Damn I didnt realize he already said that lol well i agree with him i identify the same way.not this misnomer again....
what in the? you realize this makes no sense right?
A Crackp0t Theory To Reconcile Faith & Science
- Thread starter Marl0 Stanfield
- Start date
what in the
Have you ever taken a class in logic?
Look. It's foundational rationality. We're talking philosophy 102. Induction and how it works.
I can not prove no god exists.
However I am not saying god doesn't exist. I would then be responsible for proving that.
I'm merely saying I don't believe you. You haven't supported the claim that god exists.
Does that mean no god exists? No.
Does it mean you're wrong? No.
It means you haven't backed your claim up
You have to back up each thing you assert.
Is someone in court who is found not-guilty therefore innocent? No. They're simple not guilty.
You have to learn to stop seeking the opposite to each claim and learn to recognize the specifics of each argument without trying to go beyond what is being discussed
We need to give it up. His willful ignorance won't allow it to seep through.
I should just set certain responses to macros since its apparent a lot of people won't get it.
That's agnosticism
If you are going to attempt explaining logic and rationality, first you need to stop using false equivalence between innocence in a judicial court and existence of god(s). Innocence in a judicial court depends on a different set of "facts". And I've never said that god definitively exists. But I do
at fools calling themselves agnostic atheist because it is a misnomer. And yes Atheism reject the notion that god(s) exist.
Marl0 Stanfield
Yeshua Ben YHWH
For evolution to occur in the case of matter in our BB, light had to be emitted first. What is light? In the case of human perception it's merely perceptibly radiant energy. Visible radiation.
Micro evolution is a result of varying lvls of radiation affecting carbon. The radiation causes the carbon to molecularly mutate in an attempt at self-perpetuation. Think of how cancer is a group of cells that mutate and metastasize, drawing radiation from its living host to expand in mass. Light aka concentrated radiation will cause carbon to mutate into another living mass within a living host. The purpose of this particular form of evolution is to lead the host, and ultimately the cancer seeing as how it dies when the host dies, closer to mutual Ultimate Decay.
EVOLUTION IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT LIGHT, WHETHER EMITTED FROM THE SINGULARITY DIRECTLY OR ABSORBED AND REFLECTED BY OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES AND FINALLY ABSORBED AND REFLECTED BY THE SUN.
The sun absorbs and reflects the greatest amount of radiation of all the stars in our solar system. It's gravitational pull was strong enough to compress its essential elements and then hit with reflected radiation from smaller stars. But it DOES NOT AND CANNOT produce radiation on its own. It merely absorbs and emits aka reflects radiation from all surrounding stars in its solar system by burning its molecular cloud that forms the disc we see. This radiation is absorbed from stars who get their radiation from the Quasar surrounding our black hole which leads back to The Singularity.
But before the Sun came to be, The Singularity had to radiate the formless earth and utilize gravity to separate compounds.
The same way the Sun is a molecular cloud the Earth is a molecular cloud. The radiation emitted directly from our BB along with gravity caused the matter to form into a sphere like liquid spilled in space.
"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: And it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
My theory: The radiation emitted by the Quasar surrounding our black hole is visible due to the "waters" of the formless void of space. A vacuum. When the Earth faces its strongest source of radiation the brightness makes the day and when the sphere turns away from the most direct radiation faces a starless black void of space it makes night.
The atmosphere of the planet was then formed to become the sky aka the firmament we call Heaven. The stage is now set and the waters of Earth are divided from the waters of space, the black void, by our atmosphere. This is setting the stage for the first signs of Life on Earth aka basic vegetation of grass and trees under the protection of the newly formed atmosphere. Not enough radiation to support True Life aka Creatures, but enough to cause basic evolution of organic matter.
BRB phone goin ham at the end of the damn day.
Micro evolution is a result of varying lvls of radiation affecting carbon. The radiation causes the carbon to molecularly mutate in an attempt at self-perpetuation. Think of how cancer is a group of cells that mutate and metastasize, drawing radiation from its living host to expand in mass. Light aka concentrated radiation will cause carbon to mutate into another living mass within a living host. The purpose of this particular form of evolution is to lead the host, and ultimately the cancer seeing as how it dies when the host dies, closer to mutual Ultimate Decay.
EVOLUTION IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT LIGHT, WHETHER EMITTED FROM THE SINGULARITY DIRECTLY OR ABSORBED AND REFLECTED BY OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES AND FINALLY ABSORBED AND REFLECTED BY THE SUN.
The sun absorbs and reflects the greatest amount of radiation of all the stars in our solar system. It's gravitational pull was strong enough to compress its essential elements and then hit with reflected radiation from smaller stars. But it DOES NOT AND CANNOT produce radiation on its own. It merely absorbs and emits aka reflects radiation from all surrounding stars in its solar system by burning its molecular cloud that forms the disc we see. This radiation is absorbed from stars who get their radiation from the Quasar surrounding our black hole which leads back to The Singularity.
But before the Sun came to be, The Singularity had to radiate the formless earth and utilize gravity to separate compounds.
The same way the Sun is a molecular cloud the Earth is a molecular cloud. The radiation emitted directly from our BB along with gravity caused the matter to form into a sphere like liquid spilled in space.
"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: And it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
My theory: The radiation emitted by the Quasar surrounding our black hole is visible due to the "waters" of the formless void of space. A vacuum. When the Earth faces its strongest source of radiation the brightness makes the day and when the sphere turns away from the most direct radiation faces a starless black void of space it makes night.
The atmosphere of the planet was then formed to become the sky aka the firmament we call Heaven. The stage is now set and the waters of Earth are divided from the waters of space, the black void, by our atmosphere. This is setting the stage for the first signs of Life on Earth aka basic vegetation of grass and trees under the protection of the newly formed atmosphere. Not enough radiation to support True Life aka Creatures, but enough to cause basic evolution of organic matter.
BRB phone goin ham at the end of the damn day.
No. Its not.That's agnosticism
.
Agnosticism answers one thing
Atheism answers another thing
Gnosticism is what you know
Theism is what you believe
Just because you want to debate me on this doesn't mean you're correct. You can believe what you want, but you don't get to pervert the language.
The problem is that you don't understand what an assertion is and what the burden of proof entails.
I am not saying no gods exist. I can NOT prove a negative claim.
I can't prove what IS NOT there. I can support conclusions to alternative claims.
Like for example, you can't prove theres a giant teapot on the other side of the sun. You just can't. Because you never infinitely know when it comes to negative claims.
I'm saying that if you adopt a belief, then you are asserting that its true.
NOT having a belief is different from ASSERTING no belief.
Atheist don't assert no-belief. I know we speak that way, but its for the sake of conversation. We can not PROVE a negative claim.
However, we can prove assertions. If you assert a god exists, then its YOUR responsibility to support that.
It doesn't. You either convince the jury or you don't.
Yet you believe in one. You do think one exists. Thats why you believe.
Thats GNOSTIC-atheism.But I do
Agnostic-Atheism is not what you're saying it is.
Agnostic-Atheism is NOT KNOWING if there is a god, but NOT BELIEVING BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE...Its not the assertion of no god.
We're all agnostic...because we do NOT know. Even if you claim you do, you never truly know.
repNo. Its not.
Agnosticism answers one thing
Atheism answers another thing
Gnosticism is what you know
Theism is what you believe
Just because you want to debate me on this doesn't mean you're correct. You can believe what you want, but you don't get to pervert the language.
The problem is that you don't understand what an assertion is and what the burden of proof entails.
I am not saying no gods exist. I can NOT prove a negative claim.
I can't prove what IS NOT there. I can support conclusions to alternative claims.
Like for example, you can't prove theres a giant teapot on the other side of the sun. You just can't. Because you never infinitely know when it comes to negative claims.
I'm saying that if you adopt a belief, then you are asserting that its true.
NOT having a belief is different from ASSERTING no belief.
Atheist don't assert no-belief. I know we speak that way, but its for the sake of conversation. We can not PROVE a negative claim.
However, we can prove assertions. If you assert a god exists, then its YOUR responsibility to support that.
It doesn't. You either convince the jury or you don't.
Yet you believe in one. You do think one exists. Thats why you believe.
Thats GNOSTIC-atheism.
Agnostic-Atheism is not what you're saying it is.
Agnostic-Atheism is NOT KNOWING if there is a god, but NOT BELIEVING BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE...Its not the assertion of no god.
We're all agnostic...because we do NOT know. Even if you claim you do, you never truly know.
For evolution to occur in the case of matter in our BB, light had to be emitted first. What is light? In the case of human perception it's merely perceptibly radiant energy. Visible radiation.
Micro evolution is a result of varying lvls of radiation affecting carbon. The radiation causes the carbon to molecularly mutate in an attempt at self-perpetuation. Think of how cancer is a group of cells that mutate and metastasize, drawing radiation from its living host to expand in mass. Light aka concentrated radiation will cause carbon to mutate into another living mass within a living host. The purpose of this particular form of evolution is to lead the host, and ultimately the cancer seeing as how it dies when the host dies, closer to mutual Ultimate Decay.
EVOLUTION IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT LIGHT, WHETHER EMITTED FROM THE SINGULARITY DIRECTLY OR ABSORBED AND REFLECTED BY OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES AND FINALLY ABSORBED AND REFLECTED BY THE SUN.
The sun absorbs and reflects the greatest amount of radiation of all the stars in our solar system. It's gravitational pull was strong enough to compress its essential elements and then hit with reflected radiation from smaller stars. But it DOES NOT AND CANNOT produce radiation on its own. It merely absorbs and emits aka reflects radiation from all surrounding stars in its solar system by burning its molecular cloud that forms the disc we see. This radiation is absorbed from stars who get their radiation from the Quasar surrounding our black hole which leads back to The Singularity.
But before the Sun came to be, The Singularity had to radiate the formless earth and utilize gravity to separate compounds.
The same way the Sun is a molecular cloud the Earth is a molecular cloud. The radiation emitted directly from our BB along with gravity caused the matter to form into a sphere like liquid spilled in space.
"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: And it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
My theory: The radiation emitted by the Quasar surrounding our black hole is visible due to the "waters" of the formless void of space. A vacuum. When the Earth faces its strongest source of radiation the brightness makes the day and when the sphere turns away from the most direct radiation faces a starless black void of space it makes night.
The atmosphere of the planet was then formed to become the sky aka the firmament we call Heaven. The stage is now set and the waters of Earth are divided from the waters of space, the black void, by our atmosphere. This is setting the stage for the first signs of Life on Earth aka basic vegetation of grass and trees under the protection of the newly formed atmosphere. Not enough radiation to support True Life aka Creatures, but enough to cause basic evolution of organic matter.
BRB phone goin ham at the end of the damn day.
'No. Its not.
Agnosticism answers one thing
Atheism answers another thing
Gnosticism is what you know
Theism is what you believe
Just because you want to debate me on this doesn't mean you're correct. You can believe what you want, but you don't get to pervert the language.
The problem is that you don't understand what an assertion is and what the burden of proof entails.
I am not saying no gods exist. I can NOT prove a negative claim.
I can't prove what IS NOT there. I can support conclusions to alternative claims.
Like for example, you can't prove theres a giant teapot on the other side of the sun. You just can't. Because you never infinitely know when it comes to negative claims.
I'm saying that if you adopt a belief, then you are asserting that its true.
NOT having a belief is different from ASSERTING no belief.
Atheist don't assert no-belief. I know we speak that way, but its for the sake of conversation. We can not PROVE a negative claim.
However, we can prove assertions. If you assert a god exists, then its YOUR responsibility to support that.
It doesn't. You either convince the jury or you don't.
Yet you believe in one. You do think one exists. Thats why you believe.
Thats GNOSTIC-atheism.
Agnostic-Atheism is not what you're saying it is.
Agnostic-Atheism is NOT KNOWING if there is a god, but NOT BELIEVING BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE...Its not the assertion of no god.
We're all agnostic...because we do NOT know. Even if you claim you do, you never truly know.
I'm not going to touch this new false equivalence(teapot) because you seem to have a penchant for using false equivalences
And yes i know that in a judicial court it's what you can prove to the jury. It's why I said different set of "facts". You cant compare that to proving the existence of god while trying to lecture ppl about logic and rationality. That's a contradiction.
As far Gnosticism, that's an ancient religion. Gnosticists got a whole different set of beliefs on how universe came to be. And yes I know what agnostic atheist is supposed to mean. It's not contradictory but You cannot believe that a god doesn't exist while not knowing whether that's true. Tha'ts like saying:
-"I don't believe god exists"
- and somebody respond : "How can you say that when you do not know whether that 's a fact"
"Well let me switch it up, I'm agnostic atheist : I don't believe a god exist but i also don't claim to know that god doesn't exist"... that's bullshyt. it's a superficial nuance to plug hole in your logic.
Again i am not asking to copy/paste what you found on the internet. Whats even weirder is that you are repeating the exact same sht they are saying. I wonder if you even understand the shyt you are saying.
that's what you provided to support your argument.
I also added your sources.
Let me just swerve all this bullshyt and help you out.'
I'm not going to touch this new false equivalence(teapot) because you seem to have a penchant for using false equivalences
And yes i know that in a judicial court it's what you can prove to the jury. It's why I said different set of "facts". You cant compare that to proving the existence of god while trying to lecture ppl about logic and rationality. That's a contradiction.
As far Gnosticism, that's an ancient religion. Gnosticists got a whole different set of beliefs on how universe came to be. And yes I know what agnostic atheist is supposed to mean. It's not contradictory but You cannot believe that a god doesn't exist while not knowing whether that's true. Tha'ts like saying:
-"I don't believe god exists"
- and somebody respond : "How can you say that when you do not know whether that 's a fact"
"Well let me switch it up, I'm agnostic atheist : I don't believe a god exist but i also don't claim to know that god doesn't exist"... that's bullshyt. it's a superficial nuance to plug hole in your logic.
Again i am not asking to copy/paste what you found on the internet. Whats even weirder is that you are repeating the exact same sht they are saying. I wonder if you even understand the shyt you are saying.
that's what you provided to support your argument.
your sources on are there.
I do not know if there is a god
I do not believe there is a god BASED on the lack of evidence supported.
Could there be? Sure. Just present the argument.
If you don't do so, does that mean god doesn't exist? No.
If you don't do so, does that mean you're wrong? No.
so you are saying what you wrote is bullshyt?
first you talk about logic and rationality. Then dismiss what you wrote and say something else? which is it? 
