Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[egg]

51 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

You can base things on previous actions as evidence. 

Yes, and you can (and will have) take a leap of faith without precedent, and based on your faith in other people but without certainty. 

Your stubbornness to concede the point is equally admirable and tragic. 

[Matthew Le God]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

I CBA to set it out mate, too broad minded for you to comprehend. 

Your latter point is idiotic. The point, simply, is that people can see beyond science, even scientists. 

"Beyond science" What does that mean? Very vague and wishy washy.

Edited yesterday at 12:09 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

How many MLG fails is it this week? I’ve lost count

[egg]

54 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

"Beyond science" What does that mean? Very vague and wishy washy.

You'll figure it out if you think about it. 

 

[Matthew Le God]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

How many MLG fails is it this week? I’ve lost count

We already established you can't work out %, now you are admitting you can't count!

You are having a shocker Turkish!

Edited yesterday at 14:48 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

1 hour ago, egg said:

You'll figure it out if you think about it. 

No, 'beyond science' is wishy washy vague nonsense. It requires clarification. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

No, 'beyond science' is wishy washy vague nonsense. It requires clarification. 

Einstein. Wright Brothers. See above. 

Was Einstein wrong?

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Einstein. Wright Brothers. See above. 

Was Einstein wrong?

I asked what 'beyond science' means. Please answer.

[egg]

15 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I asked what 'beyond science' means. Please answer.

Now you're being obtuse. It's bloody obvious, and my examples contain the answer with just a modicum of thought. That said, the short answer is that not everything in life has a scientific base to it. 

Now please answer me. 

1. On what basis do you disagree with Einstein's views on the existence of God? I know you're a bright fella, but surely no brother than Albert...

2. Do you accept that the Wright Brothers took a leap of faith when they did something that all evidence said was impossible? 

 

 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Now you're being obtuse. It's bloody obvious, and my examples contain the answer with just a modicum of thought. That said, the short answer is that not everything in life has a scientific base to it. 

First you'd need to clarify 'in life' and 'scientific base'. Still wishy washy and vague.

What 'in life' does not have a 'scientific base'?

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

First you'd need to clarify 'in life' and 'scientific base'. Still wishy washy and vague.

What 'in life' does not have a 'scientific base'?

Mate, this is pointless. There's a theme with you that when you know that you can't worm your way out of a self imposed box that you talk nonsense. 

I've answered your daft questions. Nor answer mine, please. 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

What 'in life' does not have a 'scientific base'?

Faith.

[egg]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Faith.

He knows the answer mate, but is dancing around his handbag. 

[badgerx16]

To sum up the risks of Matthew's position regarding demonstrable evidence and accepted science I will put out one word........

 

Phlogiston

[Weston Super Saint]

12 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

First you'd need to clarify 'in life' and 'scientific base'. Still wishy washy and vague.

What 'in life' does not have a 'scientific base'?

Why are you happy to discuss 'science' and 'life' on a religious thread, but you avoid answering the question about 'faith'?

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Now please answer me. 

1. On what basis do you disagree with Einstein's views on the existence of God? I know you're a bright fella, but surely no brother than Albert...

2. Do you accept that the Wright Brothers took a leap of faith when they did something that all evidence said was impossible? 

1) Einstein saw "God" as a metaphor for the laws of nature and the mysterious order of the universe — not as a personal deity.

"I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
— Letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, 1929
(Spinoza's God is essentially the universe and its laws — impersonal and not anthropomorphic.)

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesse, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
— From a 1954 letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind 

2) Your 'all evidence' before the Wright Brothers flight that it was impossible claim is nonsense.

 a) Bernoulli’s principle and aerodynamic studies showed that wings could generate lift.

b) Otto Lilienthal and others proved that controlled, human-carrying flight was possible without engines.

c) Lighter, more powerful internal combustion engines made powered flight physically feasible.

[Matthew Le God]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

Mate, this is pointless. There's a theme with you that when you know that you can't worm your way out of a self imposed box that you talk nonsense. 

