Ha nairaland no kill person so many intelligent and logical arguements, at death everything will be clear I believe. My concern is where is Moronic OP your thread has turned into a royal rumble and you don run
Mudley dont let anyone intimidate you, toba is the one trying to get you banned psychologically its clear He's one big fanatical deluded goon. Please ignore the slowpoke I was once like him. cheers!

rich_john:

Ha nairaland no kill person so many intelligent and logical arguements, at death everything will be clear I believe. My concern is where is Moronic OP your thread has turned into a royal rumble and you don run
Mudley dont let anyone intimidate you, toba is the one trying to get you banned psychologically its clear He's one big fanatical deluded goon. Please ignore the slowpoke I was once like him. cheers!

U are sick in the brain for making a nasty&baseless assertion. Whats my own in getting anyone banned for making ignorant post? Did the moderator mention my name as the person that reported any nasty act? U just display the normal atheists style of making baseless&unreasonable allegations. Defend ur unreasonable assertion u slowpoke.

U are sick in the brain for making a nasty&baseless assertion.

according to rich_john you're really one deluded goon. a vile/foul mouthed and hypocritical one at that. you come here on the platform of defending the christian faith but nothing christ-like have ever emanated from your insult-laden posts, so how can anyone take your deluded and moronic rants seriously. if your mythical/imaginary hell did actually exist you and i know its the likes of you that your book of fairy tales was referring to as those who scream "Lord, Lord" but will be turned away by your jewish master in your mythical last days. idiot

Whats my own in getting anyone banned for making ignorant post?

i hope what you refer to as "ignorant post" is the retarded challenge thrown by the christian OP who was of the deluded belief that a non-existent jewish deity will turn people who dont give a sh.t bout his non-existent jewish azz blind. if not, u are (using your own phrase) sick in the brain and need medical help as soon as possible. ewu

Did the moderator mention my name as the person that reported any nasty act? U just display the normal atheists style of making baseless&unreasonable allegations. Defend your unreasonable assertion u slowpoke.

no, its you who is the slowpoke here. a deluded one at that. its pretty obvious what happened here. one of your deluded fellow christian throws a fair challenge. he gets taken on the challenge. realizing that your incapacitated non-existent god (who lied to you guys that you're gonna be able to move mountains) is about to loss the challenge, you deluded goons resorted to your usual tactics of mockery and throwing personal insults to defend your never-ever-able-to-do-more-than-a-dead-rat god. fire was returned back and in the usual manner of you sensitive little kids you ran to a christian mod to take action against me (and my harmless posts) in defense of your all-powerful god who just never seem to be able to defend himself/herself/itself for whatever reason. christian mod takes action based on emotions (of you silly fanatics) and rashly jumps into action by deleting some of my post to please his/her fellow dead jewish carpenter worshippers

its pretty obvious OP was told to stay off this thread by fellow christians to minimize the embarrassment of exposing their god as INACTIVE, or to be more realistic, NON-EXISTENT. same way you were told to stay off the thread so you stop making a bigger fool of yourself, OP and your imaginary jewish god

Mudley313:

according to rich_john you're really one deluded goon. a vile/foul mouthed and hypocritical one at that. you come here on the platform of defending the christian faith but nothing christ-like have ever emanated from your insult-laden posts, so how can anyone take your deluded and moronic rants seriously. if your mythical/imaginary hell did actually exist you and i know its the likes of you that your book of fairy tales was referring to as those who scream "Lord, Lord" but will be turned away by your jewish master in your mythical last days. idiot

i hope what you refer to as "ignorant post" is the retarded challenge thrown by the christian OP who was of the deluded belief that a non-existent jewish deity will turn people who dont give a sh.t bout his non-existent jewish azz blind. if not, u are (using your own phrase) sick in the brain and need medical help as soon as possible. ewu

no, its you who is the slowpoke here. a deluded one at that. its very clear what happened here. one of your deluded fellow christian throws a fair challenge. he gets taken on the challenge. realizing that your incapacitated non-existent god (who lied to you guys that you're gonna be able to move mountains) is about to loss the challenge, you deluded goons resorted to your usual tactics of mockery and throwing personal insults to defend your never-ever-able-to-do-more-than-a-dead-rat god. fire was returned back and in the usual manner of you sensitive little kids you ran to a christian mod to take action against me (and my harmless posts) in defense of your all-powerful god who just never seem to be able to defend himself/herself/itself for whatever reason. christian mod takes action based on emotions (of you silly fanatics) and rashly jumps into action by deleting some of my post to please his/her fellow dead jewish carpenter worshippers

its pretty obvious OP was told to stay off this thread by fellow christians to minimize the embarrassment of exposing their god as INACTIVE, or to be more realistic, NON-EXISTENT. same way you were told to stay off the thread so you stop making a bigger fool of yourself, OP and your imaginary jewish god

U have no meaningful contribution to offer and Its a pity i dont have ur time on frivolous rhetorics. If u really want to debate, there numerous threads already opened i recommend u to join any and lets see ur perfomance. I wouldnt want to invite davidylan to come thrash u sily like hes done in the past, that u had to confess u dont want him for a debate or didnt u?

U have no meaningful contribution to offer and Its a pity i dont have your time on frivolous rhetorics. If u really want to debate, there numerous threads already opened i recommend u to join any and lets see your perfomance. I wouldnt want to invite davidylan to come thrash u sily like hes done in the past, that u had to confess u dont want him for a debate or didnt u?

@ bolded. are u off your meds or dem anesthetic shots you received from dem mental institution has not fuly worn off, making you to have unwarranted illusions. hope you're talkin bout someone else there, if not i fear for your mental well-being

anyways, i see you've toned down on the usual personal insults tactics. i'm happy for you. now be a good lil christian boy so that you can make it to your delusional paradise of many mythical mansions and gold paved roads where you guys are gonna be massaging the ego kissing the butt of your tyranical god for eternity. leave all dat unchrist-like/sinful ways to those who are already doomed to spend eternity in your gods imaginary fiery torture chamber. you don't wanna be roasted for eternity in hell, do ya?

now, can we pls stick to the original subject of this thread. so, intially, a challenge was thrown. who won again?

Mudley313:

@ bolded. are u off your meds or dem anesthetic shots you received from dem mental institution has not fuly worn off, making you to have unwarranted illusions. hope you're talkin bout someone else there, if not i fear for your mental well-being

U off course

Mudley313:

anyways, i see you've toned down on the usual personal insults tactics. i'm happy for you. now be a good lil christian boy so that you can make it to your delusional paradise of many mythical mansions and gold paved roads where you guys are gonna be massaging the ego kissing the butt of your tyranical god for eternity. leave all dat unchrist-like/sinful ways to those who are already doomed to spend eternity in your gods fiery torture chamber. you don't wanna be roasted for eternity in hell, do ya?

now, can we pls stick to the original topic of this thread. so, intially, a challenge was thrown. who won again?

There are two reasons i had to live u to your ignorance.

1) i have to catch a flight from Lagos to Unical early tomorrow morning , i have a thesis to submit for to a Prof for the Final part of my PHD and in preparation for this i have to remain calm and cool

and

2) because of the below quotes

noetic16 on April 22, 2010, 12:20 AM:

sometimes one wonders aloud ., . . .if the above poster has a brain at all?
does the acronym called "mudley" have a brain at all?

InesQor on April 06, 2010, 06:01 AM:

Mudley313 stop your gallant thaumaturgy and answer the question. For the third time:

davidylan April 05, 2010, 08:12 PM:

  streetwize, you're wasting time with a perfectly ignorant thread and author.

streetwizeApril 06, 2010, 12:36 AM:
 
this Mudley313 guy your talkin about, u sure he exists??  why should I believe there's some mysterious atheist somewhere far away typing away at his computer and its gettin to me arrant nonesense!!!

