Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: own equation    Big Bang   rapid expansion   Hiroshima bomb  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's the sentence to which I was responding. Christian linguists translated the Tetragrammaton from its Hebraic definition = Yahweh, into the Greek then to the Latin Vulgate and from that into English, which does translate to mean "God" from the original Hebraic texts. I was merely addressing that last sentence of yours, to show that it was not Christians who "changed" the name of Jesus to "God", but that the Hebrews first described God and first described Jesus as God, because, according to the original texts, Christ also Himself claimed to be the Son of God. The historical accounts even record that it is because Christ made that very claim, that they charged Him with heresy, the punishment for which was death in those days under Talmudic law. The Sanhedrin High Priests, Saducees and Pharisees did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but many among the populace did.
As for the algebraic values given to the Tetragrammaton with their corresponding numerals, I have read about this and accept that it is God's code for Himself. However, because the numerical values for each letter in the Tetragrammaton were not conducive for the purposes of referencing God in that way in conversation, subsequently the word God was used in the spoken language for communication purposes. Therefore it is logical to deduce that the word God came from the code itself, rather than the other way around. If we accept this, then we can accept that our DNA is God's code also - is his imprint on the creation of every individual living being from insect, to fish, to bird, to mammal to human, etc. It makes sense that he has a code for each of us, after all, our DNA is unique to each of us, while the "markers" in our DNA record our genealogy..
.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
Einstein's equation gives a clue as to the magnitude of this energy, that it is of such magnificence it is beyond all possible comprehension of man and that such can only have been wrought by the hand of a much higher intelligence, which Einstein himself concedes, truthfully stating that it necessarily obliges us to accept a supernatural source. Although he never worshipped any God, or personalised any God, his journey in the study to arrive at his famous equation brought him to conclude that atheism was not possible, that a greater wisdom, intelligence and supernatural existence had to exist. That led him to accept the religion known as Pantheism in his more mature years.
If we look at his equation and how the letter "c" represents the speed and energy of light and square that, then already we are dealing in numbers incomprehensible to the human intellect, dealing with a force incomprehensible to man, which is precisely what led Einstein to accept the existence of a supernatural intelligence, his very own equation pointing to it.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: rapid expansion    point   Universe   Christianity  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.26  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: outdated book    current best explanation of science   examples of Atheism   logic  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.36  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your point of Einstein's equation is a valid one, so I will engage with it. I think he used the letter c because he did not know exactly what the number is, and it could be any number, and the equation would still work. I don't think he was saying that c represented God.
In further posts, please remember that the Big Bang was not an explosion. You keep referring to an explosion of some sort. Fun fact: the Big Bang did not make a bang, as there was no atoms to carry the sound vibrations.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.54  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Certainly expansion of the universe is a major part of the Big Bang theory, but that is the process which occurs subsequent to the Big Bang (explosion) itself, which supposedly began it all. I have never heard of someone who actually accepts the theory, deny the literal explosion. That major magnitudinal explosion is at the heart of the theory and because it is, I find it totally infeasible, given that the heat and energy that such an explosion would need to release in order to generate billions of stars and planets millions of miles apart, that amount of heat and energy would automatically vaporize everything in its path. There seems to be no way to deny that.
If you search on the Internet for any accredited explanation of the Big Bang Theory, they all acknowledge that it begins with a massive explosion. In this video below, made by a science teacher for students, he confirms both at the 1 minute mark and again at the 7 minute mark that the Big Bang Theory begins with a literal explosion and the graphics confirm that ....
This is standard classroom and university textbook teaching.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: major part of the Big Bang theory    Big Bang   term 'God   literal explosion  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** he specifically used terms like supernatural
No he didn’t you buffoon he didn’t believe in the supernatural
  Considerate: 33%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 76%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: terms    nbsp   buffoon   supernaturalNo  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** Well Dee I gave you heaps of quotes elsewhere which prove he did reference that which was "super" natural, that which is beyond the natural laws of nature and frequently.
Show me all these quotes where he mentioned the supernatural? Show me quotes where he said there was something supernatural beyond the laws of nature , or are you just making stuff up again?
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's the sentence to which I was responding. Christian linguists translated the Tetragrammaton from its Hebraic definition = Yahweh, into the Greek than to the Latin Vulgate and from that into English, which does translate to mean "God" from the original Hebraic texts
Only if the meaning of the numbers written as a letter can be dictated by education to only be understood as letters so are interpretation can be used. No religion dictates that in their forms of education.
