Anti-Atheist Bigotry: Atheists Are As Distrusted As Rapists

[organofcorti]

Of course you little bunch of atheists are going to throw out the parts of the religion definition that you don't like, as much as you can.

If I stand up like a god and make a proclamation about definitions, great. I believe in God. When an atheist stands up like a god and makes a proclamation about definitions, he nullifies his atheism. Why? Because he is turning himself into the exact thing that he says doesn't exist, simply by doing the things that a god would do.

Then when in the face of all the nature science evidence proof for the existence of God, the atheist adamantly sets himself up as great god by expressing firmly that God doesn't exist, the atheist squashes himself by what he expresses.

Perhaps you are taking atheism out of the realm of religion. You are moving it into the realm of pure science fiction. Doesn't the weight of your self-nullification even bother you? Of course not! Why would a lie bother the lie?... except that lying about the lie starts to turn it into a truth. Yes! God exists in even the atheists and their atheism.

I am not "throwing out the parts of the religion definition". As I said, the usual defintion of religion is absolutely consistent with all of the definitions at Dictionary.com

Your defintion of religion is consistent with only some of the definitions at Dictionary.com

You need to ignore some of the definitions to make your idea of religion work. I do not need to do this, as I've explained clearly and in many different ways.

If you don't get it, you're just wilfully ignoring the obvious.

There you go again, claiming to be a mind reader by suggesting what my definition is when I haven't expressed it.

Actually, atheism as a religion matches the whole definition of religion. Why? Because atheists are people. And being people, they have all the parts within themselves that any other people have. Because of this, an atheist grounded in his atheism HAS a religion of atheism going for himself, even if his formal definition of atheism and religion should somehow not match the written definition.

Atheism isn't anything without people/atheists. Atheists are people, and people are religious creatures by nature. In the case of the atheist, his religion happens to be atheism.

Of course you have expressed your defintion of religion -- it's one that includes atheism. In fact, in the next sentence you go on to say that very thing, as you have many time before. You ignore the fact that it contradicts many other defintion of religion, and also contradicts all defintion of atheism.

I think baddekker has a point here as an atheist i more ideal in proofs that miracles. Now there is this saying to atheists that "if u cant see your brain then u have no brain?" there's a proof there a brain but u ur self can only see on images. Back to my point i agree that atheist always think high of themselves we tend to belittle some religious people cause they have on hope on something thats not there. And atheist just accept whats gonna happen and Hope someone or some situation is there.

When BADecker wants to use definitions and proofs, he or she does. When he/she doesn't, proofs and definitions are ignored.

I don't have any problem with someone making a claim on faith that god exists, but when that person claims to have a proof that god exists or claim to be able to prove that a word means something completely different to the way in which dictionaries define that word, then we are on completely different ground.

Since you haven't refuted the scientific proof that God exists, yet seem to be making the adamant claim that the scientific proof isn't there, you prove that you have a religion going for yourself, simply by your belief.

I could be wrong, of course. I have no real evidence you are human. And if you are not human, maybe you don't need religion like all the humans do.

Nothing you have presented constitutes"scientific proof". All you done is made some hand-wavy, self contradictory generalities and have called it a "scientific proof", even though a scientific proof requires scientific evidence.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

What is your empirical evidence that god or gods exist? You haven't provided any evidence of that, just a vague "oh you evil atheist, can't you see god's hand in everything around you?" type of remark.

Try to do an experiment. Post the aims and method here, so we can replicate your results. Then post your results.

If you (or some one more science-minded) can create a reproducible experiment that proves a god's existence and the results are independently verified, then I'll believe that the god you've proven to exist, exists. This is treating your evidence in exactly the same way I would treat every other scientific proposition that I read. Shouldn't your proof be treated the same way?

[mOgliE]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

[organofcorti]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

[BADecker]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

[Moloch2]

Bernie will make ether price high again I will soon post a meme which proves that.

