Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself%85?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or desing of your god?

---

It's spelled with a capital "G" and I've already answered. Plus I repeat - where did inate matter originally come from?

---

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin of or who designed your god?

---

Quantum particles/fluctuations have to be generated from something smaller if 3D spacetime is all that exists or you have a paradox called 'Turtles all the way down'. It's impossible. Especially stupid considering we've proven its impossible to have mathematical operations beyond Planck scale.

The quantum world is spacetime, it's not giving rise to spacetime. The smallest particles have mass. Quantum fluctuations causing our universe to come into existence is absurd and illogical.

You have no evidence whatsoever that spacetime can emerge within itself.

---

Spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation. Your argument is with quantum theory. Go design a better argument.

---

There's no such thing as quantum fluctuation. You just said so yourself.

---

No. We know quantum fluctuations exist.

---

If the universe came from nothing, and "nothing" means quantum fluctuations, then quantum fluctuations are nothing. Therefore quantum fluctuations do not exist.

---

You're partially right. You could say quantum fluctuations are related to nothing. Your idea/definition or concept of nothing doesn't apply at the quantum level. Quantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum, in a time frame so small they can't be observed.

---

Existence and observability aren't the same thing.

---

They exist but we can't observe them.

Quote:

---

Ah, so over billions of years, the field of corn, the cow and the block of cheese would have created fajita nachos if exposed to the right conditions?

---

Ha Ha, but no.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

---

Complex organisms are made up of matter, and are matter. Science is getting closer and closer to demonstrating how living organisms can begin. Science is by far much closer to a plausible explanation of life's origin, compared to the meaningless claim of an inexplicable god inexplicably did it.

---

Had beef fajita nachos for lunch. Are you saying they spontaneously evolved from a field of corn, a cow and a block of cheese??? And here all this time I thought it was the cook at Chuy's. Who knew?

LOL at your idea of "plausible." Like I said, you have a very strong faith.

---

You didn't pay attention to what I said and unwittingly, or willfully mischaracterized what I said. Never said life formed spontaneously, and faith isn't required.

---

LOL life isn't formed on purpose, and it isn't formed on accident. Would that be Nihilist Origin Theory? NOT?

---

Still mischaracterizing what I said. But you're part right, carbon based life isn't formed on purpose, unless we form it at some point. Who knows, AI may become its own non carbon based life form at some point.

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Ah, so over billions of years, the field of corn, the cow and the block of cheese would have created fajita nachos if exposed to the right conditions?

---

Ha Ha, but no.

---

I agree - ridiculous.

And yet no more far fetched that your theory.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself%85?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or desing of your god?

---

It's spelled with a capital "G" and I've already answered. Plus I repeat - where did inate matter originally come from?

---

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin of or who designed your god?

---

Quantum particles/fluctuations have to be generated from something smaller if 3D spacetime is all that exists or you have a paradox called 'Turtles all the way down'. It's impossible. Especially stupid considering we've proven its impossible to have mathematical operations beyond Planck scale.

The quantum world is spacetime, it's not giving rise to spacetime. The smallest particles have mass. Quantum fluctuations causing our universe to come into existence is absurd and illogical.

You have no evidence whatsoever that spacetime can emerge within itself.

---

Spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation. Your argument is with quantum theory. Go design a better argument.

---

There's no such thing as quantum fluctuation. You just said so yourself.

---

No. We know quantum fluctuations exist.

---

If the universe came from nothing, and "nothing" means quantum fluctuations, then quantum fluctuations are nothing. Therefore quantum fluctuations do not exist.

---

You're partially right. You could say quantum fluctuations are related to nothing. Your idea/definition or concept of nothing doesn't apply at the quantum level. Quantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum, in a time frame so small they can't be observed.

---

Existence and observability aren't the same thing.

---

They exist but we can't observe them.

---

So kind of like God then.

Ironic.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

So far, we have meditation where it's reported he speaks to the dead.

Many people have different views of their relationship (or lack there of) with the dead. A friend of mine lost her mom this morning. She said her mom is now looking down on her family watching out for them. Is she nuts, normal, struggles expressing herself%85?

What nutty views does he have regarding policy? What views does he have that would impact the economy, the balance of power etc

---

Some atheists, such as old dbag Ronnie here, think all religious people are nuts. The irony is, they fail to grasp the fact that a belief that complex life forms came from inanimate matter is about as illogical and absurd as they come.

---

Scientific plausibility, as opposed to illogical belief in supernatural magic? Religion hasn't explained or revealed to us anything we know to be true about the natural world.

---

Except it isn't scientifically plausible. It's such a ridiculous stretch that it takes a bigger leap of faith than the belief in intelligent design.

---

The field of abiogenesis tells us it is plausible. Physical laws are all that is needed to support the concept. Where is your plausibility of the supernatural, much less the Judeo/Christian/Islamic supernatural version?

---

They tell us nothing of the sort. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that complex lifeforms came from inanimate matter. Nothing in the field of abiogenesis tells us otherwise. All they have is unsupported theories.

I have no more physical evidence of my position than you do. That's the point you're missing.

---

Actually you do have more physical evidence to support your position when you even begin to consider the virtually infinite number of "coincidences" and completely inexplicable things you have to believe occurred to explain creation if you don't believe in intelligent design. If you ponder it much at all it's easy to conclude what a preposterous position it is to believe it was all just completely random and to see how that position takes a lot more faith than believing in Supreme Being Creator.

---

It's all about probabilities creating 'coincidences'. Science is built upon the ability to explain what was once inexplicalbe. What is the origin for your intelligent designer?

---

The vast majority of the probabilities you are referring to are so astronomically improbable that it defies logic and common sense to believe what you claim to believe.

