How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[Dontaskme]

What I see is that earth is alive and living. For this living organism to evolve/change like ALL living things do, then the earth has to change in shape and form. Part of this changing in shape and form is done by rocks being melted, exploding out from towards the center through volcanoes, cooling down, hardening, shifting and grinding through earthquakes, and decaying, with air, wind, and water. Rocks are always changing in shape and for, and thus are always evolving. Just like EVERY other physical thing in the Universe. I see life with-in ALL things. If you do not see rocks as life, then so be it. But just because you observe, see and understand some thing does not make it absolutely true, right, and correct.

Ken, since all of life is interconnected ..I don't think there can be such a thing as non-living material. So I am agreeing with you there. And not agreeing with the doc's idea below.

thedoc wrote:
The Earth in total is a living thing that is made up of living and non-living material. Rock is a non-living material.

Doc, how can you claim a rock to be a non-living material?

Look at it this way..the earth is a giant lump of rock, but in comparison to the entire cosmos the earth can be said to be a speck of dust.

Now, assuming the earth was here long before any human being showed up..that indicates that human beings have come out of this great big lump of non-living material we call earth.

So according to your view doc, living material has originated from non-living material....so thanks doc, that makes perfect sense doesn't it according to your belief?...well it don't make sense to me.

Life is either in a latent dormant state or it's animate..but that doesn't mean the inanimate is lifeless, because there is only life... it's all the same one living organism.

Take your hair or finger nails for example, they feel no pain, but doesn't mean they are non-living material.

.

[ken]

You are right in that if you want to know more about a subject then you should read up on it. But sometimes what you read is not true
or not accurate and if you start believing what you read is true and accurate when it is not then confusion is caused and can set in. And
when beliefs are in place and being held but the full and big picture has not yet been clearly seen then distorted views are formed. Then
confirmation bias can take place and this mixed with confusion disputes are inevitable

All that is true but if you do not read up on a subject then you will know nothing about it at all
So once again I suggest you do this if you want to learn more about this or indeed anything else

That is a great suggestion. Yet if I suggested to you that you should become far more honest, open up fully, and truly seek and want to change your wrong behaviors, for the better, and read what I write, ask Me continual clarifying and challenging questions, until what I want to reveal to you is fully understood, do you then take My suggestion?

By the way I am not really sure if you understood Me or not when I have said I am not really interested in that subject. But I am far more interested in showing HOW the two perceived incompatible theories are actually compatible and combined with ALL other theories, which then can be-come One Unified Theory of Everything. This is ALL very easy and simple to do. Getting human beings interested in what I suggested above is the only hard part.

[surreptitious57]

saying something similar to Experiments have shown this to happen is NOT actually providing evidence

Experiments conducted with the rigour of the scientific method eventually provide reliable evidence

They might do if and only if that reliable evidence is actually provided and shown. Otherwise I am not going to
accept some thing because it is said in a book. I do not accept things on these circumstances for three reasons

The people doing the scientific method can have biases

The premises on which the scientific method began might be inaccurate or wrong or false or incomplete
or incorrect and /or just be. Besides that the whole starting point might just be wrong in the first place

What is said and /or written in a book can get so misinterpreted from its original that was once meant could
be so far from what is being conveyed now. You just need to look at the bible for reliable evidence of this

All functioning human beings have biases

There is no flaw in the scientific method only in the scientists using it because they are functioning human beings

The Bible is not a scientific book and we are discussing science here not religion so that example is an invalid one

[ken]

A theory defined scientifically or in another way is not that much different really. But then again Every thing is relative to the observer. I just find it amusing now that you say that some theories are incomplete and inaccurate but now are trying to say that in science nothing is above a theory

The scientific definition of theory is completely different to the lay definition. And nothing in science is above a theory

I might suggest that what is known to be true might be above a theory in science, but I will not because you do not appear to be open to any thing other than what you believe is already true.

even if some like General Relativity are incomplete or inaccurate. Gravity is still a theory even though it has been replaced by General Relativity.

Again, gravity is NOT a theory. Gravity IS gravity, which both are just labels given by human beings to some particular thing. There might be a theory of gravity, but gravity is NOT a theory.

And so General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will still be theories after they have been replaced by Quantum Gravity at some point in time for it is how science works

Are you absolutely sure that the theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics WILL be replaced by the theory of quantum gravity?

[surreptitious57]

You are right in that if you want to know more about a subject then you should read up on it. But sometimes what you read is not true
or not accurate and if you start believing what you read is true and accurate when it is not then confusion is caused and can set in. And
when beliefs are in place and being held but the full and big picture has not yet been clearly seen then distorted views are formed. Then
confirmation bias can take place and this mixed with confusion disputes are inevitable

All that is true but if you do not read up on a subject then you will know nothing about it at all
So once again I suggest you do this if you want to learn more about this or indeed anything else

That is a great suggestion. Yet if I suggested to you that you should become far more honest and open up fully and truly seek and want to change your wrong behaviours for the better and read what I write ask Me continual clarifying and challenging questions until what I want to reveal to you is fully understood do you then take My suggestion

Progress for me is always ongoing and so there is no point at which it stops
Since the journey is as important as the destination if not actually more so

[ken]

Usually just the bare minimum is really all that is needed to understand any thing meaningful fully

This is definitely not true in relation to certain subjects such as quantum mechanics that we are discussing here

Of course it is not true in relation to physical subjects such as quantum mechanics. There is nothing really meaningful to find, discover, see, and understand in physical things at all. Other than the plainly obvious fact that ALL physical things change. Every physical thing is created AND evolves. The truly meaningful thing to understand with physical things is that they always change. And,
If they always change, then
There was no end and is no beginning.
Therefore, the Universe is infinite.

Besides that fact. 'Meaningful' in the context of how I was using it is usually in relation to the some times perceived non-physical things.

But I do not think that it is true anyway and so can you give the most obvious example where you think it is true

To understand the truly meaningful things in Life like;
Why are we here?
What is our purpose for being here?
What is the meaning of Life, and life?
Et cetera.
Et cetera.
Only the bare minimum of understanding is really all that is needed. For example a new born human being KNOWS and understands more about what is truly needed in order to live and remain alive, and they show and teach this all the time and far more than any adult can show and provide real knowledge about this. And, those new borns are perceived by some as being not very knowledgeable nor understanding beings at all.

To understand the truly meaningful things like above, one needs to discover who/what 'I' am and who/what 'you', et cetera first.

[surreptitious57]

I noticed that you did not provide what the actual thing was that was supposedly in two places at the one time where this was meant to have
taken place nor when did this supposedly happen nor has any else been provided on any of the other clarifying questions similar to this one

An object being in two places at the same time is a feature of quantum mechanics as per the famous double slit experiment with electrons
This is now the third time you have inquired about your clarifying questions to me with regard to why they are not always answered so can
you stop mentioning it. I have already given you a satisfactory answer which you accepted entirely and so please do not mention this again

[surreptitious57]

To understand the truly meaningful things in Life like

What is the meaning of Life and life

What is the difference between these

[Dontaskme]

Is there going to be human extinction? Do you KNOW this for sure?

Yes I do because of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and the Sun going red giant in five billion years
So even if a suitable exo planet is discovered before then the Second Law will still guarantee extinction

Just how big do you think the Universe is?

You do not think that a suitable "exo planet" could be found beyond this solar system within the next five billion years?

Have you ever thought about what human beings have actually created, done, and achieved just in the last 200 years let alone what they could create, do, and achieve in the next five billion or so years?

Another thing to consider is why would evolution or natural selection or what ever is responsible for life..why would it go through all that effort to make a self-aware being that is capable of co-creation in addition to what has already created this self-aware being....to then just have that species go extinct?..seems like a stupid plan to me. And what would be the point in living if it's all going to go extinct anyway? Doesn't sound like the workings of an intelligent rational conscientious living mind...does it?

.

Also, It is not unreasonable to imagine that the seed that composes the human being here on planet earth can also be possibly scattered across the whole entire cosmos. If it's here, then why not everywhere?

.

[Dontaskme]

To understand the truly meaningful things like above, one needs to discover who/what 'I' am and who/what 'you', et cetera first.

Yes, but the trouble with the conditioned human mind is as soon as you posit the question who/what 'I' am to them.. they go all silent knowing full well they have no idea of the answer except what their up-bringers and society has imposed upon them which they then believe to be the only truth.

they take on either dead or other living peoples ideas, without ever thinking to think things through for them self. Only the rare few ever break free from this false imposed prison that is the identified ego self.

.

[ken]

Gravity is a theory
Evolution is a theory
Special Relativity is a theory
Electromagnetism is a theory
General Relativity is a theory
Quantum Mechanics is a theory

They are more than just speculations

Would

A theory of gravity is a theory
A theory of evolution is a theory
A theory of special relativity is a theory
A theory of electromagnetism is a theory
A theory of general relativity is a theory
A theory of quantum mechanics is a theory

be more correct it would be more correct but they are all tautological so trivially true

Was it, or was it not, you that implied that it was better to write as precisely or concisely as possible?

If I can write and show some thing more correctly than was previously written and shown, then I like to do so. Just like I like to do with "theories" I like to show what is more correct than what is just accepted as being correct.

The label / name gravity is given to what is generally known as gravity. Gravity itself is not a theory
The label / name evolution is given to what is generally known as evolution. Evolution itself is not a theory
The label / name special relativity is given to what is generally known as special relativity. Special relativity itself is not a theory
The label / name electromagnetism is given to what is generally known as electromagnetism. Electromagnetism itself is not a theory
The label / name general relativity is given to what is generally known as general relativity. General relativity itself is not a theory
The label / name quantum mechanics is given to what is generally known as quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics itself is not a theory

One should always avoid confusing the map with the territory for they are not the same

I am not sure what you are implying here, so what are you trying to say here exactly?

[ken]

The human brain is a physical organ which means that there is a limitation to how much knowledge it can acquire
It does not have infinite capability so therefore cannot know or imagine everything that can be known or imagined

Again self centeredness shines through and thinks this is about itself that is one brain only. Human brains really
need to go back to the start and begin looking from where they once looked from that is a completely open perspective

Human knowledge and imagination IS about the knowledge and imagination from ALL human beings not just one of them. Human beings may
live forever more so there may in fact be no things beyond human knowledge and imagination. If this does happen then ALL things can be known

I did not mention that this is about myself or my brain only and nor was I thinking it either so you are completely wrong there

I did NOT say it was about 'you' or "'your' brain" (although there is no such thing as 'your' brain). I was just expressing what the brain was doing. I was NOT say 'you' were doing any thing. You wrote, "The human brain ...", which means one brain. What you wrote came from one brain, from within one head, recognized here as surreptituous57. That brain was looking at what I have been saying very subjectively, and only from it's own gathered and stored knowledge, which is what each human brain is prone to do. Thus the reason why I say look at things from the Mind, and then use the brain, instead of looking from and using the brain only.

Also, what that brain is actually thinking 'you' can not keep up with it. In end truth 'you' do NOT think also. But 'you' coming to understanding this fully is a long way from here.

And can you explain how biological entropy and the heat death of the universe would allow human beings to live forever more

Again, are you absolutely sure that biological entropy and the heat death of the Universe will happen the way you see it happening?

The heat death of the universe has very little bearing on the Universe, It's Self. If I recall correctly it was you who wrote there is a difference between a universe and the Universe.

What is biological entropy got to do with any thing that is always evolving?

By the way, have you ever noticed what you write never really has much to do with clarifying what I actually mean? Although you might ask clarifying questions like above, you are writing from a very narrow, even closed, view of what is believed to be true. You are not really asking for clarity from the perspective of it could be possible.

[surreptitious57]

why would evolution or natural selection or what ever is responsible for life ... why would it go through all that effort to make
a self aware being that is capable of co creation in addition to what has already created this self aware being ... to just then have
that species go extinct ... seems like a stupid plan to me. And what would be the point in living if its all going to go extinct anyway

Questions pertaining to meaning or purpose beyond the physical do not apply to evolution because that is a purely physical phenomenon as is
entropy. Whether human beings accept or understand this is entirely irrelevant to the processes themselves. But energy cannot be destroyed
only transferred so in that sense one does not truly die. I am not saying this because I believe in woo [ I do not ] but simply because it is true
Like in scientifically true. And only so. For were it only true [ that is subjectively true ] from a woo perspective I would not be saying it at all

[ken]

You do not think that a suitable exo planet could be found beyond this solar system within the next five billion years

I have absolutely no idea and so I am not ruling out the possibility of one being discovered as it is entirely possible

That is great that you are now openly admitting this, as how you wrote before just showed and proved how closed you actually were. How you wrote before showed no sign that you are open to any idea that other things are actually possible to what you already believed was true.

I wrote: "Is there going to be human extinction? Do you KNOW this for sure?"

And, you wrote: "Yes I do because of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and the Sun going red giant in five billion years
So even if a suitable exo planet is discovered before then the Second Law will still guarantee extinction"

You even tried to provide what you believed was evidence to support what you already believed was true.

If, before the sun goes red giant, if it ever does, human beings find another suitable planet to live on outside of this solar system, then they may have another million, billion, or trillion years to find other suitable planets. Again, this is all dependent upon human beings not actually wiping themselves out, through pollution and/or warring, beforehand.

[surreptitious57]

The label / name gravity is given to what is generally known as gravity. Gravity itself is not a theory
The label / name evolution is given to what is generally known as evolution. Evolution itself is not a theory
The label / name special relativity is given to what is generally known as special relativity. Special relativity itself is not a theory
The label / name electromagnetism is given to what is generally known as electromagnetism. Electromagnetism itself is not a theory
The label / name general relativity is given to what is generally known as general relativity. General relativity itself is not a theory
The label / name quantum mechanics is given to what is generally known as quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics itself is not a theory

One should always avoid confusing the map with the territory for they are not the same

I am not sure what you are implying here so what are you trying to say here exactly

I am not implying anything at all but I am most definitely saying that I agree with you