Atheists Want Proof Of God?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just one problem: ontology is a philosophical parlor trick, not a guide to empirical knowledge. Oh, sorry, it appears your enture foubdation is just a cheap trick with no intellectual substance....

"[O]ntology is a philosophical parlor trick"?!

That's sophomoric drivel, baby talk, piffle, la-la, the snot leaking from your nostrils, the drool hanging off your chin. Ontology is the metaphysics of being and becoming, essentially, the study of existence. Metaphysics, particularly ontology and epistemology, are indispensable to the sciences, you idiot. Look, you braying jackass of an atheist twit, don't talk to me, okay? I don't truck with fools.

.

Ontology is the metaphysics of being and becoming, essentially, the study of existence. Metaphysics, particularly ontology and epistemology, are indispensable to the sciences ...

are indispensable to the sciences ...

music for the choir, though not quit as established as you imply ... certainly the metaphysical for theists.

...when they need a parlor trick.

 

[ding]

there is no contraction for the BB cycle - matter is expelled from the moment of singularity at an acute angle, as a trajectory that returns the matter without changing direction at the same time back to the point of singularity as a mirror image of its initial expulsion. to recompact back to energy.

What in the world are you talking about? The standard Big Bang model is not a cyclic model at all, so of course there's no contraction, and the cosmological singularity of general relativity is a relic. The singularities I'm alluding to are those produced by the perturbations of contracting spacetimes. They arise in the wake of the contracting volume and, therefore, are "block" the expanding path of the rebound. On the Aguirre-Gratton scenario (2001), the arrows of time are reversed at t = 0 in order to avoid them. It seems you're working off dated theory. The old oscillating models of the '60s, for example, assumed the theoretical effects of quantum gravity, which are thought to give, not a singularity, but a repulsive force such that there is a maximal compaction of ordinary matter at the Planck scale. On these models, each expansion phase is preceded by a contraction phase, which was asserted as a brute fact, though it be paradoxical. The idea was to evade the thermodynamic ramifications of cyclic cosmogonies that begin with an expansion phase. But all of that was before inflationary theory. It's cosmic inflation that puts the bang in the Big Bang. The notion of an initial, cosmological singularity at the boundary is passé.

.

On these models, each expansion phase is preceded by a contraction phase ...

there is no contraction for the BB cycle - matter is expelled from the moment of singularity at an acute angle, as a trajectory that returns the matter without changing direction at the same time back to the point of singularity as a mirror image of its initial expulsion. to recompact back to energy.

you repeated what the post had clarified as being an inaccurate assumption - there is no contraction.

the trajectory angle of matter's expulsion without changing direction en-mass at the same time returns matter to the original point of expansion. the recompaction back to energy maintains the cyclical event.

Not this garbage again.

 

[BreezeWood]

"[O]ntology is a philosophical parlor trick"?!

Correct. I know it has other connotations. But, in philosophy, ontological arguments are just parlor tricks. They are useless garbage, leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever. And that is why you religious folks love them... Because they can never be "wrong", and they can never undermine your magical nonsense...

.

Correct. I know it has other connotations. But, in philosophy, ontological arguments are just parlor tricks. They are useless garbage, leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever. And that is why you religious folks love them... Because they can never be "wrong", and they can never undermine your magical nonsense...

And that is why you religious folks love them...

are you confusing christianity as religion - the theist distinguish the fallacies of neo ontolgical falacies.


leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever.

only through denial of the physical evidence, for the metaphysical ...

the transformation from one being to another is an absolute metaphysical event. inexplicable to empirical knowledge not by evidence but the underlying mechanism yet to be realized. the true test for theism vs atheism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"[O]ntology is a philosophical parlor trick"?!

Correct. I know it has other connotations. But, in philosophy, ontological arguments are just parlor tricks. They are useless garbage, leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever. And that is why you religious folks love them... Because they can never be "wrong", and they can never undermine your magical nonsense...

