Thread: To all the christians :D

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

When you pray to god, have u ever heared anything back? Have u ever had any results atleast?

Doesn't say to go into it there. Just to state whether or not you have.

Originally Posted by LucidJuggalo

Doesn't say to go into it there. Just to state whether or not you have.

Ah, fair enough.

Originally Posted by Surukien

The dodge thing is a trauma that you developed towards me. And no, i´m no claming that MY god is not omnipotent. In fact your line of argument is: "are you saying that your car isn´t fast?". My god this, and than you say Your god that...are we discussing wich vision of god is better, or if it is ridiculous the existence or non-existence of a god? Because from my first post and from my last 3 answers you already know in wich context i consider valid the existence of god. Now you´re trying to distort what i post so you can speak about the characteristics of "my" god...it´s like you wanna discuss "tech specs" of "my" god...really, can you be that close minded? Because of intentional distortions like that (yes i´m saying that you are doing it on purpose) off topic posts occur, alienating the thread. In my opinion complication and distortion in posts that are clear(at least my first and 3 last) have the same usefullness than a turbo in a skate. You say "dodge" to me...i say "missdirection and malicious distortion" to you. What i´ve said is not to insult you, you are an intelligent guy, but with too much malice and timewasting will, or else you would take my last 2 posts as they are...clear in meaning.

All this behaviour analisys opened my apetite...i gonna lunch. You´re free to continue distorting things. Be back soon.

That's all complete and total bullshit and is nothing but a semi-artful dodge. This is a discussion forum. Discuss.

You say that:

1. Your god is omnipotent.
2. Your god answers prayers
3. Your god answers prayers in the same way that an inventor corrects a mistake in his invention

In what context does this make sense? It's a simple fucking question. It shouldn't be that hard to answer. You have filled half a fucking page with crackpot psuedo-science (and yes, that's all quantum psychology is at this point) and crackpot mathematics (2 + 2 = 1.618 in what type of system? it's a simple question to answer. I don't need 7 pages of proofs. I need the name of the type of system and the specific parameters for that particular object or GTFO) trying to maintain that logic is dependent on context and then when you run into someone that readily acknowledges that logic is dependent on context, you refuse to specify in what context your contradictory, broken god makes sense!

EDIT:

Also, please provide links to research literature on "quantum psychology"

Please provide an hermitian operator with at least two eigenvectors, "Alive" and "Dead", necessary to substantiate your claim that you could exist in a mixed state between the two.

Please provide at least the branch of mathematics in which it makes sense to talk of 2 + 2 = 1.618!

Thank you, that is all.

EDIT 2:

And for the record, extrapolating consequences from your statements is not twisting your words. If I extrapolate the wrong consequences let me know and please explain why they're the wrong extrapolations in that context.

Also, you're lying about being a physicist. You're a crank pseudo-scientist and nothing more. It's pretty obvious by now. There's a lot of room for crackpot views for the simple reason that we need a shakeup. You're just a crank. Please stop pretending you know what you're talking about to try to impress people. It just detracts from whatever point you actually have to make.

Logic is not relative.
Take an example I used in another thread.
The proposition "water is H2O" is NOT dependent on context. Water is composed of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule and if it were arranged in any other way it would not be water.
This is true no matter culture you live in or what new age cult you subscribe to. The elements on the periodic table (and there are still more to be discovered) are found all over the universe so this is true universally as well.

Yes logic has limits, Godel has showed us that, but I just don't really understand the vehement hostility towards logic.

Originally Posted by LucidJuggalo

I have been personally addressed by the Holy Spirit. It wasn't a 'voice' in the sense of hearing a voice. I 'felt' it instead. I know that's hard to understand probably, but that's the truth, and I know it's the truth. The situation, however, is personal, and do not wish to go into it, so please don't ask.

Please don't ask. Good one. You almost had me.

So seriously.


You don't think that it being part of your on consciousness is the far more likely explanation? What makes you so special that the all powerful creator of the universe would want to directly address you and not so many others that seek such contact?

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Logic is not relative.
Take an example I used in another thread.
The proposition "water is H2O" is NOT dependent on context. Water is composed of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule and if it were arranged in any other way it would not be water.
This is true no matter culture you live in or what new age cult you subscribe to. The elements on the periodic table (and there are still more to be discovered) are found all over the universe so this is true universally as well.

where is the logical conclusion here? dont confuse logic with fact or science or whatever

Originally Posted by dajo

where is the logical conclusion here? dont confuse logic with fact or science or whatever

All dihydrogen monoxide is water.
Therefore, all water is composed of dihydrogen monoxide.

Originally Posted by Mario92

All dihydrogen monoxide is water.
Therefore, all water is composed of dihydrogen monoxide.

