Brother Mario

[Brothermario]

Walter, I’m trying to tell you that your impasse is with God, not me.

 

But you’ve dug yourself so deeply into such a level of skepticism that you have literally become skepticism.

 

Be a man, man.

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, Brothermario said:

Because I changed “here” to this thread and away from the rest of the forum, which always happens in groupthink forums such as this one. Modern thinking, which has rooted itself in nothing but opinions, cannot help itself but to seek out like-minded opinions. Without a firm foundation, any structure crumbles from poor construction.

 

And since you have already declared yourself as simply part of a group and not an individual “warrior”, then there’s nothing left for you to do but go join that group for a gooey good time.

 

You won’t find any comfort for your needs “here”.

Oh good god...build your fucking foundation already...tell us how you are Captian Anomaly.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Redneck, you know you’re kind of a ridiculous person, right?

Carl Hempel, Leo Koch, and George Gaylord Simpson all criticized Pierre Lecomte du Noüy's "telefinalism" hypothesis as nonscientific.  They might just as well have used the word ridiculous also, given that it was little more than an attempt to shoehorn First Cause into the evolutionary process.  Perhaps you shouldn't get your understanding of science from French Philisophers of the 1930s (yes, I know he was also a biophysicist).

[WalterP]

9 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Walter, I’m trying to tell you that your impasse is with God, not me.

 

But you’ve dug yourself so deeply into such a level of skepticism that you have literally become skepticism.

 

Be a man, man.

 

 

This is a deflection from the matter at hand between us.

 

The as-yet-unresolved issue is between you (Brothermario) and I (WalterP).

 

Not between god and myself.

 

Simply repeating yourself or deflecting does not address that issue.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

3 hours ago, Brothermario said:

...

Here’s the advanced philosophical principle that further answers all the great questions science cannot, and will not by simply using mathematics:

 

”No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing unless something even greater than the greater thing is added to the lesser things.”

 

Now watch what happens when a philosophical principle meets an untrained intellect.

 

 

 

This "advanced philosophical principle" is poorly disguised theology, not philosophy.  It contains feigned certainty.  It requires subjective input.  It is simly a mere assertion.

I suspect this is one of BrotherMario's inventions.  He appears confused.

[Brothermario]

And here comes the ad hominems.

 

And the likes and emojis to each other.

 

Pathetic.

[WarriorPoet]

36 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Hey, Warrior, would you change places with a Super Nova in the largest and most beautiful galaxy in the universe?

 

Of course not.

 

Isn’t it GREAT to be us?

Amateur wordplay at best.  
 

Yes, it is great to be me.  I have an amazing wife and 2 incredible kids.  We aren’t rich, but are better off than most people, financially speaking.

 

That being said, using obviously different meanings of the word great and hoping nobody notices is lazy.

 

I never said I would rather be one of those things I mentioned.  I said they are greater.  There is a big difference between those two ideas.  Let me ask you, by what metric are you, I, or any living thing greater than a supernova?  Let me clarify here, I mean biological life forms here, no bringing in any deity or other supernatural being, the existence of which, I’m sure you understand, I am not willing to concede.

[WalterP]

8 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

And here comes the ad hominems.

 

And the likes and emojis to each other.

 

Pathetic.

 

Not from me.

 

I have been straight with you and will continue to be so, Brothermario.

 

Let us both confine ourselves to the issue of communication between us and avoid bringing personal matters into our dialogue.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

And here comes the ad hominems.

 

And the likes and emojis to each other.

 

Pathetic.

It's not pathetic, just predictable.  People are already frustrated with politics and disease, and now you are keeping the inquiring minds like mine in the dark with your with your experiences that I should use in a data set with mine.  Let's compare.  You first. 

[Brothermario]

Redneck, I told you it was a scientific/philosophical movement.

 

And you brought in three scientists who objected to du Nuoy’s philosophy because it was philosophy.

 

And I began the whole discussion telling everyone that a skeptic doesn’t have a trained philosophical intellect.

 

Thank you again for your demonstration of my points.

[Brothermario]

The metric of QUALITY, Warrior.

 

An untrained intellect professional at being superficial would call me an amateur.

[Brothermario]

Edgar, no one is frustrated in my life.

 

I think you are hanging around the wrong people, and maybe a wrong person yourself.

[Brothermario]

Walter, I will never talk to everyone at once.

 

The pathetic know who they are.

[WalterP]

Just now, Brothermario said:

Walter, I will never talk to everyone at once.

 

The pathetic know who they are.

 

Then please be so good as to apply yourself to the issue between us.

 

Which is this.

 

I have no objective way of verifying that any subjective experience of god that I had was the same subjective experience of god you had.

 

Your subjective experiences are forever closed off to me, just as mine are to you.

 

Can you please break this impasse?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

31 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

This "advanced philosophical principle" is poorly disguised theology, not philosophy.  It contains feigned certainty.  It requires subjective input.  It is simly a mere assertion.

I suspect this is one of BrotherMario's inventions.  He appears confused.

 

The formula is 1) spew nonsense then 2) claim it is something profound and 3) insult and condescend . 

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, Brothermario said:

Edgar, no one is frustrated in my life.

 

I think you are hanging around the wrong people, and maybe a wrong person yourself.

These are my friends.  Got to about your second post and frustrated me so much with your ego, that I felt compelled to discuss.  You might have some novel thoughts, but I don't see you getting past this crowd unless you can demonstrate with some admirable certainty.  Continue to argue your qualifications, but that just lessens your point.  Say something like Moses glowed because his electrons were excited....he fluoresced  That would get them..

[TheRedneckProfessor]

21 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Redneck, I told you it was a scientific/philosophical movement.

 

And you brought in three scientists who objected to du Nuoy’s philosophy because it was philosophy.

 

And I began the whole discussion telling everyone that a skeptic doesn’t have a trained philosophical intellect.

 

Thank you again for your demonstration of my points.

You also said that a molecule is not greater than an atom.  This is because you have a limited understanding of science.  Your limited understanding is the result of you trying to learn science from a philosopher.   

You have demonstrated my point, son.  Not the other way around.

[midniterider]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 Say something like Moses glowed because his electrons were excited....he fluoresced  That would get them..

 

LoL. 

[WalterP]

Yawn!     Not bored.  Just tired.

 

It's past my bedtime on this side of the pond.

 

Back tomorrow.

 

Bye!

[midniterider]

Has this guy even said what his mystical magical experience was? 

 

edit: I remember a prior apologist telling us he had proof of God. He just avoided telling us what it was. He said us lowly scum would never understand his proof and employed other nonsense to evade showing us the proof that he didnt really have. 

 

 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Thank you. If you will, I need to be brought up to speed on what these evidences or experiences are. I've just come back from vacation. 

 

 

Well, hey, that's getting somewhere. We have an agreement up front that subjective experience can not be used (whether true or not) to prove the existence of something. To prove the existence of god in this case. I don't want to have some yelling match or cursing contest with you or anyone else about god. I appreciate a level headed, intellectually honest discussion that can demonstrate that both parties ARE willing to do their best to remain objective throughout the discussion. 

 

I'm going to post this orienting video which covers 6 extremely popular ways of trying to argue for the existence of god. Along with some following negation of each popular claim. Please watch through the short video and let me know if you agree with these 6 claims or disagree: 

 

 

 

Great video! 

[sdelsolray]

48 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

The formula is 1) spew nonsense then 2) claim it is something profound and 3) insult and condescend . 

 

Yeah, his MO is rather infantile, shallow and quite boring.  Now, he's  begun to repeat his thin repertoire, adding to the boredom.  That being said, his limited adventure into science is somewhat entertaining, at least insofar as his bleating of willful ignorance can be so.

 

[Wertbag]

3 hours ago, Brothermario said:

Wertbag, the understanding of what is a greater or lesser reality is one of the sure signs of how trained our intellects truly are.

Doesn't that just mean that "great" is subjective? That "quality" is subjective? If we look at the statement without the quality caveats, then it's "two things cannot combine without a third thing doing the combining". I would think in most cases the third part of the equation would be energy. The energy for any combination could come from many sources, but those sources aren't necessarily subjectively greater than the process that they are involved with. 

 

In the example of the abiogenesis hypothesis (I don't think it has theory status from the scientific community?), you have to decide at what step something has life. There is still no clear factors and single cell creatures can be thought of either way. For example viruses can replicate but only via the use of another creatures living cells. Is that enough or not? The idea would be these organisms at the edge would only need small steps to move into a category we would more readily call life. Perhaps it's just forming a cell wall or maybe the absorption of external energy sources. These changes would again have the extra requirement of energy. Energy to join proteins, to incorporate other organic materials or to grow. Some religious folks try to think of a rock turning into a living thing, but the idea is a lot closer to life to begin with. 

 

I would ask if you could clarify your view on Christianity. You seem to say you are not Christian, and yet speak of the resurrection as though it is true, in which case you do believe in Jesus in some form? You seem to not believe the bible is anything other than man made and yet accept stories from it as fact? 

[florduh]

29 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Has this guy even said what his mystical magical experience was? 

 

edit: I remember a prior apologist telling us he had proof of God. He just avoided telling us what it was. He said us lowly scum would never understand his proof and employed other nonsense to evade showing us the proof that he didnt really have. 

 

 

Yes, not a unique tactic, but never have I seen such a huge, horn blowing ego spouting it.

[midniterider]

3 minutes ago, florduh said:

Yes, not a unique tactic, but never have I seen such a huge, horn blowing ego spouting it.

 

If after having a God experience you become an insufferable egomaniac, I dont think I want to seek a God experience. God could have picked a better messenger.