[organofcorti]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

[BADecker]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

[Balthazar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hc1NPwXDKQ

Hehehe, that was hilarious.

By the way...

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

According to a 2012 official survey 26.6% of the population of Primorsky Krai adheres to the Russian Orthodox Church, 6% are unaffiliated generic Christians, 1% adheres to other Orthodox churches or is an Orthodox believer without belonging to any church, and 1% of the population adheres to the Slavic native faith (Rodnovery) or to local Siberian native faiths. In addition, 24% of the population declares to be "spiritual but not religious, 35% is atheist, and 6.4% follows other religions or did not give an answer to the question.

Guys don't go there, 59% of local population are rapists.

[samlanhan1]

I'm not  athiests but it's pretty crap that people treat them like this.

Is it really that terrible to talk to someone who doesn't believe what you do?

[organofcorti]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

It might not be your "job or goal" to make such claims about a "scientific proof of god", but you sure do seem to make that claim a lot. Are you backing away from your "scientific proof of god" claim now?

[BADecker]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

It might not be your "job or goal" to make such claims about a "scientific proof of god", but you sure do seem to make that claim a lot. Are you backing away from your "scientific proof of god" claim now?

So far, that I am aware of, I don't have a "scientific proof of God" claim. So, there is nothing for me to back away from. However, if you would like to see the scientific proof for God, simply research the info that I have made available many times, about cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy.

[JesusHadAegis]

I'm not  athiests but it's pretty crap that people treat them like this.

Is it really that terrible to talk to someone who doesn't believe what you do?

For starters yes because your ideas don't jive unless one of you will lower his pride and ideals and go with the topic.

And this atheist discriminition is just a common misconception like muslims are all terrorists. Some atheist are dedicated to there work and respect others. And some are dicks proclaiming god is just an imaginary creation of human beings. or other atheist shout out about god.

[organofcorti]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

It might not be your "job or goal" to make such claims about a "scientific proof of god", but you sure do seem to make that claim a lot. Are you backing away from your "scientific proof of god" claim now?

So far, that I am aware of, I don't have a "scientific proof of God" claim. So, there is nothing for me to back away from. However, if you would like to see the scientific proof for God, simply research the info that I have made available many times, about cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy.

You claim to not have a scientific proof of god anymore?

Did you realise you were wrong, or have you changed your mind about needing a scientific proof of god?

[BADecker]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

It might not be your "job or goal" to make such claims about a "scientific proof of god", but you sure do seem to make that claim a lot. Are you backing away from your "scientific proof of god" claim now?

So far, that I am aware of, I don't have a "scientific proof of God" claim. So, there is nothing for me to back away from. However, if you would like to see the scientific proof for God, simply research the info that I have made available many times, about cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy.

You claim to not have a scientific proof of god anymore?

Did you realise you were wrong, or have you changed your mind about needing a scientific proof of god?

You seem to be hung up on the idea that I have some claim regarding scientific proof that God exists. Yet you won't tell us what you think my claim is. Because of this it is very difficult to even know what you are talking about.

Science itself has the proof that God exists. There are at least two ways that Science proves this.

1. Cause and effect combined with complex universe combined with universal entropy, is one of the ways that science proves that God exists.

2. The fact that nature acts like a big, complex machine proves God. Why? Because all of our machines have machine-makers. We have no experience of any of our machines that have come about spontaneously, without a machine maker. Since the machine universe is as complex as it is, Whoever made it fits our definition of the word "God."

[organofcorti]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

It might not be your "job or goal" to make such claims about a "scientific proof of god", but you sure do seem to make that claim a lot. Are you backing away from your "scientific proof of god" claim now?

So far, that I am aware of, I don't have a "scientific proof of God" claim. So, there is nothing for me to back away from. However, if you would like to see the scientific proof for God, simply research the info that I have made available many times, about cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy.

You claim to not have a scientific proof of god anymore?

Did you realise you were wrong, or have you changed your mind about needing a scientific proof of god?

You seem to be hung up on the idea that I have some claim regarding scientific proof that God exists. Yet you won't tell us what you think my claim is. Because of this it is very difficult to even know what you are talking about.

Science itself has the proof that God exists. There are at least two ways that Science proves this.

1. Cause and effect combined with complex universe combined with universal entropy, is one of the ways that science proves that God exists.

2. The fact that nature acts like a big, complex machine proves God. Why? Because all of our machines have machine-makers. We have no experience of any of our machines that have come about spontaneously, without a machine maker. Since the machine universe is as complex as it is, Whoever made it fits our definition of the word "God."

That is not a scientific proof, as you well know. It's just armchair philosophy, and illogical at that.

Firstly, the first statement is nonsensical, since "complex universe" is a term you made up and have yet to explain.

The second statement is just the fallacious "Watchmaker analogy".

Hume's reply to this (several hundred years ago) was:
1. We have no experience with world-building, so how can you know that a godless world (or universe) would appear any different?
2. Machines and nature are not similar enough to for one to draw an analogy
3. Even if there is a 'designer' this is not proof of an omnipotent and personal god.

This has been addressed and answered many times in the hundreds of years since, so I'm not sure why you think it could possibly be a useful argument in favour of God.


In summary, you have no scientific or logical proof of god.

[BADecker]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

It might not be your "job or goal" to make such claims about a "scientific proof of god", but you sure do seem to make that claim a lot. Are you backing away from your "scientific proof of god" claim now?

So far, that I am aware of, I don't have a "scientific proof of God" claim. So, there is nothing for me to back away from. However, if you would like to see the scientific proof for God, simply research the info that I have made available many times, about cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy.

You claim to not have a scientific proof of god anymore?

Did you realise you were wrong, or have you changed your mind about needing a scientific proof of god?

You seem to be hung up on the idea that I have some claim regarding scientific proof that God exists. Yet you won't tell us what you think my claim is. Because of this it is very difficult to even know what you are talking about.

Science itself has the proof that God exists. There are at least two ways that Science proves this.

1. Cause and effect combined with complex universe combined with universal entropy, is one of the ways that science proves that God exists.

2. The fact that nature acts like a big, complex machine proves God. Why? Because all of our machines have machine-makers. We have no experience of any of our machines that have come about spontaneously, without a machine maker. Since the machine universe is as complex as it is, Whoever made it fits our definition of the word "God."

That is not a scientific proof, as you well know. It's just armchair philosophy, and illogical at that.

Firstly, the first statement is nonsensical, since "complex universe" is a term you made up and have yet to explain.

The second statement is just the fallacious "Watchmaker analogy".

Hume's reply to this (several hundred years ago) was:
1. We have no experience with world-building, so how can you know that a godless world (or universe) would appear any different?
2. Machines and nature are not similar enough to for one to draw an analogy
3. Even if there is a 'designer' this is not proof of an omnipotent and personal god.

This has been addressed and answered many times in the hundreds of years since, so I'm not sure why you think it could possibly be a useful argument in favour of God.


In summary, you have no scientific or logical proof of god.

Of course what I said isn't proof. However, if one were to scientifically test the points that I speak about, he would find the proof.

[organofcorti]

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

It might not be your "job or goal" to make such claims about a "scientific proof of god", but you sure do seem to make that claim a lot. Are you backing away from your "scientific proof of god" claim now?

So far, that I am aware of, I don't have a "scientific proof of God" claim. So, there is nothing for me to back away from. However, if you would like to see the scientific proof for God, simply research the info that I have made available many times, about cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy.

You claim to not have a scientific proof of god anymore?

Did you realise you were wrong, or have you changed your mind about needing a scientific proof of god?

You seem to be hung up on the idea that I have some claim regarding scientific proof that God exists. Yet you won't tell us what you think my claim is. Because of this it is very difficult to even know what you are talking about.

Science itself has the proof that God exists. There are at least two ways that Science proves this.

1. Cause and effect combined with complex universe combined with universal entropy, is one of the ways that science proves that God exists.

