Would you consider this evidence?

Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 99
Topic's author
#1
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
Imagine we just sent an unmanned spacecraft further than we've ever sent any craft before. Everything seems to be going smoothly, until the craft hits an invisible wall. We're able to see what happened from camera footage, but not able to identify what caused the prevention of the craft from going further.

We send another unmanned craft the same distance in same approximate location, but equipping the craft to become stationary if/when hitting the invisible wall, and possibly study it's content.

The second craft comes in contact with the wall, but is not able to make out it's content. It's just a seemingly transparent solid wall like a thick window.

Would you consider this evidence of a higher intelligence (God, a god/deity, extraterrestrials)?

If so why? If not why?
#2
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,701
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
no, 
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,701
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
they are plently of cosmolical proofs, not this one
#4
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
Why would an invisible barrier of unknown composition imply a higher intelligence? All it's evidence of is that two spacecraft couldn't go past a certain point as you have described it. Saying "there must be some higher intelligence behind this" when you literally know nothing at all about why the craft stopped. Maybe you can describe how you concluded it's a wall, and not something like what's called a langrangian point: the point where the pull of gravity on one side of an object is equal to the pull on the other side.  
#5
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@RoderickSpode
There's nothing to say about this. It's a non-sequitur.
Topic's author
#6
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Why would an invisible barrier of unknown composition imply a higher intelligence? All it's evidence of is that two spacecraft couldn't go past a certain point as you have described it. Saying "there must be some higher intelligence behind this" when you literally know nothing at all about why the craft stopped. Maybe you can describe how you concluded it's a wall, and not something like what's called a langrangian point: the point where the pull of gravity on one side of an object is equal to the pull on the other side.  

They definitely couldn't go past a certain point, so no evidence is needed there.

As far as the description of a wall, it's just that. A description. Like the Wall of Separation.

I'm not making any claims that it would necessarily imply a higher intelligence. I'm just asking if it would, or could be considered evidence. Yes, it could be a langrian point, but
we can add to the story line multiple tests, sending space craft in every conceivable direction, possibly rendering many theories unlikely.

If I change the question to could it be evidence of a higher intelligence, would that make a difference?




#7
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode



RoderickSpode,

As usual, your complete Bible ignorance precedes every post that you make in the name of Satan!  The Christian cannot leave the Bible's confines and precepts and venture forth on a Star Trek episode like you have erroneously done to comically prove your point for our serial killer Jesus' existence.  Therefore, the cosmology of the time that the Bible was written was the earth was a FLAT CIRCLE with a dome overhead, where within the dome all planets circled the earth, along with the sun, and the earth was held up with pillars out in space.  Therefore, your wishful thinking and comical presentation of an invisible wall being hit by spacecraft should be embarrassing to you in disagreeing with Jesus' scriptural word on how Bible cosmology is shown in the link below.  BLASPHEME! 


Jesus wants us to stay within the realm and time period of how the earth and planets were perceived within the scriptures, and NOT in some outlandish future time period. You can be anachronistic on your own time with your equally dumbfounded of the Bibles cosmology pseudo-christians,  but please do not act in this manner when you are on this forum, okay? Your comical Bible ignorance gives our faith a bad name.

Thank you.


NEXT?


.
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@RoderickSpode
I think if we're in a simulated flat Earth and outer space is an illusion then yes, that is definitely evidence of a designer of this simulated environment and such. Is that what you're referring to?
#9
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7



.
RationalMadman,

YOUR QUOTE SLAPPING JESUS IN THE FACE AGAIN!: "I think if we're in a simulated flat Earth and outer space is an illusion then yes, that is definitely evidence of a designe"

What the hell do you mean "simulated flat earth?"  Jesus' inspired words state with specificity that the earth is a FLAT CIRCLE now and in the past!  Are you taking it upon yourself to call Jesus a LIAR again?   Your bible ignorance is without bounds!

.





#10
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@David
@Barney
@BrotherDThomas
Do you even realise just how stupid your trolling is?

You quite literally agreed with me and then called me ignorant of the very scripture that agrees with me.

I am first of all, not a Christian and most importantly have asked you to leave me alone several times, even blocking you. You are harassing every user of the Religion forum whom you view as easy prey.
#11
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
No. If your premise is an assumption/hypothetical and the conclusion you draw from extending those premises is an assumption/hypothetical, then what exactly would you have ascertained evidence of?
#12
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@David
@Barney



RationalMadman,

Jesus and I don't think in any way that when I bring forth His inspired scripture to the pseudo-christian, it is not trolling, but factual biblical axioms.

In answer to your LYING POST #10,  I am so sorry that you have to erroneously "tattle tale" on me, BECAUSE YOU NEVER ONCE STATED FOR ME TO LEAVE YOU ALONE, PERIOD! You are LYING AGAIN like you did TO ME in your thread and as shown in this link below: 



If you allegedly didn't want me to talk to you, THEN WHY DID YOU KEEP ANSWERING ME IN YOUR THREAD BELOW UP UNTIL YOUR POST #32 LIKE EVERYTHING WAS OKAY, HUH??!  NEVER DID YOU MENTION THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT ME TO POST TO YOU, NEVER, LIAR AGAIN!!!

YOUR LYING QUOTE AGAIN: " You are harassing every user of the Religion forum whom you view as easy prey."

WRONG! "EVERY USER?" NOT!  YOU ARE AN HABITUAL LIAR AND IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY ME ALONE!


.




#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,664
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Would you consider this evidence of a higher intelligence (God, a god/deity, extraterrestrials)?

No.

If not why?
No evidence.
#14
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,466
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
@BrotherDThomas
***
BrotherDThomas,

If RationalMadman (RM) has or has not in the past requested you to leave him alone, with #10, he clearly has now.

Further, within this thread you seem to be the only person who has made direct mention of Jesus. If he has elsewhere in some way slapped Jesus in the face, neither him nor the topic author mentioning Jesus here makes it irrelevant to the conversation in question. Continuance of this (particularly if directed at RM), will increasingly be seen to resemble attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges.

This is not yet rising to the level of a restraining order, but if you don't tone it down it quickly will.

To use an analogy: You're shooting on sight, rather than applying escalation of force.

-Ragnar, DM
***

P.S.: If you look at #8 without seeking offense, there's some interesting biblical conversations which could spring from it. As an example, characters within the bible primarily get simulated within our minds as we read it. Not to mention, the bible itself is flat, and I suspect you disbelieve in things outside of the bible.
#15
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
If I change the question to could it be evidence of a higher intelligence, would that make a difference?
I suppose it COULD, but you would only have to add that possibility to a pile of other guesses as to what it was. Without any other information, the only conclusion you can make is "we have not been able to send a spacecraft past a certain point." 
#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ludofl3x
That's Lagrange, not Langrange. And all that's needed to escape  the hold of a langrange point [there are five Lagrange points involved in any two-body oribtal system such as earth-sun, or earth-moon, or jupiter-europa, etc], all located in the orbital plane of the two bodies. So, our unmanned spacecraft is programmed to avoid the orbital plane of your two bodies, and/or is programmed to meet or exceed the escape velocity required to overcome the Lagrange point. Problem solved. Exploration continues, whether or not Lagrange points were designed or are natural phenomena. However, one might consider that even natural phenomena obey laws that dictate properties of those phenomena and that a higher intelligence, semantics notwithstanding what it is called, is behind it, or even that higher intelligence is, itself, obedient to higher laws.
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
I observe that some gravitate to your description choices of "higher intelligence" and single out "God," as if that is your only reference, and proceed to denounce it, or claim it is the only Intelligence that matters. There are some here who are irrationally fixated on that particular version of "higher intelligence," as if no other beings in the universe are capable of expressing intelligence higher than our own; those intelligence bogits [I misspell on purpose] in particular.

To your point, yes, such a barrier is indicative of high intelligence; high enough to know that natural law can be applied for a purpose, and I don't care if one calls that God, or James T. Kirk, or Romulan cloaking,  or the Empire, or the Force.
#18
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Barney


Ragnar,


YOUR QUOTED POST: If RationalMadman (RM) has or has not in the past requested you to leave him alone, with #10, he clearly has now."

Barring the fact that RM NEVER told me to leave him alone, therefore LYING AGAIN as an habitual LIAR, and to save RationalMadman any further embarrassment from me, this is certainly AGREED upon!


YOUR QUOTED POST: “Further, within this thread you seem to be the only person who has made direct mention of Jesus.”

YES, and why not?! This is because RoderickSpode’s Star Trek adventure into outer space in his initial post is trying in vain to prove a higher intelligence, aka, God, aka, Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate!  Therefore, using Jesus in this respect is a relevant topic!  There are NO “personal grudges,” but only to keep certain wanting propositions and pseudo-christians in check.

TO USE ANOTHER ANALOGY:  If I have a target in plain sight on the out skirts of an insidious “No Fly Zone” of Hanoi or Hai Pong, and to possibly save lives of US soldiers, I will most certainly take advantage of it.

QUESTION:  Do the moderators have the ability to find fault, with at least a reprimand, as in this case, RationalMadman, in his BLATANT LIES towards me as explicitly shown in the links in question?  Furthermore, do the moderators have the ability to curb a members foul language, as in RationalMadmans following post in telling me to FU*K OFF?
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4291-god-created-evil-first-think-about-it?page=1&post_number=17. If you want this forum to be professional, then one would think that this type of language is out of bounds!


.
#19
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
All true, except this barrier proposed is only evidence that there's a point that some spacecraft can't pass. To figure out how to get closer to the true root cause you need another point of information, so you can begin to narrow something down. Let's not get pedantic, I didn't, for example, point out that the time from spacecraft "A" somehow exceeding the distance currently logged by Voyager 1, then hitting a barrier and transmitting that information back to earth, to spacecraft "B" being constructed, launched and reaching that exact "same" point (it isn't really the exact same, is it, as the entire universe is moving all the time collectively) would be somewhere around 25 years conservatively, which would render this whole idea impractical as it would take decades and decades. 

Without the "invisible barrier has properties X Y Z" as well as "is an invisible barrier" or "we recoverd DATA ABC", the only evidently supported conclusion you can reach is "this specific spacecraft design cannot exceed this point in space and time for some unknown reason." You need more information before you say "This was constructed by higher intelligence, obviously!"
#20
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,466
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Star Trek adventure into outer space in his initial post is trying in vain to prove a higher intelligence, aka, God, aka, Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate! 
This is a religion forum, not strictly a Jesus forum. You may of course bridge the topic to Jesus, but doing so does not retroactively mean discussions not specifically of Space Jesus holding the ships in place, are somehow slapping Jesus in the face. You would of course be welcome to state the hypothesis that within the scenario trying to go too far away from earth was a slap in the face to Jesus (the target being the astronauts, not spectators talking about what it means).


“No Fly Zone”
In such cases, warnings are usually attempted when an aircraft approach any no fly zone. As opposed to say what Iran did to Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 (as much as Iran insists the only criminals in need of arrest, are those who leaked that they shot it down).


Do the moderators have the ability to find fault, with at least a reprimand, as in this case, RationalMadman...
We have the ability to do almost anything, which does not mean we will... I've skimmed those links, and did not spot where RM accused you are threatening him. Right now I have you accused him of accusing you... In future, please click the report button when someone does something like that toward you, and concisely message whatever context to one of the moderators (currently myself or Virt).

As for him telling you to "kindly fuck off," two things.
  1. While it may have been a very subtle and easy to miss request, it does contradict your insistence that he never told you to leave him alone...
  2. We do have a rule about potty mouths ("Unwarranted systemic vulgarity"), but a lone F bomb is far from reaching the point of notice. If someone was as addicted to vileness the way you're addicted to spreading the good word of Jesus, then we would intervene.
#21
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Barney


Ragmar,

The bottom line is the fact that when mentioning Jesus as God, and when RS is trying in vain to promote a comedic invisible wall in outer space to prove that a higher intelligence exists, and with in a Religion Forum, Jesus most certainly stands out as that higher intelligence to which RS expounds upon, then subjectively, RS and others as assumed Christians are slapping Jesus in the face for not recognizing Him as the higher intelligence that they are looking for where 2+2=4!  



In your No Fly Zone presentation, any ground warnings are moot in violating certain air space, where certain targets are sitting there to be taken out, because we got in and out quickly TO POSSIBLY SAVE OUR TROOPS LIVES in the long run which is more important to any reprimand if caught.   Besides, respectfully, your flight 752 and the Nam Air War in general are apples and oranges at best.



YOUR QUOTE: “We have the ability to do almost anything, which does not mean we will... I've skimmed those links, and did not spot where RM accused you are threatening him.”

WRONG!  I assume your word "are" in your quote above, is meant to be "of."


RationalMadman  05.31.20 01:45PM
-->
@BrotherDThomas
RM, from this time forward, shhhhhhhhhhhh.

I'm not the one coming to the other's thread and harassing them while pretending to be a Christian just to mock and taunt them. You have absolutely zero positive impact on the website and its community and I am not afraid to call you out, I just don't go looking for a fight when there isn't one.

You came to my thread decided to bring up the Bible and troll, told me to get lost and shut up and think I am in the wrong. You are a bully and I will not bow down to you. This is actually a nice website to debate on and I am not going to go silent on it because of some threats by you.


I NEVER THREATENED HIM IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER WHICH SHOWS HIS CONTINUED LYING MODUS OPERANDI!


I will definitely click on the report button from now on like the pseudo-christians do in crying to the moderators that they do not like my Jesus inspired truthful biblical axioms, even though they are correct in every way! What an irony, huh? lol


.



#22
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You have entirely mis-read Roderick. His "Star Trek" adventure, as you erroneously refer to his proposition, is unmanned. How is that Star Trek, an entirely manned mission? Therefore, your biblical limitations have not been violated, nobody is speaking to, about, or because of Jesus, and your pounding fist can go back into its pocket. Just calm down, sit down, and read properly.
#23
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7

.
FAUXLAW, 

Wait! You have me COWARDLY on a block where I assume that I am not supposed to converse with you because I have easily made you the Bible Fool in the past, but yet you want your cake and eat it too by posting to me, what gives?  Have you found your balls and are willing to remove me from your block, or did you just want another one of my patented Bible Slappings®️  because you miss them from before where I made you the complete Bible fool that you are?  Which is it?

When a pseudo-christian like RoderickSpode refers to anything in outer space, that goes directly against the Bible's cosmology and Jesus' inspired word which you are embarrassingly unaware of, or when you comically do so as well in your Bible ineptness,  I facetiously use the Star Trek Series position to show RS and YOU in how ungodly you Bible fools are, do you understand, or do you need further clarification? Huh? 


Now, run along before I make you PEE YOUR PANTS in bringing forth your Satanic and laughable  position of the Day-Age Theory relative to the Creation Story!  Understood?
 
FAUXLAW, quick, put on your running shoes in front of the membership and prove my point with you remaining silent to this post! LOL!

Pseudo-christians like FAUXLAW are so predicable in their removing one foot to insert the other all the time! LOL!


NEXT?


#24
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
There's a web serial with a similar concept, you might find it interesting.

Theoretically, in the case of a simulation focused around Earth, there would be no reason to render the entire universe in any greater fidelity than human instruments can observe. Before such instruments as x-ray telescopes and the like, you would need only render planets and stars as pinpricks of light. Quantum mechanics would also be unnecessary since the results on a macroscopic scale would be indistinguishable from Newtonian mechanics  for the majority of human history. More accurate and diversified instruments constantly observing things on a tiny scale as well as in more depth outside our solar system would be making the simulation ever more costly to run.
In other words, the endeavor of science is to bankrupt God. Poetic, really.
Topic's author
#25
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
I think if we're in a simulated flat Earth and outer space is an illusion then yes, that is definitely evidence of a designer of this simulated environment and such. Is that what you're referring to?
It actually could be an example of what I mean.

If you came to a conclusion that we inhabit a simulated flat earth, outer space being an illusion, then the wall would be evidence from your standpoint. Even overwhelming evidence.

For a neutral or natural world person, an atheist or agnostic, they can always come up with alternative theories.

It really begs the question, what would really be considered evidence outside of a direct encounter with a creator/designer for those who are neutral?
Topic's author
#26
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Athias
No. If your premise is an assumption/hypothetical and the conclusion you draw from extending those premises is an assumption/hypothetical, then what exactly would you have ascertained evidence of?
When posting the OP, I was actually thinking of a human produced ant farm. They're in a created environment. A small world created by a higher intelligence (although some might argue against that).

When an ant's antennae bumps up against the glass, are they bumping up against evidence of there being a higher power that created their environment? Or, does evidence of a higher power depend on whether or not they are mentally capable of pondering the origin of their environment?


#27
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@K_Michael


.
K_michael,

First thing, welcome to the forum.  Secondly, you are missing the point with your ungodly Quantum and Newtonian mechanics, and such. This is because the TRUE Christians like myself, where I admit 99.99 percent of the Christians on this web site are "pseudo-christians," in name only, nonetheless, we have Jesus' inspired words to contend with relative to how our Bible describes our cosmology of our planetary system.

To catch you up to date, the following link shows exactly how our Bible describes our Planetary System in its geocentric form, where the earth is a flat circle, where the planets and the sun circle the earth, and the entire system is covered by a dome that at times, lets the rain fall to Yahweh/Jesus' flat earth:

Remember, when dealing with the pseudo-christians, and myself as the only TRUE Christian within this forum,  we have to follow ALL of Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures. “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)


.


Topic's author
#28
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
You have entirely mis-read Roderick. His "Star Trek" adventure, as you erroneously refer to his proposition, is unmanned. How is that Star Trek, an entirely manned mission? Therefore, your biblical limitations have not been violated, nobody is speaking to, about, or because of Jesus, and your pounding fist can go back into its pocket. Just calm down, sit down, and read properly.
Amen fauxlaw!

BDT is probably a trekkie, which would be why he's referencing the show in the first place. He may even go to Star Trek Conventions dressed as a Romulan.

So, when watching his favorite TV show, he's got the awkward position of having to make sure he doesn't see any biblical analogies, parallel's, similarities, etc. This has to be really tough because biblical references and themes are quite common in sci-fi tv shows and movies.

I think he needs to stop watching the show because his true, untainted form of Christianity is at risk.
Topic's author
#29
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
TRUE Christians like myself

and myself as the only TRUE Christian within this forum
But can you roll your R's?
#30
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
Brother D is a troubled soul. He might heal properly if that pounding hand were pocketed for a while. It accomplishes nothing but pounding the Bible he espouses as the only true christian. Lower case for a purpose.