Still, you say Christians legally change the name of these letters Yahweh to these numbers GOD. Does Hebrew have numbers even though it has no vows?
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: major part of the Big Bang theory    Big Bang   literal explosion   nuclear bomb  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.42  
  Sources: 10  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
Then you responded to that with this ...
Ah! I think I see now, what you are getting at, that in the process of the translation from the Tetragrammaton, God's code has been lost from education, lost from the Christian faith. I agree, this history of the Tetragrammaton and its code is not taught and is immediately lost with the translation into the word "God". I don't believe that the current day Jewish alphabet is exactly the same as the old paleo-Hebrew alphabet, either, so given that, I think we can assume that today's Judaism has also lost the code, except among Jewish scholars. Is that where your thinking is taking us?  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: supernatural force    nbsp   supernatural intellect   dolphin  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: supernatural force    nbsp   supernatural intellect   dolphin  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
When you make a debate, could you please not type the title in SHOUTY CAPS? It will not make people pay more attention, it simply shows that you are cross/angry.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: SHOUTY CAPS    people   debate   attention  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Clearly the above content in my post says otherwise. Didn't you read them all?
You also wrote ....
LOL! No it doesn't convey that in a TITLE at all. It only conveys that in the text of a conversation. Many headlines, titles, headings etc., are fully capitlized in literature, scholarly papers, opinion pieces, dissertations laying out a concept, books, whatever, for example ...
THESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
Synopsis
1. Blah, blah blah... etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........
2. More blah blah blah ... etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........
Introduction
1. Blah, blah, blah ... etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........
2. Blah, blah, blah ... etc. etc. etc. &C, &C ........
.
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is not the atheists fault any interpretation does not defend them by lack of allowing a display to be assembled of an Interpretation of GOD, and it is this lack of defense that creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned in the definition of atheism, they do not believe in a supreme power. . As far fetched as it may seem an extreme explosion in history is used as the only way the earth has to explain how an ultimate power can exist in the creation of all safely.
However, the question of giving the atheist the power to describe GOD in a safe way that allows a separation of dependency to take place. Does the liberty of Independence taking place to create an ultimate power on their behalf?
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: supreme power    Interpretation of GOD   ultimate power   extreme explosion  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also, supposing Einstein did believe in a God (which he did not), why should we believe in what Einstein has to say? Einstein was just a human, and although his scientific beliefs were later proven, his pantheistic views are unlikely to be true. The argument is illogical even if the evidence were correct.
About the SHOUTY CAPS, it may be fairly standard in literature, but it is not the standard here on DebateIsland.com. Also, I think it would be the norm to see this:
Thesis On The Origin Of The Universe
as opposed to this:THESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 54%  
  Learn More About Debra
Which interpretation do you mean? An interpretation of the code behind God's Hebraic name, Yahweh? If so, then I would venture that atheists aren't the only ones who are ignorant of it. Very few Christians are even aware of it and the few who are, are predominantly scholars in Biblical history. Then you write ...
" ... and it is this lack of defense that creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned in the definition of atheism ..." What "defense" are you referring to?
Next, what do you mean by " ... creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned ..." . I don't understand what you mean by a "... disbelief of the general welfare" .... Whose disbelief in whose general welfare? And who are "those concerned in the definition of atheism"?
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Which interpretation do you mean? An interpretation of the code behind God's Hebraic name, Yahweh?
In part what is meant to see in writing is the interpretation of the letters G,O,D to the letters Y,a,h,w,e,h.
Next, what do you mean by " ... creates the disbelief of the general welfare of those concerned ..." . I don't understand what you mean by a "... the disbelief of the general welfare"... Whose disbelief in whose general welfare?
The general welfare is the basic wellbeing of all religion this is the creator of a united state which has a common stake.
And who are "those concerned in the definition of atheism"?
All those who question authority as a supreme power without the regulation of governing.
If English is your second language, I truly understand and am very patient. So, I'll have to trouble you to clarify all in your last post. I have no idea what you're trying to say. The fault could be mine and if it is, I apologize.
I am an American all language is a second language as a united state here. In part, it is the very nature of what the united states of America are about. All United states of law are kept constitutional to ensure understanding, the blame for misunderstanding is not ours alone to hold as a single purpose.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
you seem to be committing the appeal to ridicule fallacy. also, you are presenting this post as if most or all atheists believe that the universe arose from literally nothing. can you prove that most or all atheists hold this position?
