Scientific proof that God exists?

[ytlover]

No one can prove or not. Life is faith

[1714783145]

1714783145

[1714783145]

1714783145

[1714783145]

1714783145

[username18333]

No one can prove or not. Life is faith

As "they" say, "Cool story, bro."

Since it could not, prior limakasidian entropism, be conclusively demonstrated that anything existed beyond one's own mind, scientific evidence was accepted by faith and, therefore, was not proof.

However, as revealed below, one may now proceed beyond solipsism unto a belief in a literal everything without yielding unto faith.

These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.

Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.

From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.

From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.

[Und3rd0g]

No one can prove this thread valid or not.  Relax folks.  Ether way, it's all good. 

[username18333]

No one can prove this thread valid or not.  Relax folks.  Ether way, it's all good.  

As "they" say, "Cool story, bro."

Since it could not, prior limakasidian entropism, be conclusively demonstrated that anything existed beyond one's own mind, scientific evidence was accepted by faith and, therefore, was not proof.

However, as revealed below, one may now proceed beyond solipsism unto a belief in a literal everything without yielding unto faith.

These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.

Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.

From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.

From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.

[Vod]

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
 

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.

[Bitcoin Magazine]

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
 

   If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.

naturally someone you want to have sex with is someone you love right?

so why would you want to separate the 2 by putting one in jail and making them marry someone else when they're released in 34 years

wounds can heal.  but effectively separating them so you can't resolve the problem just makes it worse

[BitChick]

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
 

   If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.

naturally someone you want to have sex with is someone you love right?

so why would you want to separate the 2 by putting one in jail and making them marry someone else when they're released in 34 years

wounds can heal.  but effectively separating them so you can't resolve the problem just makes it worse

I just want to add that much of the Old Testament is a historical book/documents.  Much of what happens in the books is not what God desires but it is an account of the culture and the choices that were made during that time.  It was never God's intentions for people to rape, or have multiple wives and so on.  The laws for rape at this time were made for the protection of women.  Women were treated as property, much like some societies even today where dowries are paid.  If a women was raped she would be perceived as not desirable to marry her so it was better for the women to be married if raped, as weird as it seems to us in our society.  Not ideal of course, but that is the way it was.

[Bitcoin Magazine]

i guess fucking is important, but God is more important

[BADecker]

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
 

   If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.

The idea is protection of the child and the parents at the same time. Some other opetions:
1. You could execute all three;
2. You could execute the mother and fetus and punish the guy;
3. You could let the state or the parents raise the child, and execute the guy.

There isn't any happy solution. The idea is that the kid gets as normal of a life as possible. That's with two parents. Besides, these things were somewhat the way things were done in those days, all over the place, not simply at God's command.

However, these days, when Stockholm Syndrome sets in, some rape victims marry their attacker voluntarily.

Vod, you're kinda talking nonsense.

[BADecker]

people are full of flaws).

So are the God(s) described on known religions, making them nothing but human imagination.

Of course, maybe none of the God(s) are flawed, and the only flaws lie in the people who think They are flawed.

 

So you're saying that there are flaws in people like Hawking, in comparison to the average believer?  

Everyone is a little bit flawed, at least. No disrespect meant but, most average believers can walk. That wasn't the point, however.

[username18333]

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
 

   If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.

The idea is protection of the child and the parents at the same time. Some other opetions:
1. You could execute all three;
2. You could execute the mother and fetus and punish the guy;
3. You could let the state or the parents raise the child, and execute the guy.

There isn't any happy solution. The idea is that the kid gets as normal of a life as possible. That's with two parents. Besides, these things were somewhat the way things were done in those days, all over the place, not simply at God's command.

However, these days, when Stockholm Syndrome sets in, some rape victims marry their attacker voluntarily.

Vod, you're kinda talking nonsense.

4. "God" could also have felled the fellow upon his resolution to transgress Their will.

[the joint]

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
 

   If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.

The idea is protection of the child and the parents at the same time. Some other opetions:
1. You could execute all three;
2. You could execute the mother and fetus and punish the guy;
3. You could let the state or the parents raise the child, and execute the guy.

There isn't any happy solution. The idea is that the kid gets as normal of a life as possible. That's with two parents. Besides, these things were somewhat the way things were done in those days, all over the place, not simply at God's command.

However, these days, when Stockholm Syndrome sets in, some rape victims marry their attacker voluntarily.

Vod, you're kinda talking nonsense.

I'm sorry, I must not be reading clearly.  I could have sworn that you imagined three alternative means of justice that all involved execution, and also that you believe a silver payment and forced, terminal marriage to her sexual abuser is a good way to protect a rape victim.

Surely you must have meant something else, right?

[nsimmons]

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
 

   If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.

The idea is protection of the child and the parents at the same time. Some other opetions:
1. You could execute all three;
2. You could execute the mother and fetus and punish the guy;
3. You could let the state or the parents raise the child, and execute the guy.

How about not executing anyone? How about executing religious fanatics?

[Vod]

It's fairly clear I'm not talking nonsense.  It's written in the bible.

 

[My Name Was Taken]

How about not executing anyone? How about executing religious fanatics?

These two statements are not consistent. How about we stick with just not executing anyone?

[username18333]

How about not executing anyone? How about executing religious fanatics?

These two statements are not consistent. How about we stick with just not executing anyone?

If you leave executors alive, they may execute. Should you spare all but those others that do not so spare, all (and, then, yourself) shall spare.

(That dilemma is comparable to that between pure and authoritarian anarchism.)

[My Name Was Taken]

How about not executing anyone? How about executing religious fanatics?

These two statements are not consistent. How about we stick with just not executing anyone?

If you leave executors alive, they may execute. Should you spare all but those others that do not so spare, all (and, then, yourself) shall spare.

(That dilemma is comparable to that between pure and authoritarian anarchism.)

I emphasized the key word in your statement. You don't punish someone based on what they might do. Preemptive punishment is not legitimate.

[Vod]

Why are you guys arguing this?  It is the word of God - it cannot be questioned or used out of context!!

[username18333]

How about not executing anyone? How about executing religious fanatics?

These two statements are not consistent. How about we stick with just not executing anyone?

If you leave executors alive, they may execute. Should you spare all but those others that do not so spare, all (and, then, yourself) shall spare.

(That dilemma is comparable to that between pure and authoritarian anarchism.)

I emphasized the key word in your statement. You don't punish someone based on what they might do. Preemptive punishment is not legitimate.

(I emphasized an actual operative word, "executors.")

They are made to depart for their dispositions—nothing more, nothing less.

[My Name Was Taken]

How about not executing anyone? How about executing religious fanatics?

These two statements are not consistent. How about we stick with just not executing anyone?

If you leave executors alive, they may execute. Should you spare all but those others that do not so spare, all (and, then, yourself) shall spare.

(That dilemma is comparable to that between pure and authoritarian anarchism.)

I emphasized the key word in your statement. You don't punish someone based on what they might do. Preemptive punishment is not legitimate.

(I emphasized an actual operative word, "executors.")

They are made to depart for their dispositions—nothing more, nothing less.

Or you could imprison them, that would stop them from killing again. I'd rather leave all the primitive ideas on 'justice killing' in the eras that made the world such a terrible place to live.