How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[squealpiggy]

If you're talking about scientific evidence, I could call the thousands spontaneous healings in Lourdes and the people that could testify them, but most people has to live personally those experiences to believe.

Lourdes eh? You really do pick spectacularly poor examples don't you? The Catholic Church in fact recognizes 67 "miraculous healings" at Lourdes since the shrine was first consecrated in about 1860. 67. Out of approximately 200 million visitors. A 1% chance of a cure using conventional medicine is considered a feint hope. Statistically at Lourdes you have a .000035% chance of a miraculous healing curing your illness. Not very good odds for Mr Omnipotent really.

Apart from that, I don't recall any scientific evidence of God's existence. I just believe in it

Let me just quote back your own words to you here:

"There's plenty evidence... Usually people don't wanna see it because it would lead them to face painful truths about their own life."

And just for emphasis I'll quote the most pertinent part again:

"There's plenty evidence"

Now that you've endured an embarrassing climbdown over your previous grandiose statements, and in attempting to convert me to your religion have in fact manage to further cement my conviction that there isn't a god, perhaps you can admit to either deliberate dishonesty or at the very least to having never given the subject a great deal of thought.

, as I believe in Love: can you touch love?

You can't touch gravity. Am I to take it on faith that gravity exists?

Where's the scientific evidence that your woman loves you (1) and has never or will never betray you? (2)

(1) Unlike for god there is actual evidence that exists of the depth of my relationship with my wife in her actions and words towards me.

(2) You're asking for scientific evidence from the future!?

Where's the scientific evidence that you are happy?

In a 1992 paper by Hans et al published in the psychology journal Mind.

YOU must find out by yourself. I'm not gonna change your diapers, buddy, nor I'm your spiritual guide, so stop pulling my leg with this evidence bull****.

So after FAILING at apologetics your plan is to pretend you were never engaging in them?

[squealpiggy]

I was talking about the concept of eternity which goes beyond our comprehension: everything human has an end. Whatever has not a beginning and an end (it' eternal) for us it's impossible to understand. It's a mystery. Just as God is.

I think I'm beginning to understand. Alright, eternity is not beyond our comprehension. It's just beyond your comprehension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

So what? Quantum are a quantity of energy that comes from "nothing" (and disappears afetr a while), just about me and you: before we were born we were nothing: then sperm and ovulus join and something happens: we build up a unique personality out of nothing. [/quote]

This is dishonesty in action. You asked for an example of anything in nature that came from nothing. I provided the example of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which accounts for Quantum fluctuation in which things are constantly and consistently being "created" out of nothing. Now you say that such observable and repeatable phenomena don't count and instead I must provide examples for which the only explanation is... well, fucking magic.

Two principles are in effect when looking at quantum fluctuation as part of a "creation" hypothesis:

1. Something comes from nothing - particles appear spontaneously
2. Something is more stable than nothing

Hence a net accumulation of "something" from "nothing" as the "something" tends to stick around.

Anyway the conservation of energy in time is a well defined concept even in quantum mechanics,

Conservation of energy and conservation of matter are important principles in science at a certain scale, just as Newton's laws of motion are an important principle at a certain scale. But they are not applicable at all frames of reference (hence the desire for a "unified theory of everything" in physics) and do not apply at all on a quantum scale (or near the speed of light etc).

and your example doesn't eclude in any way the existence of God.

Your contention is that something never comes from nothing, therefore god. If something does come from nothing your argument is utterly void.

[Nick Name]

Lourdes eh? You really do pick spectacularly poor examples don't you? The Catholic Church in fact recognizes 67 "miraculous healings" at Lourdes since the shrine was first consecrated in about 1860. 67. Out of approximately 200 million visitors. A 1% chance of a cure using conventional medicine is considered a feint hope. Statistically at Lourdes you have a .000035% chance of a miraculous healing curing your illness. Not very good odds for Mr Omnipotent really.

The Church isn't always right, and the inexplicable healings reported are over 7,000... And I bet that not all of them have been examined.

Let me just quote back your own words to you here:

"There's plenty evidence... Usually people don't wanna see it because it would lead them to face painful truths about their own life."

And just for emphasis I'll quote the most pertinent part again:

"There's plenty evidence"

Now that you've endured an embarrassing climbdown over your previous grandiose statements, and in attempting to convert me to your religion have in fact manage to further cement my conviction that there isn't a god, perhaps you can admit to either deliberate dishonesty or at the very least to having never given the subject a great deal of thought.

You see, I'm not embarassed at all, and your childish attempts and pathetic emphasis in trying to expose me makes me smile at best: the evidence I'm talking about is not merely scientific. And I'm not held to explain why I'm sure of the existence of God with my own words, since I'm not a poet and in that case, I would indeed fail.

You can't touch gravity. Am I to take it on faith that gravity exists?

Let's put it this way: if you sit at the feet of a tree and a fruit falls down on your head, you can realise that there can some magnetic force that brings the fruit towards the center of the planet which we eventually call "gravity".
At the same time, when I experience human relationships and everything that's involved with, I can realise that there's a bond that ties together every living creature which I eventually call "love", and when I commit a sin, and feel bad about it I realise that there's a force within myself and all the living creatures which I have to respect, and which I eventually call "spirit", or "soul".

(1) Unlike for god there is actual evidence that exists of the depth of my relationship with my wife in her actions and words towards me.

Demonstrate that.

(2) You're asking for scientific evidence from the future!?

Alright, my mistake.

In a 1992 paper by Hans et al published in the psychology journal Mind.

Show me that paper then.


So after FAILING at apologetics your plan is to pretend you were never engaging in them? [/QUOTE]
You said I've failed. What are you, opponent and referee all in one?

[Nick Name]

I think I'm beginning to understand. Alright, eternity is not beyond our comprehension. It's just beyond your comprehension.

God and Faith are a mystery and can't be comprehended by the human brain.

This is dishonesty in action. You asked for an example of anything in nature that came from nothing. I provided the example of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which accounts for Quantum fluctuation in which things are constantly and consistently being "created" out of nothing. Now you say that such observable and repeatable phenomena don't count and instead I must provide examples for which the only explanation is... well, fucking magic.

What the f()ck are you babbling about? You want to tell me that because you came up with that Quantum theory of this dick you've demonstrated the inexistence of the Soul and God? Are you saying that Quantum theory somehow proves that god doesn't exist and neither my soul? Get back on earth buddy, you just posted a nerdy link on Wikipedia which is indeed what I asked you, but it's completely off-topic about the existence of God, which is what we are discussing here. And remember that the Quantum theory could be proved wrong or explained differently in the future, just like Lavoisier's law.
In the past most scientists were sure about Lavoisiser's law, now everyone says it doesn't work: same will go for the quantum theory. You've demonstrated nothing, your points are weak and your silly chants of victory are more pathetic and shameful than ever.
Also, you show no initiative whatsoever: you're just hanging on my neck waiting for me to ask you anything, and you're happy to answer. Be careful, you're not happy to prove me that my soul doesn't exist (which you haven't proven): you're just happy to answer my questions, which makes you pretty pathetic.

Your contention is that something never comes from nothing, therefore god. If something does come from nothing your argument is utterly void.

Manipulation: I never said that God is "nothing". And my only contention is to have a soul that can be saved. Your contention here only seems to come up with some link on Wikipedia that seems to satisfy my requests: look at you, so happy and giggling for "showing me who's boss" through some links to stuff that probably within 40 years will be all proved wrong by other scientists... Who's really pathetic here?

Come on then, show me really who's boss: show me that my f()ckin soul is a lie.

[Nick Name]

Lourdes eh? You really do pick spectacularly poor examples don't you? The Catholic Church in fact recognizes 67 "miraculous healings" at Lourdes since the shrine was first consecrated in about 1860. 67. Out of approximately 200 million visitors. A 1% chance of a cure using conventional medicine is considered a feint hope. Statistically at Lourdes you have a .000035% chance of a miraculous healing curing your illness. Not very good odds for Mr Omnipotent really.

The Church isn't always right, and the inexplicable healings reported are over 7,000... And I bet that not all of them have been examined. Even if so, teh Church could be wrong as it has been many times in history.

Let me just quote back your own words to you here:

"There's plenty evidence... Usually people don't wanna see it because it would lead them to face painful truths about their own life."

And just for emphasis I'll quote the most pertinent part again:

"There's plenty evidence"

Now that you've endured an embarrassing climbdown over your previous grandiose statements, and in attempting to convert me to your religion have in fact manage to further cement my conviction that there isn't a god, perhaps you can admit to either deliberate dishonesty or at the very least to having never given the subject a great deal of thought.

You see, I'm not embarassed at all, and your childish attempts and pathetic emphasis in trying to expose me makes me smile at best: the evidence I'm talking about is not merely scientific. And I'm not held to explain why I'm sure of the existence of God with my own words, since I'm not a poet and in that case, I would indeed fail.

You can't touch gravity. Am I to take it on faith that gravity exists?

Let's put it this way: if you sit at the feet of a tree and a fruit falls down on your head, you can realise that there can some magnetic force that brings the fruit towards the center of the planet which we eventually call "gravity".
At the same time, when I experience human relationships and everything that's involved with, I can realise that there's a bond that ties together every living creature which I eventually call "love", and when I commit a sin, and feel bad about it I realise that there's a force within myself and all the living creatures which I have to respect, and which I eventually call "spirit", or "soul".

(1) Unlike for god there is actual evidence that exists of the depth of my relationship with my wife in her actions and words towards me.

Demonstrate that.

[squealpiggy]

The Church isn't always right, and the inexplicable healings reported are over 7,000... And I bet that not all of them have been examined.

The catholic church are the Lourdes people, so I'd go with their numbers over your pulled-out-of-the-ass figure of 7,000. And that's still a pale figure when compared to the number of visitors.

You see, I'm not embarassed at all, and your childish attempts and pathetic emphasis in trying to expose me makes me smile at best: the evidence I'm talking about is not merely scientific.

So you're talking about the scientific evidence and the evidence which is not evidence then. Because you said there was plenty of evidence and all that you give is made up figures about Lourdes. Are you ready to admit that you have no evidence at all yet?

And I'm not held to explain why I'm sure of the existence of God with my own words, since I'm not a poet and in that case, I would indeed fail.

I don't care why you believe. You're trying to convince me, with evidence, that I should believe, that's what I'm interested in.

Let's put it this way: if you sit at the feet of a tree and a fruit falls down on your head, you can realise that there can some magnetic force that brings the fruit towards the center of the planet which we eventually call "gravity".
At the same time, when I experience human relationships and everything that's involved with, I can realise that there's a bond that ties together every living creature which I eventually call "love"

A "bond" that "ties together every living creature" and this is called "love"? Are you sure? Is this the love shown by a parasitic wasp after if lays eggs in living prey and lets them be eaten alive by their larvae from the inside out?



Oh look, you can just feel the love shown by this chimp to that monkey:



And here are some people showing us the love that binds us all together:



Or maybe you're talking crap.

, and when I commit a sin, and feel bad about it I realise that there's a force within myself and all the living creatures which I have to respect, and which I eventually call "spirit", or "soul".

You can call it what you want. But referring to your own consciousness as a "soul" doesn't mean that the supernatural exists, any more than calling my dog "Sasquatch" means that Bigfoot is real.

Demonstrate that.

"Love" is an abstraction which really has no objective meaning. It's telling that you will latch onto something vague and ill defined in an attempt to prove the existence of your equally vague and ill defined deity.

Besides which I'm not trying to demonstrate to you that my wife loves me because frankly it's none of your business. You're trying to demonstrate that your god loves me (and failing miserably) and desperately changing the subject now your apologetics have been exposed as shallow and meaningless.

You said I've failed. What are you, opponent and referee all in one?

Wait, are you suggesting that your directionless dribbling was a success!?

[squealpiggy]

God and Faith are a mystery and can't be comprehended by the human brain.

So how do you know that god is a good thing and that what god wants is going to be good for you? You seem to want to go to heaven... heaven could be a place of terrible torment, and only seems like paradise to your unfathomable deity. Or your unfathomable deity could be simply lying. How would you know? It's unfathomable!

Actually a lying deity would be a much better reflection of reality. A god that deliberately sets up people to fail would at least be consistent with the evidence. Although the simplest and best explanation for how we see the world would be that there are no gods.

What the f()ck are you babbling about? You want to tell me that because you came up with that Quantum theory of this dick you've demonstrated the inexistence of the Soul and God? Are you saying that Quantum theory somehow proves that god doesn't exist and neither my soul?

Calm down Poindexter. You can't prove a negative. Maybe the quantum particles that pop into existence are actually made of fairy poop. I can't prove that they're not. I don't think it's likely though, do you?

Fact is you made an argument for the existence of gods and souls that was "something can't come from nothing therefore god did it". I simply demonstrated that this argument is invalid.

Get back on earth buddy, you just posted a nerdy link on Wikipedia which is indeed what I asked you, but it's completely off-topic about the existence of God, which is what we are discussing here.

You asked for an example where something comes from nothing, now you're raying my answer is "off topic". Why don't you just admit that your preconceptions are wrong?

And remember that the Quantum theory could be proved wrong or explained differently in the future, just like Lavoisier's law.
In the past most scientists were sure about Lavoisiser's law, now everyone says it doesn't work: same will go for the quantum theory. [/quote]

Lavoisier's conservation of matter is still an important principle on the chemical scale. It still applies on a scale of import to chemists. It doesn't change the fact that on a quantum scale different rules apply. Where you've gone wrong with name-dropping Lavoisier is in trying to use him for Christian apologetics. You cannot use chemistry to support mythology, but you tried to and you failed.

You've demonstrated nothing, your points are weak and your silly chants of victory are more pathetic and shameful than ever.

I've demonstrated that you are dishonest.

Also, you show no initiative whatsoever: you're just hanging on my neck waiting for me to ask you anything, and you're happy to answer. Be careful, you're not happy to prove me that my soul doesn't exist (which you haven't proven): you're just happy to answer my questions, which makes you pretty pathetic.

You can't prove a negative as I mentioned, plus I have no interest in "proving" that your "soul does not exist". You were trying to argue for the existence of god, I was demolishing those arguments.

Manipulation: I never said that God is "nothing". And my only contention is to have a soul that can be saved.

What happens is that apologetics start with a very solid definition of god. Then when the logical inconsistencies with the definition are exposed the definition becomes more vague and nebulous until the term is essentially meaningless.

In other words you start out talking about acts and personalities and reward and punishment and you finish up talking about moonbeams and sunshine.

Your contention here only seems to come up with some link on Wikipedia that seems to satisfy my requests: look at you, so happy and giggling for "showing me who's boss" through some links to stuff

You demanded an example, I provided one, you've been on the defensive ever since.

that probably within 40 years will be all proved wrong by other scientists... Who's really pathetic here?

Science is a process by which good ideas are kept and bad ideas are discarded. Actual scientific revolutions of the kind sparked by Darwin are rare when the existing principles are carefully observed and explored.

What we find is a gradual increase in our knowledge over time. Now the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which is crucial to quantum fluctuation is 60 years old - it is being refined but not cast out. This notion that scientific theories are discarded after a few decades for something entirely different is another lie perpetuated by the religious. Because to the religious apparently changing your opinions on the basis of new data is a bad thing while refusing to discard bad ideas just because they happen to be unture is the highest possible virtue.

As Mark Twain wrote:

Faith is believing what you know ain't so

Come on then, show me really who's boss: show me that my f()ckin soul is a lie.

I never said that. I am quite happy to accept that your soul is not a deliberate falsehood on your part and that you are merely delusional. But I would still contend that you are lying in order to protect your delusion.

[Spartacus Sully]

Id like to point out that there is no where in the universe that nothing exists.

in the furthest reaches of space.....theres still the space and its dimensions.

in the gap between the electron and the nucleus of an atom there is still space and all its dimensions.

sooooo any one that claims that something cant come from nothing has no idea what they are talking about because no one in the history of the universe knows the propertys of absolutely nothing.

[cupocity303]

What happens is that apologetics start with a very solid definition of god. Then when the logical inconsistencies with the definition are exposed the definition becomes more vague and nebulous until the term is essentially meaningless.

In other words you start out talking about acts and personalities and reward and punishment and you finish up talking about moonbeams and sunshine.

Quote of the day.

This is exactly what it is.

There is two types of people. Those who look for an Answer, with a gradual process, an Answer they may never find but keep trying anyway.

And those who think they already have the Answer (GOD) and simply look for confirmation bias, wherever they can find it. Cherry-pick Science, Love & Relationships etc,. They already have an Answer/Explanation in Advance, their "research" is simply an effort to find what they already believe is true.

Remember, the first group mentioned above, doesn't have a preconceived ANSWER before doing any actual digging for Answers or The Answer (GOD), therefore wherever the evidence leads is of no consequence to them, they'll take it for what it is, one way or the other.

The latter group on the other hand, as already mentioned has a Answer-in-Advance (GOD) before they do anything else. Therefore they will only look at evidence that leads them to that answer. If it doesn't, they ignore it or misrepresent the meaning of it and move to something else.

"GOD" as the answer is always there, Big Bang or no Big Bang, Quantum anything or no Quantum. They'll take what they can use, and ignore the rest if it doesn't suit their God Agenda.

And yes, I didn't write this for Squelpiggy to read, but more for the other guy who keeps getting pummeled but comes back for more abuse. This is what you and your type does.

[The Noose]

I hear the voice of 'H.A.L' from 2001 when i read Squealpiggy's posts.