God is love? Not in this Universe.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2013, 07:27 AM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  An incoherent statement. If science is I am right till you prove me wrong then I could agree.

[Image: GIF.gif]

Are you tripping? You reply to my completely coherent and straightforward post with a grammatical graveyard. You are the one who is intellectually dishonest and incoherent.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  So can God be explained with science? What if I think it is futile to dissect the brain in search of the meaning of life?

God is not empathy, stop making a strawman argument. Empathy is thoroughly explained in a scientific manner. There is no room for a deity anywhere in the explanation. No, but go ahead. I wouldn't want to get in the way of your nonsensical dribble.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Not true. I believe I exist currently as a mortal being so as to learn to not take what is good for granted which is no different than glorifying God.

No, you believe that a divine being recognizes your insignificant existence as something worth noticing.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Not true. I count God as the goodness in mankind by grace. And therefore to count such goodness as the product of my own initiative would be vanity.

Congratulations depending on an unprovable, unresponsive being. Your special pleading is cute, it reminds me of a 2 year old.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Same answer as above.

Then you are delusional.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  A misunderstanding of Christianity. I have record on this forum of atheists being moved by the Spirit of Christ.

Nonsensical, delusional assumption. Lrn2think

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  In the carnal sense of gain, nothing. In the spiritual sense, it is no different than giving to yourself.

How can you assume what I think and feel when I do a good deed? This is the fourth time you have committed a fallacy in this pathetic post.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  It explains that what is eternal cannot be put in a box that is finite.

I didn't ask you to simplify your meaning, I told you that it is not an explanation.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2013, 06:49 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 09:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  They certainly claimed to be inspired by the divine. Who's to say they weren't? You?
The fact remains they did not claim to be the Christ. It is no claim to fame to be inspired by the divine. Many, many, many people are inspired by the divine every single day. I must decide for myself what is right and wrong, true or false. Hence I must say what direction is God when I do. So yes, in that sense I would say if they were or weren't.

(15-07-2013 06:48 PM)childeye Wrote:  The term Christ is directly linked to the existence of a Prime mover. There can be no son of God without God.

Quote:There is no link whatsoever. "B requires A" is a completely different statement from "A implies B". We have been discussing A.
Respectfully, I am simply stating the intervention of A in the creation with B.

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  I partially agree. In my understanding of spiritual things, God is in the creation and yet outside the creation. He draws worship, He doesn't require it. And as Spirit, He fulfills what we would call certain principles we call tenets.
If you want to leave the bible out of it, that's fine with me.

Quote:You keep mentioning Christ as if that were somehow relevant to cosmogeny (aka, the only realm in which it is even remotely plausible to invoke the supernatural). It is not.
Okay you make a valid point. However, please try and understand that I am saying there is a meaning for all that we experience in the physical universe and it transcends physics because this temporal existence would therefore be constructed to serve that purpose. To me that meaning transcends Scientific knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2013, 07:20 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(16-07-2013 06:49 PM)childeye Wrote:  Okay you make a valid point. However, please try and understand that I am saying there is a meaning for all that we experience in the physical universe and it transcends physics because this temporal existence would therefore be constructed to serve that purpose. To me that meaning transcends Scientific knowledge.

To you, and just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it anymore true or correct to anyone other than youself.

I don't know why you insist on repeating the same things. It's tiresome.

Shoo fly


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
16-07-2013, 07:28 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2013 07:39 PM by childeye.)
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(16-07-2013 07:27 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  An incoherent statement. If science is I am right till you prove me wrong then I could agree.

Are you tripping? You reply to my completely coherent and straightforward post with a grammatical graveyard. You are the one who is intellectually dishonest and incoherent.
I'm sorry Logica, it's just that science does not explore the meaning of life at all. When you say empathy is completely explainable by science, it is to me not even addressing the subject. Nor do I even agree that science explains empathy in anything but a technical comprehension. Sure one could say it evolved. How does that address the Love seen on a cross forgiving it's crucifiers saying "they don't know what they do"? Such a Love either speaks from a much higher understanding or a profound ignorance. Which way I decide has permanent implications in my moral reasoning.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  So can God be explained with science? What if I think it is futile to dissect the brain in search of the meaning of life?