It makes no sense chating with you any further in consideration of the above quotes

U off course

when? where? u sure you're okay?

1) i have to catch a flight from Lagos to Unical early tomorrow morning , i have a thesis to submit for to a Prof for the Final part of my PHD and in preparation for this i have to remain calm and cool

yea, big boy. like anyone gives a damn bout the fictitous schedule or educational background of a faceless dork on an internet forum. over-sabi house wife

It makes no sense chating with you any further in consideration of the above quotes

dude, u really got time on your hands o. so, u actually took time to dig into my profile, searching/reading all of my previous posts, and took your time to copy and paste old post from fellow christians who resort to the usual personal attacks when confronted with the reality of the lie they're living. get a life mehn, seriously

Go get a life out of ur ignorance&meaningless posts filtering NL,as observed by different people.

Go get a life out of your ignorance&meaningless posts filtering NL,as observed by different deluded people like myself.

^^^corrected

and you, Go get a life out of your homotional and childish rants. you're an adult (i believe); u supposed to be way past fairy tales and outlandish beliefs in imaginary beings. GROW UP!

i thot you had to go catch an early flight tommorow and need to concentrate and stuff? okoro-feeling-funky

lets deal with the important issue.

anybody blind yet,

Mudley313:

and you, Go get a life out of your homotional and childish rants. you're an adult (i believe); u supposed to be way past fairy tales and outlandish beliefs in imaginary beings. GROW UP!

i thot you had to go catch an early flight tommorow and need to concentrate and stuff? okoro-feeling-funky

I just ironed my clothes now&got one or 2things in place. Dnt worry, MMA2 ikeja isnt too far away from my end.
I think u re a proper ibo man.Try to show respect to elders.I will like to take u out for a drink when i return to Lagos on Tues 1st June 2010 if i know where to get u.

bawomolo:

lets deal with the important issue.

anybody blind yet,

We cant tell oo. Lets ask from the pple concerned. I know mazaje&urself arent blind yet. Lets wait small for like 5more days to here the testimonies,

I just ironed my clothes now&got one or 2things in place. Dnt worry, MMA2 ikeja isnt too far away from my end.

hmm, i thot i told ya nobody cares what you're doing or bout to do in an annonymous internet forum. why you feel the need to explain yourself in such detail is baffling. "I just had tea with obama at the white house. i got a flight to catch tommorow at dulles to JFK airport in new york where i got my doctorate degree at columbia university." you see how easy and childishly irrelevant it is to make up whatever u wanna on an annonymous internet forum? I know you're doing it just to feel like sum big boy naija-style  and i use to think humility was one of em christian virtures

I think u re a proper ibo man

mba, i be warri boy (not that its even relevant)

Try to show respect to elders.

(shake my head)supposed elder respects himself, so-called elder gets respect. and how is it of concern to me whether a faceless screen name is a so-called elder or not, or of what relevance is it in an annonymous internet discussion forum

I will like to take u out for a drink

no homo

when i return to Lagos on Tues 1st June 2010 if i know where to get u.

sorry i dont live in naija

We cant tell oo. Lets ask from the pple concerned. I know mazaje&urself arent blind yet. Lets wait small for like 5more days to here the testimonies,

you shall wait untill thy kingdom come. sorry your god does not exist. DEAL WITH IT

toba:

We cant tell oo. Lets ask from the pple concerned. I know mazaje&urself arent blind yet. Lets wait small for like 5more days to here the testimonies,

Why wait till 5 days. . .Let me repeat the challange again. . .

Jesus, Yahweh and all the Gods of the christian trinity, If you truly exist as the christians truly want us to believe then PLEASE let me go blind for ever immediately after posting this post, I want the christian God to use me as an example to show both the christians as the unbelievers that he is not imaginary, So christian God PLEASE make me blind immediately I post this so that your followers will know that you are not imaginary. . . .

I expect to go blind as soon as I post this so that people will know that the christian God is not imaginary. . . .