The origin of the intelligent designer I believe in is an eternal Supreme Being that is outside of time as we know it. No question it requires a faith component, but you seem to fail to understand that your position requires even greater faith. For starters, what is the origin of inate matter?

---

Someone, who had the good fortune to be in a successive chain with others, who each had the good fortune for a specific sperm, out billions available, to ferilize a specific ovulated egg, at a specific time, eventually wins the lottery, all without supernatural intervention.

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin and/or desing of your god?

---

It's spelled with a capital "G" and I've already answered. Plus I repeat - where did inate matter originally come from?

---

Quantum fluctuations. What is the origin of or who designed your god?

---

Quantum particles/fluctuations have to be generated from something smaller if 3D spacetime is all that exists or you have a paradox called 'Turtles all the way down'. It's impossible. Especially stupid considering we've proven its impossible to have mathematical operations beyond Planck scale.

The quantum world is spacetime, it's not giving rise to spacetime. The smallest particles have mass. Quantum fluctuations causing our universe to come into existence is absurd and illogical.

You have no evidence whatsoever that spacetime can emerge within itself.

---

Spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation. Your argument is with quantum theory. Go design a better argument.

---

There's no such thing as quantum fluctuation. You just said so yourself.

---

No. We know quantum fluctuations exist.

---

If the universe came from nothing, and "nothing" means quantum fluctuations, then quantum fluctuations are nothing. Therefore quantum fluctuations do not exist.

---

You're partially right. You could say quantum fluctuations are related to nothing. Your idea/definition or concept of nothing doesn't apply at the quantum level. Quantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum, in a time frame so small they can't be observed.

---

Existence and observability aren't the same thing.

---

They exist but we can't observe them.

---

So kind of like God then.

Ironic.

---

No, not exactly. There empty space weighs something, and there is energy in empty space. There is evidence for the constituent properties of quantum fluctuations, and there is a complete abscence of evidence for any constituent properties of any god.

RFK recently went on a podcast with Mike Tyson where he explained that the CIA killed his father when he was running for President in 1968

Youtube just deleted this entire interview off its platform

You know what to do now with this clip
pic.twitter.com/IQvWLuyF1x

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 5, 2023

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

---

Complex organisms are made up of matter, and are matter. Science is getting closer and closer to demonstrating how living organisms can begin. Science is by far much closer to a plausible explanation of life's origin, compared to the meaningless claim of an inexplicable god inexplicably did it.

---

Had beef fajita nachos for lunch. Are you saying they spontaneously evolved from a field of corn, a cow and a block of cheese??? And here all this time I thought it was the cook at Chuy's. Who knew?

LOL at your idea of "plausible." Like I said, you have a very strong faith.

---

You didn't pay attention to what I said and unwittingly, or willfully mischaracterized what I said. Never said life formed spontaneously, and faith isn't required.

---

Ah, so over billions of years, the field of corn, the cow and the block of cheese would have created fajita nachos if exposed to the right conditions?

LOL.

---

With enough heat and in close enough proximity... Can we add a lime tree and cactus to the mix?

The real question is will all the cheese be melted? Or, is that proof of intelligent design.

---

You are making the case FOR global warming.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Zero evidence...

But your faith is strong.

---

Scientifically plausible. Religion has no scientific plausibility.

---

No, there is no evidence that it's even scientifically possible. If you had some evidence in nature of complex organisms, forming from simple matter, then you might have a point. But we both know you got nothing.

Except faith of course.

---

Quantum theory allows for a spontaneous universe from nothing. That is reality. Do I know if that is how it occurred. No, but because it is scientifically plausible with what we know about quantum theory, it makes relegion irrelevant. You can deny reality, and believe primitive myths, and in mysticism, but there is no evidence for what you want to believe, and there is no plausible scientific theory for what you want to believe.

---

You're swerving all over the place in defense of your faith. Here are the facts - you have zero evidence in support of your theory that complex organisms came from matter. Sorry, but there is zero scientific plausibility to something that has never been witnessed in nature. You got nothing yet continue to adhere blindly to your faith.

As I said, your faith is strong . You're a good little Atheist that gets easily flustered when the massive holes in your beliefs are exposed.

---

Complex organisms are made up of matter, and are matter. Science is getting closer and closer to demonstrating how living organisms can begin. Science is by far much closer to a plausible explanation of life's origin, compared to the meaningless claim of an inexplicable god inexplicably did it.

---

Had beef fajita nachos for lunch. Are you saying they spontaneously evolved from a field of corn, a cow and a block of cheese??? And here all this time I thought it was the cook at Chuy's. Who knew?

LOL at your idea of "plausible." Like I said, you have a very strong faith.

---

You didn't pay attention to what I said and unwittingly, or willfully mischaracterized what I said. Never said life formed spontaneously, and faith isn't required.

---

Ah, so over billions of years, the field of corn, the cow and the block of cheese would have created fajita nachos if exposed to the right conditions?

LOL.

---

With enough heat and in close enough proximity... Can we add a lime tree and cactus to the mix?

The real question is will all the cheese be melted? Or, is that proof of intelligent design.

---

You are making the case FOR global warming.

---

What new life form will come? A better nacho?

The evidence is piling up that idealism is the true nature of reality.

All organisms in evolutionary game theory that perceive fundamental reality have a 0% chance of survival. This is an undeniable fact. That means what our senses are showing us isn't fundamental reality. That applies to all of space and time.

Spacetime (atoms, particles) is a useful fiction or representation of an underlying non physical structure. Our universe is presented to us in a manner that we survive, not in a manner to see what's real.

Consciousness didn't Evolve; it creates evolution. We have it backwards right now.

A theory of conscious agents is highly likely to show how consciousness perfectly projects down to spacetime. Dozens of quantum scientists are using decorated permutations to show this and they have the math to back it up.