This thread is for proof that God exists (page 13)

cofty

Once again - eh?

Sorry to spoil it for you Ruby but there are no real people inside your TV.

Ruby456

lol and you want me to accept this - that there is text in genes?

The text is arranged in long molecules of DNA called chromosomes. Each letter of code in a chromosome is joined to its compliment - A to T and C to G - and the whole string is arranged in the iconic double-helix shape discovered by Watson and Crick in 1953

cofty

I don't care what you accept Ruby.

Reality does not require your approval.

Ruby456

cofty9 minutes ago
I don't care what you accept Ruby.
Reality does not require your approval.

if that is the case don't question me about how I use language particularly if you are using it metaphorically so much in your own posts - in reality there is no text in genes and it is very misleading to say so particularly nowadays - indeed you are shaping reality instead of saying what reality is when you claim that there is text in genes

Ruby456

for me there is difference between saying what reality is and saying things that shape reality for people and it is important to be alert to this when we make claims on behalf of science

slimboyfat

Ruby give him a break he probably really does think there is text in DNA. Science is pure reality-speak after all, everything else is inferior, non-reality based gibberish.

Ruby456

true

I've always wanted to work with cofty rather than against him as I also love science.

and it is okay with me that he wants to share his particular reality but why does he need to demean people? after all the people who come here have been bullied so much by means of text-based authority

slimboyfat

I know what you mean Ruby. "Essentially" I think I agree with Cofty on what you'd think are the important issues: JWs are wrong and harmful, evolution explains how we got here, there's probably no God... but that doesn't seem to be enough. You have to declare these stances the Truth of the matter and label anyone else ignorant or stupid, otherwise you're a heretic, no better than an unbeliever!

It may be wrong but sometimes I get the impression:

Cofty in 1992 - you're an idiot for not being a JW

Cofty in 2002 - you're an idiot for not being an evangelical

Cofty in 2012 - you're an idiot for not being an atheist

Cofty in 2022 - ???

So I wouldn't take it personally.

galaxie

We can learn by our mistakes, its humble to be able to recognise our errors and aim for abetter understanding of our vexations always accounting for the undeniable limitations of our brains abilities.

Fisherman

No but reality INCLUDES 'the measurement of the physical universe and how it works.

juxtapose

scientists have "a better understanding of reality"

What a mockery of logic! Here is why:

'Scientists have "a better understanding of reality' assumes the definition of what reality is because in order to state that reality is better understood vs less understood involves knowing what reality is -or how could one understands more about reality than someone else if one did not know the definition of reality, or what reality is all about.

scientists have "a better understanding of reality"

statement assumes reality = Physical universe only Here is WHY:

Y= other factors that make up reality

X= Physical Universe

u=Understanding

uX = Understanding Physical Universe

uY = Understanding other factors that make up reality

R= Reality

Understanding Physical Universe + Understanding other factors that make up reality = Understanding Reality

or uY+uX= uR or Y+X=R

BUT the statement that I responded to said' Scientists have "a better understanding of reality' OR

Y<X

And that means that Y can never be more than (or better) or equal to X THAT IS A LIMIT.

OR The Physical Universe is more than the other factors that make up reality. (And how would you know that unless you knew what reality is all about) BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT OTHERS KNOW AND HOW MUCH THEY KNOW ABOUT REALITY, that is inconsequential BECAUSE SCIENTIST would ALWAYS KNOW MORE( THE STATEMENT ASSUMES THAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH ANYONE KNOWS AT PRESENT ABOUT REALITY, SCIENTIST KNOW MORE OR Y=0

And then you say : "No but reality INCLUDES 'the measurement of the physical universe and how it works." as if now all of a sudden uX+uY=uR without even knowing y and nobody knows what reality is all about NOW which contradicts the statement that I was responding to when I posted: "The statement assumes that reality is limited to mean 'the measurement of the physical universe and how it works'.

Scientists have all of the same emotions and feelings and experiences as the rest of us. However they also have knowledge about the way the world works in a way that most non-scientists do not. There is a correlation between a scientist's knowledge about reality and the likelihood that they reject belief in a god.
Only 7% of the members of the American Academy of Science believe in god.
Why do you think that is?

Although emotions are real in a sense and so are thoughts, they are only human reaction and interaction with reality. I know the difference between a fallacy and a rock and feeling don't change them. I am convinced that the physical universe is only part of reality. True, scientist do know more about the physical universe than most people but they do not know more about reality as I have shown you why.

This thread is for proof that God exists

cofty9 minutes ago

Share this