I am still not blind yet and its 5 minutes already, where is Yahweh, Jesus and all the Gods of the trinity that are supposed to come and make me go blind immediately as the OP says?. . . . .

@Toba

Your God remains imaginary and a man made creation (of primitive jews and their supersitions). . . .DEAL WITH IT. . . .

toba:

We cant tell oo. Lets ask from the pple concerned. I know mazaje&urself arent blind yet. Lets wait small for like 5more days to here the testimonies,

why 5 more days? is this your God working on african time? even sango can do better

bawomolo:

why 5 more days? is this your God working on african time? even sango can do better

beneli:

No. As far as I know virtual particles are so called because of their short time span and their inability to be directly observed in relation to other particles. In any case, that is besides the point, as what is important here is that they do emerge from nothing and their effects are measurable.

They have a ‘short time span’ because when they are not particles, they exist in the form of energy. That’s what I mean by ‘oscillate’ between a form of matter and a form of energy. They do NOT emerge from ‘Nothing’. They emerge from energy.

No. That is all absolutely wrong.

First, no they do not exist as energy when they are not particles: they do not exist until they pop into existence in lieu of the uncertainty principle. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's wrong.

Second, they are never matter and in the instance of producing energy, that has some probability of occurring when a virtual particle collides (what is wont to happen is that annihilate each other) with its opposite.

Finally, what you mean is that they may be effected by energy fluctuations (see quantum fluctuations).

By ‘Oscillate’, I mean that they swing back and forth from being a form of energy to a form of matter.

Yeah, well, that's definitely wrong, then.

You are right, they are not the same as virtual energy per se, but the concept of ‘virtual energy’ allows one to understand ‘virtual particles’ better, because in essence  that’s what they are. 

Not really, no. What they are in essence are particles, not energy. They may cause the Casimir effect, but that's not the same thing as them being force field.

But like you rightly suggested, all this is beside the point.  Of relevance is the scientific FACT that they do NOT emerge out of nothing.

Actually, all current findings indicate that they do in fact emerge from nothing.

[edited]

Deep Sight:

Right. There is no need to engage KAG further. She herself was forced to admit that quantum vacuums are NOT nothing and as such her claim that virtual particles emerge from "nothing" (a quantum vacuum) collapses FLAT ON ITS FACE AB INITIO.

Why are people so arrogant that they keep pursuing an absurd lie even when they themselves have acknowldged that it is false? ? ?

Is this Deep Sight being as dishonest as ever? Colour me surprised. Now that you've run out of the range to give adequate responses to my posts, you should at least take the time to read them properly and try to understand the salient points that have sailed over your head. I won't be holding my breath.

KAG:
First, no they do not exist as energy when they are not particles: they do not exist until they pop into existence in lieu of the uncertainty principle.[edited]

What's YOUR reading of this 'Uncertainty principle' and how virtual particles 'pop into existence in lieu' of it?

KAG:

Actually, all current findings indicate that they do in fact emerge from nothing.[edited]

Give just ONE reliable source, which says that virtual particles emerge from nothing?

This thread is hilarious. I will also like to be blinded by God(The christian God).

God if you exist as christians want us to believe please make me blind immediately i post this reply.

This thread is hilarious. I will also like to be blinded by God(The christian God).

God if you exist as christians want us to believe please make me blind immediately i post this reply.

Challenge has long been over and the christian god's non-existence confirmed


Original threadstarter>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


[center] [/center]

beneli:

What's YOUR reading of this 'Uncertainty principle' and how virtual particles 'pop into existence in lieu' of it?

The uncertainty principle forbids knowing the precise amount of energy at a precise time. That's a major reason true vacuums don't exist - yet.

Give just ONE reliable source, which says that virtual particles emerge from nothing? 

Sure. NewScientist, 8 May 2010, pg 39.

To go back to the original challenge, anyone blind yet as a result of this moronic post?

KAG:

The uncertainty principle forbids knowing the precise amount of energy at a precise time. That's a major reason true vacuums don't exist - yet.

Okay, if that's the way you understand it, fine. I can clearly see that like myself, you're an amateur in this field!

Going by YOUR understanding then, kindly clarify how this is relevant to your position about virtual particles emerging from nothing, especially given your statement that 'true vacuums don't exist-yet'.

KAG:

Sure. NewScientist, 8 May 2010, pg 39.

I can't open this link. Can you kindly paste the relevant paragraph here and let's see what it says. Thanks

beneli:

Okay, if that's the way you understand it, fine. I can clearly see that like myself, you're an amateur in this field!

Is there any other way to understand it?

Going by YOUR understanding then, kindly clarify how this is relevant to your position about virtual particles emerging from nothing, especially given your statement that 'true vacuums don't exist-yet'.

As the uncertainty principle prevents anyone from knowing the exact energy of a given space at a precise time, it becomes impossible to have a space with zero energy - which is what you will need for a true vacuum. To prevent the violation of the uncertainty principle, virtual particles emerge into what would have been completely empty space and then disappear again. They aren't caused by anything, more a quirk of the universe and the quantum world.

I can't open this link. Can you kindly paste the relevant paragraph here and let's see what it says. Thanks

It's not a link. It's a reference. I'll have to manually type the relevant sections:

"Something for nothing: The Casimir effect"

". . . In the quantum world it's different: there, something comes of nothing and moves the furniture around.

Specifically, if you place two uncharged metal plates side by side in a vacuum . . .

According to quantum field theory, empty space is actually fizzing with short-lived stuff that appears, looks around a bit, decides it doesn't like it and disappears again, all in the name of preventing the universe from violating the uncertainty principle."

KAG:

Is this Deep Sight being as dishonest as ever? Colour me surprised. Now that you've run out of the range to give adequate responses to my posts, you should at least take the time to read them properly and try to understand the salient points that have sailed over your head. I won't be holding my breath.

Oh please quit the  chit chat right there missus. Your serial and embarrasing contradictions have since been exposed for anybody who is capable of reading, so what the hell would make you think I am prepared to waste my time any further with a quack scientist.

The alarming thing is that you keep regurgitating the self same contradiction which even a hare would spot, and you never spot it.

Let me just assist you one last time to see the firm reason you are not to be taken seriously in this discussion.

The question was if it is possible for something to emerge from nothing. I stated that it is not possible: you claimed that it is possible. In defense of your claim you cited virtual particles in a quantum vacuum.

YOU SAID -

KAG:

Virtual particles emerge from nothing into the universe.

Thereafter I pointed out to you that quantum vacuums are not “nothing” and as such your claim that virtual particles arise from “nothing” could not be sustained. I did also point out to you that scientifically there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum – namely that it is only a philosophical precept. ONLY after I had pointed these out did you revert conceding –

KAG:

Vacuums have a specific place in physics and in this instance they indicate something

- - - thereby conceding that Vacuums are not nothing.

You then went on to say –

KAG:

What has been said also is that short of the probability of uncertainty, a vacuum possesses nothing.

WHICH IS AN OUTRIGHT FALSITY BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS THAT – THE SAID VACUUMS HAVE GASEOUS PRESSURE – ONLY MUCH LOWER THAN NORMALLY OBSERVED ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE!

Now in case you are suffering selective amnesia, when I pointed out all these to you, this is what you said –

KAG:

That was my fault. I should have been more specific. It was sloppy on my part.

KAG:

I apologised for being sloppy in my depiction of vacuums.

Thus acceding that you were wrong to equate a quantum vacuum to an instance of “nothing” (or “nothingness” - your pick).

So please do not dare patronise me with any high-sounding rhetoric. The fact of the matter is simple and clear for all to see: your claim that virtual particles EMERGE from “nothing” IS SCIENTIFICALY FALSE – AS THE VACUUM YOU REFER TO IS NOT NOTHING – AND THIS HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVED

Heck, even the fact that such vacuums contain a time-energy uncertainty is more than enough to show that whatever else they may be, they still ARE NOT nothing! Aside from this recall they also contain low gaseous pressure.

