New York and he regularly visits conservapedia.

Also he owns a revolver. Be warned, never visit Mississippi.

But funnily enough, I was watching videos about him recently. He's put a challenge to Youtube Atheists for a debate. Another user by the name of Donexodus2 accepted it. Within a days they had a rough idea of the format, the topics, the title etc. Within minutes later of don announcing it he lied about the things that weren't agreed on (like the time and location of the debate), and kept changing his mind on others (who the moderator is, topics discussed, title etc). This man thinks that a 2 hour debate can cover every single subject that's usually discussed for/against creationism. Primarily revolving around biology, cosmology, philosophy, physics etc etc when real debates don't even cover one field, or one subject like Evolution because there's too much to talk about even with days worth of time.

He's also a massive censor and pretty much makes everything up and when someone shows a contradiction or he's just pulled it from his ass, he deletes the video and pretends it didn't exist.

Sounds like stupid to me.

At 9/24/10 02:39 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I did... below... when I said "I'm not. You are".

The problem with absolutes remains regardless of whether or not you consider yourself to be speaking in absolutes. There are still other theistic interpretations that you are neglecting.

To have a spiritual belief all you have to do is accept it.... believe it. What you do after that is up to you.

Recap:

Cache: "You're more then welcome to feel Gods love... that offer has been on the table for you since day one. But don't blame others for your lack of intererst."

Avie: "Yeah, we just have to do whatever God tells us to do and not break any of his rules, or piss off anybody that claims to represent him. God can't just give you that love for free after all, that love is the kind of love that's conditional...which if it's conditional...how exactly is it truly love again?"

Cache: "That's not true at all. That's just a skewed perspective of the whole thing... in reality, all you have to do is accept God... period. You don't have to do anything other then that. I don't know of any religion that seperates you from God if you turn out to be imperfect."

So... the argument is { what do I have to do to be loved by God or feel his love? } not { what do I have to do to have a spiritual belief? }. Please stay on point.

Answering the former with such modifiers as "in reality" while refuting another position on it as "a skewed perspective of the whole thing," you are implicitly arguing for absolutes (or in other words: the accurate perspective on an absolute thing). But, since it could just be poor wording, you are at the very least, being arbitrarily selective and grossly presumptuous with regard to a 'correct perspective.'

Of all things, why is this debate in the politics section of the forum. Senators are not interested if God exist, they are more concerned about getting rich (HaHa). Politics are supposed to focused on country matters.

As for is if God is real, why are both sides arguing about this? If you found out the truth today, what would you seriously do different today? Instead of trying to change other peoples' opinions, why don't you just keep studying til' your content and stop badgering each other. I would say live like there is no afterlife and live like there is one. Ponder on that thought.

At 9/24/10 07:55 PM, PepperJoe wrote: Of all things [...]

Oh my. You are so right. You are the voice of reason.

Happy now?

At 9/24/10 07:55 PM, PepperJoe wrote: Of all things, why is this debate in the politics section of the forum. Senators are not interested if God exist, they are more concerned about getting rich (HaHa). Politics are supposed to focused on country matters.

As for is if God is real, why are both sides arguing about this? If you found out the truth today, what would you seriously do different today? Instead of trying to change other peoples' opinions, why don't you just keep studying til' your content and stop badgering each other. I would say live like there is no afterlife and live like there is one. Ponder on that thought.

Please. Pretty pretty please. Just leave, and never look back. Please don't ever come back to the politics forum ever. Please, I'm begging you, you fucking middleman.

At 9/24/10 08:43 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 9/24/10 07:55 PM, PepperJoe wrote: Of all things [...]

Oh my. You are so right. You are the voice of reason.

Happy now?

Just made a suggestion, don't flip out.

At 9/24/10 08:56 PM, Drakim wrote: Please. Pretty pretty please. Just leave, and never look back. Please don't ever come back to the politics forum ever. Please, I'm begging you, you fucking middleman.

Read your "middleman" rant, nice. Anyways, I'm just saying that I believe there is no way to prove their is a God or Gods. Big Bang Theory can't be proved without risking blowing up the Earth (Yes, I have studied this topic for a long time). I just believe that we won't find out til' we are dead. If you want to know what I believe, pm me and don't call me a middleman.