If God doesn't exist...

[BreezeWood]

So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?

the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.

Where did it come from?

.

PC: Where did it come from?

from the previous cycle - all existence in combination

There is no other understanding of the term "God."

the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...

a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.

.

 

[Epitah]

When they're laid out for the layman perhaps... That's only so long as the scientist is being truthful about all their findings and aren't being intentionally deceiving.

for what insane reason would scientists have to lie about the big bang

seems like you just wanted to take an arbitrary shot at global warming for whatever reason

My proof is all around you. The universe exists therefore God exists.

Have I made any other claims about God?

What part of Pantheist don't you understand?

so if the universe itself is god what is the point of calling it god? seems like an pointless label

So if I touch (feel), hear, see, smell, or taste, something my 'feelings' aren't verifiable now?

Then how do you know anything exists?

Thoughts aren't testable. Sensations are, however.

Are you sure? You admit that classical physics did not apply during that time... Prove to us all that quantum physics applied any better.

I don't have the biggest understanding of that yet but quantum physics deal with particles on a subatomic level.

I took the time to go back and look at your remarks on the Big Bang moment. If it's too much trouble for you to go back and look for my definition of miracle I'm perfectly willing to continue making you look like a fool. Shall we discuss Newton's Laws some more or move on to another scientific principle and see what your knowledge is like in that area?

I'm not going to sift through several pages just to find one definition it would take you absolutely no effort to do I'm just going to run under the assumption that you interpret a really big coincidence as a miracle.

 

[forkup]

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot.

That's interesting... So anyone who has a belief in God is a religious zealot?

If you would be a rational person,...

I see... So everyone who believes in God is not rational according to you.

...the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one.

What makes you think that I wouldn't be interested in discovering how God preformed his miracle?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary.

You make assumptions on untested proof and no investigation of the matter. You sir are no better than the people you discriminate against.

That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist.

Yes... People like you are what caused the dark ages.

An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

So has the world ended from the heat death predicted by your global warming theology preached at the alter of scientific consensus to their faithful followers yet?

*****CHUCKLE*****

[/QUOTE]
wow sentence by sentence, I'll return the favor.
-You are a religious zealot if you make the jump from science can't prove something so it HAS to be god. There are plenty of religious people who don't make that jump. They'll try to find an explanation within science before they assume God is responsible.
-This is the rational way of thinking so not all religious people are zealots, just people who will assume God is in every crevice where science hasn't got a proven explanation for.
-The word miracle in itself implies that something falls out of the realm of explanation. So no, if you use the word miracle that means you are not intrested in digging further, digging further might give an explanation within science. Invalidating God at that point.
-How would somebody like me cause the dark ages? Was that just because you needed to do it sentence by sentence? I don't promote ignorance. I like to think I want to promote endless curiosity. If you have a different view fine, but then I insist you try to explain your line of reasoning.
-Global warming as I'm pretty sure you are well aware is considered a gradual process. So saying see nobody's dead yet is both false and intellectually dishonest.
And the argument is simply stupid to begin with. I never claimed that science is faultless. It has made plenty of mistakes in past, present and will undoubtable make more in the future. The difference between science and religion is though, that science has a process to correct it's mistakes. It's called testing and there is not a single scientific theory. Proven or otherwise wich is exempt from it. Religion has no such mechanism because it is untestable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....

...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...

...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?

View attachment 80187

*****CHUCKLE*****

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like you.

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.

1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!

2. The easily led say things like this:
"You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?

1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????) to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."

Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.

If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.

2. "

I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....

...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...

...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?

View attachment 80187

*****CHUCKLE*****

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like you.

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.

1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!

2. The easily led say things like this:
"You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven, the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?

1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????) to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."

Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.

If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.


2." I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven..."
Answered earlier, as follows:
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

a. The 'proof' for theology is faith.
b. What the easily led....you.....fail to recognize is that what you call 'science' is based on nothing else but faith....e.g.,....

The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:

The Multiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


Definition of 'the easily led'.....any who accept the above as science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."

Au contraire

It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....


The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...

Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.

The religion has a god, it is government.




It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
...is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism,

....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?


Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?





Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....

Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.

you don't even have an argument anymore

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'd love to hear what it is.

do you even know what you're saying anymore

"Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"

Certainly not behind closed doors....'else how can they bring fools like you into the fold.

"In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one an -other on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven
Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature.
“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”. In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?"
David Berlinski

 

[PoliticalChic]

"As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."

Au contraire

It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....


The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...

Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.

The religion has a god, it is government.




It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
...is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism,

....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?


Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?





Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....

Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.

you don't even have an argument anymore

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'd love to hear what it is.

do you even know what you're saying anymore

"If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it."

I am a strong supporter of science.

What you endorse, is fake science, it is in the service of Leftism, and out to attack religion.

Let's be clear.....if it does not involve the Scientific Method....it is a misnomer to call it science.
The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:

The Multiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming

Hence....examples of fake doctrines with an ulterior motive.
Every one of them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?

the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.

Where did it come from?

.

PC: Where did it come from?

from the previous cycle - all existence in combination

There is no other understanding of the term "God."

the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...

a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.

.

PC: Where did it come from?

"from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"

And....before it was in 'existence'?

 

[Epitah]

"As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."

Au contraire

It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....


The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...

Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.

The religion has a god, it is government.




It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
...is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism,

....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?


Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?





Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....

Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.

you don't even have an argument anymore

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'd love to hear what it is.

do you even know what you're saying anymore

"Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"

Certainly not behind closed doors....'else how can they bring fools like you into the fold.

"In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one an -other on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven
Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature.
“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”. In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?"
David Berlinski

Yes, lots of scientists and rational thinkers happen to disagree, and in some cases dislike religion, but it sounds like a ridiculous idea that scientific propositions are brought up to discredit religion.

If divine intervention was just as good of a system as science we would be using it to study the world already. Also, are divine beliefs somehow more substantiated than scientific models?

 

[Epitah]

Let's be clear.....if it does not involve the Scientific Method....it is a misnomer to call it science.
The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:

The Multiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming

Hence....examples of fake doctrines with an ulterior motive.
Every one of them.

Ahahaha. The theory of evolution is basically irrefutable at this point. We've observed evolution and the amount of evidence for it is phenomenal.

We don't don't accept the string theory, it's theoretical.

We never said the universe came from nothing, we just don't know.

The multiverse theory has not been confirmed, it's still theoretical.

You don't seem to know much about these things.

Also, they're doctrines now? lol

 

[BreezeWood]

So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?

the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.

Where did it come from?

.

PC: Where did it come from?

from the previous cycle - all existence in combination

There is no other understanding of the term "God."

the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...

a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.

.

PC: Where did it come from?

"from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"

And....before it was in 'existence'?

.

And....before it was in 'existence'

I answered your question - all existence in combination ...

your response is oxymoronic.


I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?

.

 

[forkup]

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like you.

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.

1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!

2. The easily led say things like this:
"You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?

1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????) to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."

Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.

If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.

2. "

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like you.

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.

1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!

2. The easily led say things like this:
"You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven, the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?

1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????) to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."

Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.

If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.


2." I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven..."
Answered earlier, as follows:
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

a. The 'proof' for theology is faith.
b. What the easily led....you.....fail to recognize is that what you call 'science' is based on nothing else but faith....e.g.,....

The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:

The Multiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


Definition of 'the easily led'.....any who accept the above as science.

1.
Scientists Search for Evidence of the Multiverse in the Big Bang’s Afterglow This is one such research project.
Physicists create world’s first multiverse of universes in the lab | ExtremeTech another one
This is an area wich is researched quite extensively.
2. So you are litteraly saying there is no proof it is simply true. It's circular reasoning at it's most stupid. It also is a complete cop out. You do not need to prove anything, you do reserve the right to make me prove everything. I'll deal with it for a while but it's gonna get old in a hurry.
3. So lets talk science- Multiverse as I said before is not a mature theory yet at the moment it's an hypothesis. It might be right it might be wrong. saying it's faith probably is a bridge to far but it's also not competely without merit. In effect multiverses offers a possible explanation to certain observable phenomena. Wich is more then can be said for religion because nothing we observe in my book point to a supreme being. But that's personal opinion so I'll grant you that.
-String theory is another one of these hypothesis it provides possible explanations for things we cn observe, facets of this are researched in the large hadron collider
- Wich brings me to the Higgs Boson, predicted by string theory, you know the thing you say is faith ,it has been discovered so calling it faith is wrong
Three years after its discovery, physicists are still fascinated by the Higgs boson’s secrets
- Universe created out of nothing? Science doesn't claim that alone, there are plenty of hypothesis but nothing has been proven. How can you say something is faith, when most scientist today actually claim "they don't know at the moment"
- Evolution. I just had about 100 posts back and forth with James Bond it ended up with him eventually confirming every assertion Darwin made. It's been proven in every conceivable way. In the lab, in the field, in the fossil record, on microcellular level, with actual physical changes in species. Using genetics, paleontoligy, biochemistry, geoligy, bioligy. So when you say it's faith, it seems to me you either now nothing about any of these sciences or are simply unwilling to accept it's conclusions.
- Global warming, I had a discussion about that with you before I remember that you couldn't come with one credible objection to it. Even the sources you did give in some instances disagreed with you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."

Au contraire

It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....


The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...

Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.

The religion has a god, it is government.




It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
...is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism,

....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?


Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?





Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....

Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.

you don't even have an argument anymore

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'd love to hear what it is.

do you even know what you're saying anymore

"Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"

Certainly not behind closed doors....'else how can they bring fools like you into the fold.

"In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one an -other on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven
Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature.
“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”. In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?"
David Berlinski

Yes, lots of scientists and rational thinkers happen to disagree, and in some cases dislike religion, but it sounds like a ridiculous idea that scientific propositions are brought up to discredit religion.

If divine intervention was just as good of a system as science we would be using it to study the world already. Also, are divine beliefs somehow more substantiated than scientific models?

Do you notice a pattern?

You write "Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"


....and I jam your words back down your throat.


Aren't you embarrasses at your own ignorance?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like you.

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.

1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!

2. The easily led say things like this:
"You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?

1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????) to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."

Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.

If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.

2. "

Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “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.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

He is laughing at fools like you.

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.

1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!

2. The easily led say things like this:
"You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven, the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?

1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????) to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."

Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.

If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.


2." I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven..."
Answered earlier, as follows:
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

a. The 'proof' for theology is faith.
b. What the easily led....you.....fail to recognize is that what you call 'science' is based on nothing else but faith....e.g.,....

The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:

The Multiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


Definition of 'the easily led'.....any who accept the above as science.

1.
Scientists Search for Evidence of the Multiverse in the Big Bang’s Afterglow This is one such research project.
Physicists create world’s first multiverse of universes in the lab | ExtremeTech another one
This is an area wich is researched quite extensively.
2. So you are litteraly saying there is no proof it is simply true. It's circular reasoning at it's most stupid. It also is a complete cop out. You do not need to prove anything, you do reserve the right to make me prove everything. I'll deal with it for a while but it's gonna get old in a hurry.
3. So lets talk science- Multiverse as I said before is not a mature theory yet at the moment it's an hypothesis. It might be right it might be wrong. saying it's faith probably is a bridge to far but it's also not competely without merit. In effect multiverses offers a possible explanation to certain observable phenomena. Wich is more then can be said for religion because nothing we observe in my book point to a supreme being. But that's personal opinion so I'll grant you that.
-String theory is another one of these hypothesis it provides possible explanations for things we cn observe, facets of this are researched in the large hadron collider
- Wich brings me to the Higgs Boson, predicted by string theory, you know the thing you say is faith ,it has been discovered so calling it faith is wrong
Three years after its discovery, physicists are still fascinated by the Higgs boson’s secrets
- Universe created out of nothing? Science doesn't claim that alone, there are plenty of hypothesis but nothing has been proven. How can you say something is faith, when most scientist today actually claim "they don't know at the moment"
- Evolution. I just had about 100 posts back and forth with James Bond it ended up with him eventually confirming every assertion Darwin made. It's been proven in every conceivable way. In the lab, in the field, in the fossil record, on microcellular level, with actual physical changes in species. Using genetics, paleontoligy, biochemistry, geoligy, bioligy. So when you say it's faith, it seems to me you either now nothing about any of these sciences or are simply unwilling to accept it's conclusions.
- Global warming, I had a discussion about that with you before I remember that you couldn't come with one credible objection to it. Even the sources you did give in some instances disagreed with you.