.

Correct. I know it has other connotations. But, in philosophy, ontological arguments are just parlor tricks. They are useless garbage, leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever. And that is why you religious folks love them... Because they can never be "wrong", and they can never undermine your magical nonsense...

And that is why you religious folks love them...

are you confusing christianity as religion - the theist distinguish the fallacies of neo ontolgical falacies.


leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever.

only through denial of the physical evidence, for the metaphysical ...

the transformation from one being to another is an absolute metaphysical event. inexplicable to empirical knowledge not by evidence but the underlying mechanism yet to be realized. the true test for theism vs atheism.

So, you know this to be absolutely true, but you have zero empirical knowledge of it. Sounds about right.

 

[BreezeWood]

"[O]ntology is a philosophical parlor trick"?!

Correct. I know it has other connotations. But, in philosophy, ontological arguments are just parlor tricks. They are useless garbage, leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever. And that is why you religious folks love them... Because they can never be "wrong", and they can never undermine your magical nonsense...

.

Correct. I know it has other connotations. But, in philosophy, ontological arguments are just parlor tricks. They are useless garbage, leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever. And that is why you religious folks love them... Because they can never be "wrong", and they can never undermine your magical nonsense...

And that is why you religious folks love them...

are you confusing christianity as religion - the theist distinguish the fallacies of neo ontolgical falacies.


leading to no empirical knowledge whatsoever.

only through denial of the physical evidence, for the metaphysical ...

the transformation from one being to another is an absolute metaphysical event. inexplicable to empirical knowledge not by evidence but the underlying mechanism yet to be realized. the true test for theism vs atheism.

So, you know this to be absolutely true, but you have zero empirical knowledge of it. Sounds about right.

.

So, you know this to be absolutely true, but you have zero empirical knowledge of it. Sounds about right.

you have zero empirical knowledge of it ...

you have the evidence the metaphysical exists ... and the value is not meant to be taken lightly by deniers as is most often the case at their own disadvantage.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you have the evidence the metaphysical exists ..

False.

 

[BreezeWood]

you have the evidence the metaphysical exists ..

False.

.
false what -

transforming from one physical being to another by a spiritual intermediary performed by the cicada the same underlying process of evolution can not be explained any other way than a metaphysical phenomena.

the physiology itself is a metaphysical substance that disappears when its spiritual content is removed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you have the evidence the metaphysical exists ..

False.

.
false what -

transforming from one physical being to another by a spiritual intermediary performed by the cicada the same underlying process of evolution can not be explained any other way than a metaphysical phenomena.

the physiology itself is a metaphysical substance that disappears when its spiritual content is removed.

That is not evidence. I can explain those thongs without any need for your nonsense, nor does sprinkling your nonsense over the explanation change anything. I really cant put it any more simply. By your very poor logic, those things are evidence of rainbow unicirns in the 7th dimension as well. In fact, its evidence of any silly nonsense you wish to invent, if evidence is allowed to be utterly meaninles.

But, it isn't. So, not evidence.

 

[BreezeWood]

you have the evidence the metaphysical exists ..

False.

.
false what -

transforming from one physical being to another by a spiritual intermediary performed by the cicada the same underlying process of evolution can not be explained any other way than a metaphysical phenomena.

the physiology itself is a metaphysical substance that disappears when its spiritual content is removed.

That is not evidence. I can explain those thongs without any need for your nonsense, nor does sprinkling your nonsense over the explanation change anything. I really cant put it any more simply. By your very poor logic, those things are evidence of rainbow unicirns in the 7th dimension as well. In fact, its evidence of any silly nonsense you wish to invent, if evidence is allowed to be utterly meaninles.

But, it isn't. So, not evidence.

.

I can explain those thongs without any need for your nonsense ...

is someone stopping you, it's all yours.

 

[BreezeWood]

But, it isn't. So, not evidence.

