Scientific proof that God exists?

[Buffer Overflow]

God does exist, here is the proof if you read this, you might start to wonder and say oh shit, Now all you homos and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

I don't understand how if we disproved the big bang, this in anyway proves god?
Oh and please keep your insecure homophobic views to yourself.

Read the bible then you will understand

First you need to prove to me it hasn't been "tampered" with by man over the centuries.

[(oYo)]

Now all you homos and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

I'm curious as to why you felt the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'. Doesn't your bible identify homosexuality as a sin? I didn't realize it was elevated to some special class of (inhuman) evil.

The bible is one of the most violent religious books in history. The "god" of the bible promotes the killing of women, children, and men for trivial things.

I'm sorry, but the bible is just a bunch of bullcrap. Everyone here should really research the laws of moses, or just google it and check for yourself if you have an extra bible with you. It'll show you all the insane violence promoted by "god".

If god Inspired man to write the bible, Then why not Satan inspired man to write false bibles.  You guys have no brains.

lol. I'm not the one that believes in fairy tales, no matter who inspired them, whether it be God, Satan or Mother Goose. (Although I really do like the ones by Dr. Seuss.)

BTW, WTF are these "false bibles" you are talking about? Does the pope read from a 'true' or 'false' bible? Are some of the bibles you find in any catholic/christian church 'false bibles'? How can anyone tell the difference?

You didn't answer my earlier questions either. Why did you feel the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'? Doesn't your (I assume, god inspired) bible identify homosexuality as a sin? So, wouldn't it be enough to just lump them in with the rest of the sinners? That's ok, you don't really need to answer that, we all know you were just exercising your inalienable right to be a bigot. Right? Which, isn't a sin? This god stuff is so confusing for us guys with no brains. Luckily we have geniuses like you reading the 'true' bibles, 'praying for us' and being the good christians you obviously are, informing us of how brainless we are.

[BADecker]

You didn't answer my earlier questions either. Why did you feel the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'? Doesn't your (I assume, god inspired) bible identify homosexuality as a sin? So, wouldn't it be enough to just lump them in with the rest of the sinners? That's ok, you don't really need to answer that, we all know you were just exercising your inalienable right to be a bigot. Right? Which, isn't a sin? This god stuff is so confusing for us guys with no brains. Luckily we have geniuses like you reading the 'true' bibles, 'praying for us' and being the good christians you obviously are, informing us of how brainless we are.

Who knows for sure what he thought, but, too many "homos" don't think that they are sinners. He was probably simply showing the homos that they are sinners, as well. So it would have been only a clarification.

Often the dividing line between prejudice and bigotry isn't very clear. One might say that homosexual sinners are prejudiced against Christian sinners, or vice versa. And there are bigots in both groups as well.

The thing that is interesting is that usually it is the homosexual sinners that jump immediately into accusations of bigotry against the Christian sinners, almost as though they are throwing up a wall of protection from some unseen foe, because, while there might be accusations on the Christian sinners side, such accusations come from desires for change among homosexual sinners, so that good can come to homosexual sinners as it is coming to the Christian sinners.

[cryptodevil]

2)  Think of it this way:  I start with a preconception of what god is, i.e. an intelligent designer.  Then, I forget all about that preconception and simply go about my business trying to use logic to uncover the fundamental truths of reality.  One such truth happens to be that reality is a mental construct.  Knowing this, I can retrieve my original presupposition and compare it to my findings.  Since it is practical to equate 'reality as a mental construct' with 'intelligent design,' I can practically conclude God exists.

Swing and a miss, fella. Arguments for and against empiricism and rationalism tend to ignore the fact that both are applicable and useful tools of developing an understanding our Universe. I take umbrage with your grindingly clunky assertion above, as you simply cannot with any intellectual honesty, boldly start any premise with "Since it is practical to equate reality as a mental construct . . .therefore God"

Consider for a moment the fact that reality for us is a mental construct, but it isn't for the myriad scientific equipment we have built which is capable of observing/measuring the reality which exists outside our 'mental construct'. Unless you want to claim the Large Hadron Collider to be a sentient being of course.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Plus intellectual honesty and integrity.

None of our technological devices are capable of measuring for a god because god exists within our imagination and is blindly asserted as real by people overwhelmed by their Almighty Imagination beyond their existing capability for intellectual honesty and integrity.

You may defend the notion of the existence of a god with exactly the same vim and vigour that could be applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But don't pretend it holds any more value or validity than anything else arbitrarily stated to be real. If the FSM is lacking in any regards to the 'God' with a capital G, then you are simply to attribute the same characteristics to the FSM that would otherwise be applied to your 'God', at will. Or Harry Potter for that matter. Or, well, anything else you care to imagine.