Quote:God is not empathy, stop making a strawman argument. Empathy is thoroughly explained in a scientific manner. There is no room for a deity anywhere in the explanation. No, but go ahead. I wouldn't want to get in the way of your nonsensical dribble.
No it isn't thoroughly explained by science. The scientific explanation is no different than explaining why we poop or pee. What came first, empathy or tear ducts to cry with? You've replaced God with evolution. Why do we hug? evolution. Why do we smile? evolution. Why do we get jealous? Evolution. Why do we cry? evolution. Why do we laugh? evolution. Why do we wage war? evolution. Why do we make peace? evolution. Science does not answer anything except the mechanics of building blocks of bio material and physical matter.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Not true. I believe I exist currently as a mortal being so as to learn to not take what is good for granted which is no different than glorifying God.

Quote:No, you believe that a divine being recognizes your insignificant existence as something worth noticing.
Yes. In fact not only do I know He Loves me, He teaches me, and nurtures me in every facet of my existence.

Quote:Congratulations depending on an unprovable, unresponsive being. Your special pleading is cute, it reminds me of a 2 year old.
I find God to be quite responsive.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  A misunderstanding of Christianity. I have record on this forum of atheists being moved by the Spirit of Christ.

Nonsensical, delusional assumption. Lrn2think[/quote]
No honestly. I asked a simple question. If I gave up my life so that you would have food to eat, would you Love me? In all honesty some said yes.

(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  In the carnal sense of gain, nothing. In the spiritual sense, it is no different than giving to yourself.

How can you assume what I think and feel when I do a good deed? This is the fourth time you have committed a fallacy in this pathetic post.
Please Logica, I only was answering your question. What have we got to gain from donating to a charity?
(15-07-2013 12:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  It explains that what is eternal cannot be put in a box that is finite.

Quote:I didn't ask you to simplify your meaning, I told you that it is not an explanation.
I'm sorry, I am sincerely doing my best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2013, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2013 11:29 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  I'm sorry Logica, it's just that science does not explore the meaning of life at all. When you say empathy is completely explainable by science, it is to me not even addressing the subject. Nor do I even agree that science explains empathy in anything but a technical comprehension. Sure one could say it evolved. How does that address the Love seen on a cross forgiving it's crucifiers saying "they don't know what they do"? Such a Love either speaks from a much higher understanding or a profound ignorance. Which way I decide has permanent implications in my moral reasoning.

Science is not tasked to seek out the meaning of life because the meaning of life is subjective. Each individual employs their own desires based on their genetic makeup and experienced development. Science explains the full extent as to why empathy exists, how it functions, and what it is. There is nothing more to explain. Love is a chemical process and, so far, you have done nothing to indicate otherwise.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  No it isn't thoroughly explained by science. The scientific explanation is no different than explaining why we poop or pee. What came first, empathy or tear ducts to cry with? You've replaced God with evolution. Why do we hug? evolution. Why do we smile? evolution. Why do we get jealous? Evolution. Why do we cry? evolution. Why do we laugh? evolution. Why do we wage war? evolution. Why do we make peace? evolution. Science does not answer anything except the mechanics of building blocks of bio material and physical matter.

Yes it is explained by science.

What came first, empathy or tear ducts to cry with?

Tear ducts did not develop to express emotion, their function is to moisten the eye to prevent material from infecting it. Because said emotion happens to be conveyed via the tear duct is entirely inconsequential to this debate. Organisms that happened to be born with said mutation survived better than ones without.

Why do we hug?

Hugging is a culturally-developed sign of affection.

Why do we smile?

Biologically, smiling has a multitude of different features that either did or do benefit the organism. It is either a social signal or a defensive mechanism. Organisms that happened to be born with said mutation survived better than ones without.

Do you notice a pattern with these answers? They are verifiable and demonstrable explanations. You have done nothing but present a remarkable amount of special pleading and ignorance. That is why evolutionary explanations are drastically different and superior to "divine" ones. They are not equatable explanations.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  Yes. In fact not only do I know He Loves me, He teaches me, and nurtures me in every facet of my existence.

No, you do not know anything about this deity because you have provided no tangible evidence. You are acting on faith, not knowledge.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  I find God to be quite responsive.

You are delusional if you believe that without tangible evidence.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  No honestly. I asked a simple question. If I gave up my life so that you would have food to eat, would you Love me? In all honesty some said yes.

That does not imply they were moved by Jesus' sacrifice, primarily because it is disputed as to whether or not it even happened.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  Please Logica, I only was answering your question. What have we got to gain from donating to a charity?

No, you were putting words into my mouth. You were asserting that I felt a certain way when I helped someone. So far, you have done nothing to answer my question.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  I'm sorry, I am sincerely doing my best.

If this is your best, I'd hate to see your worst.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
17-07-2013, 08:20 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
Quote:='Logica Humano' pid='342173' dateline='1374081964']

Science is not tasked to seek out the meaning of life because the meaning of life is subjective.

