mkmyers45: @First Bolded: Energy is indeed isolated from matter because it manifests in massless medium as just energy usually after collision of Matter and Anti-Matter.

I just read up on this. Yes, pure energy can be obtained from the collision of matter and anti-matter, but not in isolation from either. In fact, this "pure" energy retains the mass of the annihilating entities which the bolded is wrong about. That's another way of saying that the energy released is the same as the matter destroyed.

@Second Bolded: How?

Perhaps I read you wrong, but were you not suggesting by ex nihilo that everything proceeded out of nothing?

Ihedinobi:

I just read up on this. Yes, pure energy can be obtained from the collision of matter and anti-matter, but not in isolation from either. In fact, this "pure" energy retains the mass of the annihilating entities which the bolded is wrong about. That's another way of saying that the energy released is the same as the matter destroyed.



Perhaps I read you wrong, but were you not suggesting by ex nihilo that everything proceeded out of nothing?

Im sorry but you are wrong..Massless Photons are released..other resultants include Gamma ray [also massless] etc so i dont know where you got your assertions..The Matter is just transformed to Energy e.g The Sun consumes about 600 million tons of hydrogen per second. (That's 6 x 10^8 tons.) For comparison, the mass of the Earth is about 1.35 x 10^21 tons.

mkmyers45: Im sorry but you are wrong..Massless Photons are released..other resultants include Gamma ray [also massless] etc so i dont know where you got your assertions..The Matter is just transformed to Energy e.g The Sun consumes about 600 million tons of hydrogen per second. (That's 6 x 10^8 tons.) For comparison, the mass of the Earth is about 1.35 x 10^21 tons.

. . . consider electron - positron annihilation, in which the rest mass of individual particles is destroyed, but the inertia equivalent of the system of the two particles (its invariant mass) remains (since all energy is associated with mass), and this inertia and invariant mass is carried off by photons which individually are massless, but as a system retain their mass.

- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

@Cyrexx

We will come back to the merits of the different theories on the origins of the universe.

cyrexx:
Allah is the omnipotent, uncreated creator, not begotten and he begat no one.

Ok

He is Sovereign Omnisciet creator who wishes to create mankind and djinns for his purpose and pleasure

In other words, it was just a whim on his part. Ok.

he is the most beneficient most merciful one who sustains everything by his omnibenevolent lovingkindness and omnipotent power

Omnibenevolent lovingkindness. What is that, please?

allah knows what is best and his knowledge is beyond the ability of mortals to grasp. He is sovereign and he knows all thing. In the end he shall destroy all evil.

In other words, you don't know.

he is demanding that people should believe him and worship no other god but him, he is not begotten and he begat no one. In the fulness of time he will destroy all evil and all those who worship other gods beside him. Right now he is pleading with you to stop your idolatry and dont join yourself to the evil he shall soon destroy all together.

In other words, he has done and is doing nothing about it. We're just to wait till it suits his whims to clear off the evil in his creation.

plaetton:

In this 21st century, It is really hard to believe that an educated person can publicly state this as his belief.
Ok fine. Fine, you are entitled to your beliefs.
However, what makes it so absurd, and even suggestive of a benign fomr of mental illness,is that one would take this so-called christian perspective and use it to argue against known scientific facts and accepted scientific theories.

And even more absurd, is that one holding this position, would scoff and mock another individual who proposes a FLying Spaghetti Monster(FSM) as the cause and creator of the universe.

lol.......... What scientific facts?

Ihedinobi:

. . . consider electron - positron annihilation, in which the rest mass of individual particles is destroyed, but the inertia equivalent of the system of the two particles (its invariant mass) remains (since all energy is associated with mass), and this inertia and invariant mass is carried off by photons which individually are massless, but as a system retain their mass.

- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Its Just copy and paste so im not suprised..The massless resultants is my concern...The Electro-Magnetic Rays including photon are indeed the energy i refer to not the other resultant...

jayriginal: Some people wont shake of their dogma no matter how hard you try.

As is his talent, Deep Sight has made a hash of what was presented to him. Nobody said the Universe was expanding into nothingness; the idea is "nothing observable".

Then he quotes that the loaf is expanding into space without reading what follows (and claims he knows all that )

Here, let me make this clear.



And all this after I have said these analogies are not very accurate. Dont make me have to do a line by line annotation for you.

Na wa.

Here is good advice.

Its amazing that you are not ashamed of the repeated fact that all you ever have to say is that you don't know, and that nobody knows. Fair enough, but I ask you: if that is the case, then why the heck bother posting on this forum or reading anything anybody posts. . . . .since you don't know and nobody knows? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are wasting your time, and everyone else's, with your repeated posts which simply declare that you don't know and nobdy knows. . . . . you bring NOTHING to the table and I have always told people who are trying to make decisions that any decision is better than no decision. As such, I would learn more from any person who proposes ANY idea - - - no matter how right or wrong the idea is, than from someone like you who is incapable of EVER proposing ANY concept whatsoever.

Please stop posting on this board. . . .cos we are bored with your buzz. . . . . that you don't know.

Thanks!

jayriginal: Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe.

. . .

A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. That would not only affect the expansion of the Universe, but it would also affect the way that normal matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies behaved. This fact would provide a way to decide if the solution to the dark energy problem is a new gravity theory or not: we could observe how galaxies come together in clusters. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be? How could it correctly describe the motion of the bodies in the Solar System, as Einstein's theory is known to do, and still give us the different prediction for the Universe that we need? There are candidate theories, but none are compelling. So the mystery continues

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

My friend, after you were shown up with your horrible contradictions [which showed exactly why you are always frightened of answering questions!] - having made a horrible mess of the first question you attempted to answer - [first saying that the universe is expanding into already existing space, and then contradicting that by claiming that the universe is expanding into nothing observable - and then when ratted out, producing a hash of copy and paste extractions contradicting everything] - - - - - - - > ALL of this lamentably shows your incapacity for independent thought, which is why you only offer to me copy and paste extractions from discussions completely irrelevant to the questions being discussed!

I mean, just look at the ridiculous nonsense contained in the bold above: "empty space" having properties, etc. And then do you think this illiteracy is obviated by name-dropping Einstein? Think for yourself. The above quote shows firmly that true to my conviction, you sir, are absolutely incapable of independent thought.

Worse, you do not recognize the pith of any discussion. And the above quote shows that you don't even know what is being discussed here.

OLODO!

Deep Sight:

Its amazing that you are not ashamed of the repeated fact that all you ever have to say is that you don't know, and that nobody knows. Fair enough, but I ask you: if that is the case, then why the heck bother posting on this forum or reading anything anybody posts. . . . .since you don't know and nobody knows? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are wasting your time, and everyone else's, with your repeated posts which simply declare that you don't know and nobdy knows. . . . . you bring NOTHING to the table and I have always told people who are trying to make decisions that any decision is better than no decision. As such, I would learn more from any person who proposes ANY idea - - - no matter how right or wrong the idea is, than from someone like you who is incapable of EVER proposing ANY concept whatsoever.

Please stop posting on this board. . . .cos we are bored with your buzz. . . . . that you don't know.

Thanks!

I'll continue to call out quacks and charlatans like yourself.

Thank you very much.

You can have your opinions, but not your own facts.

Deep Sight:

My friend, after you were shown up with your horrible contradictions [which showed exactly why you are always frightened of answering questions!] - having made a horrible mess of the first question you attempted to answer - [first saying that the universe is expanding into already existing space, and then contradicting that by claiming that the universe is expanding into nothing observable - and then when ratted out, producing a hash of copy and paste extractions contradicting everything] - - - - - - - > ALL of this lamentably shows your incapacity for independent thought, which is why you only offer to me copy and paste extractions from discussions completely irrelevant to the questions being discussed!

I mean, just look at the ridiculous nonsense contained in the bold above: "empty space" having properties, etc. And then do you think this illiteracy is obviated by name-dropping Einstein? Think for yourself. The above quote shows firmly that true to my conviction, you sir, are absolutely incapable of independent thought.

Worse, you do not recognize the pith of any discussion. And the above quote shows that you don't even know what is being discussed here.

OLODO!

Its not my fault you cannot see the obvious.
I made no hash of anything. If you cannot read, that is not my fault.

If anything, you are the one who is woefully ignorant of what is discussed. The most basic of issues evade your grasp. Critical thinking = 0.

As the old saying goes, "the empty barrel makes the loudest noise".

jayriginal:

I'll continue to call out quacks and charlatans like yourself.

Thank you very much.

You can have your opinions, but not your own facts.




Its not my fault you cannot see the obvious.
I made no hash of anything. If you cannot read, that is not my fault.