So, to borrow from my friend viaro – quit the “linear tarradiddle” and sharpen up for once.

Now when you display such shocking incapacity to read your own contradictions, how do you expect me to bother with the following nonsense –

KAG:

No. A philosophical absolute - even more so than any other conception of an absolute - involves claims and/or arguments built on the present or prevalent scope and findings at a particular time. So, for instance, the certainty that nothing while on earth can flow up hill in defiance of gravity, all effects or occurrences must have an immediate cause, and that spontaneous generation of the kind where complex organisms appear were all philosophical absolutes. They were declared certain, sacrosanct and unable to defied in any way. However, new discoveries have shown otherwise.

Therefore, yes, absolutes have been changed and debunked by new scientific discoveries.

- - - -  Whereat you show a lamentable incapacity to distinguish between an absolute and a presumption ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You sincerely expect me to bother with the many other nonsensical postulations you have made when you yourself have given hearty concessions such as this –

KAG:

As the uncertainty principle prevents anyone from knowing the exact energy of a given space at a precise time, [size=16pt]it becomes impossible to have a space with zero energy - which is what you will need for a true vacuum.[/size]

- - - - which concedes entirely that there is NO SPACE ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME WITH ZERO ENERGY. . .

So where is this magical “nothing” that you are imagining?

I repeat: you are a quack voodoo priest.

Alice in wonderland.

Deep Sight:

Is this Deep Sight being as dishonest as ever? Colour me surprised. Now that you've run out of the range to give adequate responses to my posts, you should at least take the time to read them properly and try to understand the salient points that have sailed over your head. I won't be holding my breath.

Oh please quit the  chit chat right there missus. Your serial and embarrasing contradictions have since been exposed for anybody who is capable of reading, so what the hell would make you think I am prepared to waste my time any further with a quack scientist.

The alarming thing is that you keep regurgitating the self same contradiction which even a hare would spot, and you never spot it.

The interesting thing is when you aren't trying handwave away something that rebuts your dogma, you come up with disingenuous proclamations and ad hominems. It's either unconvincing declarations of science you don't understand being voodoo or that there are contradictions where none exist.

Let me just assist you one last time to see the firm reason you are not to be taken seriously in this discussion.

The question was if it is possible for something to emerge from nothing. I stated that it is not possible: you claimed that it is possible. In defense of your claim you cited virtual particles in a quantum vacuum.

YOU SAID -

"Virtual particles emerge from nothing into the universe. "

Thereafter I pointed out to you that quantum vacuums are not “nothing” and as such your claim that virtual particles arise from “nothing” could not be sustained. I did also point out to you that scientifically there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum – namely that it is only a philosophical precept. ONLY after I had pointed these out did you revert conceding –

- - - thereby conceding that Vacuums are not nothing.

You then went on to say –

What has been said also is that short of the probability of uncertainty, a vacuum possesses nothing.

WHICH IS AN OUTRIGHT FALSITY BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS THAT – THE SAID VACUUMS HAVE GASEOUS PRESSURE – ONLY MUCH LOWER THAN NORMALLY OBSERVED ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE!

It's hard to know where to start. I see some of the problem is what I suspected it to be: quite a great deal of the subject matter went over your head. Unfortunately, rather than asking for clarification you've tried to bluster and be dishonest.

Okay, I guess I'll start from the part you've claimed is "AN OUTRIGHT FALSITY". In your zeal to jump to conclusions before understanding what was written (something you're apt to do), you've missed the fact that I was properly framing how a vacuum state works and how it applies to the emergence of virtual particles. A bit short-hand, yes, but not false. What it means is that if - and it's only useful as an hypothetical to make a point here - the uncertainty principle wasn't a factor then a true vacuum would exist or be possible to create. However, because of the uncertainty principle, particles - virtual particles - pop into existence. From that it should be easy to see the point: that virtual particles emerge into what would have otherwise been an empty space. . . from nothing.

