Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

What Defines And Drives A Relationship


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

 

Well, then already you are debunking your own argument.  The claim that life began somewhere outside the world, the universe (#4) is simply not supported by Cosmology.  Life, as we know it, began on earth.

That appears inconsequential imo, if we don't have some level of certainty to contradict. I understand that given our resources, certainty is limited to some specific perimeter. Again, this far from excludes the possibility.

 

Isn't this simply an overly wordy way of saying, "I choose to ignore the evidence and believe anyway"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ok, sorry. I am including the physical definitions BAA as I am thinking about suggesting the same "mechanism" that guides faithful relationships guides the physical as well. May never get there, but...

 

 

 

Ok, sorry. I am including the physical definitions BAA as I am thinking about suggesting the same "mechanism" that guides faithful relationships guides the physical as well. May never get there, but...

 

 

Ummm... see what I mean about faith, End?  It has no place in a valid, logical and factual argument.

.

.

.

If you believe (by faith) that these two separate things operate by the same mechanism, then that's not factual, is it?

.

.

.

Or are you just speculating that the mechanism might be the same?

.

.

.

If so, there's no place for speculation in a fact-based argument.

.

.

Facts aren't speculations.  

If you're going to list the facts, you can't include speculation.  Nor can you expect us to join you in your speculation. Please present only the facts and base your definition of relationships only on what is factual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, End.

 

I have to scoot now.  Sorry 'bout that.

 

I'll catch up later.

 

Bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, then already you are debunking your own argument.  The claim that life began somewhere outside the world, the universe (#4) is simply not supported by Cosmology.  Life, as we know it, began on earth.

That appears inconsequential imo, if we don't have some level of certainty to contradict. I understand that given our resources, certainty is limited to some specific perimeter. Again, this far from excludes the possibility.

 

Isn't this simply an overly wordy way of saying, "I choose to ignore the evidence and believe anyway"?

 

No, I don't believe it appropriate to ignore anything. Truthfully, I can't imagine anything outside of our field...but it doesn't mean I totally exclude it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ok, sorry. I am including the physical definitions BAA as I am thinking about suggesting the same "mechanism" that guides faithful relationships guides the physical as well. May never get there, but...

 

Ok, sorry. I am including the physical definitions BAA as I am thinking about suggesting the same "mechanism" that guides faithful relationships guides the physical as well. May never get there, but...

 

Ummm... see what I mean about faith, End?  It has no place in a valid, logical and factual argument.

.

.

.

If you believe (by faith) that these two separate things operate by the same mechanism, then that's not factual, is it?

.

.

.

Or are you just speculating that the mechanism might be the same?

.

.

.

If so, there's no place for speculation in a fact-based argument.

.

.

Facts aren't speculations.  

If you're going to list the facts, you can't include speculation.  Nor can you expect us to join you in your speculation. Please present only the facts and base your definition of relationships only on what is factual.

 

I got ya. The only fact I am representing at the moment is humanity doesn't know the origin of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok, sorry. I am including the physical definitions BAA as I am thinking about suggesting the same "mechanism" that guides faithful relationships guides the physical as well. May never get there, but...

 

Ok, sorry. I am including the physical definitions BAA as I am thinking about suggesting the same "mechanism" that guides faithful relationships guides the physical as well. May never get there, but...

 

Ummm... see what I mean about faith, End?  It has no place in a valid, logical and factual argument.

.

.

.

If you believe (by faith) that these two separate things operate by the same mechanism, then that's not factual, is it?

.

.

.

Or are you just speculating that the mechanism might be the same?

.

.

.

If so, there's no place for speculation in a fact-based argument.

.

.

Facts aren't speculations.  

If you're going to list the facts, you can't include speculation.  Nor can you expect us to join you in your speculation. Please present only the facts and base your definition of relationships only on what is factual.

 

I got ya. The only fact I am representing at the moment is humanity doesn't know the origin of life.

 

We do know the origin of life. Here, on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see an obtuse god of the gaps fallacy in End3's near future.

 

 

 

No, I don't believe it appropriate to ignore anything. Truthfully, I can't imagine anything outside of our field...but it doesn't mean I totally exclude it.

 

 

You were right, you called it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

 

Well, then already you are debunking your own argument.  The claim that life began somewhere outside the world, the universe (#4) is simply not supported by Cosmology.  Life, as we know it, began on earth.

That appears inconsequential imo, if we don't have some level of certainty to contradict. I understand that given our resources, certainty is limited to some specific perimeter. Again, this far from excludes the possibility.

 

Isn't this simply an overly wordy way of saying, "I choose to ignore the evidence and believe anyway"?

 

No, I don't believe it appropriate to ignore anything. Truthfully, I can't imagine anything outside of our field...but it doesn't mean I totally exclude it.

 

Then, based on what you just said, how do you explain that Cosmology refutes your argument is inconsequential?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We do know the origin of life. Here, on Earth.

Wasn't aware of the O. Do you mind posting what you have found.

 

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then, based on what you just said, how do you explain that Cosmology refutes your argument is inconsequential?

I'm unfamiliar with that argument P. Could you please elaborate a small bit so I may get an idea of your direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We do know the origin of life. Here, on Earth.

Wasn't aware of the O. Do you mind posting what you have found.

 

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

It said the mechanisms were unknown O.

 

The mechanisms of the Big Bang are unknown too; it's the best science has and that's pretty darn good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread boiled down to 'we don't know the origin of life' so obviously christianity might be true guys!

 

How far off base it's come from the christian making his original post.  "Here's everyone's chance to debunk this."

 

Christian logic at its finest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

We do know the origin of life. Here, on Earth.

Wasn't aware of the O. Do you mind posting what you have found.

 

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

It said the mechanisms were unknown O.

 

The mechanisms of the Big Bang are unknown too; it's the best science has and that's pretty darn good.

 

Yes, damn bright folks in this world, but unknown is still unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

We do know the origin of life. Here, on Earth.

Wasn't aware of the O. Do you mind posting what you have found.

 

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

It said the mechanisms were unknown O.

 

The mechanisms of the Big Bang are unknown too; it's the best science has and that's pretty darn good.

 

Yes, damn bright folks in this world, but unknown is still unknown.

 

Unknowns are not created equal. The unknowns of science enable planes to fly. We can make observations about the universe that predict the Big Bang. All the data support it. Data. We have data, and it all points in one direction. That's not exactly an unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, damn bright folks in this world, but unknown is still unknown.

 

 

He willfully dodges the fact that christianity, his own religion that he's trying to push, has been debunked time and again.  The birth of his yeshitwa, the exodus, the flood, etc.  He keeps saying all he's trying to postulate is that "we don't know how we got here" but it's a lie.

 

He does claim -because he's a christian- to KNOW how life began.  With his very specific god.  It's that very religion which has been debunked repeatedly that he's trying to hide.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

Then, based on what you just said, how do you explain that Cosmology refutes your argument is inconsequential?

I'm unfamiliar with that argument P. Could you please elaborate a small bit so I may get an idea of your direction?

 

You said that life began outside the kosmos.  I asked you to define kosmos.  You said the earth, the universe (#4).  I said cosmology refutes that (as does abiogenesis, as Orbit points out).  Then you said that that was inconsequential.

 

So, in essence, you've said that the fact that cosmology refutes your claim that life began outside the universe is inconsequential.  Now I'm asking you to explain how a complete refutation of your claim is inconsequential.

 

Are we on the same page now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Then, based on what you just said, how do you explain that Cosmology refutes your argument is inconsequential?

I'm unfamiliar with that argument P. Could you please elaborate a small bit so I may get an idea of your direction?

 

You said that life began outside the kosmos.  I asked you to define kosmos.  You said the earth, the universe (#4).  I said cosmology refutes that (as does abiogenesis, as Orbit points out).  Then you said that that was inconsequential.

 

So, in essence, you've said that the fact that cosmology refutes your claim that life began outside the universe is inconsequential.  Now I'm asking you to explain how a complete refutation of your claim is inconsequential.

 

Are we on the same page now?

 

yes, thanks, I don't believe it to be a complete refutation because we do not have the ability to completely define the universe...a part of the definition. I'm open for the demonstration of the mechanism(s) that are demonstrable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

We do know the origin of life. Here, on Earth.

Wasn't aware of the O. Do you mind posting what you have found.

 

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

It said the mechanisms were unknown O.

 

The mechanisms of the Big Bang are unknown too; it's the best science has and that's pretty darn good.

 

Yes, damn bright folks in this world, but unknown is still unknown.

 

Unknowns are not created equal. The unknowns of science enable planes to fly. We can make observations about the universe that predict the Big Bang. All the data support it. Data. We have data, and it all points in one direction. That's not exactly an unknown.

 

End3 apparently believes that scientific inquiry and the resulting scientific theories deliver gnosis.  Or, he is setting up a strawman.  Scientific theories deliver the best explanations for a complete set of relevant facts.

 

There is no current scientific theory for abiogenesis.  There are several scientific hypotheses for abiogenesis, some more promising than others, but none have been accepted as a scientific theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Lurkers, here's a play by play thus far.

 

In his first post:

"Here's everyone's chance to debunk this.

What is a relationship?"

 

 

When forced to clarify, he does and claims:

For those that have not adequately prepared, those who have chosen keg stands over preparedness, please find attached the aforementioned class material

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65391-what-defines-and-drives-a-relationship/?p=1003916

 

And all of John 17 (a very specific religion called christianity, that's what he's clamoring for atheists and ex-cs to 'debunk')

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65391-what-defines-and-drives-a-relationship/?p=1003918

 

Then he goes on saying:

Basically, life(eternal), is derived literally and figuratively through a series of relationships, the premise of this discussion.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65391-what-defines-and-drives-a-relationship/?p=1003926

 

"those relationships that generate life"...both literal and figurative. Relationships between atoms and/or relationships between people...or potentially even larger scale.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65391-what-defines-and-drives-a-relationship/?p=1003931

 

You can see he's trying to substitute "relationships that generate life" with his previous assertion of "holy communion" ala John 17.  Bait meet switch.

 

He then further backtracks and states:

Respectfully BAA, I'm not attempting to prove anything. Just am making an argument for that premise. Basically, "proof" by enough arrows that point to a reasonable conclusion. I can't prove God outside of the universe with our means of measure.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65391-what-defines-and-drives-a-relationship/?p=1003971

 

See?  He's not trying to prove anything...

 

He then lies (which wouldn't be the first time)

So I am going to make a list of things we know and will potentially keep adding to the list. If anyone has facts to disprove each fact on the list, let them forevermore speak up.

1) Humanity doesn't know the origin of life.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65391-what-defines-and-drives-a-relationship/?p=1003974

 

He lies because he's a christian, and believes in Gen 1:1.  His own very particular god created life.  That's what he's asserting.

 

And now we return you to the continuation of Christian Hamster Wheel.

 

EDIT:  For christians.  You're right.  We don't know 100% how life formed.  We do however know that your religion is not true.  Stop asserting your holy book and then pretending "you're not here to prove anything."

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to add, if End3 were a deist (poly or mono) I wouldn't have a problem.  It's an unknown god.  If he were a pantheist, sure, go for it.  It'll be a legitimate subject in the spirituality forums.

 

However, at the very outset, he makes claims to the christian religion.  Then tells ex-christians to basically "debunk communion as I continually change its definition."

 

It's typical for christian apologetics, we see it all the damn time.  They go from claiming specific details of their particular religion and then switching definitions so that little by little it becomes mere generalizations that can mean anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

 

Then, based on what you just said, how do you explain that Cosmology refutes your argument is inconsequential?

I'm unfamiliar with that argument P. Could you please elaborate a small bit so I may get an idea of your direction?

 

You said that life began outside the kosmos.  I asked you to define kosmos.  You said the earth, the universe (#4).  I said cosmology refutes that (as does abiogenesis, as Orbit points out).  Then you said that that was inconsequential.

 

So, in essence, you've said that the fact that cosmology refutes your claim that life began outside the universe is inconsequential.  Now I'm asking you to explain how a complete refutation of your claim is inconsequential.

 

Are we on the same page now?

 

yes, thanks, I don't believe it to be a complete refutation because we do not have the ability to completely define the universe...a part of the definition. I'm open for the demonstration of the mechanism(s) that are demonstrable.

 

We also cannot completely define gravity.  For the sake of argument, are you willing to jump off a cliff in order to experience the mechanism(s) that are demonstrable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End3 stated the following:

 

"Basically, life(eternal), is derived literally and figuratively through a series of relationships, the premise of this discussion."

 

This contains two premises:

 

1)  Life is eternal; and

 

2)  Eternal life is derived through relationships.

 

No one has accepted these premises, and End3, not surprisingly, has failed to support them in any manner whatsoever.

 

​Accordingly, there can be no further rational discourse concerning these two mere assertions.

 

As an alternative, let's try a different list of premises:

 

​1)  The God that End3 believes in is a fiction and is likely a simple composite of religious indoctrination, self-projection and wishful thinking;

 

​2)  This God, including all of its defined powers, attributes and character, exists exclusively within End3's imagination; and

 

2)  End3 has a relationship with this God.

 

Assuming other posters can agree on the premises (only for the sake of this discourse), please discuss that relationship.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.