Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing.
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 16 of 47 (720660)
02-26-2014 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by NoNukes
02-25-2014 10:53 PM


Re: translation problems?
NoNukes writes:
How about a bone for the rest of us to gnaw on?
the text says, "you were shown (it) to know, for yahweh he is the god, there is none other besides him." or something to that that extent.
the issue is that eliyahu has latched onto the word ain here (bolded above) because you can use it mean "nothingness". i was arguing that this is inappropriate based on its grammatical context, notably that there are words that follow it. it's in construct (a grammatical pair) with the next word, owd, so it should read as a whole phrase, "none-other" or "no-other", and "no-thing".

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2014 10:53 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Eliyahu, posted 02-26-2014 7:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(2)
Message 17 of 47 (720662)
02-26-2014 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
02-25-2014 11:09 PM


Re: translation problems? No. That's not the problem.
Coyote writes:
This should be in a forum devoted to literary criticism.
i agree.
But at least Hamlet was better written and more interesting.
i disagree. and i like hamlet. it just doesn't have the cultural impact the bible does. and you have to remember that you're reading the biblical texts through several layers of filters: an editor's filter, a redactor's filter, a canonization filter, a translation filter, and a filter bades on cultural conceptions and bias. if you can cut through all of that, some of the source material truly interesting, and exceptionally well written.
for instance, the poetic aspects tend not to come across in translation. repetition of words and concepts seems redundant, bad writing english. in hebrew, the repetition is more like rhyming, and authors will frequently choose different words that sound alike. some texts, like J, are exceptionally witty and full of wordplay that shakespeare would have surely appreciated.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
Edited by arachnophilia, : grammars

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 02-25-2014 11:09 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2259 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 18 of 47 (720664)
02-26-2014 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
02-25-2014 8:59 AM


Re: Judaism and Critical Thinking
now see that you are of the Jewish faith. Can I ask you within your faith are you conservative(Orthodox) or are you Reformed or are you Reconstructionist? Or....have you placed yourself in a category yet?
Bs'd
I believe orthodox Judaism is the only real form of Judaism.
So I live in an ultra-orhodox community in the hills of Judea, in what some call the west-bank.
I don't think that we here are that ultra, simply serious orthodox, but it just doesn't get more orthodox then us here.
It does get more exotic, with fur hats, long side curls, colorfull coats, but not more strict in observance of the law.


"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, Cambridge professor department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 02-25-2014 8:59 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 02-26-2014 11:14 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2259 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 19 of 47 (720672)
02-26-2014 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stile
02-25-2014 10:09 AM


