Who is God?

[australopithecus]

Nice deflection, still waiting on your mathematical refutation of Lawrence Krauss' hypothesis.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

First let me teach you how the quoting system works.
To use a quote you can add the following tags

[quote] [/quote]

The "[quote]" part opens the quote and the "[/quote]" closes it.
You write your quoted text between those 2
Ex.

[quote]This is a Quote[/quote]

Which should look like this

This is a Quote

You can add a property to the quote tag that allows you to identify the person you are quoting

[quote="Name of person"]This is a Quote[/quote]

This is a Quote

You can put a quote within a quote, on this site your allowed up to 2 levels.

[quote="Person 1"][quote="Person 2"]This is Quote 2[/quote]This is Quote 1[/quote]

This is Quote 2

This is Quote 1

See this icon on the top right corner of my message?

You click on that to put my entire message inside a quote.
However copy pasting my entire post is bad editorial etiquette, if I want to read my entire post integrally, I just go back to my original post.

Got it?

 

[Frenger]

Nice deflection, still waiting on your mathematical refutation of Lawrence Krauss' hypothesis.

He doesn't need mathematical mumbo jumbo, he just knows it! Don't you see?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context is apparently the best argument you have that does nothing to refute my arguments. The maturity level is that of 11 year olds up in here! Very sad!

Sorry the extreme irony in this sentence forces me to call troll.

Wrong. Scott did state the universe was the cause and the beginning of matter. BTW atoms have not existed as long as the universe. Whoever asserts that atoms have been around as long as our universe is either a liar or misinformed. To add: energy did not exists prior to the Big Bang!
Another fatal flaw of the video is that it asserts the universe never had a beginning. This is ludicrous. If time had a beginning then how could the universe have not had a beginning? Scott contradicts his own view by stating that the universe has always existed yet time had a beginning according to the big bang. It should also be noted that the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed only applies within the universe. It's not a law that retrospectively predates the big bang. Funny how people take a law confined to the universe and then extrapolates it to apply to an infinite past. Heretics!

1. I can see TBS's video, everyone can see TBS's video and see for themselves that TBS never stated that " the universe was the cause and the beginning of matter" or ever stated that "the universe has always existed" or asserts that "the universe never had a beginning".
2. There is nothing incoherent about "the universe always existed and time having a beginning".
3. You are the first person referring atoms, nobody stated that atoms existed since the Big Bang, atoms could only form after the Universe is sufficiently cold.
4. The total estimated amount of energy in the Universe is 0.
5. Speculating about the laws of physics in non-existing realms is absurd.
6. Although the Big Bang happened, nobody knows if the Universe started with the Big Bang. This was already explained to you.
7. Your statements are completely incoherent. If you propose that time began with the big bang, and that it makes no sense to talk about the before the Big Bang, this are the things you are not allowed to say:
a) energy did not exists prior to the Big Bang!
b) not a law that retrospectively predates the big bang
c) Funny how people take a law confined to the universe and then extrapolates it to apply to an infinite past

If questions are always deemed 'right', how could they ever be corrected when referring to the origin of the universe or in correlation with anything else?

I never stated that questions are always deemed right. That is another:

Cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context is apparently the best argument you have that does nothing to refute my arguments. The maturity level is that of 11 year olds up in here! Very sad!

Questions are not right or wrong, they are questions.
Right or wrong questions only exist as so far as the context of trying to find the appropriate answer for a selected subject.
Please take an introductory class in philosophy.

I find you stating this over and over so allow me to make it very clear that you are making a self defeating statement when you say that 'anything' cannot be proved to exists philosophically. The reason being is you are using a philosophical statement to philosophically prove that philosophically, anything cannot philosophically cannot be proved.

1. Your statement is incoherent. Perhaps you meant to say this:
"The reason being is you are using a philosophical statement to philosophically prove that nothing can be philosophically proved"
2. Which is another:

Cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context is apparently the best argument you have that does nothing to refute my arguments. The maturity level is that of 11 year olds up in here! Very sad!

I have never stated that "nothing could be philosophically proven", what I stated is "nothing could be philosophically proven to exist" which are 2 completely different statements.

*Pie issue*

Who do you take me for? Do you think for a moment that I failed to see that you haven't addressed the point? Do you really think that anyone failed to notice that you have no argument?

So God is somehow frozen since He is timeless? I did not know that you were the authority on the existence of infinite things? Explain why God could not create time and the universe simultaneously? Basically your argument is that 'timeless' means you cannot move or perform an action. I was thinking rather that timeless simply meant 'no time', the non existence of time. I did not know it meant 'frozen'. It appears you are making up your own definitions and meanings as usual.

1. I'm sorry, that is not an argument, it's a whine. You don't like it? Tough!
2. I never stated "frozen", or said "cannot move" even tough the later is technically correct.
3. There is no coherent concept of action that makes sense without time. An action without time makes no more sense then to say "House pumpernickel a sleep".

How dare the scientists at NASA lie to us! Or maybe you could be the one to call them and let them know they are misinformed?! "Hello Mr. scientists! I am sorry but your conclusion does not meet the criteria of my semantics! There is no such thing as a cause or a beginning anymore because I have figured out a superficially clever way to say there is no such things as beginnings or causes via using my gift of posing semantic word arguments!"

1. No scientist has ever stated that the Universe began to exist.
2. I'm a scientist and I'm telling you that.

Scott never said a word about "many worlds interpretation". I suppose you're a mind reader now?

Yes, Scott never mentioned the many worlds interpretation. And I don't need to be a mind reader to figure out what is on Scott's mind, one only needs to know what Scott is talking about and know the character of Scott well enough.

Sorry, but I must be behind on the scientific proof that would justify your argument that there are many universes. Care to interject? Show me proof of this intersection of multiple universes. Where and when and by whom was it observed?

There is no proof, yet, it is only an hypothesis that arises as a consequences from certain models used to try and explain the Universe we see.
At this point we really don't know. When we say that "we don't know what happen before the Big Bang, or if that is even a coherent concept" we really mean it.

Two different states? Of matter? Do you mean the non existent state of matter and then the existent state of matter?

Where in that sentence did you read the word matter? How is this not another:

Cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context is apparently the best argument you have that does nothing to refute my arguments. The maturity level is that of 11 year olds up in here! Very sad!

For God to be the cause of the the Universe, God must exist when the Universe doesn't and that is a state, and then the Universe must exist as a consequence of God and that is another state, and this means time. If there is no time before the Universe existed, what it means is that there is no state that precedes the Universe, and this means that no state exists where God exists but the Universe doesn't, and this means that God couldn't have cause the Universe to exist. You just utterly destroyed your own assumption of a creator God, you unintentionally completely disproved God. What is it that you don't understand?

 

[Frenger]

Sorry the extreme irony in this sentence forces me to call troll.

Could be true, he has called god Paul Daniels.

Only one to find out though.

Joe, I challenge you to a debate.

The title can be "The god of the Christian bible exists"

Obv your for, I'm against.

Thoughts?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Sorry the extreme irony in this sentence forces me to call troll.

Could be true, he has called god Paul Daniels.

Only one to find out though.

Joe, I challenge you to a debate.

The title can be "The god of the Christian bible exists"

Obv your for, I'm against.

Thoughts?

It's tempting and although I am flattered you'd ask me to debate with you, I must declaine for the following reasons.

1 ) I am still learning how to use the quote system! :lol:
2 ) I have very little time. (note how long it takes me to respond to posts and how many of them I must just ignore as I have no time to explain complex issues.
3 ) I don't even have internet access at home. I am just a poor boy.
4 ) Given the obvious unreasonableness of people in this forum I think I would be setting myself up for dissapointment even If I did present something absolutely irrefutable.
5 ) My autistic son needs my attention just as much as atheists but my family comes first. Call me selfish but I must decline a debate for now. Maybe one day I would like to.But until then I will just engage in forum discussions when I can and leave it at that.

If I did say yes how does that work anyway? Some are very kind enough to call me fucking idiot and explain to me how quotes work, so, maybe you would be kind enough to tell me how a debate works?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Got it?

Got it! I think!
Thanks! How do you find my/your orignal post?

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

It's tempting and although I am flattered you'd ask me to debate with you, I must declaine for the following reasons.

1 ) I am still learning how to use the quote system! :lol:

Cool beans.

2 ) I have very little time. (note how long it takes me to respond to posts and how many of them I must just ignore as I have no time to explain complex issues.

Cool beans.

3 ) I don't even have internet access at home. I am just a poor boy.

Damn that sucks.

4 ) Given the obvious unreasonableness of people in this forum I think I would be setting myself up for dissapointment even If I did present something absolutely irrefutable.

Care to elaborate?

5 ) My autistic son needs my attention just as much as atheists but my family comes first. Call me selfish but I must decline a debate for now. Maybe one day I would like to.But until then I will just engage in forum discussions when I can and leave it at that.

The first part of the first sentence seems fair enough but what are you trying to state in the second half of the first sentence (more specifically the underlined part)? Care to elaborate?

If I did say yes how does that work anyway? Some are very kind enough to call me fucking idiot and explain to me how quotes work, so, maybe you would be kind enough to tell me how a debate works?

Review the debate thread (both active and non-active).

Active Debate Page
Archived Debate Page
How to Hold Debate

Example found here.......

EXAMPLE

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Once again, Joseph, I'd like to see this answer from you since it really is the source of the whole discussion here (you've done all but dance around actually providing any sort of relevance to see if you're even on footing with even elementary philosophy to have this discussion):

What is the difference between abstract concepts and immaterial things that exist?
And, which one do you think your God fits into?

Both of these things can be found in any fundamental Philosophy textbook.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Once again, Joseph, I'd like to see this answer from you since it really is the source of the whole discussion here (you've done all but dance around actually providing any sort of relevance to see if you're even on footing with even elementary philosophy to have this discussion):

What is the difference between abstract concepts and immaterial things that exist?
And, which one do you think your God fits into?

Both of these things can be found in any fundamental Philosophy textbook.

Also, Joseph, your troll is showing.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Feel free to take your inability to comprehend modern physics elsewhere then.

Feel free take your non explanations of modern physics and well figure out how to explain them. I can't refute your non existent arguments. I should like to take a shot at it. But you give nothing to address. You cannot merely ask me to refute quantum physics as if it's a proven theory. You need to be objective if you want a response from me.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Master_Ghost_Knight

What is it that you don't understand?

Josephhasfun01 wrote:Sorry, but I must be behind on the scientific proof that would justify your argument that there are many universes. Care to interject? Show me proof of this intersection of multiple universes. Where and when and by whom was it observed?

There is no proof, yet

You admit there is no proof, yet you still believe? Sounds like you have a lot of faith!
Is it unreasonable to have faith in things you have no proof for?
I must say that this discussion with you is becoming less and less objective, therefore, less productive.

I have never stated that "nothing could be philosophically proven", what I stated is "nothing could be philosophically proven to exist" which are 2 completely different statements.

It's exciting watching you back pedal!

To try and prove the existence of anything philosophically is impossible.

You're saying that "anything" cannot be proven to exist through philosophy which certainly implies 'all things' including things pertaining to philosophy. You have certainly contradicted yourself. While it is true that you cannot 'prove' something to 'exist' in the sense of a tangible object through philosophy, you can however, prove something to exist in the abstract sense of the word "exist."

I would suggest you define "exists" in order to squirm your way out of the mess you have gotten yourself into. I am such a nice guy to help you out as I have already pointed you in the right direction. BTW God can be proven to 'exist' using philosophy to 'exist' because He is not a concrete object.

I have yet to see anyone coherently refute the 'immaterial' argument. The immaterial laws in which the universe follows theoretically 'exist'. Moving on.

There are many problems with the rest of your argument. My biggest problem is of a personal matter-I would rather have you quote me then restate in what I said in your own words via a numeric format.

Most of your argument is of no importance to address because all I need to do is refute just one thing and that is number 2. But I see I should also address number seven.

2. There is nothing incoherent about "the universe always existed and time having a beginning".

Here is what I said, ". If time had a beginning then how could the universe have not had a beginning?"

2) Here is the fatal flaw with saying that something has always existed: In order for something to always exist it would need to have never had a beginning. You cannot say the universe always existed as energy because that indicates the universe would not be able to go through a change. Carl Sagan was the one who said, "if God always existed why not save a step and say the universe always existed?" The problem is that if the universe always existed it could not have ever changed form from energy to material. It's not an argument from ignorance because we know philosophically that something that always exists never had a beginning and will never have an end. The second law of thermodynamics is also called the law of entropy. So we know that all the matter in the universe will have an end. Things that never begin cannot have an end and most obvious of all, they cannot change form. Something can't always be in an energy state and then change. The implications of the word always implies something does not change. It was and will be, always the same. So how then can something (the universe)that always existed in the form of energy, as you posit, and then change form? It's self defeating! Something can't always exist and not stay the same. I don't think you or Scott understand the logical contradiction of what you're saying.

For God to be the cause of the the Universe, God must exist when the Universe doesn't and that is a state, and then the Universe must exist as a consequence of God and that is another state, and this means time. If there is no time before the Universe existed, what it means is that there is no state that precedes the Universe, and this means that no state exists where God exists but the Universe doesn't, and this means that God couldn't have cause the Universe to exist. You just utterly destroyed your own assumption of a creator God, you unintentionally completely disproved God. What is it that you don't understand?

From the perspective of theology, God does not change, He always stays the same. He exists as an all-powerful omniscient consciousness and He can cause things to come into existence. When God spoke the universe into existence He did not change anything about His nature!

If there is no time before the Universe existed, what it means is that there is no state that precedes the Universe, and this means that no state exists where God exists but the Universe doesn't, and this means that God couldn't have cause the Universe to exist.

But you're wrong. There is a timeless state! An infinite state! You never heard that God is eternal or infinite? Time did not exist until the Big Bang! God caused the Big Bang! Therefore God caused time. However just because God caused time does not mean that He is restricted by time. He remains outside of time! That is why God is able to see the end of time for us. That's why God is said to have foreknowledge in the bible! God is outside the universe and can manipulate the natural laws which He created and thus miracles are possible! I thought I'd throw that in so you can have something else to argue about since your previous objections are invalid.

7. Your statements are completely incoherent. If you propose that time began with the big bang, and that it makes no sense to talk about the before the Big Bang, this are the things you are not allowed to say:
a) energy did not exists prior to the Big Bang!
b) not a law that retrospectively predates the big bang
c) Funny how people take a law confined to the universe and then extrapolates it to apply to an infinite past.

this are the things you are not allowed to say:

I think you mean to say "{these} are the things you cannot say"
Unless you are invoking a double standard you should say "nobody is allowed to say"
Allow me to address [a)]
a). While I agree it is incoherent to say energy existed prior to the big bang since time did not begin until the big bang, that is not my assertion, it's yours and many many other misinformed people that say this nonsense.
b) Once again it is not I that is misinformed about the law of conservation energy.
c) Yes, a,b and c are not coherent. Thanks for being redundant and asserting that my argument stands as good quality.

Explain to me how 'Vilenkin's Cosmic' Vision is plausible? I can't read Scotts mind as well as you can but I believe "Many Worlds Interpretation" you are referring to Vilenkin's Cosmic Vision?

I know I said that I need not address everything that you said but I will pick out a few for the sake of there entertainment.

Yes, Scott never mentioned the many worlds interpretation. And I don't need to be a mind reader to figure out what is on Scott's mind, one only needs to know what Scott is talking about and know the character of Scott well enough.

I wish I knew what Scott was talking about. Actually I don't believe Scott even knows what he is talking about! It's fascinating that you can figure out what's on Scotts' mind without being able to read it! You must also be a good judge of character to know Scott well enough to read his mind. Are you sure you don't have psychic abilities? I think it would be more beneficial to everyone if you gave up being a scientists' and focused on your psychic gift and become a fortune teller. Get some tarot cards and go nuts! You seem to have lots of free time to do battle with me while holding an astounding profession of being a scientists! You have dropped the ball so to speak in our discussions and have yet to make an objective point.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Nice deflection, still waiting on your mathematical refutation of Lawrence Krauss' hypothesis.

what is the hypothesis of Krauss? Please explain and I'd be happy to debunk his nonsense.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Yellow and green pinstriped things exist.
Ostriches exist.
Therefore god is a yellow/green stripey ostrich.

I LOVE the smell of logical fallacies in the morning.

Quit making them then! :lol:

 

[Josephhasfun01]

australopithecus

his super-nature.
That in no way means that 'magnitude' is synonymous with 'infinite'!

Which is not something I've suggested is the case.

Now your telling me you never said

Infinity, by definition, encompasses everything, ever. You cannot add to a magnitude of infinity as infinity, by definition, already includes anything you could ever want to add.

Glory in reference to a deity is concerning the


By stating that Gods glory is infinite does not mean that the "magnitude" of Gods glory cannot be added to. Astronomically when referring to 'magnitude' it is the brightness of I have explained this. Actually I explained this in my previous reply. Oddly enough it was basically the only thing I said in my previous reply that you did not quote and dismantle as you so eloquently do.(sarcasm) In my previous glory attempt to address our misunderstanding I stated: "When speaking from a finite standpoint, (as we humans are finite), we attribute the word infinite as pertaining to the timeless or eternal nature of God." God is timeless as He is outside of time. He is not affected by time. This why I use the word 'infinite' when describing the nature of God. "Glory" is an essential part of the DIVINE NATURE of God it does NOT represent any other meaning other than His divine nature. Therefore since "Glory" is an as not quantitative, by nature Glory is not quantitative in correlation with time. As God is timeless by his infinite nature. ential part of Gods nature it is infinite as God is infinite. Now that we have gotten that out of the way I shall define the infinite nature of God for along with his glory. What God is adding to is not His eternal spirit. It 's to the magnitude of is the I really need to be on the same page here with you, figuratively speaking, in order to proceed.

It kind of does if you use the correct definition of infinity.

exactly what is the "correct" infinity might I ask? I know what it is, but I am curious as to how you would define it. {Given that you have apparently had a lot of practice in word gymnastics I suspect that this will be good.} define the 'correct' definition for "infinity".

When speaking from a finite standpoint, (as we humans are finite), we attribute the word infinite as pertaining to the timeless or eternal nature of God. God is timeless as He is outside of time. He is not affected by time. That is why God has already seen the end of time as He is outside time and therefore is all-knowing. He knows He will have the final say in the morality of humans. When I said "He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory" I was merely signifying the super-nature of Gods glory.

You sure can peddle backwards, can't you?

I gladly do it for you my friend!

Just because God is infinite does not mean that the eternal nature of His glory cannot be added to or made greater(magnified).

Moving the goalposts yet again. You originally stated nothing about the nature of any glory, you stated his glory is infinite in magnitude. If it is infinite then it cannot be added to as it already consists of anything and everything that could ever be added to it by default.

I get this notion that it is often times the person making an accusation that is the one who is guilty of the accusation by which they accuse. Oddly enough you seem to support my hypothesis. In the above quote you have misquoted me. If you are going to misquote me and accuse me of moving the goal post then you have added to proof of my hypothesis.
Perhaps I the reason I appear to peddle backwards to you is because your rebuttals have us on a track like an old record player that keeps playing the same part of the record over and over until we make a completion that sets us onto the next grove.

If you have to misquote me to in order to give a rebuttal then we remain stuck in this same grove. My original statement was " He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory"

You originally stated nothing about the nature of any glory

Incorrect. If misquoting me is how you are going to debate then I will ignore any more of your arguments addressed to me. "Gods' glory is infinite." That is indeed saying that the nature of Gods' glory is infinite. We were created to 'magnify' it. God is infinite by nature. However this in no implies you get to change the word 'infinite' in reference to Gods nature to infinity. What you did was exactly what you accused me of: moving the goal post.

"He created us to add onto the magnitude of His infinite glory."
Look above my quote.

Now look at your misquote of what I said.

"you stated his glory is infinite in magnitude"- -nope.
I stated that "He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory". 'Infinite' is referring to the nature of Gods' glory. We were created to add to the 'magnitude' of it.
If you ever misquote me again I will cease to acknowledge any arguments you bring my way.

Right so we're magnifying infinity now? At what focal length?

Here we go round and round stuck in the same grove.
Now I have to explain it all over again. I noticed how you left this out of your quotes. It must've been a good refutation to your poor semantic argument because you failed to address it so I present it again. When I said "He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory" I was merely signifying the super-nature of Gods glory. Just because God is infinite does not mean that the eternal nature of His glory cannot be added to or made greater(magnified). God is eternal or 'infinite' in regards to His super-nature. He is outside of time. You extrapolate infinity from Gods' eternal nature and try to use that as a mathematical meaning in terms of "infinity". You are correct to say that you can't add to infinity. By I did not use the word infinite to mean mathematical infinity as you are trying to posit. Since you like to let the personal attacks fly I will return them back to you. You either have poor reading comprehension or you are deliberately playing the fool. You misquote me and turn meanings of words around by taking them out of context. You have proved yourself to be dishonest and I for one find that repulsive. The most repulsive thing I find is for you to accuse me of doing what you have done continuously in this debate. You move the goal post by either misquoting me and by pretending like you don't understand basic English words.

 

[Inferno]

what is the hypothesis of Krauss? Please explain and I'd be happy to debunk his nonsense.

If you do want to, please open a new thread. Here is Lawrence Krauss' talk on the subject:

 

[australopithecus]

You cannot merely ask me to refute quantum physics as if it's a proven theory.

Spoken like a man who knows nothing about any branch of physics.

 

[australopithecus]

Now your telling me you never said

Infinity, by definition, encompasses everything, ever. You cannot add to a magnitude of infinity as infinity, by definition, already includes anything you could ever want to add.

Your reading comprehension is awful. If it wasn't you'd understand that I was asserting that the term 'magnitude' is a quantitative description of something. Your original assertion is that you can add to a magnitude of infinity. My refutation is that this is bullshit.

By stating that Gods glory is infinite does not mean that the "magnitude" of Gods glory cannot be added to.

It kind of does. If the magnitude of God's glory is infinite then automatically includes everything, ever. It cannot be added to because it already includes everything, ever. This must be the 4th time I've explained this, how have you not got it?

Astronomically when referring to 'magnitude' it is the brightness of I have explained this. Actually I explained this in my previous reply.

...and your spurious cherry picking of whatever definition of 'magnitude' you best think suits your claim is laughable for the same reason. Even if you're referring to the astronomic definition, then if God's glory is infinite in magnitude it still cannot be added to, or made brighter.

Oddly enough it was basically the only thing I said in my previous reply that you did not quote and dismantle as you so eloquently do.

Oddly enough, I'm looking at your previous reply now I can't spot where you stated this. Care to point it out? I understand that not being able to retroactively edit your posts must be upsetting you, but try to bear in mind I can search all your posts for specific words.

(sarcasm) In my previous glory attempt to address our misunderstanding I stated: "When speaking from a finite standpoint, (as we humans are finite), we attribute the word infinite as pertaining to the timeless or eternal nature of God." God is timeless as He is outside of time. He is not affected by time. This why I use the word 'infinite' when describing the nature of God.

Again, cherry picking definitions of words doesn't make your argument more sound.

"Glory" is an essential part of the DIVINE NATURE of God it does NOT represent any other meaning other than His divine nature.

...and unicorns have silver blood.

Therefore since "Glory" is an as not quantitative, by nature Glory is not quantitative in correlation with time. As God is timeless by his infinite nature. ential part of Gods nature it is infinite as God is infinite. Now that we have gotten that out of the way I shall define the infinite nature of God for along with his glory. What God is adding to is not His eternal spirit. It's to the magnitude of is the I really need to be on the same page here with you, figuratively speaking, in order to proceed.

Right, so if glory is not quantitative then your use of the word magnitude is useless. It is a quantitative term after all.

We're not on the same page. We're not even reading the same book. Define your terms, then you can continue making a fool of yourself.

exactly what is the "correct" infinity might I ask? I know what it is, but I am curious as to how you would define it. {Given that you have apparently had a lot of practice in word gymnastics I suspect that this will be good.} define the 'correct' definition for "infinity".

Well seeing as it was you who decided to use infinity quantify, the correct definition would be:
Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate: "an infinite number of stars".

When speaking from a finite standpoint, (as we humans are finite), we attribute the word infinite as pertaining to the timeless or eternal nature of God. God is timeless as He is outside of time. He is not affected by time. That is why God has already seen the end of time as He is outside time and therefore is all-knowing. He knows He will have the final say in the morality of humans. When I said "He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory" I was merely signifying the super-nature of Gods glory.

...and Jedi communicate with the force through midi-chlorians.

I gladly do it for you my friend!

Yeah, we're not friends. Ever.

Just because God is infinite does not mean that the eternal nature of His glory cannot be added to or made greater(magnified).

This is just a word salad of nonsense.

I get this notion that it is often times the person making an accusation that is the one who is guilty of the accusation by which they accuse. Oddly enough you seem to support my hypothesis. In the above quote you have misquoted me.

Sorry, but there was no misquote. All I did was add quote tags to what you posted.

If you are going to misquote me and accuse me of moving the goal post then you have added to proof of my hypothesis.
Perhaps I the reason I appear to peddle backwards to you is because your rebuttals have us on a track like an old record player that keeps playing the same part of the record over and over until we make a completion that sets us onto the next grove.

Again, all I did was add quote tags to your text. if it helps I can just post screen shots of your posts.

If you have to misquote me to in order to give a rebuttal then we remain stuck in this same grove. My original statement was " He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory"

...and I never said you didn't post this. What my objection, and subsequent quoting of, was your shoe horning nonsense about "eternal nature", which didn't appear anywhere near your original post.

You originally stated nothing about the nature of any glory

Incorrect. If misquoting me is how you are going to debate then I will ignore any more of your arguments addressed to me.

Swing and a miss. All you stated was: "Also God created us in order to have a relationship with us and add on to the magnitude of His infinite glory.". You didn't mention the nature of anything until I called you on your nonsense.

That's a screen shot of your actual post, just in case you decide I've misquoted you.

"Gods' glory is infinite." That is indeed saying that the nature of Gods' glory is infinite.

What a thing is, and the nature of what that this is are not always the same thing. Besides, earlier in you post you stated that:

"Just because God is infinite does not mean that the eternal nature of His glory cannot be added to or made greater(magnified)."

I'm going to assume you can't even remember what point you're trying to make is. If the nature of God's glory is infinite then it cannot be added to. It's that simple.

We were created to 'magnify' it. God is infinite by nature. However this in no implies you get to change the word 'infinite' in reference to Gods nature to infinity. What you did was exactly what you accused me of: moving the goal post.

I've moved no goal posts, it's you who can't define your terms.

"He created us to add onto the magnitude of His infinite glory."
Look above my quote.

Now look at your misquote of what I said.

"you stated his glory is infinite in magnitude"- -nope.

That's not a misquote, that's your crappy reading comprehension. Let's use numeric terms, just to see if it sinks into your skull.

If you said ""He created us to add onto the magnitude of His 12 glory.", then to say you said his glory is 12 in magnitude is entirely accurate. Also, it wasn't a misquote because I wasn't quoting you, it was my summation of your claim.

I stated that "He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory". 'Infinite' is referring to the nature of Gods' glory. We were created to add to the 'magnitude' of it.
If you ever misquote me again I will cease to acknowledge any arguments you bring my way.

Ah, the Bob Enyart school of debate. If you can't beat them, ignore them. Again, it wasn't a misquote because I never claimed to be quoting you. Here's a tip for you, if I ever quote you there will be either quotation marks, or it will be in a quote tag.

Here we go round and round stuck in the same grove.
Now I have to explain it all over again. I noticed how you left this out of your quotes. It must've been a good refutation to your poor semantic argument because you failed to address it so I present it again. When I said "He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory" I was merely signifying the super-nature of Gods glory. Just because God is infinite does not mean that the eternal nature of His glory cannot be added to or made greater(magnified). God is eternal or 'infinite' in regards to His super-nature. He is outside of time.

You can repeat it all you like, it doesn't become a better argument the more you repeat it.

You extrapolate infinity from Gods' eternal nature and try to use that as a mathematical meaning in terms of "infinity". You are correct to say that you can't add to infinity. By I did not use the word infinite to mean mathematical infinity as you are trying to posit.

Your failiure to properly define your terms at the onset of a debate is not my problem, it's yours. You don't get to point fingers if you're the one who hasn't defined anything.

Since you like to let the personal attacks fly I will return them back to you. You either have poor reading comprehension or you are deliberately playing the fool.

The irony.

You misquote me and turn meanings of words around by taking them out of context.

Nope, see above.

You have proved yourself to be dishonest and I for one find that repulsive. The most repulsive thing I find is for you to accuse me of doing what you have done continuously in this debate. You move the goal post by either misquoting me and by pretending like you don't understand basic English words.

Try again, Chuckles.

Your inability to create a coherent argument is solely your problem. I have never misquoted you, it is your inability to read and comprehend that is lacking here.

It seems that by removing your ability to retroactively edit your posts (something which you were doing, which is why I stopped it), your only course of action is to make your argument so convoluted it becomes almost impossible for people to reply to it, including you. Unfortunately for you I have a very long attention span, and the ability to use the search function. Not to mention my super awesome Mod powers.

So if you want to make excuses and point fingers then go ahead. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside then fill your boots.

Your argument is still fucking inconsistent nonsense.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You cannot merely ask me to refute quantum physics as if it's a proven theory.

Spoken like a man who knows nothing about any branch of physics.

Playing Chess with Pidgins here, Austra.

If the man is willing to deny the very essence of a shown-positive model of the atom and the particle universe through the discovery of the Higgs-Boson, and fails to understand that in the last week we made a tractor beam out of that "Theory" then obviously it's done.

I'm still awaiting him to respond to my simple, elementary inquiry that would absolutely show 100% if the proponent of ignorance as evidence even knows basic fundamental philosophy.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Feel free take your non explanations of modern physics and well figure out how to explain them. I can't refute your non existent arguments. I should like to take a shot at it. But you give nothing to address. You cannot merely ask me to refute quantum physics as if it's a proven theory. You need to be objective if you want a response from me.

​

EDIT: fixed the YouTube video.