People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Damaged Eagle]

Every bone is a transitional bone, every fossil a transitional fossil.

So you, or some scientist, directly observed the species change from one type of animal to another?

I doubt that.

The best you can say is that supposedly the species changed from one thing into another.

You have no direct and uncontroversial proof that the bones of one are the ancestors of another unless you, or a scientist, were there to directly observe the phenomenon take place.

View attachment 152721

*****SMILE*****

.

You have no direct and uncontroversial proof that the bones of one are the ancestors of another unless you, or a scientist, were there to directly observe the phenomenon take place.

View attachment 152757


nature provides such a proof from a land creature to an avian, observable and verified - without an intermediary transition.

That's an insect that 'supposedly' evolved. It is not 'proof' in the manner you are referring. Dragonflies, mosquitoes, and other insects have the same adaptation. Try again. You're being disingenuous with your pathetic attempts at best.

Show the intermediary forms that lead to this adaptation with visual records and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage."

Ha, and there it is. Same shit every time with you guys. What an absurd standard. Should scientists also be kind enough to come over to your house and watch a lump of an isotope for 2.5 million years to make you believe the half-life of the isotope is 2.5 million years? Maybe we should all come over, and spend a few hundred million years replicating the formation of Earth. Would you then believe it has an iron core? Would you then believe planets can coalesce out of gaseous clouds?

So your answer is "NO" and that you have no proof that we're anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on either a nanosecond ago, six thousand years ago,..... or approximately fifteen billion years ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. .....

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Evolution is a theory.

God is a fact. I see the proof of God's existence every day.

*****CHUCKLE*****

That's not proof. That's why it's called, "faith", right?. No? So now it's not faith?

I'll accept the following...

View attachment 152764

...as a basic premise that God exists.

Do you know the equation?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Explain it like I'm 5. But, before you do, I have to point out that this is maybe the 189th "basic premise that God exists" that I have seen you present (give or take). Ever heard of the Gish Gallop? It seems that you have. Or maybe you're a savant.

That being said... lay it on me!

It's Einstein's field equation for general relativity.

Isn't life interesting when you're talking to a Pantheist?

Do you need any of those things defined for you?

You're doing a fine job of the "Gish Gallop" thing all on your lonesome.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every bone is a transitional bone, every fossil a transitional fossil.

So you, or some scientist, directly observed the species change from one type of animal to another?

I doubt that.

The best you can say is that supposedly the species changed from one thing into another.

You have no direct and uncontroversial proof that the bones of one are the ancestors of another unless you, or a scientist, were there to directly observe the phenomenon take place.

View attachment 152721

*****SMILE*****

.

You have no direct and uncontroversial proof that the bones of one are the ancestors of another unless you, or a scientist, were there to directly observe the phenomenon take place.

View attachment 152757


nature provides such a proof from a land creature to an avian, observable and verified - without an intermediary transition.

That's an insect that 'supposedly' evolved. It is not 'proof' in the manner you are referring. Dragonflies, mosquitoes, and other insects have the same adaptation. Try again. You're being disingenuous with your pathetic attempts at best.

Show the intermediary forms that lead to this adaptation with visual records and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage."

Ha, and there it is. Same shit every time with you guys. What an absurd standard. Should scientists also be kind enough to come over to your house and watch a lump of an isotope for 2.5 million years to make you believe the half-life of the isotope is 2.5 million years? Maybe we should all come over, and spend a few hundred million years replicating the formation of Earth. Would you then believe it has an iron core? Would you then believe planets can coalesce out of gaseous clouds?

So your answer is "NO" and that you have no proof that we're anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on either a nanosecond ago, six thousand years ago,..... or approximately fifteen billion years ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****

My answer is "no"... to what, exactly? That I have no proof of the universe being deterministic? I'm trying to make sense of the thoughts you are foisting on me as my own, before I respond to this rude gesture.

"anything more than a computer program"

I will assume you refer to the idea that the universe is a deterministic physical system. Science doesn't "prove" this, or attempt to prove this. It is assumed, because it works. Every single time. This basic principle is how scientists understand anything in the physical world.