[darkota]

You didn't answer my earlier questions either. Why did you feel the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'? Doesn't your (I assume, god inspired) bible identify homosexuality as a sin? So, wouldn't it be enough to just lump them in with the rest of the sinners? That's ok, you don't really need to answer that, we all know you were just exercising your inalienable right to be a bigot. Right? Which, isn't a sin? This god stuff is so confusing for us guys with no brains. Luckily we have geniuses like you reading the 'true' bibles, 'praying for us' and being the good christians you obviously are, informing us of how brainless we are.

Who knows for sure what he thought, but, too many "homos" don't think that they are sinners. He was probably simply showing the homos that they are sinners, as well. So it would have been only a clarification.

Often the dividing line between prejudice and bigotry isn't very clear. One might say that homosexual sinners are prejudiced against Christian sinners, or vice versa. And there are bigots in both groups as well.

The thing that is interesting is that usually it is the homosexual sinners that jump immediately into accusations of bigotry against the Christian sinners, almost as though they are throwing up a wall of protection from some unseen foe, because, while there might be accusations on the Christian sinners side, such accusations come from desires for change among homosexual sinners, so that good can come to homosexual sinners as it is coming to the Christian sinners.

Homosexuality, since being studied from the 1960s, is a natural and very common occurrence in almost every specie on Earth. In humanity, males are strict in their sexual attractions(Tend to be either Gay or Straight, though a new study shows that bisexual males do exist, but are rarer than the other two orientations), and that females are fluid in their sexual attractions with studies throughout the decades(since alfred kinsey) showing that females, regardless of their identifying orientation, all present a bisexual nature of attraction.

This goes against what's presented in the Bible, why? Because the bible is wrong, not holy, and was created specifically as a "lawbook" most likely, for the Israelites, Unfortunately, we today take it legitimately, but if we are to cherrypick some parts of the bible such as what BADecker does, then we must also listen to the other atrocities commanded by God in the bible such as:

1) "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

- In that quote from the Bible, God promotes the killing of innocents, while also promoting Pedophilia by keeping the women Children(notice children) alive. So now we know that the God of the bible promotes not just violence, but pedophilia(or hebephilia, depends on the age of the children, though I presume children are below the age of 12).


2) "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

- Here, god gives the command to kill innocents yet again, simply because they do not believe him. Mass genocide anyone? You can even compare the God of the bible to Adolf Hitler by this point.


Those are only two quotes I took from the bible(There are hundreds of other atrocities in there commanded by "God", if you're interested). This shows that not only is "God" from the bible evil in some respects, but also that if you listen and believe in the bible and define yourself as such, such as BADecker does, then you cannot cherrypick which parts you will listen to. Did you ever read the Laws of Moses BADecker, where there are laws that promote the stoning of your wife should she ever cheat, or the killing of a priest for drinking wine? Yea.


It's so sad to see people so foolishly manipulated by things they don't even fully know... It just shows humanity has not progressed far enough to trluy create a world of peace and love, without the need to abide by a book that largely promotes death, intolerance, and ignorance.

[Buffer Overflow]

You didn't answer my earlier questions either. Why did you feel the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'? Doesn't your (I assume, god inspired) bible identify homosexuality as a sin? So, wouldn't it be enough to just lump them in with the rest of the sinners? That's ok, you don't really need to answer that, we all know you were just exercising your inalienable right to be a bigot. Right? Which, isn't a sin? This god stuff is so confusing for us guys with no brains. Luckily we have geniuses like you reading the 'true' bibles, 'praying for us' and being the good christians you obviously are, informing us of how brainless we are.

Who knows for sure what he thought, but, too many "homos" don't think that they are sinners. He was probably simply showing the homos that they are sinners, as well. So it would have been only a clarification.

Often the dividing line between prejudice and bigotry isn't very clear. One might say that homosexual sinners are prejudiced against Christian sinners, or vice versa. And there are bigots in both groups as well.

The thing that is interesting is that usually it is the homosexual sinners that jump immediately into accusations of bigotry against the Christian sinners, almost as though they are throwing up a wall of protection from some unseen foe, because, while there might be accusations on the Christian sinners side, such accusations come from desires for change among homosexual sinners, so that good can come to homosexual sinners as it is coming to the Christian sinners.

Homosexuality, since being studied from the 1960s, is a natural and very common occurrence in almost every specie on Earth. In humanity, males are strict in their sexual attractions(Tend to be either Gay or Straight, though a new study shows that bisexual males do exist, but are rarer than the other two orientations), and that females are fluid in their sexual attractions with studies throughout the decades(since alfred kinsey) showing that females, regardless of their identifying orientation, all present a bisexual nature of attraction.

This goes against what's presented in the Bible, why? Because the bible is wrong, not holy, and was created specifically as a "lawbook" most likely, for the Israelites, Unfortunately, we today take it legitimately, but if we are to cherrypick some parts of the bible such as what BADecker does, then we must also listen to the other atrocities commanded by God in the bible such as:

1) "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

- In that quote from the Bible, God promotes the killing of innocents, while also promoting Pedophilia by keeping the women Children(notice children) alive. So now we know that the God of the bible promotes not just violence, but pedophilia(or hebephilia, depends on the age of the children, though I presume children are below the age of 12).


2) "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

- Here, god gives the command to kill innocents yet again, simply because they do not believe him. Mass genocide anyone? You can even compare the God of the bible to Adolf Hitler by this point.


Those are only two quotes I took from the bible(There are hundreds of other atrocities in there commanded by "God", if you're interested). This shows that not only is "God" from the bible evil in some respects, but also that if you listen and believe in the bible and define yourself as such, such as BADecker does, then you cannot cherrypick which parts you will listen to. Did you ever read the Laws of Moses BADecker, where there are laws that promote the stoning of your wife should she ever cheat, or the killing of a priest for drinking wine? Yea.


It's so sad to see people so foolishly manipulated by things they don't even fully know... It just shows humanity has not progressed far enough to trluy create a world of peace and love, without the need to abide by a book that largely promotes death, intolerance, and ignorance.

Bu, bu, but, but.... It's the way you interpret it.

[RodeoX]

Wow, it's like watching children argue over where the Easter bunny lives. I just can't imagine living in such a demon haunted world.

[duckydonald]

Wow, it's like watching children argue over where the Easter bunny lives. I just can't imagine living in such a demon haunted world.

The easter bunny was inspired for one thing to make money out of religious holiday. 

[username18333]

God does exist, here is the proof if you read this, you might start to wonder and say oh shit, Now all you homo[sexual]s and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

This is their paper's page on ArXiv:
[1404.3093v3] Cosmology from quantum potential
and the actual paper (pdf):
Page on arxiv.org

It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe.

Huh. Even though I've studied a bit of cosmology at undergrad level, I don't understand much. There are many references to advanced models (most of the [Name] equations, "Yukawa force laws", "Hubble and CM shift parameters", " five-dimensional Schwarzschild-AdS geometry"...). It seems to me that it would require significant knowledge to fully comprehend the paper, which will probably remain inaccessible to the layman.

However, from what I understand, the gist of it is that:
1) They used the corrected Raychaudhuri equation to investigate the big bang.
2) Due to the corrections, two additional terms seem to have popped up in the final equation.
3) The first term corresponds to dark energy, and the magnitude of this term agrees with what we currently detect in experiments.
4) The second term implies that the initial big bang-like event is "pushed back" to negative infinity. So, if you go back in time, the universe gets asymptotically smaller but never reaches a singlularity.

(Red colorization mine.)

Hyperreal numbers are an extension of the real numbers to include certain classes of infinite and infinitesimal numbers. A hyperreal number 𝑥 is said to be finite iff |𝑥| < n for some integer 𝑛. 𝑥 is said to be infinitesimal iff |𝑥| < ⅟ₙ for all integers 𝑛.

[the joint]

2)  Think of it this way:  I start with a preconception of what god is, i.e. an intelligent designer.  Then, I forget all about that preconception and simply go about my business trying to use logic to uncover the fundamental truths of reality.  One such truth happens to be that reality is a mental construct.  Knowing this, I can retrieve my original presupposition and compare it to my findings.  Since it is practical to equate 'reality as a mental construct' with 'intelligent design,' I can practically conclude God exists.

Swing and a miss, fella. Arguments for and against empiricism and rationalism tend to ignore the fact that both are applicable and useful tools of developing an understanding our Universe. I take umbrage with your grindingly clunky assertion above, as you simply cannot with any intellectual honesty, boldly start any premise with "Since it is practical to equate reality as a mental construct . . .therefore God"

Consider for a moment the fact that reality for us is a mental construct, but it isn't for the myriad scientific equipment we have built which is capable of observing/measuring the reality which exists outside our 'mental construct'. Unless you want to claim the Large Hadron Collider to be a sentient being of course.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Plus intellectual honesty and integrity.

None of our technological devices are capable of measuring for a god because god exists within our imagination and is blindly asserted as real by people overwhelmed by their Almighty Imagination beyond their existing capability for intellectual honesty and integrity.

You may defend the notion of the existence of a god with exactly the same vim and vigour that could be applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But don't pretend it holds any more value or validity than anything else arbitrarily stated to be real. If the FSM is lacking in any regards to the 'God' with a capital G, then you are simply to attribute the same characteristics to the FSM that would otherwise be applied to your 'God', at will. Or Harry Potter for that matter. Or, well, anything else you care to imagine.

Were you going to get around to making a response that's actually relevant to what I said?  But hey, if you think that misunderstanding an argument and then defeating your own misunderstanding makes you the winner, then by all means keep it up.

You see this sentence that you quoted as if I wrote it?:

"Since it is practical to equate reality as a mental construct . . .therefore God"

Yeah... I didn't say that. Actually, I didn't even say anything close to it.  So why the hell are you quoting me as such?

What I actually said was:

Since it is practical to equate 'reality as a mental construct' with 'intelligent design,' I can practically conclude God exists

Notice the extraordinary difference?  You just wasted your entire post attacking a point of view you invented.  Yeah, you sure showed me...

By the way, the FSM is a totally invalid analogy.  If you would stop thinking that you know something you clearly don't, you would learn why.  I'm busy, and I don't have the time to hold your hand and walk you through the basics.  I used to make it a habit to respond with proper consideration to anyone's argument no matter how poor it may be, but I'm really starting to grow tired of that.  There are plenty of people who understand things such as sound inference and the limitations of various exploratory methods, and they're much more likely to get something out of the conversation.

[the joint]

Wow, it's like watching children argue over where the Easter bunny lives. I just can't imagine living in such a demon haunted world.

No, it's not.  The Easter Bunny is essentially equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an analogy, and is therefore invalid with respect to this topic.  It would, however, be valid with respect to a debate about the existence of polytheistic gods (just not monotheistic ones).

[(oYo)]

Wow, it's like watching children argue over where the Easter bunny lives. I just can't imagine living in such a demon haunted world.

No, it's not.  The Easter Bunny is essentially equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an analogy, and is therefore invalid with respect to this topic.  It would, however, be valid with respect to a debate about the existence of polytheistic gods (just not monotheistic ones).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, has chosen to take the form we currently know. This does not in any way equate to it not remaining omnipresent, at the same time. An omnipotent being can easily reconcile this seemingly paradoxical state, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it. The Easter Bunny, on the other hand, is not even a polytheistic god, but simply a rabbit that shits eggs in springtime.

[the joint]

Wow, it's like watching children argue over where the Easter bunny lives. I just can't imagine living in such a demon haunted world.

No, it's not.  The Easter Bunny is essentially equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an analogy, and is therefore invalid with respect to this topic.  It would, however, be valid with respect to a debate about the existence of polytheistic gods (just not monotheistic ones).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, has chosen to take the form we currently know. This does not in any way equate to it not remaining omnipresent, at the same time. An omnipotent being can easily reconcile this seemingly paradoxical state, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it. The Easter Bunny, on the other hand, is not even a polytheistic god, but simply a rabbit that shits eggs in springtime.

Lol, the photo is great.

As for the rest of it, I disagree. The reason is that the the FSM, unlike a monotheistic god, is defined specifically according to its constraints.  Monotheistic gods are not defined according to constraint, but rather in terms of a lack thereof, and as you point out they would have the ability to omnipotently reconcile a paradoxical state (e.g. if the monotheistic god imposed constraints upon itself to take the form of the FSM).  However, because the FSM is defined specifically in terms of constraints, the analogy falls apart because it is thus theoretically possible, even if not practically so,  to imagine a way to falsify the existence of the FSM via empiricism.  The same does not hold true for a monotheistic god.  

It's a subtle, but significant, difference.

[(oYo)]

Wow, it's like watching children argue over where the Easter bunny lives. I just can't imagine living in such a demon haunted world.

No, it's not.  The Easter Bunny is essentially equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an analogy, and is therefore invalid with respect to this topic.  It would, however, be valid with respect to a debate about the existence of polytheistic gods (just not monotheistic ones).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, has chosen to take the form we currently know. This does not in any way equate to it not remaining omnipresent, at the same time. An omnipotent being can easily reconcile this seemingly paradoxical state, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it. The Easter Bunny, on the other hand, is not even a polytheistic god, but simply a rabbit that shits eggs in springtime.

Lol, the photo is great.

As for the rest of it, I disagree. The reason is that the the FSM, unlike a monotheistic god, is defined specifically according to its constraints.  Monotheistic gods are not defined according to constraint, but rather in terms of a lack thereof, and as you point out they would have the ability to omnipotently reconcile a paradoxical state (e.g. if the monotheistic god imposed constraints upon itself to take the form of the FSM).  However, because the FSM is defined specifically in terms of constraints, the analogy falls apart because it is thus theoretically possible, even if not practically so,  to imagine a way to falsify the existence of the FSM via empiricism.  The same does not hold true for a monotheistic god.  

It's a subtle, but significant, difference.

lol, ya, I really like that photo too. 

I think the subtle, yet incorrect, presumption you keep making here, is when you insist the FSM is *defined* according to its constraints, whereby it is merely *described* by them, and not actually defined by them. Truly, it is defined as being monotheistic, put most simply, by the fact that it alone created the entire universe as well as heaven and hell.

Like I said in an earlier post, even the (supposedly) monotheistic christian god is described as taking the form of a burning bush, yet it isn't defined as being such. (*I say 'supposedly', because it is a trinity made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thereby making it more of a polytheistic god, than a monotheistic one.)

[the joint]

Wow, it's like watching children argue over where the Easter bunny lives. I just can't imagine living in such a demon haunted world.

No, it's not.  The Easter Bunny is essentially equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an analogy, and is therefore invalid with respect to this topic.  It would, however, be valid with respect to a debate about the existence of polytheistic gods (just not monotheistic ones).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, has chosen to take the form we currently know. This does not in any way equate to it not remaining omnipresent, at the same time. An omnipotent being can easily reconcile this seemingly paradoxical state, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it. The Easter Bunny, on the other hand, is not even a polytheistic god, but simply a rabbit that shits eggs in springtime.

Lol, the photo is great.

As for the rest of it, I disagree. The reason is that the the FSM, unlike a monotheistic god, is defined specifically according to its constraints.  Monotheistic gods are not defined according to constraint, but rather in terms of a lack thereof, and as you point out they would have the ability to omnipotently reconcile a paradoxical state (e.g. if the monotheistic god imposed constraints upon itself to take the form of the FSM).  However, because the FSM is defined specifically in terms of constraints, the analogy falls apart because it is thus theoretically possible, even if not practically so,  to imagine a way to falsify the existence of the FSM via empiricism.  The same does not hold true for a monotheistic god.  

It's a subtle, but significant, difference.

lol, ya, I really like that photo too.  

I think the subtle, yet incorrect, presumption you keep making here, is when you insist the FSM is *defined* according to its constraints, whereby it is merely *described* by them, and not actually defined by them. Truly, it is defined as being monotheistic, put most simply, by the fact that it alone created the entire universe as well as heaven and hell.

Like I said in an earlier post, even the (supposedly) monotheistic christian god is described as taking the form of a burning bush, yet it isn't defined as being such. (*I say 'supposedly', because it is a trinity made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thereby making it more of a polytheistic god, than a monotheistic one.)

Maybe rephrasing will emphasize my point a bit:

If a monotheistic god is defined in terms of a lack of constraint, then it could omnipotently turn into an FSM and still be a monotheistic god.

If an FSM is defined in terms of constraint as I'm suggesting, then if the FSM turned into a Crawling Potato Monster (the CPM...duh!) it would no longer be an FSM (because a CPM does not fly and is not made of spaghetti).

[BADecker]

You didn't answer my earlier questions either. Why did you feel the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'? Doesn't your (I assume, god inspired) bible identify homosexuality as a sin? So, wouldn't it be enough to just lump them in with the rest of the sinners? That's ok, you don't really need to answer that, we all know you were just exercising your inalienable right to be a bigot. Right? Which, isn't a sin? This god stuff is so confusing for us guys with no brains. Luckily we have geniuses like you reading the 'true' bibles, 'praying for us' and being the good christians you obviously are, informing us of how brainless we are.

Who knows for sure what he thought, but, too many "homos" don't think that they are sinners. He was probably simply showing the homos that they are sinners, as well. So it would have been only a clarification.

Often the dividing line between prejudice and bigotry isn't very clear. One might say that homosexual sinners are prejudiced against Christian sinners, or vice versa. And there are bigots in both groups as well.

The thing that is interesting is that usually it is the homosexual sinners that jump immediately into accusations of bigotry against the Christian sinners, almost as though they are throwing up a wall of protection from some unseen foe, because, while there might be accusations on the Christian sinners side, such accusations come from desires for change among homosexual sinners, so that good can come to homosexual sinners as it is coming to the Christian sinners.

Homosexuality, since being studied from the 1960s, is a natural and very common occurrence in almost every specie on Earth. In humanity, males are strict in their sexual attractions(Tend to be either Gay or Straight, though a new study shows that bisexual males do exist, but are rarer than the other two orientations), and that females are fluid in their sexual attractions with studies throughout the decades(since alfred kinsey) showing that females, regardless of their identifying orientation, all present a bisexual nature of attraction.

This goes against what's presented in the Bible, why? Because the bible is wrong, not holy, and was created specifically as a "lawbook" most likely, for the Israelites, Unfortunately, we today take it legitimately, but if we are to cherrypick some parts of the bible such as what BADecker does, then we must also listen to the other atrocities commanded by God in the bible such as:

1) "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

- In that quote from the Bible, God promotes the killing of innocents, while also promoting Pedophilia by keeping the women Children(notice children) alive. So now we know that the God of the bible promotes not just violence, but pedophilia(or hebephilia, depends on the age of the children, though I presume children are below the age of 12).


2) "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

- Here, god gives the command to kill innocents yet again, simply because they do not believe him. Mass genocide anyone? You can even compare the God of the bible to Adolf Hitler by this point.


Those are only two quotes I took from the bible(There are hundreds of other atrocities in there commanded by "God", if you're interested). This shows that not only is "God" from the bible evil in some respects, but also that if you listen and believe in the bible and define yourself as such, such as BADecker does, then you cannot cherrypick which parts you will listen to. Did you ever read the Laws of Moses BADecker, where there are laws that promote the stoning of your wife should she ever cheat, or the killing of a priest for drinking wine? Yea.


It's so sad to see people so foolishly manipulated by things they don't even fully know... It just shows humanity has not progressed far enough to trluy create a world of peace and love, without the need to abide by a book that largely promotes death, intolerance, and ignorance.

Bu, bu, but, but.... It's the way you interpret it.

That's why it has the size it does, so it can interpret itself.

[(oYo)]

Wow, it's like watching children argue over where the Easter bunny lives. I just can't imagine living in such a demon haunted world.

No, it's not.  The Easter Bunny is essentially equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an analogy, and is therefore invalid with respect to this topic.  It would, however, be valid with respect to a debate about the existence of polytheistic gods (just not monotheistic ones).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, has chosen to take the form we currently know. This does not in any way equate to it not remaining omnipresent, at the same time. An omnipotent being can easily reconcile this seemingly paradoxical state, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it. The Easter Bunny, on the other hand, is not even a polytheistic god, but simply a rabbit that shits eggs in springtime.

Lol, the photo is great.

As for the rest of it, I disagree. The reason is that the the FSM, unlike a monotheistic god, is defined specifically according to its constraints.  Monotheistic gods are not defined according to constraint, but rather in terms of a lack thereof, and as you point out they would have the ability to omnipotently reconcile a paradoxical state (e.g. if the monotheistic god imposed constraints upon itself to take the form of the FSM).  However, because the FSM is defined specifically in terms of constraints, the analogy falls apart because it is thus theoretically possible, even if not practically so,  to imagine a way to falsify the existence of the FSM via empiricism.  The same does not hold true for a monotheistic god.  

It's a subtle, but significant, difference.

lol, ya, I really like that photo too.  

I think the subtle, yet incorrect, presumption you keep making here, is when you insist the FSM is *defined* according to its constraints, whereby it is merely *described* by them, and not actually defined by them. Truly, it is defined as being monotheistic, put most simply, by the fact that it alone created the entire universe as well as heaven and hell.

Like I said in an earlier post, even the (supposedly) monotheistic christian god is described as taking the form of a burning bush, yet it isn't defined as being such. (*I say 'supposedly', because it is a trinity made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thereby making it more of a polytheistic god, than a monotheistic one.)

Maybe rephrasing will emphasize my point a bit:

If a monotheistic god is defined in terms of a lack of constraint, then it could omnipotently turn into an FSM and still be a monotheistic god.

If an FSM is defined in terms of constraint as I'm suggesting, then if the FSM turned into a Crawling Potato Monster (the CPM...duh!) it would no longer be an FSM (because a CPM does not fly and is not made of spaghetti).

God could choose to take the form of a CPM instead of an FSM if that is what God truly wished, after all It did create the universe and all, but God chose the form of an FSM because It deemed that form to be simply divine.

[the joint]

Wow, it's like watching children argue over where the Easter bunny lives. I just can't imagine living in such a demon haunted world.

No, it's not.  The Easter Bunny is essentially equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an analogy, and is therefore invalid with respect to this topic.  It would, however, be valid with respect to a debate about the existence of polytheistic gods (just not monotheistic ones).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, has chosen to take the form we currently know. This does not in any way equate to it not remaining omnipresent, at the same time. An omnipotent being can easily reconcile this seemingly paradoxical state, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it. The Easter Bunny, on the other hand, is not even a polytheistic god, but simply a rabbit that shits eggs in springtime.

Lol, the photo is great.

As for the rest of it, I disagree. The reason is that the the FSM, unlike a monotheistic god, is defined specifically according to its constraints.  Monotheistic gods are not defined according to constraint, but rather in terms of a lack thereof, and as you point out they would have the ability to omnipotently reconcile a paradoxical state (e.g. if the monotheistic god imposed constraints upon itself to take the form of the FSM).  However, because the FSM is defined specifically in terms of constraints, the analogy falls apart because it is thus theoretically possible, even if not practically so,  to imagine a way to falsify the existence of the FSM via empiricism.  The same does not hold true for a monotheistic god.  

It's a subtle, but significant, difference.

lol, ya, I really like that photo too.  

I think the subtle, yet incorrect, presumption you keep making here, is when you insist the FSM is *defined* according to its constraints, whereby it is merely *described* by them, and not actually defined by them. Truly, it is defined as being monotheistic, put most simply, by the fact that it alone created the entire universe as well as heaven and hell.

Like I said in an earlier post, even the (supposedly) monotheistic christian god is described as taking the form of a burning bush, yet it isn't defined as being such. (*I say 'supposedly', because it is a trinity made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thereby making it more of a polytheistic god, than a monotheistic one.)

Maybe rephrasing will emphasize my point a bit:

If a monotheistic god is defined in terms of a lack of constraint, then it could omnipotently turn into an FSM and still be a monotheistic god.

If an FSM is defined in terms of constraint as I'm suggesting, then if the FSM turned into a Crawling Potato Monster (the CPM...duh!) it would no longer be an FSM (because a CPM does not fly and is not made of spaghetti).

God could choose to take the form of a CPM instead of an FSM if that is what God truly wished, after all It did create the universe and all, but God chose the form of an FSM because It deemed that form to be simply divine.

Yes, and I completely understand where you're coming from, but if that's the case, then it simply shouldn't be called an FSM, and so I do not agree with your previous point that the FSM is merely described -- but not defined -- as such.  Accordingly, I maintain that a FSM that is able to alter its constraints to become a CPM results in two notable conclusions: 1) It is omnipotent, and, more importantly, 2) it is no longer an FSM.  An FSM can only be an FSM if it is a flying monster made of spaghetti.

What you're describing is a monotheistic god who places constraints upon himself which allows for any number of possible descriptions based upon the constraints.

Again, I get where you're coming from, but the problem is that the FSM and similar arguments like the Space Teapot orbiting Venus are used specifically by atheists to demonstrate a specific point, which is that it is absurd to believe in something just because we can imagine it to exist.  For example, we can imagine that a teapot is orbiting Venus and therefore we would have a way to verify its existence through empirical observation.  Just because we can imagine that the space teapot exists doesn't mean that we should spend billions or trillions of dollars on telescopes and otherwise to try to find it.  What we can't do is imagine something with a total lack of constraint and, therefore, definition.

So, atheists are left with two options. Either they can take a position like you have done, claiming that an omnipotent god could take the form of the FSM or a teapot, and therefore the analogy maintains its validity, but it loses its ability to serve as a counterargument to a monotheistic god because it would remove all theoretical possibility of empirical falsification.  You could have full access to all data that ever has, is, and will be available, and you still wouldn't be able to distinguish between the FSM and a monotheistic god.  The other choice is to maintain that it is a counterargument to a monotheistic god, but relinquish its validity.

Imagine it this way:  If a flying monster made of spaghetti came into your room, you would be able to verify that the FSM exists, regardless of whether the FSM is just an FSM, or if it's a monotheistic god stratifying itself into an FSM.  But if a monotheistic god took the form of an FSM and came into your room, you would still be able to verify the existence of the FSM, but you would not be able to verify the existence of a monotheistic god.

In summation, it seems as though you assume a more tenable position than other atheists because you understand how the omnipotence paradox is self-resolving.  But unfortunately, the rest of your cohort does not make this distinction, and the FSM or space teapot or any other similar argument is invoked with the specific intent of showing that it is silly to believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence of any kind.  But monotheistic gods by definition are beyond the scope of empiricism.  That's why the FSM ultimately fails as a proper analogy.

[the joint]

Continuing from my previous post, maybe this other approach will help to clarify my point further:  

Let's assume that both an FSM and a monotheistic god taking the form of an FSM exist.  Since both the monotheistic god and the FSM assume the form of an FSM, there is no way to distinguish between the two based solely upon the knowledge that both fly, are made of speghetti, and are monsters.  The defining characteristic that separates the monotheistic god from the FSM so as to be distinguishable from it is its lack of constraint (and physical constraint is required for empirical observation), whereas the traits "flying," "spaghetti," and "monster" define the FSM.

[BADecker]

You didn't answer my earlier questions either. Why did you feel the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'? Doesn't your (I assume, god inspired) bible identify homosexuality as a sin? So, wouldn't it be enough to just lump them in with the rest of the sinners? That's ok, you don't really need to answer that, we all know you were just exercising your inalienable right to be a bigot. Right? Which, isn't a sin? This god stuff is so confusing for us guys with no brains. Luckily we have geniuses like you reading the 'true' bibles, 'praying for us' and being the good christians you obviously are, informing us of how brainless we are.

Who knows for sure what he thought, but, too many "homos" don't think that they are sinners. He was probably simply showing the homos that they are sinners, as well. So it would have been only a clarification.

Often the dividing line between prejudice and bigotry isn't very clear. One might say that homosexual sinners are prejudiced against Christian sinners, or vice versa. And there are bigots in both groups as well.

The thing that is interesting is that usually it is the homosexual sinners that jump immediately into accusations of bigotry against the Christian sinners, almost as though they are throwing up a wall of protection from some unseen foe, because, while there might be accusations on the Christian sinners side, such accusations come from desires for change among homosexual sinners, so that good can come to homosexual sinners as it is coming to the Christian sinners.

Homosexuality, since being studied from the 1960s, is a natural and very common occurrence in almost every specie on Earth. In humanity, males are strict in their sexual attractions(Tend to be either Gay or Straight, though a new study shows that bisexual males do exist, but are rarer than the other two orientations), and that females are fluid in their sexual attractions with studies throughout the decades(since alfred kinsey) showing that females, regardless of their identifying orientation, all present a bisexual nature of attraction.

This doesn't prove that homosexuality is natural and should exist. Rather, it points to the fact that everything on Earth, and probably the whole universe, was corrupted when Adam and Eve ate the "apple." Why everything? Because God built into our universe that man had authority for everything.


This goes against what's presented in the Bible, why? Because the bible is wrong, not holy, and was created specifically as a "lawbook" most likely, for the Israelites, Unfortunately, we today take it legitimately, but if we are to cherrypick some parts of the bible such as what BADecker does, then we must also listen to the other atrocities commanded by God in the bible such as:

The main purpose for the Bible was to present the record of the Savior... Who was promised in the Old Testament, and Who fulfilled that promise in the New Testament. The Law was given to show people that they DO need a savior. How does it show this? It shows it through the fact that nobody can keep the Law perfectly, just as they can't have faith in the Savior perfectly.

While it might look like Badecker is "cherrypicking," He isn't. The only way to focus on specific points in the Bible, is to look at them somewhat more exclusively. Anyone who doesn't want the appearance of cherrypicking need only read and study the whole Bible. The difficult part for anyone is studying the whole thing all at once.

The things that are referred to as atrocities, above, are summed up in this. They are things of destruction, initiated by the devil, brought into play by man, and used at times by God for the salvation of souls. The application of the little seed of destruction that the devil promoted in the Garden, has such far reaching effects that it fills the whole Earth, and probably the whole universe. Ultimately God will use destruction to destroy itself, but it will take the destruction of the whole universe to do it. Remember one major point. No matter how you feel about God's justice, He owns it all. It is His property, including us. As you have the right to do with your property as you will, so does He with His.


1) "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

- In that quote from the Bible, God promotes the killing of innocents, while also promoting Pedophilia by keeping the women Children(notice children) alive. So now we know that the God of the bible promotes not just violence, but pedophilia(or hebephilia, depends on the age of the children, though I presume children are below the age of 12).

At the time of the giving of the Law through Moses on Mount Sinai, The people of Israel asked for the Law and promised to obey it. Part of the Law included that they needed to train their children in the Law, and the handing down of the Law to their descendants. Anyone among the people of Israel who did not want to be part of Israel, probably got up and left the nation. If they didn't, they were promising to follow the Law. The fact that God left many alive when they disobeyed their promise, shows the mercy of God.


2) "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

- Here, god gives the command to kill innocents yet again, simply because they do not believe him. Mass genocide anyone? You can even compare the God of the bible to Adolf Hitler by this point.

Here you are missing it again. There are no innocent people. There are only those who accept God and His promised Savior, and those who don't. The fact that they accept or don't is shown by their actions. Since God knows what is in the hearts of people, He has His workers place a spiritual mark on those who believe in and accept Him. The others are not counted as innocent, but are destroyed by the Guy Who owns it all, and so is justified in all He does. Even Hitler was used by God to appropriately and justly execute those who were against Him.


Those are only two quotes I took from the bible(There are hundreds of other atrocities in there commanded by "God", if you're interested). This shows that not only is "God" from the bible evil in some respects, but also that if you listen and believe in the bible and define yourself as such, such as BADecker does, then you cannot cherrypick which parts you will listen to. Did you ever read the Laws of Moses BADecker, where there are laws that promote the stoning of your wife should she ever cheat, or the killing of a priest for drinking wine? Yea.


It's so sad to see people so foolishly manipulated by things they don't even fully know... It just shows humanity has not progressed far enough to trluy create a world of peace and love, without the need to abide by a book that largely promotes death, intolerance, and ignorance.

Since God is way above us all, and since God owns everything that exists including the bodies and souls of people, and since He is perfect, there is only one thing left for people who talk and act like you do with regard to God. He is merciful. He is patient. He wishes and hopes that you will turn to be one of those that He can spare and save. But you keep on maintaining your position against Him, and speaking badly about His righteous judgments.

When it comes right down to it, whose side are you going to be on. Gods? Or that of your own free, imperfect, mistaken will and thinking? Up to you. Where are you going to be when the time of judgment comes for you?