Why and how did life come about?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 193
#151
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
..a strong arument can be made that Kurt Godel proved in cannot be a closed system.
Nothing he offers informs of a closed Universe scenario.
Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is analytically perfect and rigidly deductive and therefore it is conclusive as far as logic and science are concerned. It states categorically that no axiomatic system is, or can be complete without reference to a higher system in which that system must be embedded. Mathematically, Gödel proved that even an axiomatic system as simple as arithmetic cannot be internally consistent and logically complete without reference to a transcending system in which it must be embedded.

Logic and science are indeed axiomatic systems, therefore logic and science themselves have proven that they are not complete without reference to a transcendent system. Gödel proved that the ideal of science is therefore impossible, which is to say that it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced, which eliminates the possibility of a unified scientific theory which would have to include arithmetic.

The full range of the human experience of reality is such that it has personal and impersonal, transcendent and immanent aspects.  These can be taken as aspects of one rich reality, which can only be spoken of analogically in any case, rather than in the complete and exclusive descriptions necessary to represent the Universe as a closed system.

“Gödel proved that the world of pure mathematics is inexhaustible; no finite set of axioms and rules of inference can ever encompass the whole of mathematics; given any finite set of axioms, we can find meaningful mathematical questions which the axioms leave unanswered. I hope that an analogous Situation exists in the physical world. If my view of the future is correct, it means that the world of physics and astronomy is also inexhaustible; no matter how far we go into the future, there will always be new things happening, new information coming in, new worlds to explore, a constantly expanding domain of life, consciousness, and memory.” — Freeman Dyson

Nor does validate or invalidate an origin  of biological life, or the opposite, eternal biologic life.
Thanks Rainman, I got your opinion the last twenty times you said it.

but our current scientific theories involve fundamental violations.

Provide the info please. I think it is not valid info.
I already have multiple times in this thread, pay attention.

Current cosmological theory explicitly violates the 1st law, in an expanding universe light is "redshifted to a lower energy state, and Dark Energy is understood to be the intrinsic energy per volume of empty space, in an expanding Universe the volume of space expands and so does the total energy.
A photon going to longer wave { lower frequency } length does not violate 1st law. Try again.
Its basic high school physics, the frequency of light determines its energy, the red end of the spectrum is lower energy, the blue end is higher energy, for light to redshift, it must lose energy.

The conservation law is fundamentally incompatible with General Relativity,
I dont think so. Try again.
Whoa, “I don’t think so” is really a strong argument, but I’m afraid you think I was talking about your fantasy world where reality is a matter of what you think?  Nope, I was talking about the real world, logic, science, that kind of thing.  If you can muster an argument with some of these attributes, I’ll be glad to debate it with you.

The 1st law doesn't even port to quantum physics in any recognizable way, it cannot deal with wave particle duality, or the collapse of the wave function.

Sine-wave is conceptual abstract of multiple quanta { observed reality }
Meaningless Nonsense.

Those are our three best physical theories, the 1st law conflicts with all three in basic ways, in the end, the Conservation law is going the way most of our classical laws of physics have gone,  to a limited domain of applicability.
Not.
Oh boy, "Not" is another strong argument, hard to refute, how about this, "Uh huh, is to". 

Pleases share evidence of such violation.
I already have several times in this thread, try to pay attention.

Relativity Theory:  The theory of the conservation of energy is based on time-translation invariance, which requires that the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, be fixed, not changing with time.  Relativity theory states that time and space are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.  Consequently, depending on their relative motion or relative gravity, different observers will measure different energies of the same system, and as time and space evolve, the total energy changes.

Big Bang Cosmology: Current theory says the Universe is expanding, this violates the 1st law in multiple ways, 1) the evidence that the Universe is expanding is the Redshift of light, if the light is redshifted, then it is losing energy as space expands. 2) The acceleration of the expansion is explained by Dark Energy, defined as a constant value in the density of the vacuum energy of empty space, the volume of space grows as the universe expands, so the total energy (density times volume), increases.  3) The inflationary epoch postulates rapid expansion of the Universe based on changing energy density, hence, nucleosynthesis, flatness, and the baryonic asymmetry that gives us a Universe in the first place, are all dependent on the violation of the 1st law.

Quantum Physics:  The Conservation law doesn’t port to quantum physics because the concept of energy is different than it is in the classical physics the 1st Law is based on. Classically, a particle has a constant energy, which is the sum of its potential energy (position) and its kinetic energy (momentum). But in quantum mechanics, the state of the particle isn’t a function of position and velocity; The state of the system is given by the wave function, which is mathematically incompatible with the 1st law’s time translation invariance.

In quantum physics, the system is defined by the Schrodinger Wave Function, which predicts probabilities and the energy of the system is an average of all the probabilities, the energy of the system is constant as the system evolves.  When a measurement is made, the wave function collapses to a single state and the energy of the system changes, the average energy is not conserved in the process of quantum measurement in violation of the 1st law.

