Discussion:
This, undeniably, should be "aaa"s forever .sig
Add Reply
s***@gmail.com
2018-06-09 20:33:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶m̶i̶t̶t̶e̶d̶ solemnly informed us that:

"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."

-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ


That would explain, well, pretty much everything.

And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.


Selene
s***@gmail.com
2018-06-09 21:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
And today we have:

"I'm sure any scientist can prove it for me. So I don't need to bother."

-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/0nPwLf5ry-g/0XmiBTrLBAAJ

Selene
aaa
2018-06-09 23:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-06-10 01:43:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
aaa
2018-06-10 11:39:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
It also happens to be irrefutable.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-06-11 11:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
It also happens to be irrefutable.
Your one in a billion is as good as zero...therefore nothing to refute.
aaa
2018-06-12 14:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim..
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
It also happens to be irrefutable.
Your one in a billion is as good as zero...therefore nothing to refute.
Thanks for the blind denial. I'm sure that's the only thing you can do.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-12 05:14:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
It also happens to be irrefutable.
The fact that your nonsense has been refuted many, many times proves
that it is VERY refutable. It is nothing more than creations of your
own deranged imagination.
aaa
2018-06-12 18:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim..
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
It also happens to be irrefutable.
The fact that your nonsense has been refuted many, many times proves
that it is VERY refutable. It is nothing more than creations of your
own deranged imagination.
That's just your claim. Care to show me the fact?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 10:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim..
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
It also happens to be irrefutable.
The fact that your nonsense has been refuted many, many times proves
that it is VERY refutable. It is nothing more than creations of your
own deranged imagination.
That's just your claim. Care to show me the fact?
Your messages that haven't convinced anyone of anything and are pure nonsense.
Why don't you ask if anyone agrees with me? Afraid to?
aaa
2018-06-15 13:19:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim..
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
It also happens to be irrefutable.
The fact that your nonsense has been refuted many, many times proves
that it is VERY refutable. It is nothing more than creations of your
own deranged imagination.
That's just your claim. Care to show me the fact?
Your messages that haven't convinced anyone of anything and are pure nonsense.
Why don't you ask if anyone agrees with me? Afraid to?
No, it's because I already know the answer. I don't expect to turn every
single atheist in this group back to God overnight. That would be too easy.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-06-15 17:09:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim..
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
It also happens to be irrefutable.
The fact that your nonsense has been refuted many, many times proves
that it is VERY refutable. It is nothing more than creations of your
own deranged imagination.
That's just your claim. Care to show me the fact?
,,
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Your messages that haven't convinced anyone of anything and are pure nonsense.
Why don't you ask if anyone agrees with me? Afraid to?
No, it's because I already know the answer. I don't expect to turn every
single atheist in this group back to God overnight. That would be too easy.
Turn *every* atheist to God *overnight*?

Sonny, you're closing in on two decades here, and you haven't
changed a single atheist's mind.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of "too easy".


AA
Post by aaa
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-06-16 03:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
He can't...he had his brain damaged.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim..
Your claim is absolutely personal, one in a billion....
It also happens to be irrefutable.
The fact that your nonsense has been refuted many, many times proves
that it is VERY refutable. It is nothing more than creations of your
own deranged imagination.
That's just your claim. Care to show me the fact?
,,
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Your messages that haven't convinced anyone of anything and are pure nonsense.
Why don't you ask if anyone agrees with me? Afraid to?
No, it's because I already know the answer. I don't expect to turn every
single atheist in this group back to God overnight. That would be too easy.
Turn *every* atheist to God *overnight*?
Sonny, you're closing in on two decades here, and you haven't
changed a single atheist's mind.
That's pretty much the exact opposite of "too easy".
That is exactly why I would like to devote my whole life to Christ. So
this is still just a beginning.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA
Post by aaa
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
s***@gmail.com
2018-06-10 02:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.

Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.


Selene
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Don Martin
2018-06-10 12:33:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Because after all he himself just now ?i?n?c?r?e?d?i?b?l?y?,?
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
In my experience, crackpots are the most sincere people around.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-12 04:32:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Because after all he himself just now ?i?n?c?r?e?d?i?b?l?y?,?
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
In my experience, crackpots are the most sincere people around.
Yep. Crackerjobs believe what they want to believe with all their
might, no matter how ridiculous their beliefs are. Their sincerity
shines bright, unless they are possibly trolls making up their
'beliefs' as they go along or borrowing ideas from others.
aaa
2018-06-10 11:36:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
s***@gmail.com
2018-06-10 16:34:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses
to your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your claims,
demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've
been as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out crackpottery and self-delusion.

Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.

Selene
aaa
2018-06-11 04:16:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶m̶i̶t̶t̶e̶d̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning
is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my
such claim..
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid
personal understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made up
of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed
to allow demons to pour in from another dimension, gravity is a
hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law
haven't been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses to
your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your
claims, demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've been
as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
I disagree.
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only possible origin
of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual reality as
the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I have made
philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put science
in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over all,
I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out
crackpottery and self-delusion.
Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
Selene
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-06-11 05:06:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple >arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
They prove that you're trolling and a fraud.

Literally nothing you have ever said is true.
aaa
2018-06-12 00:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple >arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
They prove that you're trolling and a fraud.
Literally nothing you have ever said is true.
That's just your blind denial. You never debate anything as far as I can
see.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-06-11 11:49:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶m̶i̶t̶t̶e̶d̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning
is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my
such claim..
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid
personal understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made up
of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed
to allow demons to pour in from another dimension, gravity is a
hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law
haven't been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses to
your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your
claims, demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've been
as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
I disagree.
You can't!
Your brain is no more functioning...
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only possible origin
of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual reality as
the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I have made
philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put science
in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over all,
I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out
crackpottery and self-delusion.
Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
Your simple cells left in the brain ain't working....
Kevrob
2018-06-11 12:05:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶m̶i̶t̶t̶e̶d̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning
is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my
such claim..
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid
personal understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made up
of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed
to allow demons to pour in from another dimension, gravity is a
hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law
haven't been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses to
your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your
claims, demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've been
as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
I disagree.
You can't!
Your brain is no more functioning...
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only possible origin
of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual reality as
the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I have made
philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put science
in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over all,
I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out
crackpottery and self-delusion.
Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
Your simple cells left in the brain ain't working....
Or he's pretending to be that cracked: a Poe.

Either way he's not worth reading.

Kevin R
aaa
2018-06-12 00:24:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶m̶i̶t̶t̶e̶d̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning
is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my
such claim..
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid
personal understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made up
of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed
to allow demons to pour in from another dimension, gravity is a
hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law
haven't been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses to
your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your
claims, demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've been
as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
I disagree.
You can't!
Your brain is no more functioning...
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only possible origin
of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual reality as
the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I have made
philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put science
in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over all,
I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out
crackpottery and self-delusion.
Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
Your simple cells left in the brain ain't working....
I have made my point. Too bad you can only ignore it.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-06-12 02:17:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶m̶i̶t̶t̶e̶d̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning
is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my
such claim..
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid
personal understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made up
of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed
to allow demons to pour in from another dimension, gravity is a
hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law
haven't been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses to
your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your
claims, demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've been
as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
I disagree.
You can't!
Your brain is no more functioning...
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only possible origin
of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual reality as
the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I have made
philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put science
in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over all,
I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out
crackpottery and self-delusion.
Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
Your simple cells left in the brain ain't working....
I have made my point. Too bad you can only ignore it.
Trash from you is no point, I simply ignore rubbish which belongs to the dump.
aaa
2018-06-12 14:21:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶m̶i̶t̶t̶e̶d̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning
is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my
such claim..
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid
personal understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made up
of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed
to allow demons to pour in from another dimension, gravity is a
hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law
haven't been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses to
your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your
claims, demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've been
as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
I disagree.
You can't!
Your brain is no more functioning...
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only possible origin
of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual reality as
the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I have made
philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put science
in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over all,
I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out
crackpottery and self-delusion.
Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
Your simple cells left in the brain ain't working....
I have made my point. Too bad you can only ignore it.
Trash from you is no point, I simply ignore rubbish which belongs to the dump.
Your blind denial only proves your willful ignorance.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 09:48:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶m̶i̶t̶t̶e̶d̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning
is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my
such claim..
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid
personal understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made up
of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed
to allow demons to pour in from another dimension, gravity is a
hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law
haven't been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses to
your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your
claims, demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've been
as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
I disagree.
You can't!
Your brain is no more functioning...
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only possible origin
of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual reality as
the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I have made
philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put science
in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over all,
I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out
crackpottery and self-delusion.
Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
Your simple cells left in the brain ain't working....
I have made my point. Too bad you can only ignore it.
Trash from you is no point, I simply ignore rubbish which belongs to the dump.
Your blind denial only proves your willful ignorance.
Are you going to tell us that you don't remember using your 'blind denial'
nonsense many, many times, too?
aaa
2018-06-14 13:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶m̶i̶t̶t̶e̶d̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning
is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my
such claim..
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid
personal understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made up
of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed
to allow demons to pour in from another dimension, gravity is a
hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law
haven't been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses to
your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your
claims, demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've been
as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
I disagree.
You can't!
Your brain is no more functioning...
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only possible origin
of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual reality as
the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I have made
philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put science
in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over all,
I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out
crackpottery and self-delusion.
Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should be
able to prove themselves without my help.
Your simple cells left in the brain ain't working....
I have made my point. Too bad you can only ignore it.
Trash from you is no point, I simply ignore rubbish which belongs to the dump.
Your blind denial only proves your willful ignorance.
Are you going to tell us that you don't remember using your 'blind denial'
nonsense many, many times, too?
Unlike you, I don't blindly deny anything.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Mitchell Holman
2018-06-11 12:52:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should
be able to prove themselves without my help.
You mean *simplistic" arguments, no?
aaa
2018-06-12 00:33:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should
be able to prove themselves without my help.
You mean *simplistic" arguments, no?
You mean you can't really argue the actual points, no?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Mitchell Holman
2018-06-12 02:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should
be able to prove themselves without my help.
You mean *simplistic" arguments, no?
You mean you can't really argue the actual points, no?
What actual points have you ever made?


"My personal understanding proves you wrong"

"You cannot prove I am wrong"

"Common sense proves I am right"

"My claim is self evident"


THOSE "actual points"?
%
2018-06-12 02:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should
be able to prove themselves without my help.
You mean *simplistic" arguments, no?
You mean you can't really argue the actual points, no?
What actual points have you ever made?
"My personal understanding proves you wrong"
"You cannot prove I am wrong"
"Common sense proves I am right"
"My claim is self evident"
THOSE "actual points"?
hi
aaa
2018-06-12 14:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should
be able to prove themselves without my help.
You mean *simplistic" arguments, no?
You mean you can't really argue the actual points, no?
What actual points have you ever made?
"My personal understanding proves you wrong"
"You cannot prove I am wrong"
"Common sense proves I am right"
"My claim is self evident"
THOSE "actual points"?
Obviously not, since you can't really argue those actual points.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-12 05:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should
be able to prove themselves without my help.
You mean *simplistic" arguments, no?
You mean you can't really argue the actual points, no?
The 'points' have been refuted, again, many times. Are you saying that
your 'mind' is so flamozzled that your memory is kaput?
aaa
2018-06-12 14:25:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should
be able to prove themselves without my help.
You mean *simplistic" arguments, no?
You mean you can't really argue the actual points, no?
The 'points' have been refuted, again, many times. Are you saying that
your 'mind' is so flamozzled that your memory is kaput?
Never happened.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 09:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple arguments should
be able to prove themselves without my help.
You mean *simplistic" arguments, no?
You mean you can't really argue the actual points, no?
The 'points' have been refuted, again, many times. Are you saying that
your 'mind' is so flamozzled that your memory is kaput?
Never happened.
Your saying that you don't remember being refuted a whole bunch of times is proof that your memory is kaput.
aaa
2018-06-14 13:18:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You can say anything you want, but my rather simple
arguments should be able to prove themselves without my
help.
You mean *simplistic" arguments, no?
You mean you can't really argue the actual points, no?
The 'points' have been refuted, again, many times. Are you saying
that your 'mind' is so flamozzled that your memory is kaput?
Never happened.
Your saying that you don't remember being refuted a whole bunch of
times is proof that your memory is kaput.
No, it never happened. This is just your empty claim. My simple
arguments are too simple to be refuted. Common sense would not allow it.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Peter Pan
2018-06-15 22:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Because after all he himself just now ?i?n?c?r?e?d?i?b?l?y?,?
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged.
Given that there have been thousands upon thousands of responses
to your "understandings" here, virtually all of them contradicting your claims,
demanding evidence, asking for proof, trying to educate you
on matters you clearly have no comprehension of, I'd say they've
been as thoroughly challenged as it's possible to be.
Yeah but but... none of those responses has ever
compelled tripey to admit that he is wrong. So the
challenges were but naught.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life. With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Yep, as noted, total sincerity is no ward against all out crackpottery and self-delusion.
Nor is it proof against pathological levels of grandiose ideation.
Nor does sincerity overcome brain damage, although in
this case i don't think there is any sincerity.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Cloud Hobbit
2018-06-16 01:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Yeah but but... none of those responses has ever
compelled tripey to admit that he is wrong. So the
challenges were but naught.
Perhaps we should give him th Jesper treatment. "What's your opinion on vat grown meat."

A question I can't recall him answering.

So, Andrew, what specific scientific laws are you referring to?

There will not likely be an answer from Andrew because he knows that science is against him and he doesn't actually believe most of what he says. He's kinda the same as aaa. He just makes it up as he goes.
Marvin Sebourn
2018-06-12 02:32:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.

You show no faith.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-12 04:20:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private
meaning of the word "challenged".

Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged
thousands of times in this group.


Oko
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
aaa
2018-06-12 14:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private
meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged
thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around.
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-12 23:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private
meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged
thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around.
That right?

No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?

No one ever argued with you until I came along?

No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?

No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?

No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?



Forgive me if I rather doubt that.


Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-06-13 15:11:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private
meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged
thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around.
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't agree with
you spinning things around to ignore or distort the actual discussion.
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-13 19:25:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private
meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged
thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around.
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't agree with
you spinning things around to ignore or distort the actual discussion.
It's not about me.

It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed with you,
argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to correct you, and
demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove it".

You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".

The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have done so thousands of times.

Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.

(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)

Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-06-13 22:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private
meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged
thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around.
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't agree with
you spinning things around to ignore or distort the actual discussion.
It's not about me.
It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed with you,
argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to correct you, and
demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove it".
And I have answered all the legitimate questions.
Post by Oko Tillo
You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".
That is correct. My key understanding regarding the second law is the
energy preservation. So far, no one has been able to even question my
such understanding let alone to disprove it.
Post by Oko Tillo
The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have done so thousands of times.
That is the spinning I was talking about. It never happened.
Post by Oko Tillo
Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.
(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)
I'm still open for you to challenge my key understanding regarding the
second law. When can you begin?
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
s***@gmail.com
2018-06-14 01:25:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private
meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged
thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around.
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't agree with
you spinning things around to ignore or distort the actual discussion.
It's not about me.
It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed with you,
argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to correct you, and
demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove it".
And I have answered all the legitimate questions.
+
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".
That is correct. My key understanding regarding the second law is the
energy preservation. So far, no one has been able to even question my
such understanding let alone to disprove it.
.


You cannot be serious. Or sane, pick one. Just I myself alone have questioned,
debated, corrected, contradicted, criticized ... every possible version of "questioning" there is -your claims in post after post after post after post after post. For weeks.

As have others. Michale Cole, just to pick just one.

No one has "even questioned" your claims? I can't imagine anything
further from the truth.

Although you doubtless will now come up with something even further from the truth.


Selene
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have done so thousands of times.
That is the spinning I was talking about. It never happened.
Post by Oko Tillo
Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.
(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)
I'm still open for you to challenge my key understanding regarding the
second law. When can you begin?
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-06-15 13:22:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-7, Marvin
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 6:29:15 PM UTC-7, aaa
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding
without learning is in fact a wonderful
experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his
credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to
support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people
whose solid personal understandings include the
being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space,
the British royal family is made up of
reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is
designed to allow demons to pour in from another
dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust
never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in
second law haven't been challenged. With the second
law, I've restored God as the only possible origin of
life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
ooo
Post by aaa
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa"
has his own private meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have
been challenged thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin
everything around..
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't
agree with you spinning things around to ignore or distort the
actual discussion.
It's not about me.
It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed
with you, argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to
correct you, and demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove
it".
And I have answered all the legitimate questions.
+
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".
That is correct. My key understanding regarding the second law is
the energy preservation. So far, no one has been able to even
question my such understanding let alone to disprove it.
..
You cannot be serious. Or sane, pick one. Just I myself alone have
questioned, debated, corrected, contradicted, criticized ... every
possible version of "questioning" there is -your claims in post after
post after post after post after post. For weeks.
As have others. Michale Cole, just to pick just one.
No one has "even questioned" your claims? I can't imagine anything
further from the truth.
Although you doubtless will now come up with something even further from the truth.
Of course all of you have tried, but none of you has succeeded.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have
done so thousands of times.
That is the spinning I was talking about. It never happened.
Post by Oko Tillo
Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.
(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)
I'm still open for you to challenge my key understanding regarding
the second law. When can you begin?
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Oko
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate
philosophical study.. I have made philosophy as easy
to understand as science, and I have put science in
its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy.
Over all, I have restored God as the solo giver and
holder of all human knowledge whose fundamental truth
rules in all philosophy.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace,
freedom, and life itself.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace,
freedom, and life itself.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom,
and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
s***@gmail.com
2018-06-15 17:06:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-7, Marvin
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 6:29:15 PM UTC-7, aaa
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding
without learning is in fact a wonderful
experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his
credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to
support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people
whose solid personal understandings include the
being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space,
the British royal family is made up of
reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is
designed to allow demons to pour in from another
dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust
never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in
second law haven't been challenged. With the second
law, I've restored God as the only possible origin of
life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
ooo
Post by aaa
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa"
has his own private meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have
been challenged thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin
everything around..
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't
agree with you spinning things around to ignore or distort the
actual discussion.
It's not about me.
It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed
with you, argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to
correct you, and demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove
it".
And I have answered all the legitimate questions.
+
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".
+
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
That is correct. My key understanding regarding the second law is
the energy preservation. So far, no one has been able to even
question my such understanding let alone to disprove it.
..
You cannot be serious. Or sane, pick one. Just I myself alone have
questioned, debated, corrected, contradicted, criticized ... every
possible version of "questioning" there is -your claims in post after
post after post after post after post. For weeks.
As have others. Michale Cole, just to pick just one.
No one has "even questioned" your claims? I can't imagine anything
further from the truth.
Although you doubtless will now come up with something even further from the truth.
Of course all of you have tried, but none of you has succeeded.
You said no one has questioned your bizarre ideas.

To "question" someone's ideas does not mean to change that person's mind.

To question someone's ideas means to raise objections to them, to debate
them, to attempt to show where they are wrong.

So, it was just as I suggested, above: you have your own private meaning
of the word. You can always "win" when you use words in a way
different from what they mean to the rest of the world.

Oxford dictionaries on "question":

A doubt about the truth or validity of something.

The raising of a doubt about or objection to something.

Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to.

In the meaning the rest of the world uses, your claims have been questioned endlessly.

