If God doesn't exist...

[PoliticalChic]

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.

1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
Nonsense.
I use logic, education and experience.

2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
and
b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."

Science???

So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.

The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.

I'm an educated person.

I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science...."....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."



Now...that is the real industry.

How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?

I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.

Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"

I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.

 

[Bond27]

It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.

1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
Nonsense.
I use logic, education and experience.

2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
and
b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."

Science???

So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.

The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.

I'm an educated person.

I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science...."....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."



Now...that is the real industry.

How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?

I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.

Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"

I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.

You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
Nonsense.
I use logic, education and experience.

2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
and
b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."

Science???

So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.

The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.

I'm an educated person.

I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science...."....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."



Now...that is the real industry.

How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?

I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.

Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"

I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.

You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.

No I'm not.

I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.

 

[Bond27]

So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.

The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.

I'm an educated person.

I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science...."....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."



Now...that is the real industry.

How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?

I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.

Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"

I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.

You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.

No I'm not.

I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.

Creationism is a farce, science doesn't claim to understand purpose of life or get into matters of faith. I'm not sure where I claimed that. But, science has helped dispel creationism theories, such as the ones in Abrahamic faiths.

 

[forkup]

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.

If it is based on faith, it is theology.

"The assumption in science, gets tested, "

Really?

When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?

How about
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"
by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins


Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.


I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’

Simple extrapolation started the big bang theory.
Group

• First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
• Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
• Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
• Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

this kinda shows my point. The extrapolation was observed. An assumption was made on that observation. Then tests where thought up for that assumption and a consensus was reached.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.

If it is based on faith, it is theology.

"The assumption in science, gets tested, "

Really?

When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?

How about
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"
by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins


Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.


I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’

Simple extrapolation started the big bang theory.
Group

• First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
• Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
• Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
• Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

this kinda shows my point. The extrapolation was observed. An assumption was made on that observation. Then tests where thought up for that assumption and a consensus was reached.

This was your claim:
"The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned."

Good to see how rapidly you've retreated.


Here's the latest nonsense from fake science.....

"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning" (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


And this will be tested......how?

And when?

 

[forkup]

So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.

The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.

I'm an educated person.

I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science...."....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."



Now...that is the real industry.

How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?

I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.

Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"

I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.

You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.

No I'm not.

I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
Now what i would like is an example of that kind of science please? Since you believe it puts science on the same lvl as religion.

 

[forkup]

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.

If it is based on faith, it is theology.

"The assumption in science, gets tested, "

Really?

When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?

How about
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"
by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins


Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.


I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’

Simple extrapolation started the big bang theory.
Group

• First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
• Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
• Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
• Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

this kinda shows my point. The extrapolation was observed. An assumption was made on that observation. Then tests where thought up for that assumption and a consensus was reached.

This was your claim:
"The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned."

Good to see how rapidly you've retreated.


Here's the latest nonsense from fake science.....

"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning" (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


And this will be tested......how?

And when?

show me my retreat? there was an assumption it was tested and if you check, the different kinds of tests where confirmed at different times, showing that it was constantly questioned. Even your post shows different theories are still tried. I don't see your point. Science doesn't claim to have all the truth by it's definition it's fluid. Only religion claims to have absolute truths. Your are apparently of the opinion that since science can't answer every question, god has to exist. Since religion does answer every question. I'm saying that religion only has all the answers because it's followers are not ALLOWED to question said answers.

 

[forkup]

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.

If it is based on faith, it is theology.

"The assumption in science, gets tested, "

Really?

When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?

How about
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"
by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins


Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.


I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’

Simple extrapolation started the big bang theory.
Group

• First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
• Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
• Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
• Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

this kinda shows my point. The extrapolation was observed. An assumption was made on that observation. Then tests where thought up for that assumption and a consensus was reached.

This was your claim:
"The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned."

Good to see how rapidly you've retreated.


Here's the latest nonsense from fake science.....

"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning" (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


And this will be tested......how?

And when?

Oh and btw asking me about how and when stuff will be tested is stupid. I am not an astronomer, and even if I was I doubt I'dd be smart enough to come up with a way to test the kind of things where talking about. That's why ppl who do develop such tests can get nobel prices.

 

[zaangalewa]

If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.

Atheists do exist.

Atheists state God does not exist.

Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..

Thus, God exists.

Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.

Do you see any problems with the logic above?

Do you speak with me? I asked someting completly different - In your way to think it is maybe: "Why is logic here?" Why are you able to write what you wrote - although it could be it is completly senseless to write or to think or to feel and to communicate? Are you able to believe: "Everything what I said never made any sense and never will make any sense."? If we say senseless things - lives not in this case in everyone of us the hope: "Senselessness is not everything!" and lives in us all not the hope that we will find a piece from this, what's all around and/or within us, so we are able to say: "Yes, it's worth to live for this piece, although I never will know what the complete picture will be!"?

 

[zaangalewa]

... You from Hungary how have places within willings ??

Maybe I start to understand slowly. Are you Nick?

 

[zaangalewa]

Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob. Lol. Oh boy! The crazies love their religion.

America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.

I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.

Er no. My post stands. Crazies love their religions.

The not-crazies love their religion too, specially Christians. Christianity is the religion of love. So everyone who is crazy is welcome too in our religiion. We'll find a way.

Ahh. So you think your religion is the "better" one? Is that right?

What can I say? I'm a Catholic - my wife is a Protestant. She's not convinced I am right - I am not convinced she is right. But she reads crime novels. Should I be worried?

 

[zaangalewa]

Gud help my voices in my brain.

Oha ...

 

[Mudda]

If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.

Atheists do exist.

Atheists state God does not exist.

Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..

Thus, God exists.

Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.

Do you see any problems with the logic above?

Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.

No drinking or smoking the funny sticks. Aren't atheists the champions of logic?

The assumption is an universe without God, If no God, then no atheists. (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.) Can we agree on that?

I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.

So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.

 

[Mudda]

Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob. Lol. Oh boy! The crazies love their religion.

America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.

I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.

Er no. My post stands. Crazies love their religions.

The not-crazies love their religion too, specially Christians. Christianity is the religion of love. So everyone who is crazy is welcome too in our religiion. We'll find a way.

Ahh. So you think your religion is the "better" one? Is that right?

What can I say? I'm a Catholic - my wife is a Protestant. She's not convinced I am right - I am not convinced she is right. But she reads crime novels. Should I be worried?

You should be worried that you follow a religion full of pedophile priests, and a drunk looking moron for pope.

 

[zaangalewa]

... How about
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"
by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins ....

Since the universe is something is - indeed this something is everything what we are able to study in science. "Before" was nothing we are able to say anything about on plausible reasons - not even a before - and "outside" is only an inside because there is no outside we are able to say anything about on plausible reasons. So what are they calling "there"? Logos? Mathematics?

 

[Militants]

... You from Hungary how have places within willings ??

Maybe I start to understand slowly. Are you Nick?

I am no Nick the Dick.

Attila are one old friend how will change places when I start to think.

Attila are the same like God from England but Gud doesn't help me.

 

[Militants]

I am only 50 or 80 precents atheist. Lutheran God doesn't help me with belief so I am atheist.

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm an educated person.

I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science...."....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."



Now...that is the real industry.

How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?

I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.

Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"

I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.

You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.

No I'm not.

I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.

Creationism is a farce, science doesn't claim to understand purpose of life or get into matters of faith. I'm not sure where I claimed that. But, science has helped dispel creationism theories, such as the ones in Abrahamic faiths.

I don't know what "creationism" is - but the expression "creation" is not a farce. Darwin for example created the theory of evolution.

 

[zaangalewa]

... You from Hungary how have places within willings ??

Maybe I start to understand slowly. Are you Nick?

I am no Nick the Dick.

I thought about Nick the reindeer. But I got it now. You are a joker.

Attila are one old friend how will change places when I start to think.

Attila are the same like God from England but Gud doesn't help me.

Atilla? Was this not one of the seven dwarfs?