Now, as it turns out, there is no reason at all to believe the universe is anything but deterministic, and the empirical evidence bears this out. Certainly it is reasonable to expect any physical process we study to be deterministic. You may say, "But God can perform miracles!". Okay, maybe gods can do this. Maybe gods can violate determinism. It would be rather hard to test such an idea; I could never rule it out. Maybe God did miracles! okay... and? You obviously have distaste for a "clockwork god". Wield your miracle hypotheses as you wish, but realize when they are wrong.

Point being, theists need to realize that your insistence on the influence of gods on our reality is just not compatible with science. There is no overlap, and thus no quarrel. Only dogma can quarrel with science, not theism itself. Not the concept of miracles, either. Don't present your dogma as reason for theism. You put the cart before the horse when you do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

The problem is that you'd think they'd have to accept that Trump is a moron playing games with the country for his own ego, but many people don't.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So you, or some scientist, directly observed the species change from one type of animal to another?

I doubt that.

The best you can say is that supposedly the species changed from one thing into another.

You have no direct and uncontroversial proof that the bones of one are the ancestors of another unless you, or a scientist, were there to directly observe the phenomenon take place.

View attachment 152721

*****SMILE*****

.

You have no direct and uncontroversial proof that the bones of one are the ancestors of another unless you, or a scientist, were there to directly observe the phenomenon take place.

View attachment 152757


nature provides such a proof from a land creature to an avian, observable and verified - without an intermediary transition.

That's an insect that 'supposedly' evolved. It is not 'proof' in the manner you are referring. Dragonflies, mosquitoes, and other insects have the same adaptation. Try again. You're being disingenuous with your pathetic attempts at best.

Show the intermediary forms that lead to this adaptation with visual records and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage."

Ha, and there it is. Same shit every time with you guys. What an absurd standard. Should scientists also be kind enough to come over to your house and watch a lump of an isotope for 2.5 million years to make you believe the half-life of the isotope is 2.5 million years? Maybe we should all come over, and spend a few hundred million years replicating the formation of Earth. Would you then believe it has an iron core? Would you then believe planets can coalesce out of gaseous clouds?

So your answer is "NO" and that you have no proof that we're anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on either a nanosecond ago, six thousand years ago,..... or approximately fifteen billion years ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****

My answer is "no"... to what, exactly? That I have no proof of the universe being deterministic? I'm trying to make sense of the thoughts you are foisting on me as my own, before I respond to this rude gesture.

"anything more than a computer program"

I will assume you refer to the idea that the universe is a deterministic physical system. Science doesn't "prove" this, or attempt to prove this. It is assumed, because it works. Every single time. This basic principle is how scientists understand anything in the physical world.

Now, as it turns out, there is no reason at all to believe the universe is anything but deterministic, and the empirical evidence bears this out. Certainly it is reasonable to expect any physical process we study to be deterministic. You may say, "But God can perform miracles!". Okay, maybe gods can do this. Maybe gods can violate determinism. It would be rather hard to test such an idea; I could never rule it out. Maybe God did miracles! okay... and? You obviously have distaste for a "clockwork god". Wield your miracle hypotheses as you wish, but realize when they are wrong.

Point being, theists need to realize that your insistence on the influence of gods on our reality is just not compatible with science. There is no overlap, and thus no quarrel. Only dogma can quarrel with science, not theism itself. Not the concept of miracles, either. Don't present your dogma as reason for theism. You put the cart before the horse when you do.

What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along...

mracle definition - Bing

MIRACLE:
- a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences:

...How about you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Point being, theists need to realize that your insistence on the influence of gods on our reality is just not compatible with science. There is no overlap, and thus no quarrel. Only dogma can quarrel with science, not theism itself. Not the concept of miracles, either. Don't present your dogma as reason for theism. You put the cart before the horse when you do.

God is my reality.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[hobelim]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

Since the universe is much older than the earth and since the earth had no life on it when it was formed the odds are that life did not begin in the oceans or on the earth but originated elsewhere, most likely a much older sphere of existence of unknown origin..

Its not like there's just humans. The planet is teeming with many diverse life forms that can survive in environments that would kill many others.

The odds that life did not originate elsewhere, given the many ways life on this planet can adapt to extreme conditions, are very slim..

Why would the adaptation here mean life originated elsewhere? Do you have some sort of math at hand that determines how long it takes for a genetic line to adapt to a condition?

The reasoning is that if life began only a few billion years ago and the earth is now teeming with diverse advanced life forms, the odds are that life developed elsewhere long before this solar system was even formed given the age of the universe which increases the chances that life here came here by any number of means from elsewhere in the universe which, if earth is any indication, must also be teeming with life.

If the earth was destroyed by a massive celestial object right now a planet on the other side of the universe a billion years from now could be seeded with the building blocks of life from here.

How many solar systems and planets were destroyed in the past 14 billions years after their sun exploded?

How many tons of cosmic debris from all corners of the universe has fallen on the earth every day ever since this planet was formed??

 

[Boss]

Now, as it turns out, there is no reason at all to believe the universe is anything but deterministic, and the empirical evidence bears this out. Certainly it is reasonable to expect any physical process we study to be deterministic. You may say, "But God can perform miracles!". Okay, maybe gods can do this. Maybe gods can violate determinism. It would be rather hard to test such an idea; I could never rule it out. Maybe God did miracles! okay... and? You obviously have distaste for a "clockwork god". Wield your miracle hypotheses as you wish, but realize when they are wrong.

Point being, theists need to realize that your insistence on the influence of gods on our reality is just not compatible with science. There is no overlap, and thus no quarrel. Only dogma can quarrel with science, not theism itself. Not the concept of miracles, either. Don't present your dogma as reason for theism. You put the cart before the horse when you do.

Several points here, first let's tackle determinism. While it appears the universe is deterministic, it is inherently difficult to prove with math and physics. In fact, both Schrödinger and Heisenberg have provided evidence the universe is not deterministic, or at least, we're not able to prove determinism.

I am intrigued and fascinated by quantum physics and some of the things we're finding at the subatomic level. Collapse of the wave function, quantum entanglement of subatomic particles, even the infamous double-slit experiment which raises the question of whether light is a particle or wave and what is known as the observer effect. It seems, at the subatomic level, our rules and principles of physics spiral wildly out of control and things no longer make rational sense. Electrons can appear in two places at the same time or exist in space and time without being present. This would seem to be a physical impossibility but it's what we observe, so it's reality.

The next thing I want to address is this simple-minded misconception I continue to see from the "atheist scientist" brigade-- where you don't seem to discern a difference between physical and spiritual. You want to assume that if something can't be explained physically, it must not exist. This is precisely how you dismiss God and theocracy in general... it has no physical evidence, therefore, it doesn't exist. Well, congratulations-- you've proven spiritual entities don't have apparent physical evidence. The thing is, no one has ever claimed God is a physical entity. Being that God is inherently spiritual (by definition) if you were to ever prove God's existence with physics, God would no longer be a spiritual entity.

There is no reason theocratic or spiritual beliefs can't coexist with physical beliefs and science. One doesn't negate the other. Faith and belief in God doesn't refute science and visa versa. It's really apples and oranges, and it's patently ridiculous that we continue to have to go over this same silly argument endlessly with those of you who don't believe in spiritual nature.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

An electron can appear in two places at the same time or exist in space time without being present seems pretty spiritual in nature to me.

Primary Sources - Gospel Of Thomas | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

Gospel of Thomas:

77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

The Gospel of Luke (KJV King James Version)

Gospel of Luke

[20] And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
[21] Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

*****SMILE*****

 

[hobelim]

An electron can appear in two places at the same time or exist in space time without being present seems pretty spiritual in nature to me.

I used to work with a guy just like that. He existed in space time without being present and wasn't the least bit spiritual. Maybe his problem was at the molecular level.

 

[Boss]

An electron can appear in two places at the same time or exist in space time without being present seems pretty spiritual in nature to me.

Primary Sources - Gospel Of Thomas | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

Gospel of Thomas:

77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

The Gospel of Luke (KJV King James Version)

Gospel of Luke

[20] And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
[21] Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

*****SMILE*****

 

[alang1216]

But let's be clear, until you can offer valid evidence through science to support a notion that life created itself, then all you have is FAITH. You believe something is possible that you can't prove and that's fine... it's no different than faith in God.

There is giant, fundamental difference. Faith in God assumes the existence of the supernatural. Science operates exclusively in the natural world.

 

[alang1216]

Every bone is a transitional bone, every fossil a transitional fossil.

So you, or some scientist, directly observed the species change from one type of animal to another?

I doubt that.

The best you can say is that supposedly the species changed from one thing into another.

You have no direct and uncontroversial proof that the bones of one are the ancestors of another unless you, or a scientist, were there to directly observe the phenomenon take place.

There are many things that science accepts as fact that have never been observed. Subatomic particles for instance.

If you leave an ice cube on a table and come back later to find a puddle of water would you accept that the ice changed into water or not?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Taz, et al,

Help out an old man here.

You have no response to the truth, that's why. We've known it all along.

You and "truth" aren't even in the same zip code. .... ...

The truth is, you're a fake Muslim who won't even grow a beard.

(QUESTIONS)

What is the significance of a beard?

• Does it make you wiser?
• Does it make you more devote?
• Does it make you more moral?
• Does it make you more ethical?
• Does it instill greater honesty and integrity?
• Does it help you commune with the Supreme Being?​

Why does the Supreme Being care if you have a beard or not?

Does the Supreme Being even view humans with the same limitations as humans spectral sensitivity?

Why is a beard a factor at all?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sunni Man]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Taz, et al,

Help out an old man here.

You have no response to the truth, that's why. We've known it all along.

You and "truth" aren't even in the same zip code. .... ...

The truth is, you're a fake Muslim who won't even grow a beard.

(QUESTIONS)

What is the significance of a beard?

• Does it make you wiser?
• Does it make you more devote?
• Does it make you more moral?
• Does it make you more ethical?
• Does it instill greater honesty and integrity?
• Does it help you commune with the Supreme Being?​

Why does the Supreme Being care if you have a beard or not?

Does the Supreme Being even view humans with the same limitations as humans spectral sensitivity?

Why is a beard a factor at all?

Most Respectfully,
R

The idiot poster Taz has been following me around from thread to thread with his infantile, "you don't have a beard", comments for years. I assume it's supposed to be some kind of lame insult alluding to my adherence to Islam. ....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Is the material world created by consciousness or is consciousness created by the material world ..............

The Big Bang time line says it occurred something like 13.7 billion years ago....Science does not speculate on what was going on before the Big Bang as there is no way of making direct or indirect observations.... it seems to me the Big Bang marked a change from a Unitary situation wherein Everything and Nothing were one thing and a binary or dual state continuum manifested explosively and morphed to the Space Time continuum we occupy and processes within that Space Time continuum eventually birthed us ....the Universe then is like a tree that produces consciousness or sentience; that consciousness in turn then fixes maintains explores and creates reality in an undulating vibration that produces a sound "OM"...
Graphically it might look like this :

The Primordial Light pre Big Bang is encased inside the Block. We have no knowledge of what that is or what Physics it responds to . Science does not speculate [Theorize]..Call it "God" or Source or Mystery ....An event occurred [Big Bang] that created the time space into which those fiber optic "points of light" are "existing"...lets say we are those points of Light...the Fibers are the processes the creations of Galaxies stars planets etc and the Evolutionary Earth processes that led to our appearance or manifestation in current Space Time ...we are in reality the same Light and or Mystery encased in the Block however we are now in a world of duality . We are projected into a dual Space Time where we are no longer in unity with our source....in this condition there is God and "Not God"...

 

[alang1216]

The idiot poster Taz has been following me around from thread to thread with his infantile, "you don't have a beard", comments for years. I assume it's supposed to be some kind of lame insult alluding to my adherence to Islam. ....

Maybe he is offended by your anti-Semitic quote from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I'm agnostic, or a skeptic, however there's much organization in the Universe, one which would seem to be hard to come from nothing.

 

[Sunni Man]

Maybe he is offended by your anti-Semitic quote from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

What quote would that be? ....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

A little bit is better than Nada
I bet God is the "whole Enchilada"