I've answered your daft questions. Nor answer mine, please. 

Asking for a definition of wishy washy extremely vague terms is not nonsense.

[Matthew Le God]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Why are you happy to discuss 'science' and 'life' on a religious thread, but you avoid answering the question about 'faith'?

Bullshit. I discussed faith in its Biblical definition in this thread.

Edited yesterday at 15:42 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

To sum up the risks of Matthew's position regarding demonstrable evidence and accepted science I will put out one word........ Phlogiston

Science does not make infallible proclamations. If new evidence comes to light, that changes views.

Religions claim an infallible God. It is not open to change in light of new evidence. It is a deeply flawed system to get to the truth.

[egg]

14 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Einstein saw "God" as a metaphor for the laws of nature and the mysterious order of the universe — not as a personal deity.

"I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
— Letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, 1929
(Spinoza's God is essentially the universe and its laws — impersonal and not anthropomorphic.)

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesse, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
— From a 1954 letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind 

2) Your 'all evidence' before the Wright Brothers flight that it was impossible claim is nonsense.

 a) Bernoulli’s principle and aerodynamic studies showed that wings could generate lift.

b) Otto Lilienthal and others proved that controlled, human-carrying flight was possible without engines.

c) Lighter, more powerful internal combustion engines made powered flight physically feasible.

1. Faith does NOT need a deity. A God does not have to be a deity. Again your conflate god/religion/faith. Try breaking it down. Indeed, in the same post, you mention Einstein's conception of God which isn't a deity or otherwise religion based, so it beggars belief that you still conflate 3 separate things!  

2. I'll defer to Google on this one...the Wright Brothers took a leap of faith...you've taken leaps of faith...it's a shame that your ego can't bring yourself to acknowledge that. 

"While not in a strictly religious sense, the Wright brothers did take a leap of faith by investing their time, resources, and energy into a project that was largely considered impossible at the time. Their belief in the possibility of human flight, despite the lack of scientific backing, fueled their perseverance and ultimately led to their success. 

Here's why it's considered a leap of faith:

Lack of Scientific Support:

Many prominent scientists and engineers at the time dismissed the idea of powered, heavier-than-air flight as impossible. The Wright brothers were essentially challenging established scientific paradigms. 

Extensive Experimentation and Risk:

They poured years into experimenting with gliders and researching aerodynamics, facing numerous setbacks and even a serious injury during a demonstration. 

Uncertainty in Success:

There was no guarantee that their designs would work, or that they could even fly successfully, despite their considerable efforts. 

In essence, the Wright brothers took a leap of faith by investing their time and resources into a dream, even when the odds were heavily against them. Their unwavering belief in the possibility of flight, coupled with their meticulous experimentation, ultimately led to one of history's most significant inventions".

Edited yesterday at 15:53 by egg
Typo as per capitals.

[Matthew Le God]

31 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Faith.

 

30 minutes ago, egg said:

He knows the answer mate, but is dancing around his handbag. 

In religious terms, faith is the excuse you have to believe something without evidence.

Edited yesterday at 15:54 by Matthew Le God

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Bullshit. I discussed faith in its Biblical definition in this thread.

This is not a biblical thread Matthew. It's blasphemy, ie related to God. It's you alone that brings this back to just the bible and what you understand God to mean. Now that you've researched and referenced Einstein's understanding of God, you at least now understand that people can have different conceptions of God. Agreed? 

 

 

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

 

In religious terms, faith is the excuse you have yo believe something without evidence.

In real terms, faith is trusting in something in advance of the presentation or revelation of evidence.

However, yet again you fall into the trap of assuming that the only evidence that is valid is the evidence you personally accept.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, egg said:

1. Faith does need a deity. A God does not have to be a deity. Again your conflate god/religion/faith. Try breaking it down. Indeed, in the same post, you mention Einstein's conception of God which isn't a deity or otherwise religion based, so it beggars belief that you still conflate 3 separate things!  

2. I'll defer to Google on this one...the Wright Brothers took a leap of faith...you've taken leaps of faith...it's a shame that your ego can't bring yourself to acknowledge that. 

"While not in a strictly religious sense, the Wright brothers did take a leap of faith by investing their time, resources, and energy into a project that was largely considered impossible at the time. Their belief in the possibility of human flight, despite the lack of scientific backing, fueled their perseverance and ultimately led to their success. 

Here's why it's considered a leap of faith:

Lack of Scientific Support:

Many prominent scientists and engineers at the time dismissed the idea of powered, heavier-than-air flight as impossible. The Wright brothers were essentially challenging established scientific paradigms. 

Extensive Experimentation and Risk:

They poured years into experimenting with gliders and researching aerodynamics, facing numerous setbacks and even a serious injury during a demonstration. 

Uncertainty in Success:

There was no guarantee that their designs would work, or that they could even fly successfully, despite their considerable efforts. 

In essence, the Wright brothers took a leap of faith by investing their time and resources into a dream, even when the odds were heavily against them. Their unwavering belief in the possibility of flight, coupled with their meticulous experimentation, ultimately led to one of history's most significant inventions".

1) Einstein being a scientist and talking about a belief in a God has no impact on his relevance to the truth. He is not using the scientific method and is making an unsubstantiated leap.

2) You said 'all evidence' pointed to it being impossible. I gave you 3 pieces of pre Wright brother flight evidence that counter that. So it was not 'all evidence' at all. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

In religious terms, faith is the excuse you have yo believe something without evidence.

So you do in fact have faith, albeit not in something you identify as God? Have we established that much yet? Or are you still maintaining that you've gone through life without faith in anyone or anything in any situation? 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

In real terms, faith is trusting in something in advance of the presentation or revelation of evidence.

However, yet again you fall into the trap of assuming that the only evidence that is valid is the evidence you personally accept.

In advance of evidence... means without evidence currently.

Do you think courts should use such a system? It is not a reliable path to truth.

 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Einstein being a scientist and talking about a belief in a God has no impact on his relevance to the truth. He is not using the scientific method and is making an unsubstantiated leap.

2) You said 'all evidence' pointed to it being impossible. I gave you 3 pieces of pre Wright brother flight evidence that counter that. So it was not 'all evidence' at all. 

1. Ah, so Einstein is wrong. Gotcha. Damn that theory or relativity. 

2. Did they take a leap of faith. Yes or no? 

[trousers]

33 minutes ago, egg said:

this is pointless

I could've told you that 72 pages ago...

[Lighthouse]

Bit of a slow Friday is it?

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

So you do in fact have faith, albeit not in something you identify as God? Have we established that much yet? Or are you still maintaining that you've gone through life without faith in anyone or anything in any situation? 

Anything I believe in, I believe due to evidence of past experience to justify that belief. It isn't infallible, but it is a reliable path to truth that doesn't run into the same issues as faith does when it can be used to support two contradictory positions.

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

1. Ah, so Einstein is wrong. Gotcha. Damn that theory or relativity. 

2. Did they take a leap of faith. Yes or no? 

1) Being wrong on one thing does not mean something else you've said is wrong. Using science for one thing, but no evidence for the other.

2) You failed to address anything I said in that part.

No, because of the reasons I outlined that you ignored! It was not 'all evidence'. There was evidence it would work, so a belief it could work is based on evidence, not faith.

Edited yesterday at 15:59 by Matthew Le God

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Anything I believe in, I believe due to evidence of past experience to justify that belief. It isn't infallible, but it is a reliable path to truth that doesn't run into the same issues as faith does when it can be used to support two contradictory positions.

That's sad, and absolute BS that you have never had faith or put faith in a person or situation. We all have. 

[trousers]

Btw, I had a chat with God last night and I'm happy to report that he's as amused by this thread as I am. I did ask why he's programmed MLG's mind to think the way way he does, but all I got was a wink and a wry smile. Make of that what you will....

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

1) Being wrong on one thing does not mean something else you've said is wrong.

2) You failed to address anything I said in that part.

No, because of the reasons I outlined that you ignored! It was not 'all evidence'. There was evidence it would work, so a belief it could work is based on evidence, not faith.

The Wright Brothers took a leap of faith. You know that. 

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

The Wright Brothers took a leap of faith. You know that. 

Again, you ignored the rebuttal.

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

That's sad, and absolute BS that you have never had faith or put faith in a person or situation. We all have. 

Again you ignored the rebuttal. 

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

Btw, I had a chat with God last night and I'm happy to report that he's as amused by this thread as I am. I did ask why he's programmed MLG's mind to think the way way he does, but all I got was a wink and a wry smile. Make of that what you will....

A) Religious people and scripture say their God wants everyone to know he exists.

B) They say that his is capable of knowing what evidence you'd need to believe in him.

And yet... he refuses to provide it.

A and B can not both be true if he fails to provide it.

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

A) Religious people and scripture say their God wants everyone to know he exists.

B) They say that his is capable of knowing what evidence you'd need to believe in him.

And yet... he refuses to provide it.

A and B can not both be true if he fails to provide it.

Why are you assuming God is a he?

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Again, you ignored the rebuttal.

 

9 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Again you ignored the rebuttal. 

Yes or no, do you acknowledge that they took a leap of faith? 

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, trousers said:

Btw, I had a chat with God last night and I'm happy to report that he's as amused by this thread as I am. I did ask why he's programmed MLG's mind to think the way way he does, but all I got was a wink and a wry smile. Make of that what you will....

Do we take it that this is evidence God is not perfect?

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Turkish said:

Why are you assuming God is a he?

Because we have been discussing the God of the Bible. The Bible overwhelmingly uses male pronouns—He, Him, and His—to refer to God. Additionally, God is often called Father, King, and Lord, all traditionally masculine titles.

So we can add pronouns to the list of % and counting.

 

[egg]

20 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

In advance of evidence... means without evidence currently.

Do you think courts should use such a system? It is not a reliable path to truth.

 

So taking a leap of faith. Thank you. 

 

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Because we have been discussing the God of the Bible. The Bible overwhelmingly uses male pronouns—He, Him, and His—to refer to God. Additionally, God is often called Father, King, and Lord, all traditionally masculine titles.

So we can add pronouns to the list of % and counting.

 

No, you have. And just you. 

[badgerx16]

What do Wener Heisenberg, Max Planck, Michael Faraday, James Clark Maxwell,  and Arthur Holley Compton ( winner of the 1927 Nobel Prize for Physics ), have in common ?

Clue, they all had faith.

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Do we take it that this is evidence God is not perfect?

True, but I like His sense of humour

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Because we have been discussing the God of the Bible. The Bible overwhelmingly uses male pronouns—He, Him, and His—to refer to God. Additionally, God is often called Father, King, and Lord, all traditionally masculine titles.

So we can add pronouns to the list of % and counting.

 

 

1 minute ago, egg said:

No, you have. And just you. 

What Egg said.

 

Another fail. 

Edited yesterday at 16:18 by Turkish

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Anything I believe in, I believe due to evidence of past experience to justify that belief. It isn't infallible, but it is a reliable path to truth that doesn't run into the same issues as faith does when it can be used to support two contradictory positions.

"But what is truth ?"

John 13:38

[trousers]

10 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

A) Religious people and scripture say their God wants everyone to know he exists.

B) They say that his is capable of knowing what evidence you'd need to believe in him.

And yet... he refuses to provide it.

A and B can not both be true if he fails to provide it.

Promise me one thing? You'll never stop thinking and posting the way you do? I'm not sure I could cope without the regular doses of amusement

[trousers]

I'm still waiting for unrefutable evidence that we exist, by the way. Anyone? 

Edited yesterday at 16:22 by trousers

[badgerx16]

Alannis Morisette played God in Dogma.

Just saying.