If anything, you are the one who is woefully ignorant of what is discussed. The most basic of issues evade your grasp. Critical thinking = 0.

As the old saying goes, "the empty barrel makes the loudest noise".

Lol. In short, as always, you have no answer and nothing to say. It honestly beats me why you bother to post.

You said, that the universe is expanding into already existent space: and this gave away the discussion to my position. When you realized that, you then said that the universe is not expanding into anything observable - after posting a load of contradictory extracts. To turn about and deny same amounts to lying: and as poor as you are at debating, I am shocked that you would resort to outright lies. I had thought you a decent person.

Deep Sight, this is a new intellectual low for even you. I cannot be blamed for your poor comprehension.

In your defense, perhaps you have multiple personality disorder. I wonder which of you I am talking to this time around.

There is nothing I posted that is of my experience or knowledge or work.

What is sad is that despite your emptiness (being a consequence of your mouth/fingers working overtime while your brain is on holiday), you resort to shameful tactics.
Here is what I said, reproduced fully.

jayriginal: I have given you an answer before. Im quite certain of it.

If I answer you, I will not be answering you from what I have experienced personally, but from the body of knowledge established by people in the field.

That is the reason I ask you to google it.


Succinctly, space is not expanding into anything observable. Space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house, rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Google it so you know.

That is what is there.

I dont even know why I bother with you when I already know what you are going to say next.

So, where have I lied and what have I denied ?
Do you or do you not see the rider that it is not my personal experience ?

It is amusing that you wish to jump on what you consider contradictions without seeing what is really obvious.

The fact is, there are people who are trained and equipped to research and investigate these issues. With all the resources at their disposal, there are issues that they cannot quite agree on. How then is anyone expected to take you, a layman with elementary science, your Kings College Encyclopedias and the amateur arguments you make seriously when you assert that which they cannot ?

That is what should be apparent to a keen mind. It is in fact one of the basic reasons why I say I do not need science to hold my position.

Let me break my post down for you since it is now apparent that you are as smart as a grinding stone.

1. I have no personal knowledge of these things, I can only tell you what the experts say
2. Space is not expanding into anything observable (in fact see point 3 for clarification)
3. Space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house
4. Rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Like the lightweight you are, you stumble over basic comprehension.
Lets look at your embarrassing post.

Deep Sight: Thanks boss.

Now let's settle down.

It is by no means a resolved question: and there are several different view points even within the scientific academia.

Thus google is useless. I wanted YOUR TAKE.



Now I will give you a one line knock-out:

Since you say that galaxies are moving apart from one another INTO SPACE THAT IS ALREADY THERE, then evidently such space was already there for the expansion to occur into.

Thus space was not created by the big b.ang.

Case closed. I hope you see now.

This is why I am bemused at you guys. You have no clue. And yet you rev high and mighty. LAWD.

You hold tenaciously to the line, "into space is already there".

How dull can you be to ignore the points that I mentioned to wit :
That space is not expanding into anything observable,
That space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house
That rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Why should the struck out part make you stumble ? Cant you see that it is qualified ?

Cant you see that your assertions are as remarkably idiotic as the following statement "The earth orbits into space that is already there, therefore the big b@ng didnt create space and evidently such space was already there for the expansion to occur into.".

Once again, remarkably idiotic !

So please good Sir, tell me, where did I lie and what did I deny ?

As for being a "decent" human being, I couldnt care less what you think about me. However, lets jog your memory a bit and in the process, compare personalities.

On the Darwin's day thread, you continually "distorted" my position, continually said things I didnt say, and you constructed strawmen, the likes of which would make the most accomplished sophist stand in awe.

I gave you several chances by asking you to quote me and you never did. Despite that, you continued your dishonest behaviour yet never once did I call you a liar. As a matter of fact, you even admitted that people have been accusing you of "misconstruing" their position.

Deep Sight:
In all cases they end up saying the very same things about me which you are now saying: namely that I am deliberately misconstruing their words, and other such.

https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/10#10598392

How about you admitting another "distortion"

Deep Sight:
I am sure I did not say that it was the most convincing argument for the existence of God. I said it was one of the most convincing.

https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/9#10589391

Deep Sight:
For my part, let me here accept that yes, you were right that I said the Cosmological Argument was the best argument. I didn’t remember my exact words, and I accept that.

my gracious reply ? (instead of calling you a liar or gloating that I caught you in an "error" )

jayriginal:
No big deal. It happens.

eerily similar to this thread,

Deep Sight:
There are many things which you have said explicitly on this thread: and which you now are appearing to deny. In this post, I will not bother to quote them: once I am done in this post, I will reserve my next post to extracting those quotes and shewing them unto thee, that thou mayest behold for thyself that which thou hast done and said.

my response,

jayriginal:
I would very much like that.

Notably, you never did simply because you couldnt. You are an amateur, a quack, a charlatan, a humbug, a baby philosopher who can cram but cannot comprehend. You are a lightweight and I pity you severely. I pity you not because of the depths you wallow in, but because it appears you can never rise out of them.

I am drawn to the following statement of yours

Deep Sight:
It is by no means a resolved question: and there are several different view points even within the scientific academia.

How you can make this statement and yet fail to see the implication shouldnt surprise me but it does as I am generally reluctant to think that low of anybody; even you.

You see "space that was already there" and you happily jump on it because you think it supports your notion of eternal space. This is after I had on another thread posted for your benefit a write up explaining this concept.

The idea that the universe is expanding involves a bit of subtlety. For example, we don’t mean the universe is expanding in the manner that, say, one might expand one’s house, by knocking out a wall and positioning a new bathroom where once there stood a majestic oak. Rather than space extending itself, it is the distance between any two points within the universe that is growing.

"The Grand Design" , Stephen Hawkin and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.

https://www.nairaland.com/1000711/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit-refutes/7#11649462

You do not think of anything except how everything you come across fits into your dogma.

It would seem that you are assuming that space has a boundary which is why you foolishly seize upon the "space already there" without the least understanding. This is even after it has been explained to you that space IS NOT EXPANDING IN THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPAND YOUR HOUSE.

You huff and puff and are totally devoid of grey matter.

It hurts me to post this of a person of whom I once wrote

jayriginal:
My problem with DeepSight and where I complain of his "arrogance" is when he says certain things like he is the sole custodian of knowledge.

DeepSight does not strike me as a tolerant person (from reading his posts). Sometimes I read his posts and feel there is barely concealed contempt therein.
Of course these are just my impressions and they do not stem from this thread alone.

On the positive side, DeepSight is not to be counted as one of the foul mouthed personalities here. Also, I have seen some humour in his posts which I always count as a good thing.

Its my opinion and I may be wrong, but I mean no offense. I just mean to criticize fairly and help him improve (if thats possible).
https://www.nairaland.com/878904/historicity-books-bible-reference-daniel/3#10283434

but you should thank your stars that my internet has been down for about two days. Ive severely toned down this post.

Your last post calcifies you for what you truly are yet you call someone else a liar.

Deep Sight:
You said, that the universe is expanding into already existent space: and this gave away the discussion to my position. When you realized that, you then said that the universe is not expanding into anything observable - after posting a load of contradictory extracts. To turn about and deny same amounts to lying: and as poor as you are at debating, I am shocked that you would resort to outright lies. I had thought you a decent person.

They say nothingness doesn't exist. I say it probably does. Indeed the truly perfect vacuum is most likely in your skull.

No be small tin

InesQor: No be small tin

Why did you revive dis my old thread?

jayriginal: Deep Sight, this is a new intellectual low for even you. I cannot be blamed for your poor comprehension.

In your defense, perhaps you have multiple personality disorder. I wonder which of you I am talking to this time around.

There is nothing I posted that is of my experience or knowledge or work.

What is sad is that despite your emptiness (being a consequence of your mouth/fingers working overtime while your brain is on holiday), you resort to shameful tactics.
Here is what I said, reproduced fully.



So, where have I lied and what have I denied ?
Do you or do you not see the rider that it is not my personal experience ?

It is amusing that you wish to jump on what you consider contradictions without seeing what is really obvious.

The fact is, there are people who are trained and equipped to research and investigate these issues. With all the resources at their disposal, there are issues that they cannot quite agree on. How then is anyone expected to take you, a layman with elementary science, your Kings College Encyclopedias and the amateur arguments you make seriously when you assert that which they cannot ?

That is what should be apparent to a keen mind. It is in fact one of the basic reasons why I say I do not need science to hold my position.

Let me break my post down for you since it is now apparent that you are as smart as a grinding stone.

1. I have no personal knowledge of these things, I can only tell you what the experts say
2. Space is not expanding into anything observable (in fact see point 3 for clarification)
3. Space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house
4. Rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Like the lightweight you are, you stumble over basic comprehension.
Lets look at your embarrassing post.



You hold tenaciously to the line, "into space is already there".

How dull can you be to ignore the points that I mentioned to wit :
That space is not expanding into anything observable,
That space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house
That rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Why should the struck out part make you stumble ? Cant you see that it is qualified ?

Cant you see that your assertions are as remarkably idiotic as the following statement "The earth orbits into space that is already there, therefore the big b@ng didnt create space and evidently such space was already there for the expansion to occur into.".

Once again, remarkably idiotic !

So please good Sir, tell me, where did I lie and what did I deny ?

As for being a "decent" human being, I couldnt care less what you think about me. However, lets jog your memory a bit and in the process, compare personalities.

On the Darwin's day thread, you continually "distorted" my position, continually said things I didnt say, and you constructed strawmen, the likes of which would make the most accomplished sophist stand in awe.

I gave you several chances by asking you to quote me and you never did. Despite that, you continued your dishonest behaviour yet never once did I call you a liar. As a matter of fact, you even admitted that people have been accusing you of "misconstruing" their position.



How about you admitting another "distortion"





my gracious reply ? (instead of calling you a liar or gloating that I caught you in an "error" )



eerily similar to this thread,



my response,



Notably, you never did simply because you couldnt. You are an amateur, a quack, a charlatan, a humbug, a baby philosopher who can cram but cannot comprehend. You are a lightweight and I pity you severely. I pity you not because of the depths you wallow in, but because it appears you can never rise out of them.

I am drawn to the following statement of yours



How you can make this statement and yet fail to see the implication shouldnt surprise me but it does as I am generally reluctant to think that low of anybody; even you.

You see "space that was already there" and you happily jump on it because you think it supports your notion of eternal space. This is after I had on another thread posted for your benefit a write up explaining this concept.



You do not think of anything except how everything you come across fits into your dogma.

It would seem that you are assuming that space has a boundary which is why you foolishly seize upon the "space already there" without the least understanding. This is even after it has been explained to you that space IS NOT EXPANDING IN THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPAND YOUR HOUSE.

You huff and puff and are totally devoid of grey matter.

It hurts me to post this of a person of whom I once wrote



but you should thank your stars that my internet has been down for about two days. Ive severely toned down this post.

Your last post calcifies you for what you truly are yet you call someone else a liar.



They say nothingness doesn't exist. I say it probably does. Indeed the truly perfect vacuum is most likely in your skull.

Lol at perfect vacuum.

I no fit shout. I maintain that you did lie on the question: for your first response to my questioning was to admit that as I stated, the universe is expanding into already existing space. Haven seen that that conceded the debate, you now seek to qualify or withdraw it. That is disingenuous, period.

As to the matter of manner of expansion, I already answered it in my X Y Z galaxies analogy to Martian.

Digging up your personal hurts from old threads will not address the logic in this one, thanks.

And here is the analogy in question-

Deep Sight:

Stop being lazy. We know that this is what is said. This does nothing to change the point or the question. Have a look at this -

X Y Z

Now lets say that X, Y and Z above are galaxies. Let us also say that they are stationary, but that the space between them is expanding and increasing. If this happens, then X is going to keep moving further to the left and Z further to the right. That would mean that our hypothetical three galaxy universe above has moved into previously unnocupied space on the left and the right.

Such space could not be said to be a function of the universe because our universe is just consisting of these three galaxies and the space between them. As such the spaces to the right and left where our galaxies "move" into, are not made by our universe or its commencement.

It is already existing space.

There is no model that you can present which will resolve this conundrum. Jayriginal fetched a bunch of clueless andc hoplessly confused extracts last night: and they just fell apart in a hail of contradictions. In one breath they say that the question makes no sense. In another breath they say the expansion is occurring into nothing - forgetting that nothingness does not exist, much less can nothingness be residable cosmic space. They then say that the expansion ius occuring into previously unoccupied space. Which is of course the right thing to say, but contradicts the wild nonsense in most of the extracts and makes my point sink home!



I am convinced by the commonsensical observations that expansions do not and cannot occur into nothingness: they can only rather occur if there is space to expand into.

Thus Hawkin seeking to educate anyone about the sort of expansion of the universe is moot.

It does NOT detract from the point in the least.

You ran, my friend, to an old thread in which I failed to recall my exact words (between "the best" or "one of the best" or something as trifling as that ) and admitted same openly: that is nothing and no sign of dishonesty. What would be dishonest would be for you to deny that you clearly conceded to my position in your first answer, by saying that the universe is expanding into space.

Aside from that, I pointed out the clear contradictions you made in your references. Even your amended statement is still contradictory. You cannot first say that the universe is expanding into existing space and then now cry that it is expanding into nothing observable. If this is the case, then how did you observe in the first place that it is expanding into already existing space? ? ?

Just admit you've lost the plot completely on this one. No need to be emotional.

Deep Sight: And here is the analogy in question-



Thus Hawkin seeking to educate anyone about the sort of expansion of the universe is moot.

It does NOT detract from the point in the least.

You ran, my friend, to an old thread in which I failed to recall my exact words (between "the best" or "one of the best" or something as trifling as that ) and admitted same openly: that is nothing and no sign of dishonesty. What would be dishonest would be for you to deny that you clearly conceded to my position in your first answer, by saying that the universe is expanding into space.

Aside from that, I pointed out the clear contradictions you made in your references. Even your amended statement is still contradictory. You cannot first say that the universe is expanding into existing space and then now cry that it is expanding into nothing observable. If this is the case, then how did you observe in the first place that it is expanding into already existing space? ? ?

Just admit you've lost the plot completely on this one. No need to be emotional.

Deepsight, I tire for your arguments.


There is no logical argument for a god, be it a deist god or a personal god. All these your criticisms of the limit to modern understanding of cosmology is not proof of God.


It all boils down to


"If you cant explain X, therefore X proves god"


Nonsense

Logicboy03:




Deepsight, I tire for your arguments.


There is no logical argument for a god, be it a deist god or a personal god. All these your criticisms of the limit to modern understanding of cosmology is not proof of God.


It all boils down to


"If you cant explain X, therefore X proves god"


Nonsense

Lmao, spoken as if you can understand logic in the first place

Mr_Anony:
Lmao, spoken as if you can understand logic in the first place

Yawn. Ad hominem?


Please, when you are ready to counter my point, let me know

Logicboy03:


Yawn. Ad hominem?


Please, when you are ready to counter my point, let me know

Yawn...what point?

Mr_Anony:
Yawn...what point?

Stop trolling.

Logicboy03:


Stop trolling.

Yawn...

lwtmb

Ihedinobi: lwtmb

Mr_Anony:
Lmao, spoken as if you can understand logic in the first place

You do?

wiegraf:

You do?

Yes. Do you?

Mr_Anony:
Yes. Do you?

Yes.
You clearly don't. But we'd have to determine a definition for 'logic'

Mr_Anony:
Yes. Do you?

Nonsense! Anony, you dont use logic!



Explain how it is logical that one can say that morality comes from God?


So, if someone is born to an atheist family in Nagoya, Japan, and the person doesnt leave his hometown which leaves him as an atheist all hist life, does that mean that the person has no morality or worse his morality is an illusion?



If morality from god is objective, god has to be objective but then, god is a subjective experience. Bring any two christians that have claimed to witness god and they will bring two different descriptions of god.

wiegraf:
Yes.
You clearly don't. But we'd have to determine a definition for 'logic'

Let us hear your definition then.

Logicboy03:



Nonsense! Anony, you dont use logic!



Explain how it is logical that one can say that morality comes from God?


So, if someone is born to an atheist family in Nagoya, Japan, and the person doesnt leave his hometown which leaves him as an atheist all hist life, does that mean that the person has no morality or worse his morality is an illusion?



If morality from god is objective, god has to be objective but then, god is a subjective experience. Bring any two christians that have claimed to witness god and they will bring two different descriptions of god.

Lol, you start off with a genetic fallacy and end with a strawman.

(Don't worry, we'll tackle this argument proper in the other thread when I finish with my presentation. I don't want to get into long-drawn arguments at this time)

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you start off with a genetic fallacy and end with a strawman.

(Don't worry, we'll tackle this argument proper in the other thread when I finish with my presentation. I don't want to get into long-drawn arguments at this time)

Anonyism at play



You win £5,000,000 if you can point out the straw man or genetic fallacy in my copmment. You just throw things out of your a--hole

Logicboy03:


Anonyism at play



You win £5,000,000 if you can point out the straw man or genetic fallacy in my copmment. You just throw things out of your a--hole

Yawn....If only you actually had the money?

In the Spirit of Xmas,
Of unicorns and other fables..
Bump 8..