2. The fact that nature acts like a big, complex machine proves God. Why? Because all of our machines have machine-makers. We have no experience of any of our machines that have come about spontaneously, without a machine maker. Since the machine universe is as complex as it is, Whoever made it fits our definition of the word "God."

That is not a scientific proof, as you well know. It's just armchair philosophy, and illogical at that.

Firstly, the first statement is nonsensical, since "complex universe" is a term you made up and have yet to explain.

The second statement is just the fallacious "Watchmaker analogy".

Hume's reply to this (several hundred years ago) was:
1. We have no experience with world-building, so how can you know that a godless world (or universe) would appear any different?
2. Machines and nature are not similar enough to for one to draw an analogy
3. Even if there is a 'designer' this is not proof of an omnipotent and personal god.

This has been addressed and answered many times in the hundreds of years since, so I'm not sure why you think it could possibly be a useful argument in favour of God.


In summary, you have no scientific or logical proof of god.

Of course what I said isn't proof. However, if one were to scientifically test the points that I speak about, he would find the proof.

Scientifically test what? How? Exactly what experiment can you perform to prove god exists ?

[BADecker]

<>

In summary, you have no scientific or logical proof of god.

Of course what I said isn't proof. However, if one were to scientifically test the points that I speak about, he would find the proof.

Scientifically test what? How? Exactly what experiment can you perform to prove god exists ?

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

[Moloch]

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

You could simply link the source of your information so we can debunk it... like this guy:
http://philosophytalk.org/community/blog/david-livingstone-smith/2015/04/do-natural-laws-prove-god-exists-new-wrinkle-old

So let’s accept ‘for the sake of the argument’ that (1) all causes produce their effects in conformity with the laws of nature, (2) laws require a lawmaker, and (3) only God could have made the laws of nature (leading to the conclusion that God exists)—and push this line of reasoning a little bit further. Clearly, if God made the laws of nature, then this happened, right? And if everything that happens conforms to the laws of nature, then God’s act of making the laws of nature must have conformed to the laws of nature too (because it’s something that happened). Now think about this for a moment and you’ll see how mind-twistingly weird it is. If it’s true that God’s act of making the laws of nature had to conform to the laws of nature, then the laws of nature had to exist before God made them! But that’s crazy, because nothing can exist before it existed.

None of us are stupid enough to believe that you created this, "3 laws prove God exists" idea on your own... you have never had an original idea, ever...

Please post the source of your misinformation... please?

Is it this article?
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106

[BADecker]

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

You could simply link the source of your information so we can debunk it... like this guy:
http://philosophytalk.org/community/blog/david-livingstone-smith/2015/04/do-natural-laws-prove-god-exists-new-wrinkle-old

So let’s accept ‘for the sake of the argument’ that (1) all causes produce their effects in conformity with the laws of nature, (2) laws require a lawmaker, and (3) only God could have made the laws of nature (leading to the conclusion that God exists)—and push this line of reasoning a little bit further. Clearly, if God made the laws of nature, then this happened, right? And if everything that happens conforms to the laws of nature, then God’s act of making the laws of nature must have conformed to the laws of nature too (because it’s something that happened). Now think about this for a moment and you’ll see how mind-twistingly weird it is. If it’s true that God’s act of making the laws of nature had to conform to the laws of nature, then the laws of nature had to exist before God made them! But that’s crazy, because nothing can exist before it existed.

None of us are stupid enough to believe that you created this, "3 laws prove God exists" idea on your own... you have never had an original idea, ever...

Please post the source of your misinformation... please?

Is it this article?
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106

Google "cause and effect"  "complex universe"  "entropy" to find all the info you need to combine to prove that God exists.

Ages ago, this was standard understanding until scientists started to desperately attempt to prove these things wrong. Since they haven't been able to do it, they start to lie by saying that theories are fact when they don't know it for certain.

Am I telling you that you have to research anything? Of course not. You don't even have to think for all I care.