- it is ...

physical evidence for the process of the metaphysical continents of evolution.

 

[Ringtone]

there is no contraction for the BB cycle - matter is expelled from the moment of singularity at an acute angle, as a trajectory that returns the matter without changing direction at the same time back to the point of singularity as a mirror image of its initial expulsion. to recompact back to energy.

What in the world are you talking about? The standard Big Bang model is not a cyclic model at all, so of course there's no contraction, and the cosmological singularity of general relativity is a relic. The singularities I'm alluding to are those produced by the perturbations of contracting spacetimes. They arise in the wake of the contracting volume and, therefore, are "block" the expanding path of the rebound. On the Aguirre-Gratton scenario (2001), the arrows of time are reversed at t = 0 in order to avoid them. It seems you're working off dated theory. The old oscillating models of the '60s, for example, assumed the theoretical effects of quantum gravity, which are thought to give, not a singularity, but a repulsive force such that there is a maximal compaction of ordinary matter at the Planck scale. On these models, each expansion phase is preceded by a contraction phase, which was asserted as a brute fact, though it be paradoxical. The idea was to evade the thermodynamic ramifications of cyclic cosmogonies that begin with an expansion phase. But all of that was before inflationary theory. It's cosmic inflation that puts the bang in the Big Bang. The notion of an initial, cosmological singularity at the boundary is passé.

.

On these models, each expansion phase is preceded by a contraction phase ...

there is no contraction for the BB cycle - matter is expelled from the moment of singularity at an acute angle, as a trajectory that returns the matter without changing direction at the same time back to the point of singularity as a mirror image of its initial expulsion. to recompact back to energy.

you repeated what the post had clarified as being an inaccurate assumption - there is no contraction.

the trajectory angle of matter's expulsion without changing direction en-mass at the same time returns matter to the original point of expansion. the recompaction back to energy maintains the cyclical event.

Am I in the Twilight Zone? I'm out of here. Between Fun and Breeze a serious number of brain cells have been squandered.

 

[Gracie]

Prove love.
Prove devotion.
Prove there is no end of space.

Faith is faith based. We don't need proof.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But, it isn't. So, not evidence.

- it is ...

physical evidence for the process of the metaphysical continents of evolution.

Thatvis not evidence for your magical nonsense.

It can be fully explained without any need to introduce your magical nonsense.

Therefore, not evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Faith is faith based. We don't need proof.

Nor do you have any. Just to be clear.

 

[BreezeWood]

But, it isn't. So, not evidence.

- it is ...

physical evidence for the process of the metaphysical continents of evolution.

Thatvis not evidence for your magical nonsense.

It can be fully explained without any need to introduce your magical nonsense.

Therefore, not evidence.

.

Thatvis not evidence for your magical nonsense.

you keep denying the natural evidence that is being provided with an inadequate, kneejerk response - try something meaningful for a change.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?

- another blank slate.

 

[Gracie]

Faith is faith based. We don't need proof.

Nor do you have any. Just to be clear.

Really. Whatever. Just to be clear.

 

[ding]

Faith is faith based. We don't need proof.

Nor do you have any. Just to be clear.

It’s all around you, bro.

 

[Taz]

Faith is faith based. We don't need proof.

Nor do you have any. Just to be clear.

It’s all around you, bro.

How is it proof of an invisible superbeing that gives a shit what I do? How do you pick out that one thing out of all the possibilities?

 

[BreezeWood]

Faith is faith based. We don't need proof.

Nor do you have any. Just to be clear.

Really. Whatever. Just to be clear.

.

Really. Whatever. Just to be clear.

We don't need proof .

faith without results is an exercise of futility. at best. or, regression as the case for the desert religion's and their forged documents.

fantasy land gone rabid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Faith is faith based. We don't need proof.

Nor do you have any. Just to be clear.

Really. Whatever. Just to be clear.

Sorry professor, didn't realize it was a lecture and we were all supposed to stay quiet...