Re: Solid Walls
Bs'd
To them I say: There is NOTHING except for God.
Repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words.
Bs'd
Says who?
And what about the whole physical world? The real solid tangible material world?
Well, that's just an illusion.
Yes, very much so. How does this point to God?
Glad you agree. That saves a lot of time.
And I don't say that points to God, what I point out is that that makes the Biblical text which says that there is nothing except for God possible.
There are other things that point to God, like for instance the anthropic principle.
In one shot we are rid of 99.9999999999999% of the material world.
However, we are still stuck with the remaining 0.0000000000001%.
True (...enough, anyway).
But, again, how does this point to God?
Even you just said (twice, even... sometimes with CAPTIALS) that there is nothing except for God.
But now you're saying the world is mostly nothing... and not showing any God. You're arguing against yourself.
So, what is it? Is there mostly nothing in this universe, or is there mostly God? What you've said here, is that there's mostly nothing.
The point I'm making is not that there is mostly nothing, the point is that there is nothing at all. And not just "mostly".
But, apart from your own confusion... all this means is that our original concept of the physical world was incorrect.
It sure was.
Things are not solid, they simply feel solid because of the fields they produce... not because they are continuous.
And they only feel solid when they are observed, or the potential for (later) observation is there.
When not observed, the particles turn into waves, and the matter is gone.
But just because fields exist doesn't mean God exists. It means fields exist.
How does any of this point to God?
Like I said, it doesn't. I just point out that what is only recently, say almost a hundred years ago, discovered by science, is written in the Bible 3300 years ago.
You have a false dichotomy here.
I agree that the world is not physical in the sense that objects are solid, impermeable matter.
But that knowledge doesn't create a mental entity in any way.
It creates a way that physical objects exist to us such that they feel solid even though they are not. This is explained by all the interacting fields (gravity, electric, energy...).
The point is that even the illusion of solidity disappears when the object is not observed, because then it turns into waves,
A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind.
That's not what decoherence is.
Decoherence is this: the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary
All that means is, basically: "when things get big enough that we no longer require the specific equations of quantum mechanics to describe the physical motions... the equations of Newtonian mechanics work just fine."
Or, again: "when things are large enough that they act in the way we're used to experience things acting in our everyday lives."
The term has nothing to do with the human mind. I promise. Someone's trying to make a fool of you, and you're letting them.
So you say. But the difference between you and prof Richard Conn Henry is that I know of him that he is a professor of physics at a respected university, and you are some anonymous nobody whom I don't know at all, so I'm sure you will understand that I value the words of prof Henry much higher than anything you say.
As soon as you are a professor in physics teaching at a respectable university, and you get these words published in a high grade peer reviewed scientific journal, like Science or Nature, then I'll put your words on the same level as those of prof Henry, published in Nature.
The strange part is that these facts are known for almost a hundred years, and almost nobody knows about it.
I know about it.
So do I. But 99.99% of the people do not.
Compare it to the more than 100 year hoax that evolutionists pulled on the public, saying that the fossil record supported evolution. Every paleontologist knew it wasn't true.
Some laymen that delved into the subject also knew it. But 99.99% of the people did not know it.
Even now, almost half a century after punctuated equilibrium, people think you're crazy when you tell them and prove them that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance and stasis.
Even so with the fact that the universe doesn't exist. Just drop the term and people think you're crazy.
Yes, physicists know, but they are the only ones. And they keep it to themselves. As professor Henry says here in the comments: Science is a method, not a position: The Mental Universe
But the truly remarkable thing is that the view of QM that I express is NOT "non-mainstream." It is totally non-controversial.
What IS controversial, is talking about it. (It has been accurately called physics' skeleton in the closet).
So every scientist knows it, but you are not supposed to talk about it. It is called physics skeleton in the closet.
It's taught rather normally in university physics courses. Maybe electricity and magnetism courses? Maybe quantum mechanics courses... I can't remember. It's not a secret, though.
So the mental universe is a fact, a non-controversial generally accepted fact.
No, I don't think you understand.
Quantum mechanics are a fact, yes. But jumping to a "mental universe" just because things are not solid as you previously thought... with no other reason to use the term "mental" in any way... with no evidence to suggest any sort of consciousness within the universe apart from known humans and animals... that's silly. And that's what's "not talked about."
According to you, the concept of the mental universe is silly.
According to prof Henry, and also according to the scientists who peer reviewed the article, it is not silly, otherwise the article would never have been published in Nature.
And like I explained before, I value the opinion of prof Henry much higher then yours.
But it's not laughed away because it's not desired.
It's ridiculed because there's no evidence pointing towards that conclusion in any way.
Find some evidence, and people will listen. Just like they listened to Galileo... because he showed them the evidence.
Please be advised that nevertheless it is not a good idea to start banging your head against the wall, thinking: "That wall doesn't exist anyway", because we are subjected to the laws that God has set for our matrix, and head-against-the-wall-banging will result in a nasty headache.
Again, no.
The wall doesn't feel solid because of God.
The wall feels solid because of the fields it creates as described by quantum mechanics.
We have a wall that feels solid.
No God is necessary.
We used to think the wall felt solid because of solid physics.
The wall still feels solid.
No God is necessary.
We now think the wall feels solid because of the interactions of the fields created by all the components of matter as described by quantum physics.
The wall still feels solid.
No God is necessary.
The wall only feels solid when observed.
When not observed, the particles of the wall will turn into waves, and the wall will be gone.
That's what's happening.


"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, Cambridge professor department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-25-2014 10:09 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2014 10:00 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 27 by Stile, posted 02-26-2014 3:40 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 35 by Son Goku, posted 02-27-2014 7:03 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2259 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 20 of 47 (720674)
02-26-2014 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by arachnophilia
02-26-2014 12:43 AM


Re: translation problems?
the issue is that eliyahu has latched onto the word ain here (bolded above) because you can use it mean "nothingness". i was arguing that this is inappropriate based on its grammatical context, notably that there are words that follow it. it's in construct (a grammatical pair) with the next word, owd, so it should read as a whole phrase, "none-other" or "no-other", and "no-thing".
Bs'd
Here is the text: אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת, כִּי יְ-ה-וָ-ה הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים: אֵין עוֹד, מִלְּבַדּוֹ.
And "eyn od" means "nothing more", what would be together with the "melewado", meaning "besides him" in decent English: Nothing else besides Him
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.


"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, Cambridge professor department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 02-26-2014 12:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 02-26-2014 11:11 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 47 (720679)
02-26-2014 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Eliyahu
02-26-2014 7:22 AM


Re: Solid Walls
The wall only feels solid when observed.
When not observed, the particles of the wall will turn into waves, and the wall will be gone.
That's what's happening.
But that's not what's happening. We know this because if we leave a wall unobserved for an extended period of time, the wall paper will still fall off of it. That's because it is still sitting there existing even when we are not observing it.
Just like a table that is unobserved will sit there and gather dust. That couldn't happen if it stopped existing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Eliyahu, posted 02-26-2014 7:22 AM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by vimesey, posted 02-26-2014 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 22 of 47 (720680)
02-26-2014 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2014 10:00 AM


Re: Solid Walls
You don't even need to wait around for dust to settle, I guess.
Stand so that you can only see half the table through the door. If the other half doesn't go, the half you can't see won't fall over.
(And just to avoid arguments that the whole table is in some fashion one whole, coherent object, we can prop a plank of wood that we can see, on a chair we can't see - does the plank fall down when the unseen chair goes ?)
Alternatively, we could explain that the double slit experiment has nothing to do with observation by the human eye - we can arrange it so that light behaves as a wave and then a particle and then a wave again, regardless of whether the human eye observes it.
Isn't the mistake he's making, trying to extrapolate quantum behaviour into the day to day, classical, macro world ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2014 10:00 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2014 10:30 AM vimesey has not replied
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 02-26-2014 3:26 PM vimesey has not replied
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 02-26-2014 8:28 PM vimesey has not replied
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2014 8:37 AM vimesey has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 47 (720682)
02-26-2014 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by vimesey
02-26-2014 10:22 AM


Re: Solid Walls
Isn't the mistake he's making, trying to extrapolate quantum behaviour into the day to day, classical, macro world ?
That's exactly the mistake he is making. That physicist he quoted has woo'd him.
Its obvious that he starts with his faith and then goes and looks for sciencey sounding stuff that he can use to prop up his faith. It's sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by vimesey, posted 02-26-2014 10:22 AM vimesey has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 47 (720683)
02-26-2014 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Eliyahu
02-26-2014 7:38 AM


Re: translation problems?
Eliyahu writes:
And "eyn od" means "nothing more", what would be together with the "melewado", meaning "besides him" in decent English: Nothing else besides Him
right, except that it's not saying אין מלבד יהוה אלהים "there is nothing besides yahweh god", it says, יהוה הוא האלהים "yahweh, he is the the god" with אין עוד clearly referring back to האלהים. that is, "yahweh is god; there are no other gods".
in fact, you could probably even quibble about the meaning of מלבדו in the social and historical context: are there other gods, but none are "beside" yahweh in rank? are there other gods, but none should be "beside" yahweh in the eyes of israel? or does the text mean that there is only one god?
because when you skip ahead a bit and look at the septuagint (because the masoretic makes no sense for this verse) of deuteronomy 32:8-9, it says,
quote:
ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Αδαμ ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ. καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ Ιακωβ σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ
and that seems to imply that κυρίου ("the lord" or יהוה) is only one of the sons of the most high god (עליון), and that israel/jacob was his division.
so i might argue that the author of detueronomy didn't even think that yahweh was the only god.
Edited by arachnophilia, : no smileys dammit

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Eliyahu, posted 02-26-2014 7:38 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 25 of 47 (720684)
02-26-2014 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Eliyahu
02-26-2014 1:35 AM


Re: Judaism and Critical Thinking
Eliyahu writes:
It does get more exotic, with fur hats, long side curls, colorfull coats, but not more strict in observance of the law.
That's an important distinction. We see a lot of Christians around here who wear their religion like a costume instead of actually living it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Eliyahu, posted 02-26-2014 1:35 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 26 of 47 (720695)
02-26-2014 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by vimesey
02-26-2014 10:22 AM