That's actually a broken inference

All dihydrogen monoxide is water does not imply that all water is dihydrogen monoxide any more than all apes are mammals implies that all mammals are apes.

that would have been a logical conclusion. there was none in the quoted post

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That's actually a broken inference

All dihydrogen monoxide is water does not imply that all water is dihydrogen monoxide any more than all apes are mammals implies that all mammals are apes.

and while something may be logical, it does not necessarily mean it is right

Originally Posted by dajo

and while something may be logical, it does not necessarily mean it is right

Absolutely true. If something is logical, i.e., derived using correct inferences, then it can still be wrong when applied to the physical world. The only way that we have ever known this to happen is when we use correct inferences on incorrect assumptions. So if something is logical and wrong, then an assumption is wrong as far as we know.

All people are big hairy men. Helana Bonham Carter is a person. Therefore, Helena Bonham Carter is a big hairy man.

That's a perfectly logical statement that's incorrect because it's based on an incorrect assumption.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Please don't ask. Good one. You almost had me.

So seriously.


You don't think that it being part of your on consciousness is the far more likely explanation? What makes you so special that the all powerful creator of the universe would want to directly address you and not so many others that seek such contact?

It doesn't matter what you say lmao. It was the Spirit, and that's that. I know 100%, and there's nothing you can say or do which would slightly alter that. Just because you haven't had a similar experience/believe doesn't mean it isn't true.

Originally Posted by dajo

where is the logical conclusion here? dont confuse logic with fact or science or whatever

Logical conclusions do not have to be expressed in a formal mode of logic (Like: All people are big hairy men. Helana Bonham Carter is a person. Therefore, Helena Bonham Carter is a big hairy man.)

The logical conclusion I am trying to make is "Water is H20". Water consists of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule and cannot be consisted of any other arrangement of elements or else it would not be water. I was addressing an above post that said logic is dependent on context. My example illustrates that in no matter what context water has to be H20.

Originally Posted by LucidJuggalo

It doesn't matter what you say lmao. It was the Spirit, and that's that. I know 100%, and there's nothing you can say or do which would slightly alter that. Just because you haven't had a similar experience/believe doesn't mean it isn't true.

You sir, are the quintessential definition of close-mindedness.

Originally Posted by LucidJuggalo

It doesn't matter what you say lmao. It was the Spirit, and that's that. I know 100%, and there's nothing you can say or do which would slightly alter that. Just because you haven't had a similar experience/believe doesn't mean it isn't true.

You'll go far in life with that attitude.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You'll go far in life with that attitude.

You mean in the afterlife!

Never had a response or results, but i'll try again now...
Dear God, please don't let me get in trouble with DV for this...

Spoiler for may offend, don't click:

Jim Jefferies is great.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You sir, are the quintessential definition of close-mindedness.

Honestly, ignoring his reports seems like close-mindedness to me.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Please provide an hermitian operator with at least two eigenvectors, "Alive" and "Dead", necessary to substantiate your claim that you could exist in a mixed state between the two.

So, i don't do maths but if it's possible to excist somewhere in between alive and dead i think the "DMT"? in ur body might be able to put ur mind in such a state. Where one feels expandable and completely in synch with the universe. I believe it's what Buddhists call Nirvana.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

Honestly, ignoring his reports seems like close-mindedness to me.

Open-mindedness is being willing to consider alternate hypotheses fairly and critically. Having the mindset of being 100% convinced of something and not willing to consider any alternatives under any circumstances is the ultimate form of close-mindedness. Now, if he can actually submit valid evidence that his encounter with a "spirit" actually was, then I will consider that evidence. But personal anecdotes from a species that suffers from a wide array of not uncommon mental disorders and phenomenons carries little to no weight.

Sure, he's not being very open minded. And he's not giving you any evidence to work with either. But there's plenty of people who throw it all out in the open. And they do seem like sane people to me and the meaning they give to the word God makes a lot more sense than any religious institution seems to give.
But most people that already have fixed ideas that there is no spirituality to life simply ignore those reports and just label their beliefs as mental disorders.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

So, i don't do maths but if it's possible to excist somewhere in between alive and dead i think the "DMT"? in ur body might be able to put ur mind in such a state. Where one feels expandable and completely in synch with the universe. I believe it's what Buddhists call Nirvana.

Well I just brought that up because he was saying that QM supports his ridiculous assertion when it does not such thing. He was probably misunderstanding Schroedinger's cat where a vial of poison is released in a closed box with a cat in it if some quantum state emits a photon. The quantum state is in a mixed state until a measurement occurs and so (by extension) the state of the cat is as well. He was just conflating a situation like that with getting stabbed in the neck. There's no mixed state to begin with and the whole thing happens at a classical level, no QM required. The lengths people will go to to avoid answering simple questions blows my mind sometimes.

Also, I believe that "Nirvana" refers to the state of "cessation of suffering" or "seeing the world clearly". I don't see how it has anything to do with being between alive and dead in the same sense that he was referring to.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Open-mindedness is being willing to consider alternate hypotheses fairly and critically. Having the mindset of being 100% convinced of something and not willing to consider any alternatives under any circumstances is the ultimate form of close-mindedness. Now, if he can actually submit valid evidence that his encounter with a "spirit" actually was, then I will consider that evidence. But personal anecdotes from a species that suffers from a wide array of not uncommon mental disorders and phenomenons carries little to no weight.

I love how those who are ignorant are so blissfully unaware of it.