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle virtual particles are created in direct violation of the conservation law, these exceptions have been demonstrated, precisely measured, and accounted in things like zero-point energy, the Lamb shift, and macroscopically, the Casimir Effect.


#152
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
Paart one cause post was too long, apparently

Nothing he offers informs of a closed Universe scenario.
Ebuc... ' Nor does anything he present infer an origin of life, or option of eternally existent biologic life encoded in blacks hole{s}, or other cosmic egg scenarios '

Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is analytically perfect and rigidly deductive and therefore it is conclusive as far as logic and science are concerned.
My deductive approach ---complex-to-simple evolution---  is logical, common sense, critical  thinking that, as Fuller makes clear, is less frustrating than simple-to-complex evolution of mineral to biologic life, with out prior encoding of the more complex whole, or its more complex parts ex amino-acids.

That said, there is lab evidence of peptides or polypeptide being created via high impact experiments of a substance fired into sandy soil.

It states categorically that no axiomatic system is, or can be complete without reference to a higher system in which that system must be embedded.
Mathematically, Gödel proved that even an axiomatic system as simple as arithmetic cannot be internally consistent and logically complete without reference to a transcending system in which it must be embedded.
Nothing about origin of biologic life or Universe there

Logic and science are indeed axiomatic systems, therefore logic and science themselves have proven that they are not complete without reference to a transcendent system. Gödel proved that the ideal of science is therefore impossible, which is to say that it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced, which eliminates the possibility of a unified scientific theory which would have to include arithmetic.
Im wainting for when you point me to the origin or not of biological life and/or Universe via Godel. 

The full range of the human experience of reality is such that it has personal and impersonal, transcendent and immanent aspects.  These can be taken as aspects of one rich reality, which can only be spoken of analogically in any case, rather than in the complete and exclusive descriptions necessary to represent the Universe as a closed system.
If this latter is your point via Godel of origin of biologic life, I dont see, and same goes for Universe.

“Gödel proved that the world of pure mathematics is inexhaustible; no finite set of axioms and rules of inference can ever encompass the whole of mathematics; given any finite set of axioms, we can find meaningful mathematical questions which the axioms leave unanswered. I hope that an analogous Situation exists in the physical world. If my view of the future is correct, it means that the world of physics and astronomy is also inexhaustible; no matter how far we go into the future, there will always be new things happening, new information coming in, new worlds to explore, a constantly expanding domain of life, consciousness, and memory.” — Freeman Dyson
No biologic life origins or Universe origins here either.

EB..Nor does validate or invalidate an origin  of biological life, or the opposite, eternal biologic life.
Thanks Rainman, I got your opinion the last twenty times you said it.
your welcome. Please address my comments where you find them to be in conceptual error. I dont recall seeing that yet, and certainly with logical, common sense,critical thinking that specifically invalidates what Ive presented.
I already have multiple times in this thread, pay attention.

A photon going to longer wave { lower frequency } length does not violate 1st law. Try again.
Its basic high school physics, the frequency of light determines its energy, the red end of the spectrum is lower energy, the blue end is higher energy, for light to redshift, it must lose energy.
That does not violate 1st law of thermodynamics. A EMRadiation frequency can change creating new energy from where before there was none.  An Ive been clear that the 1st law translates over as occupied space. EMRadiation is occupied space and cannot be created nor destroyed only transformed.  Transformed includes lower to higher and higher to lower frequencies.

Please try again when have some valid that ivalidates what ive presented to via logic, common sense and critical thinking regarding origin of biologic life and Universe, from where before there was no biologic life or no occupied space Universe.  You have not done that.

Nope, I was talking about the real world, logic, science, that kind of thing.  If you can muster an argument with some of these attributes, I’ll be glad to debate it with you.
I say what I think, as can you.  1st law is compatiblw with GR. They do not contradict each other.  Try again.

Meaningless Nonsense.
Then you need to read R P Feynmans Q.E.D, i.e. we only see discrete packets of photons. We do not see photon wave. The photon wave is a deduction. I forget the specific words Fenuman uses to get that point across.  The wave is abstract pattern deduced from many photons, electrons etc hitting a screen and over time we see a pattern of hits that are an abstract wave pattern.

Wave is meta-space, geometrical pattern deduced or induced via many particles, be they photons, electrons, water molecules etc.

/\/\/\/ = wave pattern made from many pixels { ergo electrons } on the PC screen which we see via EMRadiation of many discrete photonic particles. Pleases try again to clearly invalidate what ive presented to you.

We have no direct evidence of biologic life origins, from where before there was none.

We  have no direct evidence and occupied space Universe coming from where before there was none. Please try again to actually present some logical, common sense, critical thinking that invalidates my comments as presented. You have not done so. 