Selene
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have
done so thousands of times.
That is the spinning I was talking about. It never happened.
Post by Oko Tillo
Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.
(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)
I'm still open for you to challenge my key understanding regarding
the second law. When can you begin?
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Oko
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate
philosophical study.. I have made philosophy as easy
to understand as science, and I have put science in
its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy.
Over all, I have restored God as the solo giver and
holder of all human knowledge whose fundamental truth
rules in all philosophy.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace,
freedom, and life itself.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace,
freedom, and life itself.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom,
and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
%
2018-06-15 17:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
.

do you ever smoke in pyjammas
aaa
2018-06-16 04:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-7, Marvin
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 6:29:15 PM UTC-7, aaa
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding
without learning is in fact a wonderful
experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his
credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to
support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people
whose solid personal understandings include the
being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space,
the British royal family is made up of
reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is
designed to allow demons to pour in from another
dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust
never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in
second law haven't been challenged. With the second
law, I've restored God as the only possible origin of
life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
ooo
Post by aaa
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa"
has his own private meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have
been challenged thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin
everything around..
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't
agree with you spinning things around to ignore or distort the
actual discussion.
It's not about me.
It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed
with you, argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to
correct you, and demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove
it".
And I have answered all the legitimate questions.
+
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".
+
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
That is correct. My key understanding regarding the second law is
the energy preservation. So far, no one has been able to even
question my such understanding let alone to disprove it.
..
You cannot be serious. Or sane, pick one. Just I myself alone have
questioned, debated, corrected, contradicted, criticized ... every
possible version of "questioning" there is -your claims in post after
post after post after post after post. For weeks.
As have others. Michale Cole, just to pick just one.
No one has "even questioned" your claims? I can't imagine anything
further from the truth.
Although you doubtless will now come up with something even further from the truth.
Of course all of you have tried, but none of you has succeeded.
You said no one has questioned your bizarre ideas.
To "question" someone's ideas does not mean to change that person's mind.
To question someone's ideas means to raise objections to them, to debate
them, to attempt to show where they are wrong.
So, it was just as I suggested, above: you have your own private meaning
of the word. You can always "win" when you use words in a way
different from what they mean to the rest of the world.
A doubt about the truth or validity of something.
The raising of a doubt about or objection to something.
Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to.
In the meaning the rest of the world uses, your claims have been questioned endlessly.
Everybody can question my understanding, but to question my
understanding successfully would need to make me unable to answer such
question. Since it hasn't happened yet, it has not been a successful
questioning.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have
done so thousands of times.
That is the spinning I was talking about. It never happened.
Post by Oko Tillo
Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.
(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)
I'm still open for you to challenge my key understanding regarding
the second law. When can you begin?
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
Oko
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate
philosophical study.. I have made philosophy as easy
to understand as science, and I have put science in
its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy.
Over all, I have restored God as the solo giver and
holder of all human knowledge whose fundamental truth
rules in all philosophy.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace,
freedom, and life itself.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace,
freedom, and life itself.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom,
and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-06-16 05:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Everybody can question my understanding, but to question my
understanding successfully would need to make me unable to answer such
question. Since it hasn't happened yet, it has not been a successful
questioning.
- show quoted text -


Says the only blind denier here.
aaa
2018-06-16 13:53:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Everybody can question my understanding, but to question my
understanding successfully would need to make me unable to answer such
question. Since it hasn't happened yet, it has not been a successful
questioning.
- show quoted text -
Says the only blind denier here.
Prove it. What have I blindly denied?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 11:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
Which is nothing but you personal opinion which, as of now, amounts to nothing.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid > >>>>>>>> personal understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is
designed to allow demons to pour in from another dimension,
gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law
haven't been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God
as the only possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own
private meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been
challenged thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around.
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't agree with
you spinning things around to ignore or distort the actual discussion.
It's not about me.
It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed with you,
argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to correct you, and
demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove it".
And I have answered all the legitimate questions.
You still haven't said what a 'legitimate' question is.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".
That is correct. My key understanding regarding the second law is the
energy preservation. So far, no one has been able to even question my
such understanding let alone to disprove it.
Post by Oko Tillo
The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have done so thousands of times.
That is the spinning I was talking about. It never happened.
Yes, it has and, no doubt, more questions and claims will be ignored by you, since you can't answer them. You aren't the first troll to call perfectly
good questions not 'legitimate'.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.
(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)
I'm still open for you to challenge my key understanding regarding the
second law. When can you begin?
That may not be the topic Oko was referring to. Her choice of topics isn't up to you to decide.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Nah.
aaa
2018-06-16 16:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-7, Marvin
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 6:29:15 PM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding
without learning is in fact a wonderful
experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his
credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor
learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to
support my such claim.
Which is nothing but you personal opinion which, as of now, amounts to nothing.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people
whose solid > >>>>>>>> personal
understandings include the being earth flat, that
rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal
family is made up of reptile-human hybrids, the
Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons
to pour in from another dimension, gravity is a
hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in
second law haven't been challenged. With the second
law, I've restored God as the only possible origin
of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa"
has his own private meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have
been challenged thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin
everything around..
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't
agree with you spinning things around to ignore or distort the
actual discussion.
It's not about me.
It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed
with you, argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to
correct you, and demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove
it".
And I have answered all the legitimate questions.
You still haven't said what a 'legitimate' question is.
I don't have to say anything about that since I try my best to answer
all questions as much as possible.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".
That is correct. My key understanding regarding the second law is
the energy preservation. So far, no one has been able to even
question my such understanding let alone to disprove it.
Post by Oko Tillo
The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have
done so thousands of times.
That is the spinning I was talking about. It never happened.
Yes, it has and, no doubt, more questions and claims will be ignored
by you, since you can't answer them. You aren't the first troll to
call perfectly good questions not 'legitimate'.
That's never what I meant with the word legitimate. You are reading too
much into it.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.
(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)
I'm still open for you to challenge my key understanding regarding
the second law. When can you begin?
That may not be the topic Oko was referring to. Her choice of topics
isn't up to you to decide.
I believe she is talking about challenging my understanding of the
second law. I'm not sure there is anything else for her to challenge.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate
philosophical study.. I have made philosophy as easy
to understand as science, and I have put science in
its rightful place as the mere servant of
philosophy. Over all, I have restored God as the
solo giver and holder of all human knowledge whose
fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Nah.
Yeah.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 11:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
It's a cop out because you are afraid to think for yourself. Now, why would that not be a legitimate
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
In what? The nonsense you spew?
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around.
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't agree with
you spinning things around to ignore or distort the actual discussion.
That's not what she's doing. You make such comments often when you can't
respond to a question or comment.
Post by Oko Tillo
It's not about me.
It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed with you,
argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to correct you, and
demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove it".
You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".
The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have done so thousands of times.
Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.
(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Utter nonsense.
aaa
2018-06-16 16:32:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
It's a cop out because you are afraid to think for yourself. Now, why would that not be a legitimate
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
In what? The nonsense you spew?
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around..
That right?
No one ever disagreed with you until I came along?
No one ever argued with you until I came along?
No one ever called your ideas crazy until I came along?
No one ever tried to correct you until I came along?
No one ever demanded evidence or said "prove it" until I came along?
Forgive me if I rather doubt that.
I have no problem with people debating the issue, but I can't agree with
you spinning things around to ignore or distort the actual discussion.
That's not what she's doing. You make such comments often when you can't
respond to a question or comment.
There is no question for me to respond here.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Oko Tillo
It's not about me.
It's about all the dozens of other posters who have disagreed with you,
argued with you, called your ideas crazy, tried to correct you, and
demanded evidence from you or told you to "prove it".
You claim that no one has ever challenged your "understandings".
The truth is that dozens have challenged your claims, and have done so thousands of times.
Again, unless you have your very own private definition of what
challenging someone means.
(which wouldn't be in the least surprising)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study.. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
Utter nonsense.
Blind denial.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 10:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose solid personal understandings
include the being earth flat, that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family is made
up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to allow demons to
pour in from another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second law haven't
been challenged. With the second law, I've restored God as the only
possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his own private
meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been challenged
thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything around.
It's happened many times since you slithered back here at least four different times using different nyms, Niunian, aaa, bbb, Eric, Brze.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical study. I
have made philosophy as easy to understand as science, and I have put
science in its rightful place as the mere servant of philosophy. Over
all, I have restored God as the solo giver and holder of all human
knowledge whose fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
No, to the entire above paragraph. You say that you are here to learn. But,
it's obvious that you don't want to learn about anything that disagrees
with what you want to believe. You haven't restored anything, made anything easy to understand, moved science from where it belongs to its being a
servant to anyone. And you still haven't provided any evidence that your
'God' ever existed. And, yes, you do have to provide evidence. Without it,
you are nowhere.

What are you going to do now, redefine the word nowhere?
aaa
2018-06-15 13:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-7, Marvin Sebourn
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
+
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo,
he resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished
record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support
my such claim.
And in five minutes on YouTube I can find people whose
solid personal understandings include the being earth flat,
that rockets cannot fly in space, the British royal family
is made up of reptile-human hybrids, the Large Hadron
Collider is designed to allow demons to pour in from
another dimension, gravity is a hoax, and the Holocaust
never happened.
Sincerity is no guarantee against crackpottery.
ooo
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by aaa
As it is now, my understandings in philosophy and in second
law haven't been challenged. With the second law, I've
restored God as the only possible origin of life.
Your specialty is the second flaw of thermodynamics.
You show no faith.
You will note that, as with so many other terms, "aaa" has his
own private meaning of the word "challenged".
Going by the definition normal people use, his ideas have been
challenged thousands of times in this group.
That's never happened until you came along to spin everything
around.
It's happened many times since you slithered back here at least four
different times using different nyms, Niunian, aaa, bbb, Eric, Brze.
That should be the evidence that you have never proved me wrong. The
reason I have to use different names is that I had to use different ISPs
and usenet providers over such long period of time, and I do have to
update and change my own operating systems from time to time.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Marvin Sebourn
With philosophy, I've restored God's spiritual
Post by aaa
reality as the real subject of any legitimate philosophical
study. I have made philosophy as easy to understand as
science, and I have put science in its rightful place as the
mere servant of philosophy. Over all, I have restored God as
the solo giver and holder of all human knowledge whose
fundamental truth rules in all philosophy.
No, to the entire above paragraph. You say that you are here to
learn. But, it's obvious that you don't want to learn about anything
that disagrees with what you want to believe. You haven't restored
anything, made anything easy to understand, moved science from where
it belongs to its being a servant to anyone. And you still haven't
provided any evidence that your 'God' ever existed. And, yes, you do
have to provide evidence. Without it, you are nowhere.
What are you going to do now, redefine the word nowhere?
No, I don't have to do anything because you haven't said anything true.
I will allow time to decide everything.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-12 04:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
%
2018-06-12 04:25:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
that's how christianity started
aaa
2018-06-12 14:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Mitchell Holman
2018-06-12 17:55:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
When god drowned all the children in
the world did he save them as a group,
or one at a time, or not at all?
aaa
2018-06-13 03:12:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
When god drowned all the children in
the world did he save them as a group,
or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were not
drowned by God. If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the
final justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed. When
that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that has been the
cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be the result of God's
salvation to them.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-13 07:11:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
When god drowned all the children in
the world did he save them as a group,
or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were not
drowned by God.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;
both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air;
for it repenteth me that I have made them."


"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh,
wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

"I will destroy man".

"I, even I, do bring a flood".



Oko
Post by aaa
If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the
final justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed. When
that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that has been the
cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be the result of God's
salvation to them.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-06-13 14:54:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished
record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a
time.
ooo
Post by aaa
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save them
as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were
not drowned by God.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only a
demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention to
portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to believe that
God could have anything to do with evil.
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the final
justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed. When
that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that has been
the cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be the result of
God's salvation to them.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom,
and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-13 19:20:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished
record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
ooo
Post by aaa
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save them
as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
ooo
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were
not drowned by God.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only a
demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention to
portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to believe that
God could have anything to do with evil.
In the Bible, God says the He, God, will "bring a flood" and that He, God, will "destroy man".

In the Bible it goes on to say that God was good as His word, and went
on to do that very thing.

You can contradict the Bible all you want. You can contradict God
all you want. But the rest of us, atheists included, have actually read the Bible.


Oko
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the final
justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed. When
that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that has been
the cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be the result of
God's salvation to them.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom,
and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-06-13 22:40:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished
record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
ooo
Post by aaa
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save them
as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
ooo
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were
not drowned by God.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only a
demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention to
portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to believe that
God could have anything to do with evil.
In the Bible, God says the He, God, will "bring a flood" and that He, God, will "destroy man".
In the Bible it goes on to say that God was good as His word, and went
on to do that very thing.
You can contradict the Bible all you want. You can contradict God
all you want. But the rest of us, atheists included, have actually read the Bible.
That is just your own interpretation of the Bible description. I happen
to interpret it differently. Based on my understanding, God's absolute
authority over evil doesn't make God evil. It only makes evil inferior
to God. So it's actually a good and wonderful thing.
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the final
justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed. When
that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that has been
the cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be the result of
God's salvation to them.
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom,
and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 11:52:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished
record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save them
as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were
not drowned by God.
And you are followed with actual Bible quotes that show you are wrong.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only a
demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention to
portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to believe that
God could have anything to do with evil.
In the Bible, God says the He, God, will "bring a flood" and that He, God, will "destroy man".
In the Bible it goes on to say that God was good as His word, and went
on to do that very thing.
You can contradict the Bible all you want. You can contradict God
all you want. But the rest of us, atheists included, have actually read the Bible.
That is just your own interpretation of the Bible description. I happen
to interpret it differently. Based on my understanding, God's absolute
authority over evil doesn't make God evil. It only makes evil inferior
to God. So it's actually a good and wonderful thing.
What you consider good and wonderful is disgusting.

Any time you are proven wrong you say that you interpret it differently.
You hop to cop out whenever you are proven wrong. Do you ever wonder why no atheist in alt.atheism has ever believed a word you write here. And the other theist trolls don't support you, either.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-06-14 12:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished
record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my
such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save them
as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were
not drowned by God.
And you are followed with actual Bible quotes that show you are wrong.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only a
demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention to
portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to believe that
God could have anything to do with evil.
In the Bible, God says the He, God, will "bring a flood" and that He, God, will "destroy man".
In the Bible it goes on to say that God was good as His word, and went
on to do that very thing.
You can contradict the Bible all you want. You can contradict God
all you want. But the rest of us, atheists included, have actually read the Bible.
,,
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
That is just your own interpretation of the Bible description. I happen
to interpret it differently. Based on my understanding, God's absolute
authority over evil doesn't make God evil. It only makes evil inferior
to God. So it's actually a good and wonderful thing.
What you consider good and wonderful is disgusting.
In case you haven't been following all this silliness, his "Based on my understanding"
should be "Based on my actually not ever reading it". He fully admits he
doesn't actually *read* the Bible. Makes things ever so much more simple
that way, don't you see.

Entirely consistent with what he said that kicked off this whole thread:

"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."

AA
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Any time you are proven wrong you say that you interpret it differently.
You hop to cop out whenever you are proven wrong. Do you ever wonder why no atheist in alt.atheism has ever believed a word you write here. And the other theist trolls don't support you, either.
aaa
2018-06-15 13:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:29:15 PM UTC-4, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding
without learning is in fact a wonderful
experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his
credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to
support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one
at a time.
When god drowned all the children in the world did he
save them as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men.
They were
not drowned by God.
And you are followed with actual Bible quotes that show you are wrong.
I disagree because I understand the actual Bible quotes differently.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the
creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me
that I have made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life,
from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall
die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil.
It doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil.
It's only a demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has
no intention to portray God as being evil. It's a gross
misunderstanding to believe that God could have anything to do
with evil.
In the Bible, God says the He, God, will "bring a flood" and that
He, God, will "destroy man".
In the Bible it goes on to say that God was good as His word, and
went on to do that very thing.
You can contradict the Bible all you want. You can contradict
God all you want. But the rest of us, atheists included, have
actually read the Bible.
That is just your own interpretation of the Bible description. I
happen to interpret it differently. Based on my understanding,
God's absolute authority over evil doesn't make God evil. It only
makes evil inferior to God. So it's actually a good and wonderful
thing.
What you consider good and wonderful is disgusting.
Any time you are proven wrong you say that you interpret it
differently. You hop to cop out whenever you are proven wrong. Do you
ever wonder why no atheist in alt.atheism has ever believed a word
you write here. And the other theist trolls don't support you,
either.
If you can't prove my interpretation wrong, then you have no ground to
disagree with my interpretation. If my interpretation shows an all
loving and all truthful God, then there is no reason for you not to
accept it. I think this is just simple logic.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 11:08:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished
record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
ooo
Post by aaa
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save them
as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were
not drowned by God.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only a
demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention to
portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to believe that
God could have anything to do with evil.
Nope. It shows that your 'God' was a inept creator. If there was anything wrong with his creation, it was because he made then that way. No free will at all.
It was all his fault.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the final
justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed. When
that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that has been
the cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be the result of
God's salvation to them.
Your 'God' is a monster because it was created by uncivilized humans.
aaa
2018-06-16 14:07:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:29:15 PM UTC-4, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo,
he resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An
unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to
support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at
a time.
ooo
Post by aaa
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save
them as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They
were not drowned by God.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping
thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have
made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from
under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only
a demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention
to portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to
believe that God could have anything to do with evil.
Nope. It shows that your 'God' was a inept creator. If there was
anything wrong with his creation, it was because he made then that
way. No free will at all. It was all his fault.
You are only partially correct. In the beginning, God made no one to
fall, and no one had the free will to disobey God. That is why people
lived in paradise, and why God's creation was the perfect infallible
creation. The fall of men was entirely the result of people creating
their own free will to disobey and disagree with God. Had we not created
our own free will, we would not have suffered in death and sin.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the final
justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed.
When that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that
has been the cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be
the result of God's salvation to them.
Your 'God' is a monster because it was created by uncivilized
humans.
That only shows your total lack of philosophical understanding about the
teaching of the Bible.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-16 17:34:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:29:15 PM UTC-4, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo,
he resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An
unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to
support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
ooo
Post by aaa
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save
them as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They
were not drowned by God.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping
thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have
made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from
under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only
a demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention
to portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to
believe that God could have anything to do with evil.
Nope. It shows that your 'God' was a inept creator. If there was
anything wrong with his creation, it was because he made then that
way. No free will at all. It was all his fault.
ooo
Post by s***@gmail.com
You are only partially correct. In the beginning, God made no one to
fall, and no one had the free will to disobey God. That is why people
lived in paradise, and why God's creation was the perfect infallible
creation. The fall of men was entirely the result of people creating
their own free will
Creating something requires volition. You must be able to decide you are going
to create something. If you have no free will, you have no volition, no
ability to make decisions. You cannot decide to do anything at all if you lack free will.

So someone lacking free will would neither be able to decide to create free will,
nor the ability to do so.


Oko
Post by s***@gmail.com
to disobey and disagree with God. Had we not created
our own free will, we would not have suffered in death and sin.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the final
justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed.
When that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that
has been the cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be
the result of God's salvation to them.
Your 'God' is a monster because it was created by uncivilized humans.
That only shows your total lack of philosophical understanding about the
teaching of the Bible.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-06-17 14:52:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:29:15 PM UTC-4, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo,
he resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An
unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to
support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
ooo
Post by aaa
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save
them as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They
were not drowned by God.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping
thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have
made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from
under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only
a demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention
to portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to
believe that God could have anything to do with evil.
Nope. It shows that your 'God' was a inept creator. If there was
anything wrong with his creation, it was because he made then that
way. No free will at all. It was all his fault.
ooo
Post by s***@gmail.com
You are only partially correct. In the beginning, God made no one to
fall, and no one had the free will to disobey God. That is why people
lived in paradise, and why God's creation was the perfect infallible
creation. The fall of men was entirely the result of people creating
their own free will
Creating something requires volition. You must be able to decide you are going
to create something. If you have no free will, you have no volition, no
ability to make decisions. You cannot decide to do anything at all if you lack free will.
So someone lacking free will would neither be able to decide to create free will,
nor the ability to do so.
That is why the tree of knowledge of good and evil is very important for
people to create this illusion of free will. When we were old enough to
know good and evil, such knowledge gave us the illusion of an
independent will capable to judge the good and evil within our mind that
is different from the will of God in our heart. It's based on such
illusion in our mind, we have created our own free will in contrast with
God's will. When we take the appearance of a separate will in our mind
as our own, we fall away from God by disobeying God's will.
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
Post by s***@gmail.com
to disobey and disagree with God. Had we not created
our own free will, we would not have suffered in death and sin.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the final
justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed.
When that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that
has been the cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be
the result of God's salvation to them.
Your 'God' is a monster because it was created by uncivilized humans.
That only shows your total lack of philosophical understanding about the
teaching of the Bible.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
duke
2018-06-16 16:58:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:08:16 -0700 (PDT), "hypatiab7(hypatiab7)"
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
?i?n?c?r?e?d?i?b?l?y?,? ?a?c?t?u?a?l?l?y?
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished
record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
ooo
Post by aaa
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save them
as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were
not drowned by God.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and
the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
"I will destroy man".
"I, even I, do bring a flood".
That only shows God's ability to have total control over evil. It
doesn't necessarily mean that God has done anything evil. It's only a
demonstration of God's absolute authority. It has no intention to
portray God as being evil. It's a gross misunderstanding to believe that
God could have anything to do with evil.
Nope. It shows that your 'God' was a inept creator.
Does that include letting you in?
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
If there was anything wrong with his creation, it was because he made then that way. No free will at all.
It was all his fault.
Got it. Letting you in.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the final
justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed. When
that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that has been
the cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be the result of
God's salvation to them.
Your 'God' is a monster because it was created by uncivilized humans.
Where does that leave you?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 10:55:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
When god drowned all the children in
the world did he save them as a group,
or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were not
drowned by God. If they were innocent, they would cry out to God for the
final justice so that all the evil of this world can be destroyed. When
that happens, they will finally be free from the evil that has been the
cause of their suffering. Their freedom will be the result of God's
salvation to them.
If they were babies, toddlers or children of any age, they would have been screaming their heads off and thrashing until they drowned. According to the myth they were all were murdered by a vain and monstrous 'God' who was upset
that his 'creation' wasn't working out as he had intended. Unless, of course,
he had meant for it all to happen that way. After all, isn't your 'God'
supposed to know the past, present and future? That means that your deity is
responsible for every horrible thing that has ever happened, since that was
was his intention.
aaa
2018-06-16 14:12:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now
̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without
learning is in fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he
resolutely neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished
record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a
time.
When god drowned all the children in the world did he save them
as a group, or one at a time, or not at all?
Those children were drowned because of the evil of men. They were
not drowned by God. If they were innocent, they would cry out to
God for the final justice so that all the evil of this world can be
destroyed. When that happens, they will finally be free from the
evil that has been the cause of their suffering. Their freedom will
be the result of God's salvation to them.
If they were babies, toddlers or children of any age, they would have
been screaming their heads off and thrashing until they drowned.
According to the myth they were all were murdered by a vain and
monstrous 'God' who was upset that his 'creation' wasn't working out
as he had intended. Unless, of course, he had meant for it all to
happen that way. After all, isn't your 'God' supposed to know the
past, present and future? That means that your deity is responsible
for every horrible thing that has ever happened, since that was was
his intention.
You need to realize that God is infallible therefore incapable to be
evil. This is just simple common sense and simple rule of thumb for you
to understand the Bible. If you can't establish such basic rule and
principle, you will not be able to understand the truth of the Bible.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-14 10:37:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim.
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
Heavens to Betsy, you sound soooooooooo Christian!
aaa
2018-06-16 16:34:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by aaa
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by s***@gmail.com
Because after all he himself just now ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶b̶l̶y̶,̶
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in
fact a wonderful experience."
--
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely
neither thinks nor learns. An unblemished record.
But I do have my solid personal understanding to support my such claim..
A religion ('philosophy') with one believer.
Only because God is our personal Lord who saves us one at a time.
Heavens to Betsy, you sound soooooooooo Christian!
Thanks. I will always take that as a great honor!
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
John Baker
2018-06-10 02:52:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
Nor does he understand.
Post by s***@gmail.com
An unblemished record.
Selene
Yap Honghor
2018-06-11 11:44:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Baker
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
Nor does he understand.
He has no brain to understand, it was damaged in an accident.
Post by John Baker
Post by s***@gmail.com
An unblemished record.
Selene
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-12 04:10:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
:-D
Oko Tillo
2018-06-16 05:27:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
And today's entry:

"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."


Oko
aaa
2018-06-16 14:12:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-16 17:48:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.

We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.

You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.

Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?

And explain your answer.


Oko
aaa
2018-06-17 15:19:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
I believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.

Am I correct?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-17 16:54:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
I believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.
Am I correct?
You guessed the right answer, but for the wrong reason.

The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.

Oko
aaa
2018-06-18 13:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
I believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.
Am I correct?
You guessed the right answer, but for the wrong reason.
My explanation is strictly based on my understanding of the second law.
The increased entropy is based on the additional used energy. The used
energy is called used energy because it is used to increase entropy.
There can be no entropy increase if there isn't energy available to be used.
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy. When there
is no energy coming from the environment, the temperature of the gas
will have to drop in order to provide the energy used by entropy.
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-18 16:58:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
I believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.
Am I correct?
You guessed the right answer, but for the wrong reason.
My explanation is strictly based on my understanding of the second law.
The increased entropy is based on the additional used energy. The used
energy is called used energy because it is used to increase entropy.
There can be no entropy increase if there isn't energy available to be used.
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
Post by aaa
When there
is no energy coming from the environment, the temperature of the gas
will have to drop in order to provide the energy used by entropy.
The temperature does indeed drop, but the total energy remains the
same. Temperature and energy are two different things. Energy
is the velocity of the molecules, temperature is the energy divided by the volume.
If you want to know the total energy, you need to know both the temperature
and the volume it occupies.

The correct answer would have been that the entropy of the system increased
because the degree of disorder of the system increased. Molecules confined
to a small volume can be arranged only so many ways; the same number of
molecules in a larger volume can be arranged in many more different ways. Which
is exactly the same as saying the degree of disorder of the system has increased,
thus the entropy of the system has increased.

It's Boltzmann's equation of entropy. Take a look:

https://bit.ly/2lixU4j

It exactly describes the system we are discussing, and defines why
the entropy increases.


Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-06-19 00:02:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
I believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.
Am I correct?
You guessed the right answer, but for the wrong reason.
My explanation is strictly based on my understanding of the second law.
The increased entropy is based on the additional used energy. The used
energy is called used energy because it is used to increase entropy.
There can be no entropy increase if there isn't energy available to be used.
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container. It takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container. That is what I
meant, and that is why additional energy is required when the gas is
released to a larger container.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
When there
is no energy coming from the environment, the temperature of the gas
will have to drop in order to provide the energy used by entropy.
The temperature does indeed drop, but the total energy remains the
same. Temperature and energy are two different things. Energy
is the velocity of the molecules, temperature is the energy divided by the volume.
If you want to know the total energy, you need to know both the temperature
and the volume it occupies.
The correct answer would have been that the entropy of the system increased
because the degree of disorder of the system increased. Molecules confined
to a small volume can be arranged only so many ways; the same number of
molecules in a larger volume can be arranged in many more different ways. Which
is exactly the same as saying the degree of disorder of the system has increased,
thus the entropy of the system has increased.
Excuse me, I believe your correct answer has overlooked the reason of
temperature drop.
Post by Oko Tillo
https://bit.ly/2lixU4j
It exactly describes the system we are discussing, and defines why
the entropy increases.
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-19 03:35:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
I believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.
Am I correct?
You guessed the right answer, but for the wrong reason.
My explanation is strictly based on my understanding of the second law.
The increased entropy is based on the additional used energy. The used
energy is called used energy because it is used to increase entropy.
There can be no entropy increase if there isn't energy available to be used.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
No energy is required to increase the entropy. But flowing into a larger
volume the disorder of the system increases. That is nothing more nor less
than the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that the
gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container.
Yep, we are. And they are all in constant motion. (would you like the equation for that?)
When a larger volume becomes available, their constant motion sends them flying
into the larger space, unless they hit another molecule or a wall. No additional
energy is required to let them keep sailing on at the same speed they were
moving at before.

Maybe I'm assuming you know things that you don't. You do know that atoms
or molecules of a gas are in constant motion, right? And you do know
that anything in motion will remain in motion, at that same speed, unless something interferes
with it, yes?
Post by aaa
It takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container.
No. Absolutely not. Why in the world would you think that?
Post by aaa
That is what I
meant, and that is why additional energy is required when the gas is
released to a larger container.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
When there
is no energy coming from the environment, the temperature of the gas
will have to drop in order to provide the energy used by entropy.
The temperature does indeed drop, but the total energy remains the
same. Temperature and energy are two different things. Energy
is the velocity of the molecules, temperature is the energy divided by the volume.
If you want to know the total energy, you need to know both the temperature
and the volume it occupies.
The correct answer would have been that the entropy of the system increased
because the degree of disorder of the system increased. Molecules confined
to a small volume can be arranged only so many ways; the same number of
molecules in a larger volume can be arranged in many more different ways. Which
is exactly the same as saying the degree of disorder of the system has increased,
thus the entropy of the system has increased.
Excuse me, I believe your correct answer has overlooked the reason of
temperature drop.
I have explained the reason for the temperature drop: temperature is a function
of energy and the volume that energy occupies. As I said, total energy divided by
volume. The gas molecules retain their original energy, but now occupy a larger
volume, thus temperature -- a bulk quantity -- falls.

To take an extreme example, if you were suddenly exposed to the environment
a hundred miles above the earth, you'd be being bombarded by extremely
fast moving molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. The velocities of these
molecules are so high that if you were in a room full of them you'd burst into flame.
But in those near-vacuum conditions you do not burst into flame; you freeze to death.

That's because while their individual temperature -- i.e: their velocities -- are
extremely high, there are so few of them hitting you that almost no totally energy
gets transmitted to you, and you freeze.

Temperature in energy divided by volume. Increase the volume, the temperature
falls, but the total energy remains the same.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
https://bit.ly/2lixU4j
It exactly describes the system we are discussing, and defines why
the entropy increases.
And did you look?


Oko
hleopold
2018-06-19 07:33:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
snippage
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
No energy is required to increase the entropy. But flowing into a larger
volume the disorder of the system increases. That is nothing more nor less
than the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that the
gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container.
Yep, we are. And they are all in constant motion. (would you like the equation for that?)
When a larger volume becomes available, their constant motion sends them flying
into the larger space, unless they hit another molecule or a wall. No additional
energy is required to let them keep sailing on at the same speed they were
moving at before.
Maybe I'm assuming you know things that you don't. You do know that atoms
or molecules of a gas are in constant motion, right? And you do know
that anything in motion will remain in motion, at that same speed, unless
something interferes
with it, yes?
Post by aaa
It takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container.
So according to you, aaa, a piston compressing air and fuel in a motor gains
energy by doing so? I do think that this will be a great surprise to any auto
mechanic in the world. I guess every internal combustion engineer in the
world ever has been completely wrong and we should remove fuel from those
engines so they will work even more efficiently, forget those silly “1,000
miles per gallon” wackaloons, let us go straight to the infinite miles for
no gas engines.

snippage
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“(B)iological evolution is a team sport.“-Louis Friend
Peter Pan
2018-06-19 18:00:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
snippage
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
No energy is required to increase the entropy. But flowing into a larger
volume the disorder of the system increases. That is nothing more nor less
than the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that the
gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container.
Yep, we are. And they are all in constant motion. (would you like the equation for that?)
When a larger volume becomes available, their constant motion sends them flying
into the larger space, unless they hit another molecule or a wall. No additional
energy is required to let them keep sailing on at the same speed they were
moving at before.
Maybe I'm assuming you know things that you don't. You do know that atoms
or molecules of a gas are in constant motion, right? And you do know
that anything in motion will remain in motion, at that same speed, unless
something interferes
with it, yes?
Post by aaa
It takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container.
So according to you, aaa, a piston compressing air and fuel in a motor gains
energy by doing so? I do think that this will be a great surprise to any auto
mechanic in the world. I guess every internal combustion engineer in the
world ever has been completely wrong and we should remove fuel from those
engines so they will work even more efficiently, forget those silly “1,000
miles per gallon” wackaloons, let us go straight to the infinite miles for
no gas engines.
That's a great idea! Your engine would burn nothing but
entropy. It would not only purify the air, it would
increase order and tidiness on the earth, restoring it to
its pristine pre-fall state. Then there would be no more
sin, lions and lambs could graze together, and snakes
would walk and eat herbs.

Best of all, no pesky God to kick us out of the garden.
Post by hleopold
snippage
hleopold
2018-06-20 02:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
snippage
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
No energy is required to increase the entropy. But flowing into a larger
volume the disorder of the system increases. That is nothing more nor less
than the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that the
gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that
is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not
changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container.
Yep, we are. And they are all in constant motion. (would you like the
equation for that?)
When a larger volume becomes available, their constant motion sends them flying
into the larger space, unless they hit another molecule or a wall. No additional
energy is required to let them keep sailing on at the same speed they were
moving at before.
Maybe I'm assuming you know things that you don't. You do know that atoms
or molecules of a gas are in constant motion, right? And you do know
that anything in motion will remain in motion, at that same speed, unless
something interferes
with it, yes?
Post by aaa
It takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container.
So according to you, aaa, a piston compressing air and fuel in a motor gains
energy by doing so? I do think that this will be a great surprise to any auto
mechanic in the world. I guess every internal combustion engineer in the
world ever has been completely wrong and we should remove fuel from those
engines so they will work even more efficiently, forget those silly “1,000
miles per gallon” wackaloons, let us go straight to the infinite miles for
no gas engines.
That's a great idea! Your engine would burn nothing but
entropy. It would not only purify the air, it would
increase order and tidiness on the earth, restoring it to
its pristine pre-fall state. Then there would be no more
sin, lions and lambs could graze together, and snakes
would walk and eat herbs.
Best of all, no pesky God to kick us out of the garden.
Post by hleopold
snippage
Indeedy. Because of aaa’s vast knowledge of REAL science we can have a
perfect world. Screw Jesus, fuck God, all hail aaa, the smartest son of a
bitch in the universe!
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“Hey, you are the evolving one, not me.“-***@leavingsoon.com
aaa
2018-06-19 16:28:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
snippage
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
No energy is required to increase the entropy. But flowing into a larger
volume the disorder of the system increases. That is nothing more nor less
than the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that the
gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container.
Yep, we are. And they are all in constant motion. (would you like the equation for that?)
When a larger volume becomes available, their constant motion sends them flying
into the larger space, unless they hit another molecule or a wall. No additional
energy is required to let them keep sailing on at the same speed they were
moving at before.
Maybe I'm assuming you know things that you don't. You do know that atoms
or molecules of a gas are in constant motion, right? And you do know
that anything in motion will remain in motion, at that same speed, unless
something interferes
with it, yes?
Post by aaa
It takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container.
So according to you, aaa, a piston compressing air and fuel in a motor gains
energy by doing so? I do think that this will be a great surprise to any auto
mechanic in the world. I guess every internal combustion engineer in the
world ever has been completely wrong and we should remove fuel from those
engines so they will work even more efficiently, forget those silly “1,000
miles per gallon” wackaloons, let us go straight to the infinite miles for
no gas engines.
A compressed air will export its entropy by releasing heat. Is that
wrong? An expanded coolant will absorb heat to increase its entropy. Is
that wrong also?
Post by hleopold
snippage
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-06-19 18:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
ooo
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
I believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.
Am I correct?
You guessed the right answer, but for the wrong reason.
My explanation is strictly based on my understanding of the second law..
The increased entropy is based on the additional used energy. The used
energy is called used energy because it is used to increase entropy.
There can be no entropy increase if there isn't energy available to be used.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
No energy is required to increase the entropy. But flowing into a larger
volume the disorder of the system increases.
The increase of disorder is the same as the increase of entropy. You are
not explaining anything. The increase of entropy is a fact. We already
know that. You need to explain what is causing the increase of entropy
from the thermodynamic point of view. You haven't done that.

That is nothing more nor less
Post by Oko Tillo
than the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that the
gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
That is obviously false. Gas in the vacuum space doesn't have to scatter
all over the space. It can only occupy relatively a small part of the
space. According to your theory, particles in space should automatically
occupy all space.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container.
Yep, we are. And they are all in constant motion. (would you like the equation for that?)
When a larger volume becomes available, their constant motion sends them flying
into the larger space, unless they hit another molecule or a wall. No additional
energy is required to let them keep sailing on at the same speed they were
moving at before.
False. Gas molecules do have mass. Therefore, they are naturally pulled
into each other by their gravity. For gas molecules to occupy the space
in a container, they need energy to neutralize the effect of their
gravity. When they are released into a larger container, they would need
more energy to counter the effect of gravity in order to occupy the
larger space available to them. So their increase of entropy isn't just
a man-made condition by providing them with a larger container. The
entropy increase has everything to do with the distribution of energy
within the gas molecules.
Post by Oko Tillo
Maybe I'm assuming you know things that you don't. You do know that atoms
or molecules of a gas are in constant motion, right? And you do know
that anything in motion will remain in motion, at that same speed, unless something interferes
with it, yes?
What does that have to do with thermodynamics? Are we going to talk
about thermodynamics or not? How about we stay on topic instead?
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
It takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container.
No. Absolutely not. Why in the world would you think that?
That is just common sense. Why in the world would you deny such common
understanding? Just try to blow a balloon and see whether it takes more
energy to blow it bigger. According to you, the air in your lung should
automatically filling up the balloon without you doing anything. Is that
right?
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
That is what I
meant, and that is why additional energy is required when the gas is
released to a larger container.
Post by Oko Tillo
When there
is no energy coming from the environment, the temperature of the gas
will have to drop in order to provide the energy used by entropy.
The temperature does indeed drop, but the total energy remains the
same. Temperature and energy are two different things. Energy
is the velocity of the molecules, temperature is the energy divided by the volume.
If you want to know the total energy, you need to know both the temperature
and the volume it occupies.
The correct answer would have been that the entropy of the system increased
because the degree of disorder of the system increased. Molecules confined
to a small volume can be arranged only so many ways; the same number of
molecules in a larger volume can be arranged in many more different ways. Which
is exactly the same as saying the degree of disorder of the system has increased,
thus the entropy of the system has increased.
Excuse me, I believe your correct answer has overlooked the reason of
temperature drop.
I have explained the reason for the temperature drop: temperature is a function
of energy and the volume that energy occupies.
This is just a repeat of your text book formula. You are not explaining
anything thermodynamically speaking. How about explaining your text book
formula from the view of thermodynamics?


As I said, total energy divided by
Post by Oko Tillo
volume. The gas molecules retain their original energy, but now occupy a larger
volume, thus temperature -- a bulk quantity -- falls.
To take an extreme example, if you were suddenly exposed to the environment
a hundred miles above the earth, you'd be being bombarded by extremely
fast moving molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. The velocities of these
molecules are so high that if you were in a room full of them you'd burst into flame.
But in those near-vacuum conditions you do not burst into flame; you freeze to death.
That's because while their individual temperature -- i.e: their velocities -- are
extremely high, there are so few of them hitting you that almost no totally energy
gets transmitted to you, and you freeze.
Temperature in energy divided by volume. Increase the volume, the temperature
falls, but the total energy remains the same.
That is not thermodynamics. I need a thermodynamic explanation. Do you
have any?
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
https://bit.ly/2lixU4j
It exactly describes the system we are discussing, and defines why
the entropy increases.
And did you look?
Why bother? I would rather stay on topic.
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Oko Tillo
2018-06-19 23:22:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
ooo
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
I believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.
Am I correct?
You guessed the right answer, but for the wrong reason.
My explanation is strictly based on my understanding of the second law..
The increased entropy is based on the additional used energy. The used
energy is called used energy because it is used to increase entropy.
There can be no entropy increase if there isn't energy available to be used.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
No energy is required to increase the entropy. But flowing into a larger
volume the disorder of the system increases.
The increase of disorder is the same as the increase of entropy. You are
not explaining anything. The increase of entropy is a fact. We already
know that.
No we did not know: that was the question. I asked
whether entropy increased, decreased, or remained the same. The answer is
"increased", and the reason for the answer is that by flowing into a larger volume,
the disorder of the system increased. Which is -- by the concepts everyone uses in these
cases: Boltzmann's . (which reading ahead I see you did not even look at)
the amount of entropy is defined in terms of the level of disorder of the system.
Post by aaa
You need to explain what is causing the increase of entropy
from the thermodynamic point of view. You haven't done that.
Just did that. Boltzmann's definition: the most commonly used
on in thermodynamics. Too bad you blew it off when I brought
it up in the last post.
Post by aaa
That is nothing more nor less
Post by Oko Tillo
than the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that the
gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
That is obviously false. Gas in the vacuum space doesn't have to scatter
all over the space. It can only occupy relatively a small part of the
space. According to your theory, particles in space should automatically
occupy all space.
My Bast, it just keeps getting more and more unbelievable.

Tell us: you pop a balloon in space, what is to keep the gas from
expanding in all direction indefinitely?
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container.
Yep, we are. And they are all in constant motion. (would you like the equation for that?)
When a larger volume becomes available, their constant motion sends them flying
into the larger space, unless they hit another molecule or a wall. No additional
energy is required to let them keep sailing on at the same speed they were
moving at before.
False. Gas molecules do have mass. Therefore, they are naturally pulled
into each other by their gravity.
Oh.
My.
Fucking.
Bast.

Yes, they are gravitationally attracted to one another.

But you don't have the slightest intuition about how entirely negligible
that level of attraction is. It is utterly, invisibly, minutely trivial.

Here, I'll show you how to calculate it for yourself:

The force between two bodies is equal to the gravitational constant times
the mass of the two objects multiplied together, all that divided by
the square of the distance between them.

The gravitational constant: 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 .
The mass of a nitrogen molecule: 0.028 / (6.238 * 10^23) kg.
The average distance between molecules at STP: 3 * 10^-10 m.

So, do the work, and see for yourself how minuscule the gravitational
attraction between the molecules is.











Hey, just KIDDING! You wouldn't actually try to do the relevant math
if the Second Coming depended on it. Too sciencey.

The answer is: two nitrogen molecules at STP attract one another with
an average force of one 0.1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a kg.

Utterly trivial. As close to nothing as makes no difference.

Meanwhile, those nitrogen molecules are flying apart at an average speed
of eleven hundred miles per hour. (Boltzmann again. that boy surely did
get around. Want to see that formula, so you can check it for yourself?)

The utterly small gravitational attraction between molecules is invisible
when molecules are flying apart at the speed of sound.
Post by aaa
For gas molecules to occupy the space
in a container, they need energy to neutralize the effect of their
gravity. When they are released into a larger container, they would need
more energy to counter the effect of gravity in order to occupy the
larger space available to them.
Nope. See above. Or to riff on the question above, do you think
if you open a container of gas in outer space, the gas will just
sit there in a blob due to your supposed gravitational attraction?

That would be nice: you wouldn't need a space suit.
Post by aaa
So their increase of entropy isn't just
a man-made condition by providing them with a larger container. The
entropy increase has everything to do with the distribution of energy
within the gas molecules.
Post by Oko Tillo
Maybe I'm assuming you know things that you don't. You do know that atoms
or molecules of a gas are in constant motion, right? And you do know
that anything in motion will remain in motion, at that same speed, unless something interferes
with it, yes?
What does that have to do with thermodynamics? Are we going to talk
about thermodynamics or not? How about we stay on topic instead?
Are you serious? You have to understand the physics of a system
if you want to apply thermodynamics to that system. And it just
now occurred to me that you do not know the absolute minimum, basic,
high school level physics. The sort of utterly fundamental concepts
that even my friends who never took high school science understand.

You can't describe the system, you can't apply the thermodynamics.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
It takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container.
No. Absolutely not. Why in the world would you think that?
That is just common sense. Why in the world would you deny such common
understanding? Just try to blow a balloon and see whether it takes more
energy to blow it bigger. According to you, the air in your lung should
automatically filling up the balloon without you doing anything. Is that
right?
When you strain to blow up a balloon, the force you exert is you
stretching the rubber. That's why it gets easier as the balloon
inflates and the rubber is stretched thinner and thinner. It has
nothing to do with providing energy to push the air into a greater
volume.

Don't believe me? Then try it with a can with no air in it.
Just vacuum. I promise that the air will whoosh out of your lungs and into
the can without the slightest effort on your part.

Incidentally, do not do this. You'll destroy your lungs. You'd learn
you're wrong, but you wouldn't live to relish your newfound knowledge.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
That is what I
meant, and that is why additional energy is required when the gas is
released to a larger container.
Post by Oko Tillo
When there
is no energy coming from the environment, the temperature of the gas
will have to drop in order to provide the energy used by entropy.
The temperature does indeed drop, but the total energy remains the
same. Temperature and energy are two different things. Energy
is the velocity of the molecules, temperature is the energy divided by the volume.
If you want to know the total energy, you need to know both the temperature
and the volume it occupies.
The correct answer would have been that the entropy of the system increased
because the degree of disorder of the system increased. Molecules confined
to a small volume can be arranged only so many ways; the same number of
molecules in a larger volume can be arranged in many more different ways. Which
is exactly the same as saying the degree of disorder of the system has increased,
thus the entropy of the system has increased.
Excuse me, I believe your correct answer has overlooked the reason of
temperature drop.
I have explained the reason for the temperature drop: temperature is a function
of energy and the volume that energy occupies.
This is just a repeat of your text book formula. You are not explaining
anything thermodynamically speaking. How about explaining your text book
formula from the view of thermodynamics?
I just did. That was nothing other than thermodynamics. That you
couldn't recognize it tells us everything about your comprehension
of the subject.
Post by aaa
As I said, total energy divided by
Post by Oko Tillo
volume. The gas molecules retain their original energy, but now occupy a larger
volume, thus temperature -- a bulk quantity -- falls.
To take an extreme example, if you were suddenly exposed to the environment
a hundred miles above the earth, you'd be being bombarded by extremely
fast moving molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. The velocities of these
molecules are so high that if you were in a room full of them you'd burst into flame.
But in those near-vacuum conditions you do not burst into flame; you freeze to death.
That's because while their individual temperature -- i.e: their velocities -- are
extremely high, there are so few of them hitting you that almost no totally energy
gets transmitted to you, and you freeze.
Temperature in energy divided by volume. Increase the volume, the temperature
falls, but the total energy remains the same.
That is not thermodynamics. I need a thermodynamic explanation. Do you
have any?
Just did. Sorry your made-up home brew version of thermodynamics does not
intersect actual thermodynamics, as actual scientists understand it.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
https://bit.ly/2lixU4j
It exactly describes the system we are discussing, and defines why
the entropy increases.
And did you look?
Why bother? I would rather stay on topic.
It was the most condensed possible explanation of the topic. That
one equation says it all. If you understand it, you understand this
entire thread.

Which you clearly do not.

But let's move on to another point -- from the above, it is beyond
question that you know nothing -- nada, zero, zilch, null set --
about the physics we are arguing about. Not the most basic ideas.
Not high school level. Not general knowledge level. Not at the
level of even my barely sciencey friends.

But your total and subsuming ignorance in no way is an impediment to
your making up your own version from scratch ... and you are
utterly impervious to learning anything, anything at all, from people
who do understand the physics, and understand it quite well.

Just as with the second law, just as with the Bible, just as with
any other discussions of science that have come up, just as
with your own private definitions of words that no one else
in the world shares -- you are utterly smug in your ignorance,
and constitutionally incapable of learning from people who
actually do know what they're talking about.

Then why do I bother?

Good question. Excellent question. One I shall answer by
choosing no longer to bother. I've tried my best. You are
utterly unteachable in your arrogance.

Have a nice life.

Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
hleopold
2018-06-20 01:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
That is nothing more nor less
than the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that
the gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
That is obviously false. Gas in the vacuum space doesn't have to scatter
all over the space. It can only occupy relatively a small part of the
space. According to your theory, particles in space should automatically
occupy all space.
My Bast, it just keeps getting more and more unbelievable.
Tell us: you pop a balloon in space, what is to keep the gas from
expanding in all direction indefinitely?
Now come on, Oko, you know that oxygen is only 20% of the atmosphere, at
least twice today I have had to jump up and run around to find where that
small amount of oxygen had wandered off to. Last time I found it hiding in
the bedroom closet. It was a close thing. At least it was not like last week,
I found it hiding under the bed with the cat. I almost smothered to death
that day.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“Will the last observer of the expanding universe please turn the lights
off? Thank you” - Chris B.
aaa
2018-06-20 01:45:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
We'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
ooo
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
I believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.
Am I correct?
You guessed the right answer, but for the wrong reason.
My explanation is strictly based on my understanding of the second law..
The increased entropy is based on the additional used energy. The used
energy is called used energy because it is used to increase entropy.
There can be no entropy increase if there isn't energy available to be used.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
ooo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
No energy is required to increase the entropy. But flowing into a larger
volume the disorder of the system increases.
The increase of disorder is the same as the increase of entropy. You are
not explaining anything. The increase of entropy is a fact. We already
know that.
No we did not know: that was the question.
I think you asked me to answer the question first and give explanation
later. So the question has been answered. Now we need to explain the
answer based on thermodynamics.

I asked
Post by Oko Tillo
whether entropy increased, decreased, or remained the same. The answer is
"increased", and the reason for the answer is that by flowing into a larger volume,
the disorder of the system increased. Which is -- by the concepts everyone uses in these
cases: Boltzmann's . (which reading ahead I see you did not even look at)
the amount of entropy is defined in terms of the level of disorder of the system.
You still have not given the thermodynamical reason for the entropy
increase. You have only shown that it's possible for the entropy to
increase by releasing the gas into a larger container. There is no
guarantee the gas will increase its entropy.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
You need to explain what is causing the increase of entropy
from the thermodynamic point of view. You haven't done that.
Just did that. Boltzmann's definition: the most commonly used
on in thermodynamics. Too bad you blew it off when I brought
it up in the last post.
That's too bad. I was hoping you would explain it according to the
second law instead.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
That is nothing more nor less
Post by Oko Tillo
than the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that the
gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
That is obviously false. Gas in the vacuum space doesn't have to scatter
all over the space. It can only occupy relatively a small part of the
space. According to your theory, particles in space should automatically
occupy all space.
My Bast, it just keeps getting more and more unbelievable.
Tell us: you pop a balloon in space, what is to keep the gas from
expanding in all direction indefinitely?
The gas is likely frozen into ice crystals rather immediately. That's
what is keeping the space empty as a vacuum.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by Oko Tillo
The transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container.
Yep, we are. And they are all in constant motion. (would you like the equation for that?)
When a larger volume becomes available, their constant motion sends them flying
into the larger space, unless they hit another molecule or a wall. No additional
energy is required to let them keep sailing on at the same speed they were
moving at before.
False. Gas molecules do have mass. Therefore, they are naturally pulled
into each other by their gravity.
Oh.
My.
Fucking.
Bast.
Yes, they are gravitationally attracted to one another.
But you don't have the slightest intuition about how entirely negligible
that level of attraction is. It is utterly, invisibly, minutely trivial.
The force between two bodies is equal to the gravitational constant times
the mass of the two objects multiplied together, all that divided by
the square of the distance between them.
The gravitational constant: 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 .
The mass of a nitrogen molecule: 0.028 / (6.238 * 10^23) kg.
The average distance between molecules at STP: 3 * 10^-10 m.
So, do the work, and see for yourself how minuscule the gravitational
attraction between the molecules is.
Since you have acknowledged such force in existence, I think I have made
my point. It might be small to you, but it may not be small to the tiny
gas molecules.
Post by Oko Tillo
Hey, just KIDDING! You wouldn't actually try to do the relevant math
if the Second Coming depended on it. Too sciencey.
The answer is: two nitrogen molecules at STP attract one another with
an average force of one 0.1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a kg.
Utterly trivial. As close to nothing as makes no difference.
Meanwhile, those nitrogen molecules are flying apart at an average speed
of eleven hundred miles per hour. (Boltzmann again. that boy surely did
get around. Want to see that formula, so you can check it for yourself?)
The utterly small gravitational attraction between molecules is invisible
when molecules are flying apart at the speed of sound.
That doesn't matter. The gravitational force might be small, but its
effect in space can't be ignored. To a gas cloud in space, its effect is
very important. Without it, the gas cloud would not be able to exist.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
For gas molecules to occupy the space
in a container, they need energy to neutralize the effect of their
gravity. When they are released into a larger container, they would need
more energy to counter the effect of gravity in order to occupy the
larger space available to them.
Nope. See above. Or to riff on the question above, do you think
if you open a container of gas in outer space, the gas will just
sit there in a blob due to your supposed gravitational attraction?
That would be nice: you wouldn't need a space suit.
There is rarely any gas that can exist in space without a heat source.
Most of them would have been frozen into ice crystals instead. Although
it has the potential to increase its entropy in the empty space, it's
not able to do so because it doesn't have the necessary energy.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
So their increase of entropy isn't just
a man-made condition by providing them with a larger container. The
entropy increase has everything to do with the distribution of energy
within the gas molecules.
Post by Oko Tillo
Maybe I'm assuming you know things that you don't. You do know that atoms
or molecules of a gas are in constant motion, right? And you do know
that anything in motion will remain in motion, at that same speed, unless something interferes
with it, yes?
What does that have to do with thermodynamics? Are we going to talk
about thermodynamics or not? How about we stay on topic instead?
Are you serious? You have to understand the physics of a system
if you want to apply thermodynamics to that system. And it just
now occurred to me that you do not know the absolute minimum, basic,
high school level physics. The sort of utterly fundamental concepts
that even my friends who never took high school science understand.
You can't describe the system, you can't apply the thermodynamics.
You are the one who wants to test my understanding of the second law,
but I'm the one asking you to talk about the thermodynamics. How
interesting.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
It takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container.
No. Absolutely not. Why in the world would you think that?
That is just common sense. Why in the world would you deny such common
understanding? Just try to blow a balloon and see whether it takes more
energy to blow it bigger. According to you, the air in your lung should
automatically filling up the balloon without you doing anything. Is that
right?
When you strain to blow up a balloon, the force you exert is you
stretching the rubber. That's why it gets easier as the balloon
inflates and the rubber is stretched thinner and thinner. It has
nothing to do with providing energy to push the air into a greater
volume.
That doesn't matter. The bigger the balloon, the more energy it
contains. It's evidence that the air in the balloon needs energy to fill
up the balloon. If you lower the temperature of the air, the balloon is
likely going to shrink. That shows energy is very important to maintain
the entropy of the air in the balloon.
Post by Oko Tillo
Don't believe me? Then try it with a can with no air in it.
Just vacuum. I promise that the air will whoosh out of your lungs and into
the can without the slightest effort on your part.
Incidentally, do not do this. You'll destroy your lungs. You'd learn
you're wrong, but you wouldn't live to relish your newfound knowledge.
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
That is what I
meant, and that is why additional energy is required when the gas is
released to a larger container.
Post by Oko Tillo
When there
is no energy coming from the environment, the temperature of the gas
will have to drop in order to provide the energy used by entropy.
The temperature does indeed drop, but the total energy remains the
same. Temperature and energy are two different things. Energy
is the velocity of the molecules, temperature is the energy divided by the volume.
If you want to know the total energy, you need to know both the temperature
and the volume it occupies.
The correct answer would have been that the entropy of the system increased
because the degree of disorder of the system increased. Molecules confined
to a small volume can be arranged only so many ways; the same number of
molecules in a larger volume can be arranged in many more different ways. Which
is exactly the same as saying the degree of disorder of the system has increased,
thus the entropy of the system has increased.
Excuse me, I believe your correct answer has overlooked the reason of
temperature drop.
I have explained the reason for the temperature drop: temperature is a function
of energy and the volume that energy occupies.
This is just a repeat of your text book formula. You are not explaining
anything thermodynamically speaking. How about explaining your text book
formula from the view of thermodynamics?
I just did. That was nothing other than thermodynamics. That you
couldn't recognize it tells us everything about your comprehension
of the subject.
That is only a mathematical expression. I need you to explain it with
thermodynamics. You haven't done that.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
As I said, total energy divided by
Post by Oko Tillo
volume. The gas molecules retain their original energy, but now occupy a larger
volume, thus temperature -- a bulk quantity -- falls.
To take an extreme example, if you were suddenly exposed to the environment
a hundred miles above the earth, you'd be being bombarded by extremely
fast moving molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. The velocities of these
molecules are so high that if you were in a room full of them you'd burst into flame.
But in those near-vacuum conditions you do not burst into flame; you freeze to death.
That's because while their individual temperature -- i.e: their velocities -- are
extremely high, there are so few of them hitting you that almost no totally energy
gets transmitted to you, and you freeze.
Temperature in energy divided by volume. Increase the volume, the temperature
falls, but the total energy remains the same.
That is not thermodynamics. I need a thermodynamic explanation. Do you
have any?
Just did. Sorry your made-up home brew version of thermodynamics does not
intersect actual thermodynamics, as actual scientists understand it.
I'm sure you know all the formula, but I'm not sure you actually
understand the second law.
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
https://bit.ly/2lixU4j
It exactly describes the system we are discussing, and defines why
the entropy increases.
And did you look?
Why bother? I would rather stay on topic.
It was the most condensed possible explanation of the topic. That
one equation says it all. If you understand it, you understand this
entire thread.
I will call that bullshit. Why are we here? Do you want to talk about
the second law or not?
Post by Oko Tillo
Which you clearly do not.
But let's move on to another point -- from the above, it is beyond
question that you know nothing -- nada, zero, zilch, null set --
about the physics we are arguing about. Not the most basic ideas.
Not high school level. Not general knowledge level. Not at the
level of even my barely sciencey friends.
But your total and subsuming ignorance in no way is an impediment to
your making up your own version from scratch ... and you are
utterly impervious to learning anything, anything at all, from people
who do understand the physics, and understand it quite well.
Just as with the second law, just as with the Bible, just as with
any other discussions of science that have come up, just as
with your own private definitions of words that no one else
in the world shares -- you are utterly smug in your ignorance,
and constitutionally incapable of learning from people who
actually do know what they're talking about.
Then why do I bother?
Good question. Excellent question. One I shall answer by
choosing no longer to bother. I've tried my best. You are
utterly unteachable in your arrogance.
Have a nice life.
Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko Tillo
Oko
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Loading...