Each individual employs their own desires based on their genetic makeup and experienced development. Science explains the full extent as to why empathy exists, how it functions, and what it is. There is nothing more to explain. Love is a chemical process and, so far, you have done nothing to indicate otherwise.
Yes I agree science is not tasked to seek out the meaning of life. However if there is an architect to life then the meaning of our existence is tied to why we are here and only the experience prepared for us is subjective.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  No it isn't thoroughly explained by science. The scientific explanation is no different than explaining why we poop or pee. What came first, empathy or tear ducts to cry with? You've replaced God with evolution. Why do we hug? evolution. Why do we smile? evolution. Why do we get jealous? Evolution. Why do we cry? evolution. Why do we laugh? evolution. Why do we wage war? evolution. Why do we make peace? evolution. Science does not answer anything except the mechanics of building blocks of bio material and physical matter.

Quote:Yes it is explained by science.

What came first, empathy or tear ducts to cry with?

Tear ducts did not develop to express emotion, their function is to moisten the eye to prevent material from infecting it. Because said emotion happens to be conveyed via the tear duct is entirely inconsequential to this debate.
I don't know about you, but when I watch a sad movie and I cry, it is not to moisten my eye to prevent material from infecting it. It is because I am touched and moved in my heart.

Quote:Why do we hug?

Hugging is a culturally-developed sign of affection.
I do hug because I love people and so I embrace them.

Quote:Why do we smile?

Biologically, smiling has a multitude of different features that either did or do benefit the organism. It is either a social signal or a defensive mechanism. Organisms that happened to be born with said mutation survived better than ones without.
I smile because I'm happy.

Quote:Do you notice a pattern with these answers? They are verifiable and demonstrable explanations. You have done nothing but present a remarkable amount of special pleading and ignorance. That is why evolutionary explanations are drastically different and superior to "divine" ones. They are not equatable explanations.
You conveniently skipped many of the questions, that's what I notice. Divine answers speak to a meaning in life. What troubles me most is you seek solace for the most meaningful things in a cold and heartless science.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  Yes. In fact not only do I know He Loves me, He teaches me, and nurtures me in every facet of my existence.

Quote:No, you do not know anything about this deity because you have provided no tangible evidence. You are acting on faith, not knowledge.
I'm sorry Logica, but again this makes no sense to me. God would have to supply the evidence for me to know He loves me. Yes it does begin in faith however, as all good relationships do.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  I find God to be quite responsive.

Quote:You are delusional if you believe that without tangible evidence.
I have my evidence. I feel anything I say is going to be delusional in your view.

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  No honestly. I asked a simple question. If I gave up my life so that you would have food to eat, would you Love me? In all honesty some said yes.

Quote:That does not imply they were moved by Jesus' sacrifice, primarily because it is disputed as to whether or not it even happened.
There is nothing that can go undisputed. Do you dispute that? At any rate it doesn't matter whether or not it happened as that is not the point. The point is that they could appreciate the Spirit of Christ which is a testimony of their recognition of what a Godly Love does..

(16-07-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  Please Logica, I only was answering your question. What have we got to gain from donating to a charity?

Quote:No, you were putting words into my mouth. You were asserting that I felt a certain way when I helped someone. So far, you have done nothing to answer my question.
In all honesty you have perceived me wrongly. I never asserted anything but a forthright answer. Unfortunately I am having a hard time convincing you. Only you would know why you are so cynical of everything I say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2013, 09:08 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
Haven't we done this dance before?

Yes, that thread went to 250 pages. It's all the same and more crap from CE.

Shoo fly.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2013, 10:25 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(17-07-2013 09:08 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Haven't we done this dance before?

Yes, that thread went to 250 pages. It's all the same and more crap from CE.

Shoo fly.


When people tired of his illogical crapola (which he actually thinks is intelligent), last time,
he had to keep "bumping" it to get anyone to talk to him. He gets off on this folks.
Maybe not feeding the trolls would be better.



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-07-2013, 10:28 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2013 10:34 PM by Momsurroundedbyboys.)
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
O my..there's a shoo fly song???

Where are my kids? I totally need to harass them with this! I also need to make a shoo fly pie in CE's honor.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2013, 10:59 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(17-07-2013 10:28 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  O my..there's a shoo fly song???

Where are my kids? I totally need to harass them with this! I also need to make a shoo fly pie in CE's honor.

Is there a shoo fly song ?
What universe do you live in ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: