Bitcoin Forum
April 20, 2018, 01:32:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 [320] 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 ... 474 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Scientific proof that God exists?  (Read 799841 times)
stats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 22, 2017, 01:09:32 PM
 #6381


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1524187941
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524187941

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524187941
Reply with quote  #2

1524187941
Report to moderator
1524187941
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524187941

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524187941
Reply with quote  #2

1524187941
Report to moderator
1524187941
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524187941

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524187941
Reply with quote  #2

1524187941
Report to moderator
naville
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 132
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 22, 2017, 01:52:42 PM
 #6382

however it is faith no need to proof to believe in god

Libre Bazaar - A Decentralized Anonymous MarketplacePre-ICOAnnouncement Thread
Blockchain and Data Storage Network Coupled With P2P Anonymous Networking
User Friendly ▲▼ Anonymous ▲▼ Community Driven

af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004



View Profile
April 22, 2017, 01:59:17 PM
 #6383


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1030


View Profile
April 22, 2017, 06:32:05 PM
 #6384


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

God is a being Who is fantastically powerful. Yet from the scientific proof, He is simply defined as something undefinable. So God has been defined.

Cool
af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004



View Profile
April 22, 2017, 06:38:17 PM
 #6385


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

God is a being Who is fantastically powerful. Yet from the scientific proof, He is simply defined as something undefinable. So God has been defined.

Cool

So you can prove something that is undefinable.  I think you can expect a call from Nobel Price committee anytime soon...

Take out your velvet suit and oil your Mossberg 500, you are going to Sweden.  Yee-ya!!!
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1030


View Profile
April 22, 2017, 06:42:47 PM
 #6386


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

God is a being Who is fantastically powerful. Yet from the scientific proof, He is simply defined as something undefinable. So God has been defined.

Cool

So you can prove something that is undefinable.  I think you can expect a call from Nobel Price committee anytime soon...

Take out your velvet suit and oil your Mossberg 500, you are going to Sweden.  Yee-ya!!!


Okay. Let's see YOU define something that is so great that it acts on all the particles, energies, and dimensions of the universe, in the same way, but way better than, a pool shark manipulates the pool balls on a pool table during a game of pool. That is God.

Cool
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 635
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 22, 2017, 10:18:07 PM
 #6387

Don't worry we'll keep BSDecker in check.  He cannot just bullshit here willy-nilly.

BufferOverflow, Moloch, stats, myself and many others have exposed the obvious holes in his "proofs" on many other threads
that he keeps spamming.  I think he works on commission Smiley

The guy is in the cult, but his problem is that he is not the sharpest tool in the shed so it is hard for him to understand his predicament.
Why are you focusing only on BADecker? Did anyone ever point out the obvious holes in the 101 proofs from the OP, for example? And what about my proofs? It seems as though many proofs in this thread are simply dismissed without further consideration.

Kindly point out the obvious holes in the proofs that I have provided?

1) Chris Carter summarizes "the evidence that provides a prima facie case for survival [and] demonstrates that alternative explanations, to the extent that they are testable, have been proven false".
2) "the brain is more likely to transmit consciousness than it is to produce consciousness because the transmission hypothesis explains more facts than the production hypothesis"
3) many of the greatest scientific minds believe... that the scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe.

Many of the smartest minds were able to comprehend the evidence. Religion came about as a way of explaining evidence that supports survival; this is evidence which comes from many and varying classes of phenomena.

Eminent researchers who recognized the truth about mind were many, often they conducted their own experiments and were critical of Darwinian theory:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Pseudo-skeptics only offer pseudo-scientific excuses for refusing to accept an otherwise straightforward inference from the evidence. Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments are often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out.

Why do atheists like to ignore those physical manifestations that suggest the survival of the personality? There are many intriguing examples.
Why no replies? Here is a document coming from American CIA:
More evidence suggestive of the idea that mind is a form of matter:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 635
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 22, 2017, 10:20:03 PM
 #6388


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

Just read the book "Atheism and Secularity" if you are seriously confused about the GOD question. In the introduction Mr. Eller states that a rational atheist would reject all spiritual thinking, and that all rational atheists are humanists, so existence of a rational being which is nonhuman would obviously call humanism (as well as atheism) into question. GOD is a rational being and is called THE supreme being.
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 635
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 22, 2017, 10:31:53 PM
 #6389


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.
All theories regarding the origin will fail due to being literally unthinkable, so your criticism is lame. Did you read Herbert Spencer's "First Principles" and disagree with it? You found a theory of origin not mentioned by Spencer? Since all such theories are unthinkable then where should Infinity BE?

Science Documentary about the Infinite:
https://youtu.be/sPtYN0hDCtM
af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004



View Profile
April 22, 2017, 11:44:20 PM
 #6390

Don't worry we'll keep BSDecker in check.  He cannot just bullshit here willy-nilly.

BufferOverflow, Moloch, stats, myself and many others have exposed the obvious holes in his "proofs" on many other threads
that he keeps spamming.  I think he works on commission Smiley

The guy is in the cult, but his problem is that he is not the sharpest tool in the shed so it is hard for him to understand his predicament.
Why are you focusing only on BADecker? Did anyone ever point out the obvious holes in the 101 proofs from the OP, for example? And what about my proofs? It seems as though many proofs in this thread are simply dismissed without further consideration.

Kindly point out the obvious holes in the proofs that I have provided?

1) Chris Carter summarizes "the evidence that provides a prima facie case for survival [and] demonstrates that alternative explanations, to the extent that they are testable, have been proven false".
2) "the brain is more likely to transmit consciousness than it is to produce consciousness because the transmission hypothesis explains more facts than the production hypothesis"
3) many of the greatest scientific minds believe... that the scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe.

Many of the smartest minds were able to comprehend the evidence. Religion came about as a way of explaining evidence that supports survival; this is evidence which comes from many and varying classes of phenomena.

Eminent researchers who recognized the truth about mind were many, often they conducted their own experiments and were critical of Darwinian theory:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Pseudo-skeptics only offer pseudo-scientific excuses for refusing to accept an otherwise straightforward inference from the evidence. Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments are often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out.

Why do atheists like to ignore those physical manifestations that suggest the survival of the personality? There are many intriguing examples.
Why no replies? Here is a document coming from American CIA:
More evidence suggestive of the idea that mind is a form of matter:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/

Why do you think atheists are ignoring anything?  If there is an evidence of something supernatural, it will be studied and understood.  Just because there are things that cannot be explained currently does not mean there is GOD or the Supreme being.  You are jumping to conclusions to fit your preconceived belief system.

Let the leading neuroscientists work on it. Consciousness is an interesting phenomenon, I agree.  Especially for us, self-aware creatures that can study it.

I am not a neuroscientist so I cannot contribute. 
af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004



View Profile
April 22, 2017, 11:45:50 PM
 #6391


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

Just read the book "Atheism and Secularity" if you are seriously confused about the GOD question. In the introduction Mr. Eller states that a rational atheist would reject all spiritual thinking, and that all rational atheists are humanists, so existence of a rational being which is nonhuman would obviously call humanism (as well as atheism) into question. GOD is a rational being and is called THE supreme being.

The problem is I am not convinced God exist.  More like, I am convinced it does not exist.

I actually am not even sure what the religious people are talking about.  Religious people cannot even define what they are believing in...never mind providing evidence for something 'undefined'.

af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004



View Profile
April 23, 2017, 04:22:05 AM
 #6392


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

God is a being Who is fantastically powerful. Yet from the scientific proof, He is simply defined as something undefinable. So God has been defined.

Cool

So you can prove something that is undefinable.  I think you can expect a call from Nobel Price committee anytime soon...

Take out your velvet suit and oil your Mossberg 500, you are going to Sweden.  Yee-ya!!!


Okay. Let's see YOU define something that is so great that it acts on all the particles, energies, and dimensions of the universe, in the same way, but way better than, a pool shark manipulates the pool balls on a pool table during a game of pool. That is God.

Cool

Most religious people identify God as the "God of the gaps".  When they don't know something, when they see the complexity of the world they do not understand, they feel they need to explain it with something.  That something (the unknown and the unexplained) becomes God.  Now that is what pantheists do.

The Abramaic religions take this unknown concept further, assigning human qualities to it, adding moral codes and ethics, in some cases defining a whole legal system and create a religion.  Creating a deity/entity/independent agent out of the 'unknown'.

The worst part is the moral, ethical and legal systems created based on the God concept (the gaps in our human knowledge).  The end result is nonsense.

That is why Christian God ends up caring about what you wear, which testicles you touch, where you put your dick, what you eat and who you marry.   Muslim God also cares how many times you pray, and which direction you are facing while you are praying.  Not to mention his obsession with what women wear or who they talk to.

Atheists and agnostics leave the unknown, unknown.  The only logical way to discover the unknown is to study it.  Science has been proven as one of the best ways to learn about how the world works.
And in my opinion, it is the best way to unpeel the unknown like an onion, layer by layer.  The 'God of the gaps' gets smaller and smaller as science makes new discoveries and proves its theories with direct observations.



BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1030


View Profile
April 23, 2017, 02:39:01 PM
 #6393


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

God is a being Who is fantastically powerful. Yet from the scientific proof, He is simply defined as something undefinable. So God has been defined.

Cool

So you can prove something that is undefinable.  I think you can expect a call from Nobel Price committee anytime soon...

Take out your velvet suit and oil your Mossberg 500, you are going to Sweden.  Yee-ya!!!


Okay. Let's see YOU define something that is so great that it acts on all the particles, energies, and dimensions of the universe, in the same way, but way better than, a pool shark manipulates the pool balls on a pool table during a game of pool. That is God.

Cool

Most religious people identify God as the "God of the gaps".  When they don't know something, when they see the complexity of the world they do not understand, they feel they need to explain it with something.  That something (the unknown and the unexplained) becomes God.  Now that is what pantheists do.

The Abramaic religions take this unknown concept further, assigning human qualities to it, adding moral codes and ethics, in some cases defining a whole legal system and create a religion.  Creating a deity/entity/independent agent out of the 'unknown'.

The worst part is the moral, ethical and legal systems created based on the God concept (the gaps in our human knowledge).  The end result is nonsense.

That is why Christian God ends up caring about what you wear, which testicles you touch, where you put your dick, what you eat and who you marry.   Muslim God also cares how many times you pray, and which direction you are facing while you are praying.  Not to mention his obsession with what women wear or who they talk to.

Atheists and agnostics leave the unknown, unknown.  The only logical way to discover the unknown is to study it.  Science has been proven as one of the best ways to learn about how the world works.
And in my opinion, it is the best way to unpeel the unknown like an onion, layer by layer.  The 'God of the gaps' gets smaller and smaller as science makes new discoveries and proves its theories with direct observations.


Yet, God exists as has been shown by the scientific proof, and by nature. Just because people don't understand what God is, doesn't have anything to do with WHAT HE IS.

God, Himself, gave the Abrahamic people through Isaac, possible the best form of religion. The Abrahamic people through Ishmael contradict the good religion of Isaac. This is not deity creation. This is acknowledging the Deity in both the right way, and a wrong way.

God cares about everything, because He is intimately in contact with every subatomic particle and wave of energy through cause and effect, right from the beginning to the present.

Since science has proven that God exists, because scientists won't study it when they study everything else, shows that they are against God.

Cool
sirazimuth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1050


born once atheist


View Profile
April 23, 2017, 03:13:09 PM
 #6394


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed






You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

ok, 1st of all, I'm not your son, you arrogant bastard
 Denying evolution in the face of 200 years of peer reviewed science and evidence eh?
Yeah all that silly stuff that modern evolutionary biology is based on? Its all a big lie folks!
We've all been suckered. BADecker says so right here in this bitcoin thread and
he even knows about Newtons 3rd law and cause and effect so he must speak be the truth!

 I'm not gonna argue with ya bud.  You're too far over the cliff and its a waste of time.
But try this for starters
Its one of thousands and unlike your stupid merry go round links back to yourself
 it actually links to an outside reputable site.

 I just like coming here to troll you because I can always count on you to quote me with a good Sunday morning
laughable reply like the one above.
So anyway, be seein ya next Sunday for my quote and another good belly laugh.


             
                     

Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1030


View Profile
April 23, 2017, 04:03:04 PM
 #6395


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed






You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

ok, 1st of all, I'm not your son, you arrogant bastard
You are not a son or a daughter? You were born bi?  Cheesy


Denying evolution in the face of 200 years of peer reviewed science and evidence eh?
Yeah all that silly stuff that modern evolutionary biology is based on? Its all a big lie folks!
We've all been suckered. BADecker says so right here in this bitcoin thread and
he even knows about Newtons 3rd law and cause and effect so he must speak be the truth!
Are you trying to say that scientists are so pure that they wouldn't have an agenda? How could they even be scientists if that were the case.

Did you ever look at the term, "the Theory of Evolution?" Why is it a theory? Because the same evidence suggests other things that are not evolution, as well.

Two hundred years of evidence, and they still haven't proven evolution. It should really be dropped from theory status into a simple science fiction idea.



 I'm not gonna argue with ya bud.  You're too far over the cliff and its a waste of time.
But try this for starters
Its one of thousands and unlike your stupid merry go round links back to yourself
 it actually links to an outside reputable site.
Thanks for this Scientific American article/site. It helps to prove that evolution does not even belong in the category/class of theory status. How does it prove this? It shows a bunch of rebutted rebuttals.

As you say, let interested people do their own research.



 I just like coming here to troll you because I can always count on you to quote me with a good Sunday morning
laughable reply like the one above.
So anyway, be seein ya next Sunday for my quote and another good belly laugh.


              
                     http://i.imgur.com/UrCSU2u.jpg

Is that why you seldom reply directly to my posts. You have a hard time finding anything wrong with them to talk against. Rather, you simply show how ignorant you are by not recognizing that God exists.


Cool
af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004



View Profile
April 23, 2017, 06:33:37 PM
 #6396


Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

God is a being Who is fantastically powerful. Yet from the scientific proof, He is simply defined as something undefinable. So God has been defined.

Cool

So you can prove something that is undefinable.  I think you can expect a call from Nobel Price committee anytime soon...

Take out your velvet suit and oil your Mossberg 500, you are going to Sweden.  Yee-ya!!!


Okay. Let's see YOU define something that is so great that it acts on all the particles, energies, and dimensions of the universe, in the same way, but way better than, a pool shark manipulates the pool balls on a pool table during a game of pool. That is God.

Cool

Most religious people identify God as the "God of the gaps".  When they don't know something, when they see the complexity of the world they do not understand, they feel they need to explain it with something.  That something (the unknown and the unexplained) becomes God.  Now that is what pantheists do.

The Abramaic religions take this unknown concept further, assigning human qualities to it, adding moral codes and ethics, in some cases defining a whole legal system and create a religion.  Creating a deity/entity/independent agent out of the 'unknown'.

The worst part is the moral, ethical and legal systems created based on the God concept (the gaps in our human knowledge).  The end result is nonsense.

That is why Christian God ends up caring about what you wear, which testicles you touch, where you put your dick, what you eat and who you marry.   Muslim God also cares how many times you pray, and which direction you are facing while you are praying.  Not to mention his obsession with what women wear or who they talk to.

Atheists and agnostics leave the unknown, unknown.  The only logical way to discover the unknown is to study it.  Science has been proven as one of the best ways to learn about how the world works.
And in my opinion, it is the best way to unpeel the unknown like an onion, layer by layer.  The 'God of the gaps' gets smaller and smaller as science makes new discoveries and proves its theories with direct observations.


Yet, God exists as has been shown by the scientific proof, and by nature. Just because people don't understand what God is, doesn't have anything to do with WHAT HE IS.

God, Himself, gave the Abrahamic people through Isaac, possible the best form of religion. The Abrahamic people through Ishmael contradict the good religion of Isaac. This is not deity creation. This is acknowledging the Deity in both the right way, and a wrong way.

God cares about everything, because He is intimately in contact with every subatomic particle and wave of energy through cause and effect, right from the beginning to the present.

Since science has proven that God exists, because scientists won't study it when they study everything else, shows that they are against God.

Cool

How did you determine God's sex?  That is what I am talking about.  You personified the 'unknown' and you think it is a male.

You are just making conjectures based on the Bible stories.

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1030


View Profile
April 24, 2017, 12:21:03 AM
 #6397


How did you determine God's sex?  That is what I am talking about.  You personified the 'unknown' and you think it is a male.

You are just making conjectures based on the Bible stories.


Have you ever thought of using a dictionary?
father
[fah-th er]

noun

...

5. a person who has originated or established something:
the father of modern psychology; the founding fathers.

...

10. (initial capital letter) Theology. the Supreme Being and Creator; God.

...

12. the Father, Theology. the first person of the Trinity.


Or is it that you don't have dictionaries where you are at?

Cool
af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004



View Profile
April 24, 2017, 01:33:27 AM
 #6398


How did you determine God's sex?  That is what I am talking about.  You personified the 'unknown' and you think it is a male.

You are just making conjectures based on the Bible stories.


Have you ever thought of using a dictionary?
father
[fah-th er]

noun

...

5. a person who has originated or established something:
the father of modern psychology; the founding fathers.

...

10. (initial capital letter) Theology. the Supreme Being and Creator; God.

...

12. the Father, Theology. the first person of the Trinity.


Or is it that you don't have dictionaries where you are at?

Cool

Ok, so I was right.  You don't know what God is.  You said he is the 'undefined', 'unknown', yet you personified HIM, as a fertile male based on what someone WROTE in the book.

So in your world, Bible is all you need to know, Bible has all the proofs you need for the existence of God.  After all, someone (God) wrote it, right.

You are a retard.  Don't you see the problem?  'Undefined' cannot be a 'father'.

If you say HE is the father, then you anthropomorphized the 'unknown', 'undefined'.  You created HIM in your head.

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1030


View Profile
April 24, 2017, 03:32:54 AM
 #6399


How did you determine God's sex?  That is what I am talking about.  You personified the 'unknown' and you think it is a male.

You are just making conjectures based on the Bible stories.


Have you ever thought of using a dictionary?
father
[fah-th er]

noun

...

5. a person who has originated or established something:
the father of modern psychology; the founding fathers.

...

10. (initial capital letter) Theology. the Supreme Being and Creator; God.

...

12. the Father, Theology. the first person of the Trinity.


Or is it that you don't have dictionaries where you are at?

Cool

Ok, so I was right.  You don't know what God is.  You said he is the 'undefined', 'unknown', yet you personified HIM, as a fertile male based on what someone WROTE in the book.

So in your world, Bible is all you need to know, Bible has all the proofs you need for the existence of God.  After all, someone (God) wrote it, right.

You are a retard.  Don't you see the problem?  'Undefined' cannot be a 'father'.

If you say HE is the father, then you anthropomorphized the 'unknown', 'undefined'.  You created HIM in your head.


You asked how I determined God's sex. The answer is  that the dictionary and the Bible say it.

In science, God is essentially undefined.

Go cry in the corner.

Cool
af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1004



View Profile
April 24, 2017, 05:28:10 PM
 #6400


How did you determine God's sex?  That is what I am talking about.  You personified the 'unknown' and you think it is a male.

You are just making conjectures based on the Bible stories.


Have you ever thought of using a dictionary?
father
[fah-th er]

noun

...

5. a person who has originated or established something:
the father of modern psychology; the founding fathers.

...

10. (initial capital letter) Theology. the Supreme Being and Creator; God.

...

12. the Father, Theology. the first person of the Trinity.


Or is it that you don't have dictionaries where you are at?

Cool

Ok, so I was right.  You don't know what God is.  You said he is the 'undefined', 'unknown', yet you personified HIM, as a fertile male based on what someone WROTE in the book.

So in your world, Bible is all you need to know, Bible has all the proofs you need for the existence of God.  After all, someone (God) wrote it, right.

You are a retard.  Don't you see the problem?  'Undefined' cannot be a 'father'.

If you say HE is the father, then you anthropomorphized the 'unknown', 'undefined'.  You created HIM in your head.


You asked how I determined God's sex. The answer is  that the dictionary and the Bible say it.

In science, God is essentially undefined.

Go cry in the corner.

Cool

Ok, so we agree that God is 'undefined'. 

Now let's talk about why you believe it is a HE.
Basically you believe it is a HE because the Bible and the Christian dictionary says God is a fertile he (aka father).

How did people who wrote the Bible know God was a HE if we know now that God is 'undefined'?

Pages: « 1 ... 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 [320] 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 ... 474 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!