Proof that God exists

[mrflibblehat]

Clearly God exists... Just look at humans for example...

Humans live forever

Humans never get cancer

Our hair doesn't turn gray and fall out

Our teeth always come in straight and never get cavities

I have never been sick or tired or hungry

Why do humans need to spend 1/3 of our lives.... Asleep?

Why do we have tonsils, appendix, gall bladder, and the hiccups?

Yup, humans are clearly perfect, and designed by a perfect God

Clearly God exists. Just look at what humans have done to themselves ^^^. But God is saving the ones who will accept salvation.

So all the things mentioned before we caused them to ourselves?

Yes, one way or another.   

Your mind is really gone, isn't it? You'd say anything just to get your way, no matter how crazy.

You have been smoking too much of that stuff. That's why you can't understand simple science.

Son, you're really out there, aren't you?

[BADecker]

Clearly God exists... Just look at humans for example...

Humans live forever

Humans never get cancer

Our hair doesn't turn gray and fall out

Our teeth always come in straight and never get cavities

I have never been sick or tired or hungry

Why do humans need to spend 1/3 of our lives.... Asleep?

Why do we have tonsils, appendix, gall bladder, and the hiccups?

Yup, humans are clearly perfect, and designed by a perfect God

Clearly God exists. Just look at what humans have done to themselves ^^^. But God is saving the ones who will accept salvation.

So all the things mentioned before we caused them to ourselves?

Yes, one way or another.   

Your mind is really gone, isn't it? You'd say anything just to get your way, no matter how crazy.

You have been smoking too much of that stuff. That's why you can't understand simple science.

Son, you're really out there, aren't you?

In there or out there doesn't matter. You haven't been able to refute the science I show.

Okay, okay. You talk more, so your political science might "refute" the science I show.

[Moloch]

In there or out there doesn't matter. You haven't been able to refute the science I show.

Okay, okay. You talk more, so your political science might "refute" the science I show.

When have you ever shown anything that even resembled science?

All you do is blather on and on about off-topic bullshit that nobody wants to read

[mrflibblehat]

At this point I really don't care anymore. I know what I know. You go with your god and leave me alone.

[BADecker]

In there or out there doesn't matter. You haven't been able to refute the science I show.

Okay, okay. You talk more, so your political science might "refute" the science I show.

When have you ever shown anything that even resembled science?

All you do is blather on and on about off-topic bullshit that nobody wants to read

As I said, whatever you have been smoking has nearly burned your brain out. You wouldn't recognize science if it came up and bit you in the left eye.



EDIT: Oh, sorry. That was mr-flea-bit-hat.

[Moloch]

In there or out there doesn't matter. You haven't been able to refute the science I show.

Okay, okay. You talk more, so your political science might "refute" the science I show.

When have you ever shown anything that even resembled science?

All you do is blather on and on about off-topic bullshit that nobody wants to read

As I said, whatever you have been smoking has nearly burned your brain out. You wouldn't recognize science if it came up and bit you in the left eye.

Science is solely about facts that can be substantiated via experimentation and evidence... show me some of this science you claim to have

[organofcorti]

How dense of you. The chemical reactions in both cases are way more complex than the results.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. How are you measuring the change in complexity? Or are you just making an assumption>

When somebody has found a way to track all the electrons, protons, and neutrons in a chemical action, plus all the energies involved in the reaction, you might get the answer to your question. Nobody tracks it. We can't, although we might track a little of it sometime. Just because we have figured out how it works, doesn't mean that we can track the parts as they are doing their thing.

So, In summary:

Either the examples I gave -- Copper sulphate solution precipitates copper sulphate crystals and wood burning to create smoke -- have the following unmeasureable pathways:

Complex material -> Complex reaction -> Simple material or;
Simple material -> Complex reaction -> Complex material

So using your explanation, in at least one of the cases something complex comes from something simple.

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

[BADecker]

At this point I really don't care anymore. I know what I know. You go with your god and leave me alone.

You only say that because it is the truth inside yourself trying to make itself known to you that is upsetting you so much.

[Moloch]

At this point I really don't care anymore. I know what I know. You go with your god and leave me alone.

You only say that because it is the truth inside yourself trying to make itself known to you that is upsetting you so much.

It's hard to tell if you are actually a Christian, or an Atheist, pretending to be Christian... to make Christians look bad... because you are doing a marvelous job of making Christians look mental

[af_newbie]

Is the 8 week old baby more complex than 2 weeks old baby?  Answer Yes or No please.

You understand the question, don't you?

... But I will answer it anyway. Yes. ...

Thank you.

You proved yourself wrong.   2 week old baby is less complex than 8 week old baby.
More complexity from less complexity.  There goes your "proof" of God, out to the dumpster.

Your Honour, I rest my case.  Witness is excused.

[BADecker]

In there or out there doesn't matter. You haven't been able to refute the science I show.

Okay, okay. You talk more, so your political science might "refute" the science I show.

When have you ever shown anything that even resembled science?

All you do is blather on and on about off-topic bullshit that nobody wants to read

As I said, whatever you have been smoking has nearly burned your brain out. You wouldn't recognize science if it came up and bit you in the left eye.

Science is solely about facts that can be substantiated via experimentation and evidence... show me some of this science you claim to have

You mean the kind like Big Bang Theory, and Black Hole Theory, which are not even part of the scientific process, because nobody can begin to duplicate them, because nobody can afford to use CERN?

You want to believe those theories are truth, when they can't even be duplicated, and when they are self contradictory, and when nobody but nobody can even go back then or out there to check.

But the things that have been prove as science law without contradiction - cause and effect, complex universe, universal entropy - over and over in nature all around us, you are willing to set aside without, almost a second thought? It really isn't even worth talking to you from the standpoint of science.

[BADecker]

How dense of you. The chemical reactions in both cases are way more complex than the results.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. How are you measuring the change in complexity? Or are you just making an assumption>

When somebody has found a way to track all the electrons, protons, and neutrons in a chemical action, plus all the energies involved in the reaction, you might get the answer to your question. Nobody tracks it. We can't, although we might track a little of it sometime. Just because we have figured out how it works, doesn't mean that we can track the parts as they are doing their thing.

So, In summary:

Either the examples I gave -- Copper sulphate solution precipitates copper sulphate crystals and wood burning to create smoke -- have the following unmeasureable pathways:

Complex material -> Complex reaction -> Simple material or;
Simple material -> Complex reaction -> Complex material

So using your explanation, in at least one of the cases something complex comes from something simple.

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

[BADecker]

At this point I really don't care anymore. I know what I know. You go with your god and leave me alone.

You only say that because it is the truth inside yourself trying to make itself known to you that is upsetting you so much.

It's hard to tell if you are actually a Christian, or an Atheist, pretending to be Christian... to make Christians look bad... because you are doing a marvelous job of making Christians look mental

There you go with more of your political science again.   

[BADecker]

Is the 8 week old baby more complex than 2 weeks old baby?  Answer Yes or No please.

You understand the question, don't you?

... But I will answer it anyway. Yes. ...

Thank you.

You proved yourself wrong.   2 week old baby is less complex than 8 week old baby.
More complexity from less complexity.  There goes your "proof" of God, out to the dumpster.

Your Honour, I rest my case.  Witness is excused.

Since you didn't include my whole answer, your case in entirely inadmissible.   

[af_newbie]

Is the 8 week old baby more complex than 2 weeks old baby?  Answer Yes or No please.

You understand the question, don't you?

... But I will answer it anyway. Yes. ...

Thank you.

You proved yourself wrong.   2 week old baby is less complex than 8 week old baby.
More complexity from less complexity.  There goes your "proof" of God, out to the dumpster.

Your Honour, I rest my case.  Witness is excused.

Since you didn't include my whole answer, your case in entirely inadmissible.   

You have been excused.

Good Luck with your imaginary proofs and your imaginary God.  I think you need it.

[craked5]

Is the 8 week old baby more complex than 2 weeks old baby?  Answer Yes or No please.

You understand the question, don't you?

... But I will answer it anyway. Yes. ...

Thank you.

You proved yourself wrong.   2 week old baby is less complex than 8 week old baby.
More complexity from less complexity.  There goes your "proof" of God, out to the dumpster.

Your Honour, I rest my case.  Witness is excused.

Nah, we already tried that.

I tried with evolution theory and fusions and simple tree growth but he just says yes then go like it was a no, won't work mate!

[craked5]

Hey BADecker, you still never explained why carbon datation was not reliable!

Not only carbon but all and any radioactive datation in fact.

[BADecker]

Is the 8 week old baby more complex than 2 weeks old baby?  Answer Yes or No please.

You understand the question, don't you?

... But I will answer it anyway. Yes. ...

Thank you.

You proved yourself wrong.   2 week old baby is less complex than 8 week old baby.
More complexity from less complexity.  There goes your "proof" of God, out to the dumpster.

Your Honour, I rest my case.  Witness is excused.

Since you didn't include my whole answer, your case in entirely inadmissible.   

You have been excused.

Good Luck with your imaginary proofs and your imaginary God.  I think you need it.

For your own good, turn your back on your imaginary science.   

[Moloch]

In there or out there doesn't matter. You haven't been able to refute the science I show.

Okay, okay. You talk more, so your political science might "refute" the science I show.

When have you ever shown anything that even resembled science?

All you do is blather on and on about off-topic bullshit that nobody wants to read

As I said, whatever you have been smoking has nearly burned your brain out. You wouldn't recognize science if it came up and bit you in the left eye.

Science is solely about facts that can be substantiated via experimentation and evidence... show me some of this science you claim to have

You mean the kind like Big Bang Theory, and Black Hole Theory, which are not even part of the scientific process, because nobody can begin to duplicate them, because nobody can afford to use CERN?

You want to believe those theories are truth, when they can't even be duplicated, and when they are self contradictory, and when nobody but nobody can even go back then or out there to check.

What are you babbling about now?  What is this about CERN?  Did you know you can fly to Switzerland and check it out for yourself?

Are you trying to say CERN is too expensive or something?  Or that nobody else can build a particle accelerator?

I hope you realize CERN is not the only particle accelerator around, and they are building bigger ones already

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

Hell, there are a dozen different varieties of particle accelerator... why do you think they just make this shit up like you do?  Not everyone is full of shit... only you...

You are like the rabbit that hides its head, but doesn't realize everyone can see it's whole body... because it is dark for the rabbit, the rabbit thinks it is hiding...

[BADecker]

Is the 8 week old baby more complex than 2 weeks old baby?  Answer Yes or No please.

You understand the question, don't you?

... But I will answer it anyway. Yes. ...

Thank you.

You proved yourself wrong.   2 week old baby is less complex than 8 week old baby.
More complexity from less complexity.  There goes your "proof" of God, out to the dumpster.

Your Honour, I rest my case.  Witness is excused.

Nah, we already tried that.

I tried with evolution theory and fusions and simple tree growth but he just says yes then go like it was a no, won't work mate!

That's just it. Evolution = theory. Cause and effect = fact/law. Cause and effect = programming = if evolution is true in any way, it was programmed into nature.