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: post    atheists   appeal   universe  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
My interpretation of your meaning is this:
It's not the fault of atheists when scholars translated the name Y A H W E H to the English name of G O D, that the primary definition, the original definition of Yahweh, (God) was immediately lost. God's coded identity for Himself is in each letter of the name Y A H W E H. Any culture which does not describe God that way immediately loses an accurate knowledge of God's primary definition of Himself, unless this code is taught to each subsequent generation. Because no culture does teach it, then all have left themselves open to the risk of the rise of atheism with no defense against the rise of atheism. Subsequently, in ignorance of the true definition of God, the atheists have invented a far-fetched definition, using a celestial explosion as a substitute for God's ultimate supreme power. Those who believe in God's omnipotence, in the absence of the knowledge of His absolute definition of Himself, have left themselves open to well-deserved and self-inflicted ridicule, whenever attempting to explain Creation and how it all began, because they fail to teach God's code which identifies God Himself.
If any part of this understanding of your intended meaning is not accurate, then perhaps deal with each part separately, quoting me. If it is an accurate understanding of your opinion, I agree with you.
In answer to your last question, I think you are asking
"Does the absence of the knowledge, which is not being passed down, give atheists the liberty to create their own independent version of the events of Creation?"
Yes I believe that is exactly the case. If I understand you correctly, you are basically saying Christianity alone, has itself to blame for making that possible !!! It is a sad paradox, but certainly rings true. The other great whacking paradox is that the only man who has come close to understanding the magnitude of the omnipotence of God, is a man who did not profess Christianity at all, but rather professed merely an abstract acknowledgement of "a God" and that man was Einstein, when he fell upon his famous equation of E=mc² . It doesn't explain God (Yahweh) Himself per se, but does provide evidence of the existence of a supreme power with supreme knowledge and wisdom, way beyond the comprehension of our feeble human minds.
.
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
To reverse the intent of your own phrase, I think everyone should ridicule fallacy. It's dangerous. Can I prove that all atheists believe that the universe arose from literally nothing? I don't believe anyone can ever prove what others think. We cannot get inside their heads. I can only prove by the use of logic, that there's no other conclusion to draw concerning all those who accept the hypothesis of the Big Bang, atheists and non-atheists, alike. If we accept the hypothesis of the Big Bang, then it stands to reason we accept that the universe arose from literally nothing. The hypothesis itself states that, namely, that time, space and matter began with the Big Bang.
It is an oxymoron, as time, space and matter had to exist before the Big Bang was even possible. Add to that the evidence we already have of the universe, namely, that it continues to expand without any great whacking Big Bang and which expansion science cannot explain. Nevertheless, the undeniable fact remains that new celestial bodies are continually coming into existence, (expansion), with no need for a Big Bang. Sure, stars and planets explode and may create the odd new planet, (not sure about that), but these individual explosions do not explain the ongoing expansion of the universe in the absence of a massive explosion like the Big Bang.
Aside from that debate, there is still the question that surely an explosion of that magnitude would vaporize everything in its direct path, just as the Hiroshima bomb did.
.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: hypothesis of the Big Bang    expansion science   individual explosions   Big Bang  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
In Hiroshima buildings on the very outer rim of the force of the explosion were not completely vaporized in the way that those in its direct path were. These ruins left some interesting evidence of objects of a lesser density having been vaporized, though. On the walls of those ruins are images or impressions of a dark shadow on the surface of their substrate, as though someone had painted onto the walls of these ruins, the impression of a shadow of an object positioned near them. These impressions are darker than the rest of the substrate around it, as any substrate appears to be darker wherever a shadow falls.
These "shadows" are still there today on these sections of walls as if "frozen" in time. Many depict the outline of a person as any normal shadow does, yet the object or person casting the shadow was vaporized, with no evidence of them remaining. Scientists explain these shadows as real shadows which blocked the white light of the explosion - white light is the manifestation of extreme energy and force - taking us back to Einstein's equation.
