₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
FSM is well described and is not anywhere near what the Jehovah Creator of the Universe is.

Spaghetti is made from ground wheat isn't it? It's like food...and it is a monster!?

The Christian go d is well defined as omniscience, omnipotent and omnipresent.

All has been tested to be false.

Flying Spaghetti Monster claimed to create the Christian god, it’s true since we can’t test it yet

Crystyano:
How is that related to my reply?

Check up on it

Crystyano:
I don't think nothing should really have a definition because the limits of a scientist or the limits of the technology of a scientist doesn't mean there's nothing.

do you understand how Occasm’s razor works?

TenQ:
Did any Christian describe God in terms of matter/materials?
How do you intend to scientifically detect and quantify God?
Have you built such a machine yet to detect God?

You sound like Aristotle or Socrates arguing that Virus and Bacterias don't exist because no one has seen one!

Where is your evidence that the God we describe doesn't exist.

I can bet it with you that one day, the truth will dawn on you but I hope the god of science will be strong enough to bail you out.

you also sound like a pastafarian arguing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist because we have not tested it

TenQ:
Common sense tells us to tread with CAUTION with respect to warnings when you are not sure UNTIL adequate evidence show the contrary

Example:'
Don't put your hand into that hole, a snake is inside
Response 1:
No one has seen any snake, therefore we should stick our hands inside
Response 2:
Even though no one has seen the snake, it may or may not be there lets not just stick our hands inside

What you really don't know yet is Physics check your quote below and not about God


Yours is a REJECTION of God and His Light

No evidence that god exist.

It’s fact

A001:
A true vacuum doesn't exist in reality. Have you come across one?

The universe can be self-created or can come from an earlier one existing beyond space and time (beyond the Big Bang) that's self-created.

That's my own position.

I think the notion of philosophies such as Hermetic, Otemic, or Thoth as regards the origin of the universe is the correct one. But with time, science will shed light on the issue.

Nothing doesn't exist in nature as there's no vacuum that's 100% lacking in matter. When physicists use the term vacuum or free space, you need to note it's an ideal (not a real) term.

There are different examples of such ideal terms in (Theoretical) Physics such as ideal gas, absolute zero temperature, a black body (an ideal radiator).

None of these exist in reality. But they're important for modeling and development of hypotheses and theories.

Idealization in Physics has its roots in the Platonic world of mathematical forms. This is purely abstract and has a form of existence different from the physical kind.

The philosophical approach to this doesn’t have evidence.
I’m an empiricist and I really do not take philosophical rationalization seriously because it’s always tinted with uncertainties unless of course those that has been backed the evidence.

I am not arguing about whether there’s a true vacuum or not, my argument is that there’s a definition for nothing in physics.
Nothing doesn’t mean that it’s an absolute vacuum, that’s why even this nothing will weigh something.
I hope you get it

Crystyano:
It's not about how many particles I have observed...


It's about the fact that you have limits..

How did you reach your definition of nothing that proves physics wrong.

I’m curious to know that

TenQ:
Your seem like a master of lies!
Twisting the truth like your father satan!!!
And I am not surprised, like father like son!

Just like I said in my previous post, you can forever silence falsehood by just Quoting me.
You are trying to hide your lack of comprehension of basic physics with blatant lies!!!!!! ??

Let me test your comprehension of simple physics:
Does Dark Matter disobey the law of Thermodynamics?

we don’t understand dark matter yet.

Wait and don’t make stuffs up.

Law of thermodynamics in the quantum world is tricky, an observer doesn’t see them obeyed.

This is basic quantum physics and it’s not my problem if you are stuck in 1900 physics

Crystyano:
What I'm saying is nothing shouldn't really have any definition whatsoever

So what level of research have you done to conclude a physics definition is wrong?
I really want to know how many particles and part of the universe you have observed and experimented on as a person to have the boldness to say a physics definition is all wrong.

TenQ:
Now because you are NOT sure if ENERGY is CONSERVED in quantum spaces, therefore it is NOT conserved (and I should go and read my old fashioned physics)? Is the First law of thermodynamics a Newton's law?

The first law of thermodynamics seems to be the most basic of all Physics laws and in your wise ignorance, hiding under some vague quantum physics, you claim it has been violated?!!!

Even Dark Matters obey this basic law.

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Your eminence just said that the First law of thermodynamics is NOT valid!? You see why I question your comprehension of simple physics!?

You act just like my dictionary vocabulary school mate who always try to use big English to impress everyone yet Goofing in simple grammar!

This is what you've said in simple terms
ME: Is 3 +4 equal 7?
YOU: No, we cannot be sure because in quantum physics, every known law break down so that 3+4 is not 7

illiterate, dark matter and energy doesn’t obey basic laws.
We are yet to understand them perfectly as well.

Stop making stuffs up, how can you say dark matter that is an antigravity obeys basics laws.

Stop talking science, just stop talking science. Everytime to try to talk science, you make a mistake

TenQ:
Now because you are NOT sure if ENERGY is CONSERVED in quantum spaces, therefore it is NOT conserved (and I should go and read my old fashioned physics)? Is the First law of thermodynamics a Newton's law?

The first law of thermodynamics seems to be the most basic of all Physics laws and in your wise ignorance, hiding under some vague quantum physics, you claim it has been violated?!!!

Even Dark Matters obey this basic law.

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Your eminence just said that the First law of thermodynamics is NOT valid!? You see why I question your comprehension of simple physics!?

You act just like my dictionary vocabulary school mate who always try to use big English to impress everyone yet Goofing in simple grammar!

This is what you've said in simple terms
ME: Is 3 +4 equal 7?
YOU: No, we cannot be sure because in quantum physics, every known law break down so that 3+4 is not 7

Shut up and stick to what we know. Don’t try to make things up.
That’s what religion does with god, making jargons up because we don’t know yet.

It’s better not to know that to assume nonsense. What’s difficult in waiting until we find out before making stuffs up

Crystyano:
I never said the universe is ageless....


That something is what you're yet to distinguish....


Didn't you discover what you were able to identify by chance


Didn't you say there was nothing before you discovered those things

Where did i say there was nothing before we discovered those things?
I said it's possible that the universe can come from nothing.

And you claim to know the definition of nothing better than physicists so I want us to analyze this based on your definition of nothing.
What is that something that the physicist didn't account for in their definition of nothing?

Crystyano:
That's it!!!


You cannot remove everything from the universe because the universe was never empty ....




The universe never became full....

The universe has always been full or it never existed at all...


When I say full,
I mean the universe has always been a group of several objects that are ageless and indivisible...


Just like every other combination...

The universe has always been made of ageless indivisible objects....

The only thing that can happen is for what you call the universe to become something else....

I am asking whether the universe is ageless or has always been full or not.

This is my question: if you manage to remove everything from the universe and nothing remains, will that nothing be real nothing to you or if no, then what Is that something with specific size you are referring to?

Let me rephrase it here, if you have a vacuum without any form of particle, radiation or antimatter, does it vacuum contain nothing or is there still something in it?
If you think there’s still something in it, then what’s that something?

Crystyano:
It doesn't have to answer the OP's question....It addresses something I came across while reading several comments on this thread...


As for the OP's question......


I don't think there's anything like 'everything that exists' neither do I think anything that exists must have a cause..


The OP was arguing with me the other time when I said I'm partially responsible for my present situation..


He was like since my present situation is as a result of several occurrences in the past,
Then I'm totally responsible for my present situation.... In other words,he was like I choose or decided to be in this situation.....



What is the essence of questioning freewill for whatever reason when you claim I'm totally responsible for my present situation no matter what has happened to me before??

ok now since I get your point, let me treat your argument.

If you remove everything from the universe and nothing remains, what is the something with specific size you are talking about?

Crystyano:
My point is no scientist should consider his or her possession of limits as a reason to determine anything as nothing....

Ok?
How does that answer the op’s question?

Crystyano:
Then , science is wrong in this case!!!!!

ok, so tell me the point you have been trying to make all these while

Crystyano:
Yeah

It wasn't for me....



But my response was related to what we're discussing

What point are you trying to make? Let it out

Crystyano:
How?

I am not even getting your point.

What exactly is the point you have been trying to make?

Crystyano:
Whether or not anybody understands quantum physics....

It's impossible for your possession of limits to coincide with the possibility of nothing ....


You and every other scientist is limited..


Even your technology is limited.....


So, you can't identify things whose distinguishing properties ARE BEYOND YOUR LIMITS/THE LIMITS OF YOUR TECHNOLOGY...


When you say something appears,


Does that mean there was nothing??



It is you that wasn't able to determine what exactly disappeared....



For the disappearance of something coincided with the appearance of something else....


It happened so fast that you couldn't determine what exactly disappeared....



You come across what is not beyond your limits by chance .....it happens accidentally....

That response wasn’t for you.

Focus on what we have been discussing

Crystyano:
If you say there's nothing,
Then you're saying there's a limit to what exists....

You are assuming wrongly

Crystyano:
Nothing refers to no thing that has a specific size.....

It's impossible for no thing with a specific size to exist....


Actually,
Nothing doesn't refer to anything with a specific size...

So, nothing shouldn't have any definition that involves anything...


In other words,if you want to define nothing ,
Then ,no thing is required to make the 'definition' correct.....


The universe is a thing.....so, it's wrong to mention it when you consider the 'definition' of nothing...


I think the quotation marks are necessary because nothing is meant to have no definition ......

That is a philosophical definition, in science, nothing is the absent matter, radiators and antimatter.

TenQ:
You've started your meaningless rants again!
All you need to do is to use the TRUTH of Science to permanently debunk any of the FOUR claims/statements I have made



Numbers 1 and 4 are questions to You: probably, you don't have an answer!
Is Number 2 a false statement?
Is Number 3 a false statement?

You can see exactly why I said your words mean NOTHING?

You don’t know anything, most laws of physics that lay people like you know breaks down in the quantum world.
We don’t even know if Energy is conserved in the quantum world, we understand it poorly, some speculate that Heisenberg uncertainty principle enforces conservation while others think the spooky action (quantum entanglement) will account for conservation but we are still not sure that energy is conserved in the quantum field. To an observer, Energy is not conserved in the quantum world, maybe in the future we might understand it better and find out that it’s conserved.
Until tomorrow, no one understand quantum physics, it surprises us everyday. Imagine not being able to account for energy conservation. Even the Newton’s law of motion you are always quoting doesn’t work there.

So stop all this your old-fashioned physics and read more

Dtruthspeaker:
Na you get your mouth!

Its fact.

Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh

PastorM:
Did you forget to take your medication today?

how do you mean?

TenQ:
Is energy also part of NOTHING?

You have only made half of the statement: The second part is:
When subatomic particles disappear, they don't vanish in space because they merely appear somewhere else.

If they appear and disappear as you have said, then the law of conservation of energy is violated.

Is the law of conservation of energy also archaic?

you need a basic overhaul

Niflheim:
I even heard that when objects enter inside a black hole, they go through a process known as SPAGHETTIFICATION!!!
.
This is surely the clue that we need to know the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" had a hand in the creation of the Universe!!!

lol,

TenQ:
In order words, since you insist that "your scientists" have been able to create matter out of nothing.:
Can you please explain (or point me to the source) how your eminent scientists did the creation?

I believe you know understand how you have replace the God of Creation with the "god of information"!? Nature truely abhor a vacuum!

Not my scientist.
I’m also a scientist dude. Though not in physics but this is basic quantum physics.
Something can come from nothing in the quantum world.
In the quantum world, subatomic particles appear and disappear like its magic but we know why they do so, although we still don’t know a lot about some crazy scenarios there.

You need to start doing some proper research dude

elated177:
Could you throw more light on the assertion above. Also, be kind enough to give examples.

In quantum physics, it has been observed that photons can be created from a total vacuum, where we have nothing.
This is even a potential research area that will applied to quantum computation.

This is possible because of the uncertainty principle which say the location and the speed of subatomic particles cannot be certainly measured accurately at the same time. The uncertainty makes it possible for particles to exist in two forms at the same time reality and also virtually (like a mirage). They can exist in reality elsewhere and exist inside a vacuum as virtual particles, but they won’t weight anything, you can invoke virtual particles in a vacuum to become real particles that will have mass because of this.

Crystyano:
There's no limit to what exists

who said there's a limit?

Crystyano:
The definition of nothing in quantum physics doesn't show how no thing can exist...

So whats your own definition for nothing?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

[/quote

Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics also applies to your god

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for also applies to your god

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics, also applies to your god

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator
[quote author=Nothingserious post=107353581]Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:
Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

[quote author=Nothingserious post=107353581]Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?



5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti. Also applies to your god

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti? Also applies to your claim of god

.