Not.

#153
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
Part two because post too long

No the 1st law of conservation is not going away. Occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed ergo, our finite, occupied space Universe exists eternally can can only transform from one state of occupied space existence to another, eternally.  You still dont seem to grasp these concepts much less whether committing your self to state what you actually believe in those regards.

1} you believe biologic life began on Earth yet have not direct evidence that biologic life came from where before there was none.  You and I came from pre-existing biologic life, and that is all we know for sure. All else is deduction from circumstantial evidence,

2} similar thing goes for evolution, execept in case of bacteria, where see direct confrimation of their evolvin, yet I dunno if it is complex-to-simple, simple-to-complex or lateral evolution,

3} eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

Three simple concepts that Ive committed to, and clear with each one.  Please show some spinal chord and address each, as presented, with direct evidence any of them are invalid. Please.
Oh boy, "Not" is another strong argument, hard to refute, how about this, "Uh huh, is to". 

I already have several times in this thread, try to pay attention.
No, you have not. now you blather on.

Relativity Theory:  The theory of the conservation of energy is based on time-translation invariance, which requires that the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, be fixed, not changing with time.  Relativity theory states that time and space are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.  Consequently, depending on their relative motion or relative gravity, different observers will measure different energies of the same system, and as time and space evolve, the total energy changes.
None of this changes numbers 1, 2 and 3 I just laid out previousy above --and clearly---   for you to address.  You have nothing to invalidate those comments as presented. Nor do appear to commit yourself, other than you dont think/believe, that, biologic life could exist elsewhere in Universe, and was seeded here on Earth. Panspermia-like scenarios.

PLease  commit clearly  to what you believe in regards to those three, as they are the crux of this thread.


Big Bang Cosmology: Current theory says the Universe is expanding, this violates the 1st law in multiple ways, 1) the evidence that the Universe is expanding is the Redshift of light, if the light is redshifted, then it is losing energy as space expands. 2) The acceleration of the expansion is explained by Dark Energy, defined as a constant value in the density of the vacuum energy of empty space, the volume of space grows as the universe expands, so the total energy (density times volume), increases.  3) The inflationary epoch postulates rapid expansion of Universe based on changing energy density, hence, nucleosynthesis, flatness, and the baryonic asymmetry that gives us a Universe in the first place, are all dependent on the violation of the 1st law.
False. EMRadiation can transform to longer frequencies and this is a part of entropic' heat death', of eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

/\/\/\/ higher frequency transforms into lower frequency that approaches flat_______'heat death'_________
the
It is not the destruction of occupied space Universe. Gravity { mass-attraction..ergo contraction } always prevails. This rather simple logical, common sense, critical thinking, that, you have yet to even consider.

(  positive  ) Gravity coheres ergo (____heat death____) and, )negative( Dark Energy { ergo dark inflation expands }, or so the story goes. There are alternatives that seemingly have no idea exist, and afraid to even listen to.

Quantum Physics:  The Conservation law doesn’t port to quantum physics because the concept of energy is different than it is in the classical physics the 1st Law is based on. Classically, a particle has a constant energy, which is the sum of its potential energy (position) and its kinetic energy (momentum). But in quantum mechanics, the state of the particle isn’t a function of position and velocity; The state of the system is given by the wave function, which is mathematically incompatible with the 1st law’s time translation invariance.
Higher frequency /\/\/\/ can transform to lower frequency _______ with any occupied space being destroyed/delete, only transformed.  You dont get it and never will, because your mind is to overeducated. .....' my education has been one the biggest impediments to learning ' ....paraphrasinf A Einstein

In quantum physics, the system is defined by the Schrodinger Wave Function, which predicts probabilities and the energy of the system is an average of all the probabilities, the energy of the system is constant as the system evolves.  When a measurement is made, the wave function collapses to a single state and the energy of the system changes, the average energy is not conserved in the process of quantum measurement in violation of the 1st law.
The wave is an abstract mathematical construct. We only see individual, discreet photons, that, via a  collections of them we deduce their associated wave patterning.

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle virtual particles are created in direct violation of the conservation law, these exceptions have been demonstrated, precisely measured, and accounted in things like zero-point energy, the Lamb shift, and macroscopically, the Casimir Effect.
Then there are unknowns, weve yet to discover.  You dont seem to grasp that so much of physics and cosmological data has contradictions, that, we yet to have answer for. Ergo, we are left to make deductions via logical, common sense, critical thinking of the data/info we attain.

Your trapped in you education and dont seem to have the ability to see outside of that narrow mind content.  There is so much more we do not yet understand/grasp/comprehend. Yes? You grasp this simple statement Sidewalker?

Start with the whole, and no parts can be left out/excluded ergo start with and eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. Or other if you dont believe any of what of that comment presented to many times now.


#154
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
This seems like a very loaded question. Why did life come about? Because something happened that created life. How did life come about? That is, as far as I'm aware an unknown.

As someone who is not an evolutionist - and what little I thought I knew, seems to becoming more vague every day, so would someone please assist me here.

Now I know that this may well do with the origin of all theories - yet - I am not asking about why or how non-life came into being - we can assume that for the sake of the discussion. I am asking about the evolution from non-life to life.   
 This is a false equivalency. While the word evolve means to change gradually, the theory of Evolution doesn't address the origins of life, only the development of life (that's abiogenesis, which is specifically the pre-evolutionary origins of life). Beyond the false equivalency I'm also curious why you feel it's fair to say life evolved from non-life? That implies a gradual change, got reason to think it was a gradual change?

   Now admittedly, having a brain seems better than not having a brain. And the ability to move and communicate seems to be better than not being able to do the same, but they are both value statements. 
They are and my admittedly very basic understanding of the theory of evolution is that it doesn't have anything to do with 'better' so much as increased ability to survive and procreate.

13 days later

Topic's author
#155
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@amandragon01
This seems like a very loaded question. Why did life come about? Because something happened that created life. How did life come about? That is, as far as I'm aware an unknown.
Of course it was loaded.  This is a religious debate page apparently.  But life has not always existed. Or has it? 

As someone who is not an evolutionist - and what little I thought I knew, seems to becoming more vague every day, so would someone please assist me here.

Now I know that this may well do with the origin of all theories - yet - I am not asking about why or how non-life came into being - we can assume that for the sake of the discussion. I am asking about the evolution from non-life to life.   
 This is a false equivalency. While the word evolve means to change gradually, the theory of Evolution doesn't address the origins of life, only the development of life (that's abiogenesis, which is specifically the pre-evolutionary origins of life). Beyond the false equivalency I'm also curious why you feel it's fair to say life evolved from non-life? That implies a gradual change, got reason to think it was a gradual change?
It's not a false equivalency.  the theory of evolution doesn't address matters of how non-life came into being. Yet it's fair to say that the theory must have underlying assumptions that speak to the origin of life.  Evolve might mean change gradually, but there are other words, which do the same thing. In many ways the word Evolution is actually redundant.  I don't think life evolved from non-life.  I think life came about because God created it.  

   Now admittedly, having a brain seems better than not having a brain. And the ability to move and communicate seems to be better than not being able to do the same, but they are both value statements. 
They are and my admittedly very basic understanding of the theory of evolution is that it doesn't have anything to do with 'better' so much as increased ability to survive and procreate.

that's correct.  But its implicit.  the survival of the fittest is a value statement.  It's not always the fittest, sometimes, it's the strongest, or the weakest, sometimes its the smartest, sometimes its the best looking, or the one prepared to break the rules.  Sometimes it is just a fluke. A random event that allowed the right thing to be in the right place at the right time.  Nothing to do with the survival of the fittest. Just plain dumb luck.  

Topic's author
#156
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ebuc
How did life come about?

we dont know, and most likely never will. Simple. No irrelevant tangents needed. 

Well that depends upon your assumptions.  I am confident that life came about because God created it.  This is based on the reality that I exist. 
Topic's author
#157
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Greyparrot
I like to think of it analogous to lightning starting a fire in a forest. The general observable rule of the universe is that everything naturally is more likely to become disordered rather than ordered. This is reflected in everything from an expanding universe, dying stars, corrosion, erosion and decay, and of course, death of life. On an atomic level energy, is constantly trying to escape and all compounds are in a long process of breaking down from complex forms to basic forms.
Thanks for your response. I can read books too. 

So in a forest, there is a very small chance for lightning to start a fire, but when it does, it goes through a cycle of consumption, reproduction, and finally extinction. I tend to see life as a similar cycle. We are but sparks of accidental flame in an otherwise vast cold and sparkless universe.
Cool. Glad you see it that way. I hope that helps you. 
#158
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
God created it.  This is based on the reality that I exist. 

We all have our beliefs. Some of use logical common sense critical thinking about such questions, others, not so much.

1} Eternally existent finite Universe = Eternally existent finite God ergo they are likened to synonyms God/Universe, ergo, 
...1a} not a God that created Universe.

2} we have no evidence of 1a above and we have no evidence of biologic life created from scratch,

3}  our Spirit-2, occupied space physical reality --aka observed { quantised } time--- is what we can intrumentally detect,

....3b} Spirit-3 Gravity (  ) we do not quantize nor quantify ergo meta-physical --not to be confused wit Spirit-1 Meta-space mind/intellect/concept,

....3c} Spirit-4 Dark Energy )(  we do not quantize nor quantify, ergo meta-physical and not to be confused with Spirit-1 Meta-space mind/intellect/concept.

4} Few address the above statements Ive presented clearly over the years, with any logical common sense critical thinking. 

...4a} because of a fear Meta-space ego death,

....4b}  because ignorant of logical common sense critical thinking,

.....4c} because of it is easier to be troll-like person who finds it easier  ---aka lazy-- to create a false narrative to my comments as presented.

.....................................space(> * <) i  (> * <)space.............

....................................space( /\/\/ ) i  ( /\/\/ )space.............

....................................space(  reality ) i  ( reality )space.............

....................................space( observed time ) i  ( observed time )space.............

i = Meta-space mind/intellect/concept and with humans, the addition of ego i-dentity

(    ) = eternally existent, occupied geodesic space of the ultra-micro, Gravitational  field

)( = eternally existent, occupied geodesic space of the ultra-micro, Dark Energy field

/\/\/ = sine-wave pattern found with physical reality

>< = invagination from Gravity and Dark Energy field surface set of nodal events associated with space-time tori

* * = most complex bilateral consciousness associated with woman  and less complex man
#159
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7

.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, she is a hypocrite, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”


OMG, you finally made it back to DebateArt Religion Forum after being Bible Slapped Silly®️ by me and others, praise Jesus!  Like I have said before, if your "alleged" congregation of pseudo-christians like you ever saw this forum where you are continually made the Bible fool, they would be running for the hills in embarrassment towards you!


YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR WEAK POST #155:  "I think life came about because God created it."  

Dear, once again you take a "I think" position instead of an "absolute" position, where you're really not sure that Jesus as God created mankind,  therefore, how unchristian like can you get?!  Whereas, of course our serial killer Jesus, as God, created humankind! Duh!  When accepting this biblical axiom in the two contradicting Creation Narratives, Jesus nonetheless created mankind and the universe at approximately 6000 years ago, remember dear?  Sure you do. Therefore, Satanic science says the creation of mankind was approximately 300,000 years ago. Houston, we have a problem!

Miss Tradesecret, let us discuss these blatant propositions of Christianity vs Science in the creation of mankind, shall we?  Or, are you going to run off again and HIDE from me  in continuing to make you the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum?  Oh, and if you find the nerve to discuss this topic with me, DO NOT bring up the laughable "Day Age Theory" or I will slap your Bible Duncery®️ to pieces, understand dear?


LET US SEE IF "MISS TRADESECRET" WANTS TO ENGAGE WITH ACTUAL BIBLICAL AXIOMS RELATIVE TO JESUS AS GOD, CREATING MANKIND, BUT DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH BECAUSE SHE IS A RUNNER WITH MANY EXCUSES NOT TO ENBAGE WITH FACTS! LOL!
.
#160
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@ Tradsecret

Tradesecret wrote:  I can read books too. 

 Have you ever read the bible?
#161
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Trolls are trying to draw Tradesecret back cuz they know once I'm banned they won't have anyone to troll. The forum will basically be all atheist.
#162
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Trolls are trying to draw Tradesecret back cuz they know once I'm banned they won't have anyone to troll. The forum will basically be all atheist.
The mods probablt sent her a warning too.  BroD, Stephen, and the Mods, Teamwork!
#163
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
And you're a troll too congratulations. That didn't take long to let out of the bag. Should have tried to hide it a little bit longer.
#164
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And you're a troll too congratulations. That didn't take long to let out of the bag. Should have tried to hide it a little bit longer.
Don't know what that's about.

Suggestion, change your screen name to "Polytheistic White Guy", then the team will leave you alone.

Then start doing racist and anti-semitic posts and you could be elected president next year.
#165
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
Sure you don't, pig.
#166
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

.
Stephen,


Tradesecret wrote:  I can read books too. 

YOUR QUOTE TO THE BIBLE IGNORANT MISS TRADESECRET:  Have you ever read the bible?

Your revealing post above is so apropos towards the #1 Bible fool of this forum, Miss Tradesecet!  Seemingly, subsequent to us and others Bible Slapping her Silly®️ ad infinitum, she hasn't read the JUDEO-Christian Bible!  

I will be awaiting a hopeful reply from Miss Tradesecet regarding my post #159, where if she finds her "big girl pants," she will engage instead of running away all the time and hiding from biblical FACTS!  We shall see.

.

Topic's author
#167
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ebuc
1} Eternally existent finite Universe = Eternally existent finite God ergo they are likened to synonyms God/Universe, ergo,  
...1a} not a God that created Universe. 
You post very long posts. And perhaps I might read it all sometime. But in the first place I was puzzled your first line. 

Eternally existent finite universe = eternally existent finite God THEREFORE they are liked to synonyms.  

Can you explain why you hold that God is finite?  The Biblical God would not be considered so. 

Please humour my foolishness at the need of asking this question. 
Topic's author
#168
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Sidewalker
Hi Poly, and Sidewalker

I haven't left and so I can't be drawn back. I have the trolls on block. I'm not responding to them. I don't read their posts. They probably assume I do, but given that they are so far up themselves, they wouldn't think anything else. 



#169
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
Can you explain why you hold that God is finite?
That occupied space, which has integrity, can only be finite.

...." the state of being whole and undivided. "...Google it ---the word whole inherent means finite----

...? What is the meaning of in coherent?
: logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : consistent. coherent style. a coherent argument. : having clarity or intelligibility : understandable. a coherent person ".. Google it

..' entire....intact.....essential.........complete......full.......https://www.powerthesaurus.org/integral/synonyms

..." Structural integrity refers to an asset's ability to withstand loads without deforming beyond safe levels or generating cracks that may compromise the asset's ability to continue to perform its functions in the future. "... Google it

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#158 again..2} we have no evidence of 1a above and we have no evidence of biologic life created from scratch,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#158 again...3}  our Spirit-2, occupied space physical reality --aka observed { quantised } time--- is what we can instrumentally detect,

....3b} Spirit-3 Gravity (  ) we do not quantize nor quantify ergo meta-physical --not to be confused wit Spirit-1 Meta-space mind/intellect/concept,

....3c} Spirit-4 Dark Energy )(  we do not quantize nor quantify, ergo meta-physical and not to be confused with Spirit-1 Meta-space mind/intellect/concept.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#170
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7

.
MISS TRADESECRET, 

YOUR EXCUSE #24 IN NOT RESPONDING TO MY GODLY INSPIRED POST #159 DIRECTED TO YOU:   "I haven't left and so I can't be drawn back. I have the trolls on block. I'm not responding to them. I don't read their posts. They probably assume I do, but given that they are so far up themselves, they wouldn't think anything else." 

Dear Miss Tradesecret, I have added your excuse #24 to your well renowned  EXCUSE LIST TO RUN AWAY from godly inspired posts to you because you can't answer them and remain intelligent t looking in the aftermath because of your bible ignorance and stupidity:


MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #1:  Her computer tells her that she should not open up webpage links that you provided showing her Bible ignorance, because it does not recognize them, LOL!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #2:  If you make a derogatory comment to her, is enough for her not to address your questions anymore, BUT, she makes these same remarks to other members, can we say HYPOCRITE, sure we can!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #3: She will call your posts to her as LIES, therefore there is no need for her to discuss your posts, yes, this is true!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #4:  She will tell you that your posts are “not worth it” to respond too, in once again showing her outright Bible ignorance to run away from them!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #5:  She will tell you that she doesn’t give a “toss” about your stupid ideas of a post you’ve directed to her, again, she runs away from them and hides!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #6:  When she opens a previous link that was directed to her, and after opening it and it showed her that she was wrong in her perceived biblical knowledge, she will tell you that she DID NOT open said post because she could care less in what you proposed!  

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE 7:  She will tell you that you don’t have enough “integrity” to take her time in debating you or answer your questions, therefore she can runaway from your post to her and hide.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #8: If she knows you will easily “own her Bible stupidity,” and allegedly you are using a fake personna, she will not debate you or answer your questions, other than to run away and HIDE from them! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #9: She will answer questions that she wants to answer, therefore not to questions that makes her the Bible fool! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #10: Now she has taken a pre-school girly excuse position to run away from biblical axioms that she cannot begin to discuss because of her Bible ignorance, by calling you a "duck," where you are “quack, quacking!” 

MISS TRADESECRETS EXCUSE #11: When she can't support her LYING opinions in disparaging you, she will digress to a pre-school level and use this excuse to run and hide!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #12: When she doesn’t understand a Biblical passage and you have to remind her of this fact, she will not address your posts anymore and hides from them.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #13: She will tell you that you don’t know how to engage her, because you select a quote, and quote it again because she ran away from it before many times.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #14: She will tell you that you do not engage her, when in FACT you have in making her the Bible fool that she is. Just another runaway tactic of hers.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #15: If you include a number of links where she addressed one of them, and you refuted her Bible stupidity on said link, she will still acuse you of not refuting it. Another runaway tactic of hers.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #16: She will LIE about your posts where you didn’t specifically “ask her a question,” where in fact, your post didn’t need to ask her a question and was self-eplanatory to respond anyway.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #17: She will accuse your posts as spam and nonsense because she could not address them because of her Bible stupidity.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #18:  She will accuse you of bringing forth “out of context” Bible passages, therefore she will run from them without trying to address them in why they are out of context!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #19:  When you easily put her in a corner because of her Bible stupidity, she will tell you that you don’t know how to "engage her properly,"  when you already did just before she ran away from your post! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #20:  When poor Miss Tradesecret is in a corner because of her Bible ignorance, where she can’t address your posts to her, she will use this lame excuse: “Blah blah blah.” 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #21:  When she knows that she can’t address your posts, she will just say “snap” to run away from them and hide.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #22:  When you have easily Bible Slapped her Silly®️ because of her Bible ignorance, she will erroniously give her opinion to you that she cannot back up. 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #23:  When you really put her in a corner that she can't get out of because of her Bible ineptness, she will say that you are an ignorant bum and she can't be bothered to converse with you!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #24: When her Bible stupidity can’t answer a post to her, she will block you and say that she didn’t read the post in question, but we all know, she did! 


.
#171
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7

.
Since MISS TRADESECRET has RAN AWAY again from godly discussion in my post #159 with yet ANOTHER excuse, essentially being her Bible stupidity and ignorance that gets in her way of Bible discussion, therefore is there any other pseudo-christian that would like to take her place in discussing that the creation of man and the universe by Jesus, as God, was approximately 6000 years ago as shown in the Bible?  Yes, we all know that this goes directly against Satanic Science that says man through EVILution came about approximately 300,000 years ago, which is BLASPHEME to the word of Jesus as God!

We can talk about dinosaurs too, where ungodly science says they existed approximately 245 million years ago, which contradicts Jesus' inspired words within the Bible where ALL LIVING ANIMALS were named by Adam at approximately 6000 years ago in the contradicting books of Genesis 1 and 2! Where these image links comes to mind, and if one agrees with them or not: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEINJ6L      https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEINJ6M    

Pseudo-christians, don't be a SCARDY CAT like Miss Tradesecret in having to run away from her faith all the time and still wanting to call herself a Christian, which she cannot be one if she sheepishly runs away from the JUDEO-Christian Bible,  okay?

. 




#172
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You really need to get help, and afterword, take your meds.
#173
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker


.
Sidewalker,

YOUR LAUGHABLE QUOTE THAT PROBABLY PERTAINS TO YOU: "You really need to get help, and afterword, take your meds."

And, this quote of yours above is coming from YOU that has absolutely no biography whatsoever as shown in this link: https://www.debateart.com/profiles/Sidewalker

Listen, I'll help you fill out a biography so that the membership can see what you are, your likes and dislikes, etc., that is, if you're not too embarrassed about your modus operandi in the first place, okay?  Don't be scared.

Let me know when you are ready to be an adult and have a proper biography here on this esteemed Religion Forum! You can t thank me later. 

.


Topic's author
#174
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ebuc
Can you explain why you hold that God is finite?
That occupied space, which has integrity, can only be finite. 

...." the state of being whole and undivided. "...Google it ---the word whole inherent means finite----

...? What is the meaning of in coherent?
: logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : consistent. coherent style. a coherent argument. : having clarity or intelligibility : understandable. a coherent person ".. Google it

..' entire....intact.....essential.........complete......full.......https://www.powerthesaurus.org/integral/synonyms

..." Structural integrity refers to an asset's ability to withstand loads without deforming beyond safe levels or generating cracks that may compromise the asset's ability to continue to perform its functions in the future. "... Google it
The God of the Bible doesn't occupy a space.  He is  Spirit. Spirit which is omnipresent. Everywhere, in every time, and out of everytime.  He is not a structural entity like us or any other object.  At least not in the way he is presented in the Scriptures. There are lots of images depicted in the bible, which are communications from God to humanity. Yet any picture of God, such as having hands, breathing out, sitting on thrones, etc, are all metaphors.  

I can't see anything that you have articulated which convinces me that God is finite. 
#175
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
The God of the Bible doesn't occupy a space.
#158 again..2} we have no evidence of 1a above and we have no evidence of biologic life created from scratch,
Only two primary kinds of space: 1} occupied space Unvierse/God and 2{ macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space aka true nothingness.

Please use logical common sense critical thinking if you want to have logical common sense critical thinking disscussion.

He is  Spirit. Spirit which is omnipresent. Everywhere, in every time, and out of everytime.
It is incorrect then to use the word "he".  Please use logical common sense critical thinking.
#158 again..2} we have no evidence of 1a above and we have no evidence of biologic life created from scratch,

 He is not a structural entity like us or any other object.  At least not in the way he is presented in the Scriptures. There are lots of images depicted in the bible, which are communications from God to humanity. Yet any picture of God, such as having hands, breathing out, sitting on thrones, etc, are all metaphors.

#158 again..2} we have no evidence of 1a above and we have no evidence of biologic life created from scratch,

Only evidence we have is of occupied space biologic creatures having "comunications ".   Truly non-occupied space does not communicated.

Please use logical common sense critical thinking if you want to have a disscussion.
 
I can't see anything that you have articulated which convinces me that God is finite.
I offer you only logical common sense critical thinking, and you off none of that.

It is obvious to me that you are ignorant of logical common sense critical thinking processes.and that you ego is also part of the problem for using logical common sense critical thinking. Sad :--(

I'm very clear on four primary kinds of spirit. You are not. Spirit-1, Meta-space ,mind/intellect/concept and ego { i }, complements Spirit-2, 3 and 4 as follows. Rather simple to grasp logical, common sense ciritical thinking with indirect evidence for spirit-3 and 4.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#158 again...3}  our Spirit-2, occupied space physical reality --aka observed { quantised } time--- is what we can instrumentally detect,

....3b} Spirit-3 Gravity (  ) we do not quantize nor quantify ergo meta-physical --not to be confused wit Spirit-1 Meta-space mind/intellect/concept,

....3c} Spirit-4 Dark Energy )(  we do not quantize nor quantify, ergo meta-physical and not to be confused with Spirit-1 Meta-space mind/intellect/concept.

#176
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7

.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, she is a hypocrite, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”


YOUR BIBLE QUOTE OF STUPIDITY FOR THE DAY IN POST #174 FOR OTHERS TO READ: "The God of the Bible doesn't occupy a space.  He is  Spirit. Spirit which is omnipresent ..... He is not a structural entity like us or any other object ...... Yet any picture of God, such as having hands, breathing out, sitting on thrones, etc, are all metaphors."  

Miss Tradesecret, as it is shown ad infinitum, your outright Bible ignorance and stupidity is always without bounds! This is simply the case once again with your quote shown above because of the following passage where Jesus as God being with Moses has a physical human form:

GOD SAID TO MOSES: "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.” (Exodus 21:23)


Sorry, but in the godly passage above, God does have a "hand" that you say He didn't, and since God passed by in a human form from His backside, he therefore has an ASS as well!   Remember Bible fool, you seem to forget that we were created in the likeness of God, therefore God had a penis, hands, feet, and such,. and obviously looked like we do today: “Then God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us.” (Genesis 1:26)

Furthermore, your ignorance is shown AGAIN in not understanding that Jesus is God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore while upon earth, He was not a spirit, but had hands and feet in human form!  He alone makes your quoted statement above imbecilic to say the least, and at your embarrassing expense once again in front of the membership! LOL!


It gives me shivers up and down my spine in seeing how Bible ignorant and stupid you truly are, ewwwwwwwwwww!


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "MISS TRADESECRET" THAT WANTS TO BE TOTALLY BIBLE STUPID LIKE SHE IS, WILL BE ... ?
.
#177
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
@Tradesecret.

Tradesecret wrote:  "The God of the Bible doesn't occupy a space.  He is  Spirit. Spirit which is omnipresent ..... He is not a structural entity like us or any other object ...... Yet any picture of God, such as having hands, breathing out, sitting on thrones, etc, are all metaphors."  
😂
So Jacob Wrestled with god only metaphorically and won metaphorically? Genesis 32:22-32
Then we have God meeting Moses and Arron at the tent of meetings.
Then we have  Moses bringing the people out of the camp to meet God. etc etc etc etc



And you are ignoring the fact that "god"  is Jesus if Christians are to be believed. How many people met with Jesus in his life time, starting with Mary?

 Those poor students of yours, they will never pass anything, will they Reverend?

#178
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

.
Stephen,

Seriously, how can the feebleminded Miss Tradesecret remain upon this very prestigious Religion Forum as she makes a total halfwitted fool of herself relative to her Bible ignorance and stupidity?!   Like you alluded to, if Miss Tradesecret is this Bible dumbfounded in this Religion Forum, can you imagine in how Bible stupid she is with her congregation of followers that she preaches to, where it is a godly crime to do so as the passages below so state::

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1)

"Having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people." (2 Timothy 3:5)

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)

.
#179
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7

.
MISS TRADESECRET had too embarrassingly RUN AWAY from discussing the biblical axion that man and the universe is approximately 6000 years old, whereas Satanic Science says man is approximately 300, 000 years old, the dinosaurs are 245 million years old, and the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old that blatantly contradict Jesus' words within the Bible!

No takers of the pseudo-christian faction within this forum to discuss the biblical axiom shown above? Are all of you pseudo-christians as SCARED as Miss Tradesecret was regarding the topic at hand, where she still remains in hiding?

Jesus and I will still be waiting for a pseudo-christian to make an appearance to help defend the Bible's proposition as shown above!

Thank you.

.
#180
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
Hi Poly,
Poly is gone, she got banned for disrespecting trolls, the mods don't allow that.

and Sidewalker

I haven't left and so I can't be drawn back. I have the trolls on block. I'm not responding to them. I don't read their posts. They probably assume I do, but given that they are so far up themselves, they wouldn't think anything else. 
You don't need to read thier posts, BroD and Stephen only do all those posts for each other anyway, for them it's foreplay.