The reason these shadows were "preserved", so to speak, is because the shadow of the object blocked the energy force of the white light from directly coming in contact with that surface area of the wall where the shadow was. The colour of the surface area outside of the shadow was bleached by the energy of the white light, before the object casting the shadow was vaporized.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that the energy travelled at an astronomical speed because when it vaporized the object casting the shadow, it had already hit the wall before that vaporization of the object casting the shadow had occurred. If there were a fraction of a second delay between the vaporization of the object in front of the wall as the energy travelled the space between it and the wall behind, then the object's shadow would have disappeared off the wall before the energy hit the wall, leaving no impression of a shadow. It is evidence of the speed of light squared, as Einstein found it to be and also evidence of the relativity of energy and matter.
.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well, I can't argue with a choice, given that we all have the choice to believe whatever interpretation we choose to make. I can only argue that I read a very different interpretation from Einstein's quotes, given he actually states that he does acknowledge the existence of a God manifested in a superior force of such superior knowledge, that it is beyond the comprehension of the "feeble" brain of humans.
We don't appeal to what Einstein has to say isolated from what his equation has to say, though. His equation as our evidence in that it provides evidence of the existence of a supreme power with supreme knowledge and wisdom. The only reason we quote Einstein is to show that he himself said that is exactly what his own equation proved and which also explains the reason why he shifted his view away from atheism to Pantheism.
You are right about what is the norm on DebateIsland. I cannot argue with that, but there is no Rule which says I cannot use literary capitalization in my titles, which I prefer to utilize, particularly when I have a sub-title in the topic text, but not necessarily.
.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** She requested that I provide quotes from Einstein to prove that he accepted there was a supernatural force or being behind creation with a supernatural intellect and wisdom far greater than our feeble minds.
Yes something you’ve spectacularly failed to do as you stated Einstien believed in the supernatural and when asked to provide proof by quoting where Einstein ever used the term supernatural you couldn’t do so (as usual) , it’s the same with all your constant appeals to authority , when cornered you lie all because all your copy and pasted arguments are posted hastily without you ever actually researching them , this is why I mostly ignore your childish infantile postings because at this stage you’re not debating but merely preaching and that’s another thing you don’t do very well
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: supernatural force    supernatural intellect   childish infantile postings   constant appeals  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are not using his equation in a complete context to the mathematics. His equation is a mathematical theory that states a proclamation as a ratio. They are simply not the same thing and the only way this could be the principle of religion is if you are saying the well-educated lie a religious belief. E=Mc^2 is a generalization of the field equation of relativity. Therefore the lie takes place when the complete relativity formula is knowingly genericized to the state of theory.
A ratio is a ration until it is a proximation, at which point it only becomes approximate to what may yet have been re-written to be a ratio. In other math principles, For all ratio created from a circumference of a circle with a value three or less using its diameter, there exists a method of math the changes the length that was once a diameter in scale. (Right reserved on this proof.)
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: principle of religion    mathematical theory   educated lie   math principles  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Before we go to Einstein, however, can we finish the first part of our discussion on the Tetragrammaton? I am really interested in your comments on this, because you clearly know more about it than I do. I have never studied or researched it. My knowledge is limited to a very simple understanding of it, namely that the letters represent numerical values and that they define God and point to his infinity and his supernatural being. Is that correct? I have no idea of what those corresponding numbers are, or how they are read to mean anything.
Then could you tell me whether or not, my translation of your original statement does or doesn't align with your meaning. Much appreciated if you can do this. I've put both of them below, for comparison, then you can point to any misalignments in my interpretation against your own text.
You originally wrote ...
I interpreted that to mean the following ....
In response to your very last paragraph, I interpreted it to mean the following ....
Have I misinterpreted your meaning anywhere in either of these?
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is plainly illogical.
I give up about the shouty caps. Write your title however you like.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
Before we go to Einstein, however, can we finish the first part of our discussion on the Tetragrammaton?
The tera-gram has a different name in the Asian language I do not remember the name. However, we for all practical understanding for our talk simple call its geometry.
I am really interested in your comments on this because you clearly know more about it than I do. I have never studied or researched it. My knowledge is limited to a very simple understanding of it, namely that the letters represent numerical values and that they define God and point to his infinity and his supernatural being. Is that correct?
My original connection to the tera-gram had been made with a strict religious occult type scenario by kids mocking satanic ideas. This changed to a much deeper understanding of geometry in shading, rendering and wireframe construction for 3-D modeling in the early ’80s. At the time part of the Amiga operation window. Having been exposed to information by programmers outside of Amiga Corp about some program issues that might come up.
I have no idea of what those corresponding numbers are, or how they are read to mean anything.
Yes. You now, in fact, we do know at least one thing the numbers correspond with and that is a possible solution to a math equation containing the numbers 400, 11, 500. So together we can take the accusation created by the word atheist and abolish it by telling a person they do not believe in GOD as something tangent, real. Also, the equation can be used to describe a right and wrong as there are two answers. One of the obvious answers and two the correct answer found by the principle that comes by the education of the mathematics behind the foundation of the equation GOD.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: original connection    much deeper understanding of geometry   practical understanding   math equation  
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.02  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: big bang    plenty of small theories.You   chance of the big bang   RS  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
AND you also wrote ...
Are you referencing something like the following ...
One could do exactly the same thing with the Star of David using a different math. There are all sorts of quackery going on with the math regarding the Tetragrammaton, although I am not saying there isn't a correct equation. I believe there is. After all everything that involves mass and matter, including energy, can be explained by mathematics. Obviously the intelligence of God invented the concept of mathematics and man then discovered it. The image below, uses the pentagram again, (said to be the symbol of Satan), but it is interesting how it also depicts the Star of David in a circle to the left of the pentagram. You mentioned pi earlier. There are various ways to calculate it and the Nilakantha accelerated series for pi is perpetual and goes on into infinity. Note too the Greek letter Omega at the base of the pentagram. Christ said "I am the Aalpha and the Omega", (as translated in the Greek Septuagint from the Hebrew), the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and stated as the titles of Christ and of God, as recorded in the Book of Revelation, but the question is what are their transliterations in literal Aramaic letters from the Aramaic alphabet? Surely that would have been the alphabet letters He would have actually referred to, don't you think?
Anyone who knows a little about the syntax of the Hebrew language knows that it has no letter "J" when transliterated into English, that the name "Jesus" for example is translated correctly from the Hebrew as Iesus or IHS, However the Greek transliteration for YHWH is sometimes claimed to be "IHWH" but is incorrect. From the Greek into English it is IEUE. as there is no equivalent for the letter "H" in the Greek Alphabet. It's easy to see with the different alphabets involved, why we really do have to always go back to the source, the Hebrew for answers. Jesus was a Hebrew and often endorsed the Old Testament, quoting it. You also wrote ....
Interesting you worked for the Amiga Corp. I seem to remember that was a group who defected from Atari. Did you work for the company before or after Commodore acquired it? The reason I say it is interesting is because wasn't it Amiga which developed something called "Logos"? Am wondering if that is the "information" you were "exposed" to?
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are you referencing something like the following ...
John_C _ No, something like this use of Roman Numerals, notice how some numbers such as 100 are written with one letter at a ratio of 1-3 and numbers such as 1,000 are written with just one letter at a ratio of 1 - 4. A number like VIII takes four letters to be written a number 8 by a ratio of 4-1.
http://romannumerals.babuo.com/roman-numerals-1-5000
I will finish answering when I get done work...was in a rush sorry if I made mistakes.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.96  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: use of Roman Numerals    John   numbers   letter  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Where is your said evidence at, to support you claim?
(Maybe from YouTube, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, OAN, WHRO, PBS, and so on?)
"We have mountains of evidence for Evolution and we are all still waiting on even one peer approved paper disputing such and as yet, Nada , ZIP , Zilch , Zero......."
I Googled "Evolution," and these Scientists were mentioned:
@Dee,
Can you derive any Evolution supporting evidence from those Scientists, and link or share your findings with this forum?
Or maybe the below could be of some assistance to you, as well?
https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-evolution
Search form
What is evolution?
In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.
What is natural selection?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.2  
  Sources: 19  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
Evolution is FACT get over it you ignoramus
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 70%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Evolution    FACT   ignoramus   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
@xlJ_dolphin_473
@AlofRI
@Plaffelvohfen
@DustinPfeifer
https://evolution-institute.org/darwin-wallace-evolution-and-atheism/
Darwin, Wallace, Evolution, and Atheism
Originally posted at From Starts to Stalagmites
"Peter Hitchens, younger brother of the late Christopher, says in the notorious London Daily Mail that the implication of evolution “is plainly atheistical, and if its truth could be proved, then the truth of atheism could be proved. I believe that is its purpose, and that it is silly to pretend otherwise.” Pat Robertson claims that “the evolutionists worship atheism.” Richard Dawkins tells us that he lost his faith in God when he learned about evolution, the claim that evolution is intrinsically atheistical is used repeatedly by advocates of creationism, including that bizarre oxymoron, “scientific creationism”, and the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document describes it as part of a malignant materialism that debunks traditional views of both God and man. Discovery Institute fellows also coached Ann Coulter, who went on to tell us that evolution is itself a discredited religion, related to the mental disorders of liberalism and godlessness."
The article is both enlightening and educational.
It entails the conversations in regards to Evolution and Atheism.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.42  
  Sources: 9  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Prove it, instead of easily calling people names Dee?
"Evolution is FACT get over it you ignoramus."
@Dee
It's fact based on who's own words?
I shared and linked information to you in front of the entire forum, and you apparently spat on it with this non response?
"1.1?"
@Dee if you refuse to debate equally and fairly, then how about taking up your grievances with Aarong?
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** Prove it, instead of easily calling people names Dee?
I haven’t called you names I’ve called you ignorant and that you are as you deny Evolution is fact
****It's fact based on who's own words?
Fact is based on evidence for which Evolution has in abundance
******I shared and linked information to you in front of the entire forum, and you apparently spat on it with this non response?
No one asked you for “information “ I know all about Evolution all you’re doing is trolling , if you can disprove Evolution you go for that there’s a Nobel prize awaiting you
****if you refuse to debate equally and fairly, then how about taking up your grievances with Aarong?
I debate fairly , I called you ignorant you are indeed ignorant as your denial of fact demonstrates , how about taking up your grievances with Aarong?
  Considerate: 35%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: American religious nuts    people names Dee   Nobel prize   front of the entire forum  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: lots of evidence    evolution   bit of evidence   standard theory of life  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
The relevance is in the easy at which a definition of God can be made simpler and in a much larger base by using numbers for an equation, not a letter for creation of the word. Here the numbers form the words and the solution to the numbers forms the one word as an answer.
We do not address the interpretations made from the wording in a language to another language it is the numbers that once addressed from each language, any language holds a form of a number and all interpretation as value then can be directly based on that principle of translation.
A person who does not have a clear grasp of relationships is only limited in the connection of crimes against them not learning, therefore and so on. So, dismissing the principle is not required as by saying it is not relevant, we describe something as only not understood to its inability to understood and wait for the way it can be understood.
The Tetragram inside the circle shown here in the drawling is demonstrating by principle the idea of secant can be held inside a circle without becoming a diameter. Those secants can be strung together in a line from degree as a triangle and circle share the principle of degrees. Much like Time and a circle share the principle of secant and second though there is a difference in spelling.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: principle of translation    larger base   idea of secant   circle share  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
GIFTS FROM GOD
PROCESSING THE PROCESS
8. That I can know wisdom comes from knowledge, that knowledge comes from learning, learning comes from experience, experience comes from courage and courage comes from a trust in all of these.
11. That this conclusion begs the ultimate question - Then where did all of these metaphysical attributes come from? That requires intelligence.
ANALYSIS:
.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    logic understanding   speed of light   worthless blobs of flesh  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
A densely packed dot exploding(2nd law of thermodynamics) and as it explodes the dot gets less densely packed and larger and more spread out.
Eventually some gas(still mass) settled together to form planets and stars and after 8.5 billion years the solar system formed. This is where evolution starts. All the molecules kept joining with different ones to get more complicated molecules. Eventually, DNA was made. That DNA became more complicated to make simple life cells. By accident one may have been a bit different and the others died out because they could not survive. This is called natural selection. It kept happening making more complicated life.Eventually humans formed. Because they are so complicated they can decide, invent and use. By doing that we came with laws and values so god did not have to interfere. There are other theories each one minimising god existance chances.
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    speed of light   worthless blobs of flesh   centre of gravity  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Wisdom.....
I always feel a little wiser after banging my head. Mainly due to the pain and the desire for it not to happen again.
Just for the record if a bang takes place before all others, it will always the biggest of its time. No matter its relative size to the others that came after.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: relative size    pain   desire   Wisdom  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    speed of light   worthless blobs of flesh   centre of gravity  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Unfortunately for me I just read through this ( as usual ) long winded pile of just to get to your point which is ..... All truths come from God. ...... Why do you write page upon page of unintelligent tripe just to assert there’s a god every argument you make is circular and void of implication , thankfully I can go back to ignoring you
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: page of unintelligent tripe    winded pile of BS   page   .....   
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra