if not evolution

[Boss]

There is also the scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself.

I think that is the greatest argument in favor of Spiritual Nature.
Physical nature cannot have created itself.

That we currently know of.

Well, it's a logical paradox.

Yupp, logic is a set of parameters us humans use to establish that our reasoning is valid.

But the reasoning is invalid, that's why it's a paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

 

[RWNJ]

There is also the scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself.

I think that is the greatest argument in favor of Spiritual Nature.
Physical nature cannot have created itself.

That we currently know of.

And never will know. The simple fact is that something that doesn't exist cannot create itself...because it doesn't exist. That's simple logic.

That's what we think, today.

The Universe, the potential multi verses, and all of the potential dimensions leave a lot of uncertainty in current human understanding.

Being so quick to dismiss possibility is hubris.

You're really grasping at straws now. Multiverses? Other dimensions? That's not science. It's Science Fiction.

 

[RWNJ]

I think that is the greatest argument in favor of Spiritual Nature.
Physical nature cannot have created itself.

That we currently know of.

And never will know. The simple fact is that something that doesn't exist cannot create itself...because it doesn't exist. That's simple logic.

That's what we think, today.

The Universe, the potential multi verses, and all of the potential dimensions leave a lot of uncertainty in current human understanding.

Being so quick to dismiss possibility is hubris.

Ever hear of a little something called the Law Of Cause And Effect? Nothing happens without something else causing it to happen. So, genius, what caused the universe to exist? The only answer that makes any sense at all is that it was created...by a Creator. No other explanation even comes close.

^^^ inherently flawed

What is flawed? Are you claiming that a fundamental law of physics is flawed?

 

[RWNJ]

There is also the scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself.

I think that is the greatest argument in favor of Spiritual Nature.
Physical nature cannot have created itself.

That we currently know of.

Well, it's a logical paradox.

Yupp, logic is a set of parameters us humans use to establish that our reasoning is valid.

But the reasoning is invalid, that's why it's a paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

You just can't reason with someone like G.T. Some people simply refuse to admit the truth, even though they KNOW that they are wrong. How do I know this? I once asked this question on another forum.

"If it was ever proven that God exists, would you worship Him?"

I was simply stunned by how many said no. I was flabbergasted by their lame ass reasons for their answers.

 

[RWNJ]

I think that is the greatest argument in favor of Spiritual Nature.
Physical nature cannot have created itself.

That we currently know of.

And never will know. The simple fact is that something that doesn't exist cannot create itself...because it doesn't exist. That's simple logic.

That's what we think, today.

The Universe, the potential multi verses, and all of the potential dimensions leave a lot of uncertainty in current human understanding.

Being so quick to dismiss possibility is hubris.

You're really grasping at straws now. Multiverses? Other dimensions? That's not science. It's Science Fiction.

Well, that was an ignorant post!

Then, perhaps, you can show us the scientific evidence that either one exists.

 

[Hollie]

I think that is the greatest argument in favor of Spiritual Nature.
Physical nature cannot have created itself.

That we currently know of.

Well, it's a logical paradox.

Yupp, logic is a set of parameters us humans use to establish that our reasoning is valid.

But the reasoning is invalid, that's why it's a paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

You just can't reason with someone like G.T. Some people simply refuse to admit the truth, even though they KNOW that they are wrong. How do I know this? I once asked this question on another forum.

"If it was ever proven that God exists, would you worship Him?"

I was simply stunned by how many said no. I was flabbergasted by their lame ass reasons for their answers.

The Hindu faith has a multitude of gods. Why limit yourself to just one?

 

[RWNJ]

And never will know. The simple fact is that something that doesn't exist cannot create itself...because it doesn't exist. That's simple logic.

That's what we think, today.

The Universe, the potential multi verses, and all of the potential dimensions leave a lot of uncertainty in current human understanding.

Being so quick to dismiss possibility is hubris.

Ever hear of a little something called the Law Of Cause And Effect? Nothing happens without something else causing it to happen. So, genius, what caused the universe to exist? The only answer that makes any sense at all is that it was created...by a Creator. No other explanation even comes close.

^^^ inherently flawed

What is flawed? Are you claiming that a fundamental law of physics is flawed?

Im claiming that your argument defeated your argument. But im only willing to lead the horse to water. You said multi dimensions are science fiction while you typed in a minimum of 4 of them.

Well. It's official. You are just one big willfully ignorant fool. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Boss]

I think that is the greatest argument in favor of Spiritual Nature.
Physical nature cannot have created itself.

That we currently know of.

Well, it's a logical paradox.

Yupp, logic is a set of parameters us humans use to establish that our reasoning is valid.

But the reasoning is invalid, that's why it's a paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

That we currently know of.

Well... logic can certainly contradict itself. We once believed the universe was mostly comprised of atoms but that was wrong, it's mostly dark matter and dark energy. Logic says a material object can't occupy two places at the same time but electrons do in every atom. Logic says photons of light must be either a particle or wave and yet they are both or either depending on if they are observed.

 

[RWNJ]

That we currently know of.

Well, it's a logical paradox.

Yupp, logic is a set of parameters us humans use to establish that our reasoning is valid.

But the reasoning is invalid, that's why it's a paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

That we currently know of.

Well... logic can certainly contradict itself. We once believed the universe was mostly comprised of atoms but that was wrong, it's mostly dark matter and dark energy. Logic says a material object can't occupy two places at the same time but electrons do in every atom. Logic says photons of light must be either a particle or wave and yet they are both or either depending on if they are observed.

No one ever said that quantum mechanics was logical. Also, a famous scientist once said that anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics is lying.

 

[Hollie]

Well, it's a logical paradox.

Yupp, logic is a set of parameters us humans use to establish that our reasoning is valid.

But the reasoning is invalid, that's why it's a paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

That we currently know of.

Well... logic can certainly contradict itself. We once believed the universe was mostly comprised of atoms but that was wrong, it's mostly dark matter and dark energy. Logic says a material object can't occupy two places at the same time but electrons do in every atom. Logic says photons of light must be either a particle or wave and yet they are both or either depending on if they are observed.

No one ever said that quantum mechanics was logical. Also, a famous scientist once said that anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics is lying.

Who needs logic when you have supernatural spirit realms?

 

[Hollie]

That we currently know of.

Well, it's a logical paradox.

Yupp, logic is a set of parameters us humans use to establish that our reasoning is valid.

But the reasoning is invalid, that's why it's a paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.

That we currently know of.

Well... logic can certainly contradict itself. We once believed the universe was mostly comprised of atoms but that was wrong, it's mostly dark matter and dark energy. Logic says a material object can't occupy two places at the same time but electrons do in every atom. Logic says photons of light must be either a particle or wave and yet they are both or either depending on if they are observed.

Strange, no? It was an inquisitive science that undertook the process of discoveries that you described. I don't recall reading that any of the gods helped.

 

[ding]

Not in our present form. But the matter and energy that make up who we are was created when space and time were created. And since that time we have only changed form according to the laws of nature. Rules which were prescribed before space and time were created.

You're still admitting we are the product of creation.

Product? Everything is a product of creation. Intelligence is the reason for it.

 

[ding]

Virtue is a behavior which naturally leads to success and that is one of the reasons it is a universal truth.

That's called conjecture. Look that word up.

Success is a term which requires definition if you're discussing trying to prove Universal truths, as well. Very, very sloppy work.

Not conjecture. Reason and experience. Virtue is a successful behavior. The absence of virtue is a failed behavior.

Your reasoning is limited to human capacity, as is your experience ~ and so you cannot use merely your reason and experience to establish that virtues are "universal" to anything other than humans....rendering what youre saying conjecture, as I postulated.

You defined virtue as a behaviour leading to success...


then when asked to define success....you said it is virtue.

Strong circular argument, batman.

No. I did not define virtue as something that leads to success. I said virtue naturally leads to success. Try again.

I dont need to. I asked you to define success, and you went and circled back to virtue.

You are the one playing word games, because you lack the fundamental ability to reason.

Virtue is a behavior which naturally leads to success and that is one of the reasons it is a universal truth.

That's called conjecture. Look that word up.

Success is a term which requires definition if you're discussing trying to prove Universal truths, as well. Very, very sloppy work.

Not conjecture. Reason and experience. Virtue is a successful behavior. The absence of virtue is a failed behavior.

Your reasoning is limited to human capacity, as is your experience ~ and so you cannot use merely your reason and experience to establish that virtues are "universal" to anything other than humans....rendering what youre saying conjecture, as I postulated.

You defined virtue as a behaviour leading to success...


then when asked to define success....you said it is virtue.

Strong circular argument, batman.

No. I did not define virtue as something that leads to success. I said virtue naturally leads to success. Try again.

I dont need to. I asked you to define success, and you went and circled back to virtue.

You are the one playing word games, because you lack the fundamental ability to reason.

I never defined virtue, Einstein. I told you that a natural product of virtue is success.

 

[ding]

Not conjecture. Reason and experience. Virtue is a successful behavior. The absence of virtue is a failed behavior.

Your reasoning is limited to human capacity, as is your experience ~ and so you cannot use merely your reason and experience to establish that virtues are "universal" to anything other than humans....rendering what youre saying conjecture, as I postulated.

You defined virtue as a behaviour leading to success...


then when asked to define success....you said it is virtue.

Strong circular argument, batman.

No. I did not define virtue as something that leads to success. I said virtue naturally leads to success. Try again.

I dont need to. I asked you to define success, and you went and circled back to virtue.

You are the one playing word games, because you lack the fundamental ability to reason.

Not conjecture. Reason and experience. Virtue is a successful behavior. The absence of virtue is a failed behavior.

Your reasoning is limited to human capacity, as is your experience ~ and so you cannot use merely your reason and experience to establish that virtues are "universal" to anything other than humans....rendering what youre saying conjecture, as I postulated.

You defined virtue as a behaviour leading to success...


then when asked to define success....you said it is virtue.

Strong circular argument, batman.

No. I did not define virtue as something that leads to success. I said virtue naturally leads to success. Try again.

I dont need to. I asked you to define success, and you went and circled back to virtue.

You are the one playing word games, because you lack the fundamental ability to reason.

I never defined virtue, Einstein. I told you that a natural product of virtue is success.

i said define success in that context, numbskull...u used virtue in your definition

a circle

cant carry on with a tard, sorry

I'm not surprised that you need someone to define success for you.