Re: Solid Walls
vimesey writes:
Isn't the mistake he's making, trying to extrapolate quantum behaviour into the day to day, classical, macro world ?
He's making too many mistakes to count
Here's two of the major ones:
  1. He's correct about "observations" being required for decoherence.
    But he doesn't understand that "observation" here is a very specific term. It's the scientific meaning of the term under the context of quantum mechanics.
    He thinks that "observation" means people looking at it or perceiving it in some manner.
    The "observation" here actually means something more along the lines of "interacting with any other particles."
    That is... the wall doesn't stay up because humans observe it.
    But... the wall stays up because the wall observes itself.
    You can think of it as the examples you guys have already provided... the wall exists when you lean on it... when you lean a chair against it... or if a piece of paper blows up against it without any human interaction at all.
    The wall actually "observes itself" because it has so many "wall-particles" interacting with each other that it's in "constant interaction" and therefore... the wave-function (for the entire wall itself) has no chance to ever collapse into nothingness.
    If there were just a few particles... it doesn't take much for their (much smaller) wave-function to collapse into nothingness... so it happens much more often.
    But if you "observe" those few particles (eg -> hit them with photons so you can "see" them...) then you're adding particles... when you add particles, you add interactions... when you add interactions... you prevent the wave-function from collapsing.
    I'm not a quantum physicist by any means. So I probably have some of the terms or processes incorrect. But that's the basic gist of it, anyway.
  2. He's wrong about "a mental universe" meaning consciousness is required in any way.
    The term "mental universe" is not used to mean something like "the world only exists because you're thinking about it!!!"
    It's more used to describe the fact that our mind's idea is a construction of what we think the universe is like.
    An example will show this better (hopefully..):
    You see a pen.
    You may think there's an actual thing there that really looks like a pen. (The "real" universe).
    But... there's not. (Or, at least, we don't know that there is..)
    When you see the pen, it's not direct in anyway.
    Photons reflect off of whatever-the-pen-actually-is.
    Those photons enter your eye.
    Your eye captures those photons in a certain way.
    Your brain interprets those "certain ways" into an image in your head.
    This is the "mental universe."
    You don't actually see whatever-the-pen-actually-is.
    What you actually see is your-brain's-interpretation-of-photons-entering-your-eye-that-reflected-off-whatever-the-pen-actually-is.
    So... it's quite possible that "whatever-the-pen-actually-is" is not very pen-like at all. But, because of all the photons flying around and brain interpretations and such... we "see" the pen the way we see it, all the time.
    Quantum mechanics has allowed us to know that "whatever-the-pen-actually-is" is quite different from what we actually see and feel.
    We see and feel a solid object.
    But the "whatever-the-pen-actually-is" is not solid at all. It's (as Eliyahu said) 0.000000001% solid... mostly empty space. The particles that actually do make up whatever-the-pen-actually-is interact with each other and create fields as described by quantum mechanics. These fields reflect the photons that get interpreted by our brains. Those fields also prevent the fields-of-our-own-hands from passing through each other... thus giving us the sensation of a solid pen.
Therefore... "the pen we see in our brains" is "the mental universe" (because that really only exists in our mind's interpretation of reality).
And "whatever-the-pen-actually-is" is the real universe... mostly nothing physical... but lots of "fields." Calling reality "mostly nothing" when it's really only "mostly nothing physical" is another mistake.
Reality is not "mostly nothing."
Reality is "mostly nothing physical."
Reality is "mostly fields resulting from the interactions of whatever particles actually exist."
And, again, all it takes is a small correction to the definition of "physical" from "actual, real, solid objects" to "what we perceive as solid objects from the actual, real fields." And you can use the world "physical" just as you always did before.
That's why the wall is still solid.
The wall is whatever-the-wall-is... that doesn't change just because our-understanding-of-whatever-the-wall-is has changed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by vimesey, posted 02-26-2014 10:22 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 27 of 47 (720697)
02-26-2014 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Eliyahu
02-26-2014 7:22 AM


Captial punishment
Eliyahu writes:
To them I say: There is NOTHING except for God.
Stile writes:
Repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words.
Says who?
Says me.
And, unfortunately, if you can't figure this one out... there's really no point in trying to discuss anything with you at all.
I will try with an example:
You say: All ducks can fly!
I say: No, a duck with broken wings cannot fly.
You say: ALL ducks can fly!
...but, as I said, repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words.
Once you're able to grasp this idea, you'll see how important it is to support the things you say instead of simply repeating yourself in another font.
Let me know what you think and I'll see if you're ready to play with the big boys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Eliyahu, posted 02-26-2014 7:22 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 28 of 47 (720710)
02-26-2014 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by vimesey
02-26-2014 10:22 AM


Re: Solid Walls
Isn't the mistake he's making, trying to extrapolate quantum behaviour into the day to day, classical, macro world ?
Perhaps.
The point of the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment is that quantum physics has real world implications and not that those implications are simply a scaled up version of microscopic behavior. Cats are not just big electrons or photons with hair on them and electrons don't purr when they are petted.
I think Eliyahu's mistake is more egregious. He finds his misreading of physics to his liking because it can be forced with a large hammer to sound like something he can misread from the Bible.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by vimesey, posted 02-26-2014 10:22 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2259 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 29 of 47 (720713)
02-27-2014 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
02-25-2014 3:28 AM


I would promote this, but I don't exist.
Bs'd
Well, we have to modify that statement a bit.
You think, therefore you are. What doesn't exist is your physical body, the comp you typed these words on, and the rest of that what we call "the material world".
Only your soul exists, or, in the words of unbelievers, only you conciousness.
.
.
.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter"
Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)
.
.
.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.


"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 02-25-2014 3:28 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-27-2014 10:10 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2259 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 30 of 47 (720714)
02-27-2014 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stile
02-25-2014 10:57 AM


Re: Solid Walls
So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that God does not exist.
Bs'd
I'm very interested in the proof that God does not exist. Can you ive me some of that lots and lots of evidence?
Preferebly the most strong and compelling you have available.
Thanks in advance.


"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 02-25-2014 10:57 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 02-27-2014 12:28 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024