Essentially, rather than a vacuum just not being empty space because of undefined vague reasons, it's because of virtual particles that it possesses a "something", no matter how temporary, rather than nothing.

I can explain further if you would like. Better still you can bother to actually read what I've written and try to understand what the words mean, too.

Now in case you are suffering selective amnesia, when I pointed out all these to you, this is what you said –

"That was my fault. I should have been more specific. It was sloppy on my part.

I apologised for being sloppy in my depiction of vacuums."

Thus acceding that you were wrong to equate a quantum vacuum to an instance of “nothing” (or “nothingness” - your pick

Oh I haven't forgotten those. I have no problems accepting or admitting to mistakes or even wrong characterisations. Do you think you can follow the argument now.

So please do not dare patronise me with any high-sounding rhetoric.

I leave the empty rhetoric to you.

The fact of the matter is simple and clear for all to see: your claim that virtual particles EMERGE from “nothing” IS SCIENTIFICALY FALSE – AS THE VACUUM YOU REFER TO IS NOT NOTHING – AND THIS HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVED

Um, not quite. Not even close. What in a vacuum causes virtual particles? Like I wrote in my response to beneli, so far the findings point to them emerging from nothing.

Heck, even the fact that such vacuums contain a time-energy uncertainty is more than enough to show that whatever else they may be, they still ARE NOT nothing!

Wait, why? Why does that mean they are not nothing?

Aside from this recall they also contain low gaseous pressure.

Do you know what that means? I am forced to ask so many questions because I'm uncertain that you know what many of the terms and things you're saying mean.

So, to borrow from my friend viaro – quit the “linear tarradiddle” and sharpen up for once.

Now when you display such shocking incapacity to read your own contradictions, how do you expect me to bother with the following nonsense –

"No. A philosophical absolute - even more so than any other conception of an absolute - involves claims and/or arguments built on the present or prevalent scope and findings at a particular time. So, for instance, the certainty that nothing while on earth can flow up hill in defiance of gravity, all effects or occurrences must have an immediate cause, and that spontaneous generation of the kind where complex organisms appear were all philosophical absolutes. They were declared certain, sacrosanct and unable to defied in any way. However, new discoveries have shown otherwise.

Therefore, yes, absolutes have been changed and debunked by new scientific discoveries. "

- - - -  Whereat you show a lamentable incapacity to distinguish between an absolute and a presumption ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I'll take that as a "KAG, I can't offer a logical rebuttal to your argument, but I believe I'll lose face if I accept I was wrong; therefore, I'll type something inane that makes me pretend I'm on a moral high ground"

No need to thank me for helping you understand better.

Here's a question: really, when it comes to human knowledge, is there an absolute that isn't presumptive in some way? Give examples if you can think of any. Otherwise, you can quit trying to handwave away a logical argument.

[snip]empty rhetoric[/snip]

yawns, anybody don blind

@ Toba

Its 5 days already and I am still not blind, where is Yahweh to come and make me blind and show you guys that he is not imaginary?

@ Mazaje
If blindness does not work, ask yahweh to make you lame, dumb and deaf that should do the trick abi, 

mazaje:

@ Toba

Its 5 days already and I am still not blind, where is Yahweh to come and make me blind and show you guys that he is not imaginary?

If u checked my first post on page 1 of this thread, i never agreed with the author regarding God making anyone one blind. If God wants to catch anyone, its not for me or any theist to force God to do that.

The story of Paul that we read in the bible, didn't say peter, James or john asked Paul to say 'if God exist, that he Paul should go blind in 3days.

For God not to have responded to ur prayers could mean God loves u and still want to get u guys in a good way and not by making u blind. If u want to arrest someone u have to do it in a good style.

Mazaje and other atheist no one will get blind. God will convert u in his own way and time and not mine