Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 226

Thread: Proof That God Exists

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    Until you recognize that error there's little point in addressing the rest of your post.

    Doctors can take a piece of human flesh and grow new skin for patients in a dish with certain medium. The skin is not an organism but it produces new cells.

    If you won't do any research it's useless having a debate.
    I told you 50 posts ago, there was no need in us rehashing this entire debate. You've made the exact same inept points, and they have been shot down, exactly as they were before, and you are no closer to making your idiotic and ignorant point. [edit]

    Skin cells are NOT organisms. Doctors can take a skin cell, add certain enzymes or chemicals, and cause the cells to reproduce, they do not accomplish this process on their own, they are NOT organisms! Sperm and egg cells are not organisms, they can do nothing on their own, they don't reproduce themselves. If they fuse together, two things may happen... 1) nothing, they die and never become an organism. 2) they reproduce other cells, becoming instantly, an independent and unique living organism. No other possibility exists in science or biology.
    Last edited by BRUTALITOPS; 06-20-2012 at 09:42 PM. Reason: app rule 2

  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    In 50% of cases it is not capable.
    and it dies.....that means it was alive.....it does not mean that the ones who do survive are not alive.....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  3. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    Looks like you require a bit of schooling, as well. Read post #79.

    An organism has to be able to grow and metabolize nutrients and it can't do that if it can't eliminate waste.

    I didn't come up with the definition. I'm only applying it.
    no, you are the one in need of schooling.....for some reason you seem to believe the exceptions negate the rule instead of defining it.....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  4. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    To what assumptions are you referring? Try to be specific.
    [edit]
    Last edited by BRUTALITOPS; 06-20-2012 at 08:03 PM. Reason: app rule 2
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  5. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    *sigh* You remember a couple of posts back, when I posted the disclaimer about 'single-cell organisms?' Obviously, something that is a single-cell organism, can't and doesn't reproduce, else it would be multi-cellular. I should have more accurately stated, one of the things that distinguishes a multi-cell organism, is the ability to reproduce cells. It may not reproduce cells, or it may only reproduce some cells some of the time, but if it reproduces cells, it is a living organism, it can't be anything else.

    What you continue to try and do, is muddy the water with your own inept ignorance, and it has long-ago gotten old. A baby born without an anus is most certainly some fucking kind of living organism, it can't be anything else. It may not be able to discard waste, and it may cease to be a living organism as a result, but that does not change what it was before it died. You are trying desperately to place some arbitrary and false criteria on living organisms, and I would avoid saying anything about someone's knowledge of science and biology until you understand that.
    I am not "trying desperately to place some arbitrary and false criteria on living organisms." I'm going by the definition, "An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life." If it can not eliminate waste it can not carry on the processes of life. It is incomplete and you expect people to value something that is not only unable to carry on the processes of life but was never capable of carrying on the processes of life to hold the same value as a mature woman.

    Again, we come back to the legs link I posted. Why weren't those legs considered a human being? They grew. They carried on the processes of life by living off another body. Sound familiar, living off another body, using organs not their own?
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  6. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Post #79 is just more of you misinterpreting things you apparently and obviously can't understand.
    I understand it quite well. People can classify something as anything they want. An organism is a self-contained unit carrying on the processes of life even if it is attached to another human being and using the parts/organs of the other human in order to carry on the processes of life because it doesn't possess it's own organs. Once detached from the other human being it is unable to carry on the processes of life without modification but, hey, that doesn't matter. We'll still call it an organism. Better yet, let's call it a human being and place it on par with a mature woman.

    Maybe that's the value you and Repubs put on women but you sure as hell are not going to make it law because "Alice" knows her worth even if others try to devalue her to some hunk of human flesh.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  7. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    so, any young person who dies before having children is therefore not an organism?.....[edit]
    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    [edit]
    I didn't say "any young person who dies before having children is therefore not an organism. It was Dixie who claimed in msg #68, ”Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce."

    Perhaps you should ask Dix if he's an idiot as we all know you are by being unable to follow a couple of pages of posts.
    Last edited by BRUTALITOPS; 06-20-2012 at 08:04 PM. Reason: app rule 2/4, edited a quote
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  8. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    I am not "trying desperately to place some arbitrary and false criteria on living organisms."
    Yes, you are.

    I'm going by the definition.
    No, you're not.

    "An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life." If it can not eliminate waste it can not carry on the processes of life.
    Whether it had an asshole or not, it was carrying on the process of something before it DIED, [edit]

    Again, we come back to the legs link I posted. Why weren't those legs considered a human being?
    Because they aren't ORGANISMS!

    I understand it quite well. People can classify something as anything they want.
    Yes, you've more than proven that, Curly!

    An organism is a self-contained unit carrying on the processes of life even if it is attached to another human being and using the parts/organs of the other human in order to carry on the processes of life because it doesn't possess it's own organs.
    Yes, even though it may not have an asshole, and it may eventually die, it is still an organism. Even though it may eventually die, it is STILL a living organism, and since it came from a human sperm cell and egg cell, it is a living human organism. It becomes this, BY DEFINITION, at the point of conception, and it will be this, BY DEFINITION, until it is no longer living.

    We'll still call it an organism. Better yet, let's call it a human being and place it on par with a mature woman.
    I've not made a single argument for placing it on par with anything. Science dictates when something is or isn't an organism, I can't help that. Blame science!

    It was Dixie who claimed in msg #68, ”Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce."
    Which is true when talking about MULTI-CELLULAR organisms, like human beings.
    Last edited by BRUTALITOPS; 06-20-2012 at 08:05 PM. Reason: app rule 2/4 - name calling, direct personal insult

  9. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    I didn't say "any young person who dies before having children is therefore not an organism. It was Dixie who claimed in msg #68, ”Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce."

    Perhaps you should ask Dix if he's an idiot as we all know you are by being unable to follow a couple of pages of posts. Do try to comprehend who said what before making a jackass of yourself.
    no, you said if it is not able to reproduce it cannot be an organism.....a four year old child is not able to reproduce.....thus your claim would be a four year old child is not an organism....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  10. #100 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    no, you said if it is not able to reproduce it cannot be an organism.....a four year old child is not able to reproduce.....thus your claim would be a four year old child is not an organism....
    You're missing the sweet spot on this one Prophet.... He's arguing with me, that since some organisms, (mostly single-cell) do not reproduce, that reproduction doesn't have a thing to do with it being an organism. His logic indicates he believes we can't define something as an organism unless it is completely able to be immortal and never die, because if it ever does die, it proves it was incapable of continuing the process of life, and therefore, not an organism.

    It's almost in line with Watertard's questioning of reality.... Are we really here, or is this all a figment of imagination?

    :lol:

    Pinheads! Gotta love 'em!

  11. #101 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,441
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 1,982 Times in 1,405 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 287 Times in 274 Posts

    Default

    Dixie, you've posted this stuff a gazillion times. For the life of me, I don't know why its so important to you. If you believe it, and are secure in that belief....why should it matter to you what others believe?

    But just the fact that we worship doesn't prove that the object of that worship is real. It's bad science to make that conclusion - it is logic borne only of a need for it to be true. It is not intrinsically sound reasoning.

  12. #102 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onceler View Post
    Dixie, you've posted this stuff a gazillion times. For the life of me, I don't know why its so important to you. If you believe it, and are secure in that belief....why should it matter to you what others believe?

    But just the fact that we worship doesn't prove that the object of that worship is real. It's bad science to make that conclusion - it is logic borne only of a need for it to be true. It is not intrinsically sound reasoning.
    No, I have never posted the OP before, it is completely new and a completely new topic. Nowhere have I stated that I want or expect anyone to believe like me, I don't care, it has nothing to do with the thread topic, other than to help make the point, it all boils down to what we individually have faith in.

    As for Apple's repeated 10-page diatribe, it also ties into the thread OP, because in that example, we have someone who has chosen to have faith, not in science or spirituality, but in argument. As long as he can continue to argue his invalid points, he doesn't have to accept facts or admit defeat. It doesn't matter that he completely defies logic, science or reason, in the process, as long as he can keep his 'argument balloon' in the air, that's all that matters. He bases his beliefs on the ability to continue to defiantly do that, and so far, he has been successful with it.

    But just the fact that we worship doesn't prove that the object of that worship is real. It's bad science to make that conclusion

    Again, why would you apply "science" to something that science is not suited to prove or analyze? Is that really much different than applying "religion" to something science can prove, like the rain? The fact that we worship, doesn't prove much, this is true... but the fact we've worshiped for as long as we've existed on the planet as a species, is quite a different matter. One thing we do know from science, this is not the case if the attribute is non-essential. Superstitions might be a good example here, of some attribute mankind really didn't need, it just existed to help explain the unexplained. In the past, people had a great deal of 'faith' in superstitions, this is well-documented. Nowadays, most of us realize that superstitions are silly and unnecessary, and we don't live our lives by them... but we still worship... 95% of our species worships or has some level of 'faith' in something greater than self. Only 5% are true Nihilists.

    If we studied the salmon and why it swims upstream, do we just conclude it's because he is curious about what's there? Of course not, we continue to study and eventually find there is a reason he does that, it serves some functional purpose to his existence, he doesn't just do it because he is curious or needs to fill a void. The same applies with human spirituality. This has never been an argument for Religion, or for any particular definition of God, it is only an argument for mankind's kindred connection with spiritual faith and belief, and how that has always been a part of what we are. Just as science is inadequate to explain what made great artists and composers imagine the works as they did, or why you dream what you dream or think what you think, it is unable to answer questions concerning spirituality, and spirituality relies on spiritual faith, not faith in science, they are two distinctly different things.

  13. #103 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,441
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 1,982 Times in 1,405 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 287 Times in 274 Posts

    Default

    The salmon analogy is terrible. You're talking about a reasoned behavior vs. an instinctual one. And yes - worship is a reasoned behavior.

    And science is behind everything. Your issue with science is that you see it as the enemy. It is not the enemy. Science doesn't mean "our" science, or guys in lab coats. There is nothing that exists - even a god - that doesn't have science at its foundation. There are millions of things that have not been "explained yet, but just like the sun, they will be eventually. And even though we don't know the explanations now, they exist.

  14. #104 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onceler View Post
    The salmon analogy is terrible. You're talking about a reasoned behavior vs. an instinctual one. And yes - worship is a reasoned behavior.

    And science is behind everything. Your issue with science is that you see it as the enemy. It is not the enemy. Science doesn't mean "our" science, or guys in lab coats. There is nothing that exists - even a god - that doesn't have science at its foundation. There are millions of things that have not been "explained yet, but just like the sun, they will be eventually. And even though we don't know the explanations now, they exist.
    I think you've just demonstrated faith in science....you have had to make an assumption of belief in the absence of evidence to make the statement that nothing exists that doesn't have science at its foundation......science is, in inarguable fact, merely a method of study of the material world....thus it cannot operate in the metaphysical realm.....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Dixie - In Memoriam (05-22-2012)

  16. #105 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onceler View Post
    The salmon analogy is terrible. You're talking about a reasoned behavior vs. an instinctual one. And yes - worship is a reasoned behavior.
    Why? Because YOU have defined it as such? How can you prove it is "reasoned" behavior, and not instinctual? It appears 95% of the species is doing it, and they always have, it seems pretty "instinctual" if you ask me. And how can you conclude it is "reasoned" if you can't justify the reason? According to you, spirituality doesn't exist, so how do we manage to 'reason' something that has no reason?

    And science is behind everything.
    You can have faith in that statement, but it's not actually true. There are a great many things science can not explain, and will never explain. What prompted Motzart to write a symphony, or DeVinci to paint a masterpiece? Where do our imaginative thoughts come from? I already know that our brain fires neurons, etc., that's not what I am talking about. We can all think and imagine, but where do these thoughts come from? What makes a Rembrandt beautiful? Has science got an explanation? Our most profound inspirations and thoughts are closely tied to our spirituality, and have little to do with science or anything science is adequate to explain. Can science determine when "love" is true? Science is certainly NOT behind everything, nor can science explain everything.

    Your issue with science is that you see it as the enemy.
    No, I really don't. I understand why you need to make me take that position, but I refuse. Science is one of the most beneficial tools mankind has ever developed, it has brought us great insight into the physical world around us, but it is only a physical science, it can't provide any understanding of a spiritual universe. A spiritualist would say; Isn't God great for giving us Science?

    My issue, if you can call it that, is ignorance. People who ignorantly keep wanting to apply physical science and her parameters to things that are spiritual, and outside the realm of physical science. When we evaluate whether "GOD" exists, it is important to do so in a spiritual context, not a physical one, because it is obvious physical science can't apply. It's not the enemy, it's just meaningless in matters of spirituality because it deals with the physical world.

    It is not the enemy. Science doesn't mean "our" science, or guys in lab coats. There is nothing that exists - even a god - that doesn't have science at its foundation.
    Well, this takes me to my next point, human faith. I won't argue, science could someday discover some missing link that connects our spiritual universe to our physical one, who knows? That's the really cool and amazing thing about Science; It doesn't 'answer' questions, it continues to ask and explore them. Of course, a good many people have chosen to adopt a closed-minded faith in the physical sciences, which pervert the scientific method by 'concluding' things and closing any further debate. That's what we see when we discuss the existence of God. You don't believe in God, therefore, you pervert science in order to have faith in something.

    There are millions of things that have not been "explained yet, but just like the sun, they will be eventually. And even though we don't know the explanations now, they exist.
    If you comprehend there are millions of things that have not been explained yet, you should be able to comprehend our physical sciences may not be able to explain all things. Perhaps whether God exists is one of those things? Maybe there are a million various 'sciences' for a million different universes and dimensions? Isn't that at least a possibility? Just because we have compiled information and come to understandings on the physical world around us through our own creation of physical science, does not mean that is all there is, or all there might be to 'knowledge' or 'understanding' of something else.

Similar Threads

  1. Has more gold been sold than exists?
    By uscitizen in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-27-2009, 11:12 AM
  2. My house still exists
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 10:26 PM
  3. Prove God Exists and Win $10,000.00!
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 06-02-2008, 03:22 PM
  4. This site exists because of ME
    By Brent in forum Introductions, User Announcements, Suggestions and General Board Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-27-2006, 02:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •