Proof that God exists

[mainpmf]

...
P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

The guy is confused by "all these theories".  He needs one truth: God exist because it exist.
All science is just theories.  Religitards reject all scientific facts and theories that contradict
their "Goat Herding Manual - Adventures of the 1st century herdsman." aka the Bible.

I'm starting to like your posts a lot. You a good buddy, talking all this, but never contradicting the scientific laws that prove God exists.

Scientific laws you're the only one to explain and interpret this way...

[valta4065]

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist



P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

Ahah!

For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!! 

Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^

[BADecker]

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist



P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

Ahah!

For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!! 

Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^

No wonder you like Wikipedia so much. All you have to do is get in there and write whatever nonsense you want, and people think you are a great guy.

[BADecker]

...
P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

The guy is confused by "all these theories".  He needs one truth: God exist because it exist.
All science is just theories.  Religitards reject all scientific facts and theories that contradict
their "Goat Herding Manual - Adventures of the 1st century herdsman." aka the Bible.

I'm starting to like your posts a lot. You a good buddy, talking all this, but never contradicting the scientific laws that prove God exists.

Scientific laws you're the only one to explain and interpret this way...

Well, we don't know this for sure... about me, that is. For example. Many people used gravity for a long time before Newton expressed his scientific law of gravity. If you think that Newton was the first one who ever talked about gravity, you are too ignorant to even be posting in any forum.

[Moloch]

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist



P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

Ahah!

For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!!  

Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^

No wonder you like Wikipedia so much. All you have to do is get in there and write whatever nonsense you want, and people think you are a great guy.

You clearly have never tried to edit Wikipedia and "write whatever nonsense you want"...

Why don't you try some day?  Go for it!  Edit the Evolution page... change it to say Evolution is a big conspiracy and a lie...

Test:
1) If you are even capable of editing the Wikipedia page
2) How long your misinformation stays on Wikipedia

Test your hypothesis (like any scientist would)... fucking do it, don't be a pussy!

[BADecker]

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist



P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

Ahah!

For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!!  

Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^

No wonder you like Wikipedia so much. All you have to do is get in there and write whatever nonsense you want, and people think you are a great guy.

You clearly have never tried to edit Wikipedia and "write whatever nonsense you want"...

Why don't you try some day?  Go for it!  Edit the Evolution page... change it to say Evolution is a big conspiracy and a lie...

Test:
1) If you are even capable of editing the Wikipedia page
2) How long your misinformation stays on Wikipedia

Test your hypothesis (like any scientist would)... fucking do it, don't be a pussy!

I'll simply continue to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. After all, even in the faulty explanations that they allow, one can find some grains of truth.

[Moloch]

I'll simply continue to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. After all, even in the faulty explanations that they allow, one can find some grains of truth.

How would you define "truth" if you disagree with consensus reality?  Wikipedia is basically... consensus reality...

There are even rules against opinionated sections... everything must be factual, not opinion like you seem to think...

I can't say that I've personally seen anything on Wikipedia that was not correct and accurate with linked sources, and verified by a simple google search

Holy Jebus! Even the Wikipedia page about Wikipedia has 356 referenced sources!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Accuracy_of_content

[bonski]

try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.

[Moloch]

try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.

Testimonies are not acceptable forms of evidence for science.

Testimonies are by definition subjective hearsay... It is not possible to prove anything based on testimony alone

Miracles on the other hand, do not exist. Period. End of story. There is no evidence for miracles, and by definition, there cannot ever be any evidence of miracles

Prayer does not work... Try praying for an amputee to regrow their limb... it wont happen...

The Templeton institute did a scientific study on prayer involving 1802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients separated into 3 groups... group 1 and 3 were prayed for by 3 entire churches, while group 2 was not prayed for.  Group 3 was also made aware they were being prayed for, but group 1 was unaware... the results were:

Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). Some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers

Basically, no difference at all between group 1 & 2, while the group which knew hundreds of people were praying for them, died 14.6% more often, and "fared worse than those who did not receive prayers"

[bonski]

try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.

Testimonies are not acceptable forms of evidence for science.

Testimonies are by definition subjective hearsay... It is not possible to prove anything based on testimony alone

Miracles on the other hand, do not exist. Period. End of story. There is no evidence for miracles, and by definition, there cannot ever be any evidence of miracles

Prayer does not work... Try praying for an amputee to regrow their limb... it wont happen...

The Templeton institute did a scientific study on prayer involving 1802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients separated into 3 groups... group 1 and 3 were prayed for by 3 entire churches, while group 2 was not prayed for.  Group 3 was also made aware they were being prayed for, but group 1 was unaware... the results were:

Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). Some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers

Then if that's your opinion we have freedom of speech. I respect your opinion. With God, to believe is to see not to see is to believe.

[Moloch]

try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.

Testimonies are not acceptable forms of evidence for science.

Testimonies are by definition subjective hearsay... It is not possible to prove anything based on testimony alone

Miracles on the other hand, do not exist. Period. End of story. There is no evidence for miracles, and by definition, there cannot ever be any evidence of miracles

Prayer does not work... Try praying for an amputee to regrow their limb... it wont happen...

The Templeton institute did a scientific study on prayer involving 1802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients separated into 3 groups... group 1 and 3 were prayed for by 3 entire churches, while group 2 was not prayed for.  Group 3 was also made aware they were being prayed for, but group 1 was unaware... the results were:

Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). Some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers

Basically, no difference at all between group 1 & 2, while the group which knew hundreds of people were praying for them, died 14.6% more often, and "fared worse than those who did not receive prayers"

Then if that's your opinion we have freedom of speech. I respect your opinion. With God, to believe is to see not to see is to believe.

That is definitely not my "opinion", that is a fact, Jack...

Testimony is often disregarded in Law as hearsay, etc...

Testimony is always disregarded in Science as an untestable claim/opinion...

Science does not and will never accept testimony as evidence

[galdur]

[Moloch]

Everyone knows Jesus was black... white boys ain't got abs of steel...



Jesus was darker than Ben Carson

[valta4065]

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist



P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

Ahah!

For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!! 

Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^

No wonder you like Wikipedia so much. All you have to do is get in there and write whatever nonsense you want, and people think you are a great guy.

Ouch! Seems like you have no idea how wikipedia really works...

Yeah you can write whatever you want but dozens of people are going to check your work. If you're wrong they're going to warn you once or twice and correct you and then they'll ban you if you persist in writing nonsense.

[arbitrage]

Why do people even need to talk about god in 21 century?
We just need to apply most of good things from every religion..
Don't kill, don't steal..

[Moloch]

Why do people even need to talk about god in 21 century?
We just need to apply most of good things from every religion..
Don't kill, don't steal..

Nigga please... Religion did not invent morality!

Do not kill and do not steal were laws long before the bible...

Ever heard of "the code of Hammurabi"? Much older than the bible, and still not the first secular system of laws!

[Betwrong]

Why do people even need to talk about god in 21 century?
We just need to apply most of good things from every religion..
Don't kill, don't steal..

The thing is there is no country in 21st century where the government follow the "Don't kill, don't steal" rules. Looks like a pretty simple rule but as it turned out impossible to follow. That's why people are trying to figure out whether the God exists and what does he want from people. IMO of course.

[eon89]

Why do people even need to talk about god in 21 century?
We just need to apply most of good things from every religion..
Don't kill, don't steal..

The thing is there is no country in 21st century where the government follow the "Don't kill, don't steal" rules. Looks like a pretty simple rule but as it turned out impossible to follow. That's why people are trying to figure out whether the God exists and what does he want from people. IMO of course.

People don't follow that rule in the first place. It's like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing all over again.

[BADecker]

Why do people even need to talk about god in 21 century?
We just need to apply most of good things from every religion..
Don't kill, don't steal..

People don't realize that they need to talk about God for exactly this reason.

God DID make a Stone that was so heavy that He couldn't lift it. Then, the Stone did what God wanted, and lifted itself.

That Stone was Jesus Christ, the Rock, who lifted Himself up onto the cross (by allowing the Jews to do it to Him) so that the sins of the whole world would be taken away, and many people could be saved.

The mysterious thing about this is, when Jesus did it, because He was God as well as man, He was setting people on a level plain right next to Himself. People now have a choice. They can be like God, or they can destroy themselves in the weakness of remaining as man.

The way people are like God is to accept Jesus as their Savior. If they deny Jesus as their Savior, they can do it, because they have the power of God in themselves to reject Godness. But, if they reject the Godness in themselves, there is no other way for them to be saved.

Come to Jesus and be saved.

[eon89]

Damn. I wonder how long did the CELG (church emergency logic group) discuss that piece before they come up with the stone raising itself.