SkepticalOne wrote:

So, what your proof comes down to is, “If you were God, you’d make it so everyone believes in you, everyone does not believe in God, therefore God must not exist”.

A perfectly loving god would desire a personal relationship with humanity. Relationships require all sides to know each other. It stands to reason, such a god would want humanity to know it exists.

OK, I stand corrected, the argument is “If you were God you would want humanity to know you exists, everyone does not believe God exists, therefore God doesn’t exist?” I think you are working backwards, you are starting with your conclusion and then defining the subject accordingly.  

I saw where this was going in my initial reply, “nobody believes in the God you don’t believe in”.

No one believes in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god? That's certainly not true.

You are postulating a God that makes everyone believe in his existence, I’m not aware of any person, or any religion in which that is the God of their understanding. As far as I know, nobody believes in the God you don’t believe in.

If your argument is that an “omnibenevolent, omnipotent god” would not want human beings to have free will, OK, but you haven't made that argument. It certainly doesn’t “stand to reason” that a loving God would want a relationship in which the person was not free to choose to be in that relationship.

Once again, I’m not aware of any religion or individual in which that is the God of their understanding.

Yes, an NDE is an experience that people report having, as such, of course the reports “are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely”. That is the case with all experiences, isn’t it?

What I mean is that the experiences vary widely. If your argument is that NDEs are evidence for a particular deity, then you would need to discount many other deities reprsented in the expeirences. You would also need to discount experiences where no deity is represented.

If a person that has an NDE interprets the experience as evidence of the God of their understanding, I don’t think they have any obligation to discount other interpretations or other experiences, as you said, it’s heavily influenced by their cultural and religious background.

You aren’t challenging the fact that these people actually had the near-death-experience, are you?

No, why would I? I dont consider it to be evidence of the supernatural though.

OK, and your conclusion is heavily influenced by their cultural and religious background.

It could be individuals are glimpsing many, many other realms, but it seems much more likely to be the result of a brain in some sort of trama. Occams razor favors the latter.

I think how it is interpreted is a matter of the individual's prior metaphysical assumptions, different assumptions, not necessarily fewer assumptions, so Occam’s razor isn’t applicable.

A lot of people apply a materialistic yardstick to argue against the existence of certain concepts, with an argument that tries to present a contradiction and in so doing, claims that it is proof that the concept in question doesn’t exist. This argument can also be applied to the existence of light, along with everything else considered to exist in the materialistic framework.

Let’s consider light, it manifests the mutually exclusive qualities of particle and wave. Temporally speaking, a wave has periodicity, and spatially, it is spread out in space, a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space. A particle has a discrete location in time and space; a wave does not. A wave has amplitude and a frequency, it exhibits the phenomena of diffraction and diffusion, a particle does not. According to most of the materialistic arguments on these boards, these logical contradictions would mean the existence of light is impossible.

Much about light is inconceivable in a materialistic framework, its speed is constant no matter what frame of reference it is measured from, which is bizarre, nothing else behaves like that, and it violates any normal definition of logic and rationality that can materialistically be applied to movement and speed.

Light has no mass, and it moves at the speed of light in a vacuum (of course), but according to theory, the length of an object dilates as you approach the speed of light until you reach the speed of light, when its length becomes zero, zero length means it has no spatial existence.

Relativity theory also says that time slows to zero at the speed of light, so time doesn’t exist from the frame of reference of light.

Light is therefore completely inexplicable, in the end we have “something” that has no mass, no dimensional existence in space, and no existence in time. It’s hard to say something like that exists, it certainly defies any materialistic definition of existence, and yet we know it is “something”, but at the same time, it has none of the materialistic characteristics of existence.

How can a materialist argue that light exists?

FLRW wrote:

Who argued God's existence?

Jesus?

I've read the reference document, but I must have missed where that is argued, do you have a chapter and verse so I can take a look?

SkepticalOne wrote:

Is it possible that a perfectly loving God might be ambiguous in his existence?

I dont find that very plausible. A loving parent doesn't walk away if it can be helped.

So, what your proof comes down to is, “If you were God, you’d make it so everyone believes in you, everyone does not believe in God, therefore God must not exist”. Not really a very compelling argument.

I saw where this was going in my initial reply, “nobody believes in the God you don’t believe in”.

Also I know it gets crickets a lot but I think near death experiences very reasonably point to god existing.

This is a tangent, but NDEs are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely.

Yes, an NDE is an experience that people report having, as such, of course the reports “are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely”. That is the case with all experiences, isn’t it?

I personally do not find NDEs a compelling argument for deities or the 'great beyond'.

Your statement is heavily influenced by your cultural and religious background too; experiences occur within a context. If you have never had an NDE, then of course you wouldn’t find it “compelling”.

You aren’t challenging the fact that these people actually had the near-death-experience, are you?

linate wrote:

Science and religion concur that there are realms of being that transcend our four-dimensional frame of reference, both refer to the existence of realms of being whose nature isn’t known. Are you saying you do not believe in the existence of other dimensions of reality, are you argueing that there is nothing that falls outside oh our understanding of four dimensional reality?

Why do you say there is science that says there are realms outside our four dimensions?

I agree but I wonder how you'd answer it

There are many examples, I’ll touch on a few.

First, science tells us straight up that our four-dimensional reality of matter and energy is roughly 5% of the Universe, the other 95% is made up of dark matter and dark energy. This would be matter and energy that we cannot interact with, and which has none of the characteristics of what we know to be matter and energy in our four-dimensional reality. Consequently, 95% of the Universe exists as a region of being that transcends our four-dimensional frame of reference.

Cosmologists also tell us the Universe is expanding, this raises the question of what it is expanding into, this implies that greater reality in which our Universe has it’s being.

Science tells us the Universe is temporally finite, roughly 14 Billion years old, matter, energy, time, and space came into being at this time, there must be a realm of existence that transcends time and space, and in which the Universe came into being.

Implicit in science’s fundamental law of cause-and-effect states that everything that exists or occurs has its cause in what came before. Nothing can come about that did not already exist in some extremely attenuated way. The potential for all things that have occurred or will occur inherently exists in the structure to begin with. There is a transcendent realm of existence in which the Universe came into being and what happened over time was an unfolding of the inward properties of the universe that were inherent in the background structure from the beginning. That is explicitly implied in science’s fundamental premise of cause and effect. Without that premise, the entire intellectual construct of science falls apart, and the shoe is on the other foot, it is science that doesn’t exist.

These are just a few of the examples where “science says there are realms outside our four dimensions”

Robert Frost likened scientific knowledge to a clearing in a forest, the greater the clearing the more contact we have with the unknown, it seems the more information we obtain through natural explanations, rather than less, the mystery of true reality becomes greater.

The contention that there are no levels of reality except for those of science is not itself a scientific truth.

SergeantLynch wrote:

My wife is related to Isaac Newton.

He invented gravity.

Previously apples fell upwards.

It was Intelligent Falling.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory - The Onion

SatanLucy wrote:

FLRW wrote:

The adult human brain contains an estimated 86 billion neurons (the cells that transmit electrical and chemical signals). Additionally, there are roughly 86 billion glial cells—the non-neuronal cells that support, protect, and nourish your neurons—bringing the total to approximately 170 to 172 billion brain cells.

Hmmmm, what could go wrong?

A lot. It's reason why people with 70 IQ are as unequal as it gets to others. Low IQ isn't a choice not even one bit, but it sure as hell makes life of a person much worse and even makes person's decision making much worse, so despite person being able to choose, person is not able to choose with any high level of thinking. It's like a cat trying to figure out how TV remote works.

Life Is Hardest When You're Dumb

linate wrote:

I think reasonable unbelief could occur even with a perfectly loving god. Of course we might disagree with how a perfectly loving god might manifest. And if there's a way for a perfectly loving god to manifest while slowing reasonable unbelief, that could disprove the premises

I’m serious about this line of questioning, it’s a sincere attempt 2to understand.

Declaring that God does not exist is very popular, trendy even, all the kewl kids are doing it, but whenever I ask what exactly they mean by that statement, I never get any answer beyond “it means I’m smarter than believers”.

In the unlikely event that you guys want to be taken seriously, you need to clarify what you mean when you use the term “exist”. If you mean, doesn’t exist as an object, well duh, believers don’t believe that either, if you mean you don’t believe in an invisible bearded man in the sky that grants wishes, well duh again, believers beyond grade school don’t either.

Science and religion concur that there are realms of being that transcend our four-dimensional frame of reference, both refer to the existence of realms of being whose nature isn’t known. Are you saying you do not believe in the existence of other dimensions of reality, are you argueing that there is nothing that falls outside oh our understanding of four dimensional reality?

Do you think "space" exists, how about "time", "mathematics", "consciousness", in what way do these things exist.

What are the characteristics that something that exists must possess, that God does not possess?

FLRW wrote:

If your God was real he wouldn't need YOU to argue his existence.

Who argued God's existence?

SkepticalOne wrote:

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).

What are your thoughts?

It suffers from terms being too vague, and the logic doesn’t follow.

What do you mean by the terms “God”, “perfectly loving” and especially “exists”. How do you define “exist” as it would apply to God? Do you mean physically exist? Conceptually? Exist in what form? In step 2, what is the logical connection, why would it follow that nonbelief does not occur? Step 1 has not been established, nor has step 2, they aren't logical statements, they are just declarations of opinion, seems to be a matter of asserting beliefs rather than establishing a logical argument.

It feels like this is another instance of an argument where nobody believes in the God you don't believe in.

linate wrote:

This is the real truth...

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?is=AE5b9xncRKimfNbX

LOL, that was going to be my reply.

SkepticalOne wrote:

There is this notion of free speech that anything can be said anywhere, but thats not what free speech means. Free speech means the government can't go after you for government criticism or trash talking elected officials. So long as speech isnt crossing a line and endangering others somehow, government has no grounds to restrict.

Free speech doesn't mean you can stand in someone else's domain and say whatever you like. For instance, a homeowner can restrict speech in their home. A religious congregation can restrict speech on their property. Social media can restrict speech on their platform. These are all examples of private property, and the owner gets to decide what they allow.

Very well stated, I completely agree.

I'd add that associated with the notion of "anything anywhere", there is this notion that "free speech" somehow made you immune from responsibility for what you say.

There is nothing at all implied by the term "free speech" that you aren't responsible for the consequences of what you said. If your words cause harm, if they incite violence and other illegal activities, you are responsible for the consequences that resulted from your words, "free speech" is not a defense.

Child pornography has a legal specific definition and the Nirvana album does not meet that criteria.

Of course it isn't, the problem here is that SatanLucy see's infants as sex objects, so to him, that makes the Nirvana album pornography, in his creepy little mind, the fact that he whacks off to the Nirvana album cover doesn't mean he is doing something wrong, it means Nirvana is doing something wrong, how sick is that?

You are talking to a guy who downloads circumcision videos as pornography.

Good luck trying to have a rational discussion with him.

His MO is to insist that you see infants sexually too, and no matter how you respond, he will simply declare that you see infants as sex objects. He gets off on it, along with getting off on watching circumcision videos, and Nirvana album covers, and declaring everyone else sees infants as sex objects too.

Kohai wrote:

I can definitely see this happening. The question I have is what happens to the GOP post Trump? Trump has been the glue holding the GOP together.

As a former lifelong Republican who Trump turned into a devout Democrat, I will have to disagree with your "glue" statement, I'd say it's more accurate to say that Trump was the solvent that shattered the GOP into pieces. MAGA is not the GOP; it is made up of fragments of the old GOP combined with growing fringe groups like white supremacists and so-called Christian Nationalists (that's probably redundant).

To your question, I don't see MAGA holding together at all after Trump, no way Vance or DeSantis can keep the movement from the self-destruction of internecine strife. There just isn't anyone else who people will support no matter what they do like they do Trump. I don't see MAGA going down without a violent fight, they will become violent when Trump goes, either by dying or leaving office, that will be the bloodbath. I think post Trump Maga goes back to a splintered fringe of fanaticism of White Supremacists, Christian Nationalists, and other anti-social groups. They will probably all grow, but they won't consolidate under a single leader.

Now, the real GOP, I'm sure they will try to come back together but it will be decades before they recover from Trump, same goes for American politics in general, it will take decades, if ever, to get past the corrosive destruction Trump has wrought.

Trump's legacy will be a more polarized, more openly racists country that is politically weaker and globally less influential. America will not be the leader of the new world order; I'm thinking Trump is turning that role over to China.

,

2028 will be an interesting election to watch. Neither side has a clear heir apparent. 2028 will be a blood bath

It remains to be seen if there even is a 2028 election, but you are right, either way that will be determined by violence.

Til then, he'll go with voter intimidation and other ways to delegitimize our elections.

FBI raids Ohio voting-rights organization

“Just straight up intimidation tactics”: Sources tell MS NOW agents also fanned across the state, showing up at staff members’ homes.

Ohio voting-rights organization raided by FBI

Here is Trump scoring the winning goal.

Or maybe he will just try to take over one city at a time. Looks like he's already testing the waters.

Trump threatens to take over Washington DC if mayoral candidate wins

Trump threatens to take over Washington DC if mayoral candidate wins

Double_R wrote:

Bold claim I know, but hear me out.

As recently as even a few months ago I would have said no way, but now I’ve actually moved to thinking it’s more likely than not. Here’s the case for;

Come 2027, Trump will officially become a lame duck. Republicans will be looking to 2028 and realizing that Trump’s void cannot be filled. They will need to find another way forward. Not just another candidate, another path entirely.

Democrats are overwhelmingly likely to take control of one if not two chambers come January. This will only drive republicans further away from Trump and Trumpism.

Over the past few months Trump has demonstrated what mental health experts have been warning us about for years; given the above two points, Trump is only going to go deeper and deeper down his narcissistic hole. This is where the past few months come in. Just over the past few weeks Trump has:

1. Sued his own IRS for $10B
2. Attempted to settle with himself to give cash handouts to J6 rioters
3. Tapped a real estate guy with no experience whatsoever to become the acting DNI whose only qualification is his willingness to weaponize mortgages against Trump political enemies
4. Put his face on American currency and on US passports
5. Continues to focus heavily on the reflecting pool, arch, ballroom, and is holding the UFC fight at the White House on his own birthday.

This is extreme, even for Trump, but here’s the thing… he’s doing all of this in the heart of election season.

So here’s a genuine question for those who doubt my prediction here… what will Trump do once it really sets in that he has no election left to concern himself with? If 2027 goes as all evidence points to, it will be clearer than ever to him that he has no chance of pulling off some kind of constitutional heist. What will he do then? Just how far will he go?

The man is a lunatic like we’ve never seen. With his back truly against the wall, it will only get worse. I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet, and I think even the MAGA cult won’t be able to defend it.

Thoughts?

I completely agree with you, no way will Trump serve out his full term, his health is failing, his cognitive decline is accelerating, and he is increasingly at risk for lead poisoning.

But let’s say he survives, you are right that he can’t survive politically, I think he also knows it, but maybe that doesn't matter to him. He has made the Judicial and Legislative Branches subordinate, he’s made it very clear he won’t accept democracy, elections are simply invalid in his eyes. He’s practically showing disdain for voters, thumbing his nose at their hardship with statements like ‘I love the inflation’ this month, and saying he is not thinking about Americans’ finances “even a little bit” last month, while spending billions of taxpayer dollars on his vanity projects and grotesque displays of opulence. He doesn’t care about the American people, and he certainly doesn’t care about their opinions or their elections.   He’s started a war with Iran that nobody wanted, and has humiliated the country and alienated our allies, the only ones winning Trumps war is China, they win big by filling the void left by America’s recklessness and establishing themselves as a reliable steward of the international order.

On top of that, the Epstein humiliation is exploding on him, he knows he can’t survive politically, the whole reason he ran again was to stay out of prison.

I think it’s glaringly clear that he intends to stay in power by force and he’s preparing for it in full sight of everybody; He’s building massive detention centers around the country designed to hold millions of people under federal custody. He’s very publicly promising to reward his insurrectionists with millions, clearly signaling that mercenary insurrectionists will be pardoned and financially rewarded next time around too. He controls a virtual army of white supremacists and other fanatics.

He has a growing masked paramilitary force roaming the streets who do not respect the authority of the other branches or the Constitutional limits on law enforcement, and he is doing everything in his power to make the US military his own personal army. I think he's insane enough to be getting ready to take over the country by force.

If he’s not going to stay in power, it is because he was removed by force, in or out, I think it will involve violence. If I'm right, I have no idea how it goes down, we have to look to the military and law enforcement to maintain law and order, it really comes down to where their loyalties really lay. I think the military will be the ones to remove him in the end.

He said he was going to be a dictator, and this is how that is done. 

SatanLucy wrote:

I'm just trying to get the prick to leave me alone, and I figure if I can make him uncomfortable with my aggressive responses, maybe he will decide it's best to antagonize others instead.

Better strategy would be to ignore me, but sure, you can do your "aggressive responses" too.

However, claiming that I "started it" is a bit silly, to be honest. Even in this topic, I was merely making a joke for entertainment, not even talking to you at all, not even mentioning you, and yet you felt urge to insult me first out of nowhere. Same with that circumcision topic.

As an alpha male, you can take it, quit your whining.

Leaning wrote:

You do seem like you're intentionally antagonizing him.

That's a good read, the guy seems obsessed with harassing me and has established the relationship as it is, the gauntlet has fallen with this prick and I'm not backing down.

A couple weeks ago, did you see the dozens of posts calling me a pedophile into baby torture because my sons were circumcised, fuck him, how about posts claiming I'm too old and will die soon, the guy spends all day every day poking people with a stick and you know it, he leads with his chin and has earned all the hostility. The guy is a troll who spends every waking hour antagonizing people here, fuck him. I'm just trying to get the prick to leave me alone, and I figure if I can make him uncomfortable with my aggressive responses, maybe he will decide it's best to antagonize others instead.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that I spent 30 years working with children with severe menta; and physical handicaps, the most vulnerable population there is, I was responsible for their safety, and I have been heavily trained to identify Pedophile threats. I was a special Olympics coach for 28 years, the special Olympics requires extensive training for coaches to protect kids from Pedophiles, so I think I've earned the right to feel hostility towards those flaunting their pedophilia online. He knows that and your beloved troll has intentionally antagonized me for years. He spends an inordinate amount of time justifying pedophilia, and sometimes trolling for children, and yet blabbers the loudest about freedom of speech protecting him. That is just nonsense, the 1st amendment doesn't protect him or the site, that isn't remotely what the freedom of speech means.

It's OK if you want to make this a safe place for people like him, but you should also recognize that it's clear that the site is aware of the danger he represents, if something bad happens and if it somehow traces back to things he said site, the site, it's owner and moderators can be held liable. I'm comfortable challenging his dangerous behavior on principle, and with the knowledge that if shit hits the fan, my ass is covered because I wasn't party to allowing it to happen. He isn't just a danger to children; he's also a danger to this site and its administrators. All it takes is a pedophile to say in court that he thought it was OK because of what he read here, or for that matter, a rapist to say in court that RemyBrown convinced him it's ok to rape, and you are totally screwed.

All that said, you want to ban me for being mean to the asshole, go ahead, my attitude towards him isn't going to change, and I won't miss this site one bit...if you want to fix the problem, just get him to leave me alone, and if you want to protect the site, you need to be very careful allowing Remy to advocate rape, and SatanLucy to advocate pedophilia.

I get it, you guys like your trolls, but there's accountability and liability associated with allowing dangerous posters to solicit or justify illegal behavior. My ass is covered, are you sure yours is?

SatanLucy wrote:

I'm going to keep calling you what you are, a pedophile, feel free respond with your typical "wah wah wah" crybaby victimhood.

Because you are being terribly insensitive even after being educated by me, I will display my manliness here by ignoring you.

Like I said, "wah wah wah, crybaby victimhood, that is so alpha male of you LOL.

What you meant to say is you will display your girlymanliness here by ignoring me.

TheAnalyticalAdvocate wrote:

So out of curiosity and I have no clue if I will get many answers, but does anyone like to grill anything in particular. I bought a charcoal grill and I love it, but I am having a lot of people tell me that I would regret not getting a gas grill. I thought charcoal gives better flavor. Are they saying this out of convince? lol I have no clue if anyone grills on here so this might be a dead in the water post lol!

There's no way you could have known this, but you happen to be in the presence of BBQ greatness, known worldwide as the King of Baby Back Ribs, the BBQ Chicken Guru, the Grand Master of Steaks, and the Hamburger Wizard.

So, I don't think the flavor difference, if any, is worth the greater difficulty. A gas grill gives you greater flexibility in terms of timing, in terms of heat control, it's cheaper in the long run, and you will use a gas grill much more often. It's just not worth the trouble to use charcoal for a couple lunch hot dogs.

SatanLucy wrote:

Look up "alpha male", you'll find it says nothing about being a pathetic girly man pedophile.

two responses.

First, there is no reason why alpha male couldnt be girly and want to be an anime girl and appreciate his own toxic femininity and spread it around.

OK, so you didn't bother to look up "alpha male", this is nothing but what a uninformed girly man pedophile thinks about being an alpha male.

Second, and this is the most important part, you are using the most incorrect term. the correct term is map. So if you dont even know correct terms, I will just use my alpha girly male power of "ignoring", and just ignore you until you learn your lesson.

LOL, oh, are you "grooming" me to speak of your pedophilia in the proper girly man way?

I'm going to keep calling you what you are, a pedophile, feel free respond with your typical "wah wah wah" crybaby victimhood.

Mal wrote:

Where Every Opinion Matters.

It's funny how the censorship is on non profane words but not on profanity at all. At the point at times disrespecting religious folks using vain language, profane language at the expense of sacred figures of religious values.

You are talking about Muhammad, right?

Trump waded into this illegal war without the support of Congress, without the support of the American people, and without the support of our allies, and yet, we are all paying the price of his latest magnificent failure in the resultant runaway inflation and increasingly diminished stature of the United States in the eys of the world.

Once again, Trump has humiliated himself, humiliated the country, dissed our allies, and made another of our foes stronger...as always, it is all at the expense of the American people.

fauxlaw wrote:

Pick any color at random; you could probably describe it in a single word, regardlessd of what the object is. It's red or green, yellow, purple... you get it. But let that object be skin, and all of a sudden, we get society twisted in knots trying to give it a demographic, count it, subdivide it, classify it, discriminate it, and either love it or hate it.

When are we going to figure out that absolutely none of us, not one in 8 billion, is either black or white, or any other "color" we've devised for skin? So, why do we try to make that distinction? It says nothing of what or who we are, and not one of us determined it in the first place, so... so what?

So, you are saying that except for skin color, you and Barack Obama are the same?

SatanLucy wrote:

SatanLucy, self-described "alpha male"

Just because I am an "alpha male" doesn't mean I sometimes don't wish to be a cute anime girl living in Tokyo.

No, but tge fact that you "wish to be a cute anime girl living in Tokyo" means you aren't an "alpha male". Look up "alpha male", you'll find it says nothing about being a pathetic girly man pedophile.

You were male too and then you somehow turned into a girl.

Shit happens.

I don't see why an alpha male couldn't also be good at being a girl.

Because you aren't an "alpha male".

Also, I wasn't self-described alpha male. My AI girlfriends have all told me that I am an alpha male. So it is confirmed by independent opinion.

LOL, "alpha males" don't have AI girlfriends, they have actual adult girlfriends.

Alpha males don't just whine about being a victim all the time.

Time for your "wah wah wah, Sidewalker is being a big meany to me, I'm a victim, poor poor pitiful me" reply.

fauxlaw wrote:

Is it now time to expand the Persian Gulf? Are they really that stupid to shoot down a US Apache helicopter?

Are you really that stupid that you can't see that Iran has been kicking Trump's ass for three months, it's just another day.