It's not a 'research project,' you dope.....

It's a pay day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?

the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.

Where did it come from?

.

PC: Where did it come from?

from the previous cycle - all existence in combination

There is no other understanding of the term "God."

the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...

a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.

.

PC: Where did it come from?

"from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"

And....before it was in 'existence'?

.

And....before it was in 'existence'

I answered your question - all existence in combination ...

your response is oxymoronic.


I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?

.

".....all existence in combination ..."
A meaningless words salad.



Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
Before it's 'existence'.

Where from?

 

[Epitah]

Do you notice a pattern?

You write "Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"


....and I jam your words back down your throat.


Aren't you embarrasses at your own ignorance?

How is that jamming my words down my throat exactly?

People who happen to be scientists and physicists speaking out against religion and irrational thought does not equate to a grand scheme against religion just because they feel like it. This is like, lizard people running the white house level of conspiracy.

 

[james bond]

I gave that explanation already. The devil talked through the serpent. Animals can't talk ha ha. You haven't answered the question of how the universe came from "invisible" particles.

Do you seriously think that's a scientific explanation? I don't even know what invisible particles are or what they have to do with the Big Bang.

also you made like 3 claims you can't support in that one sentence and the word serpent is very vague, and that STILL isn't a scientific explanation.
-The Devil
-The Devil can posses animals and has done so
-Possessing animals can make them talk despite them having no vocal chords to speak language on the level of human beings

Scientific theories become pseudoscience when something better replaces them. Older people probably were led to believe in an eternal universe. Yet, today that has changed more to what the Bible said centuries ago. That's significant and more evidence for God or a creator. BBT violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so The Creator Theory holds more significance. Science won't accept The God Theory or a supernatural explanation.

Scientific theories become pseudoscience when something better replaces them. Older people probably were led to believe in an eternal universe. Yet, today that has changed more to what the Bible said centuries ago. That's significant and more evidence for God or a creator. BBT violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so The Creator Theory holds more significance. Science won't accept The God Theory or a supernatural explanation.

Just because something in real life happens to line up with a book doesn't mean the book is real or has credibility. A creator isn't a theory, it's a faulty hypothesis at best.

So, you're admitting you know very little about science but expect scientific explanations? Otherwise, please explain the Big Bang Theory and how the universe started in your own words.

In regards to this question, you can't have it both ways. Science does not accept the Bible nor any supernatural explanations. Moreover, there was no science then.

It also shows to me and others here that you are a person of limited scope. Science is not the only way to ascertain truth. We have facts in which we can use to reason with and also there are historical truths. We can use law to determine what happened and who is telling the truth. Thus, I use facts, reasoning, historical truths and other methods including science to ascertain truths while you are limited to your narrow science. Tsk.

The word serpent is clearly explained as a snake in the Bible. I gave you the passage, so you can look it up yourself. We know animals cannot talk even though a parrot or other birds can copy what was said.

As for the rest, this happened outside our realm which is timeless and spaceless. God created angels before His other creations. ""Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7

He also created free will. Angels are spiritual beings who have personalities that include emotions Luke 2:13-14, intelligence 2 Corinthians 11:3, 14, and wills 2 Timothy 2:26. Satan was an angel who was cast out of heaven along with many other angels who decided to follow him and chose to sin 2 Peter 2:4. In terms of free will, the Bible reveals this was an exercise of their ability to choose Jude 1:6.

During this time, He also created heaven which is explained in Genesis.

Because of free will, there were some powerful angels led by Satan who wanted an equal or separate share of heaven and to rule like God. They were banished because they disobeyed God's will.

God created all the angels then and there will be no more. Angels in the material world refer to messengers, prophets, priests and church leaders. For example, if someone sends you a telegram and they were instructed to read it to you, you are not going to question how they know something about you or your situation. The message is what's important.

Thus, Adam and Eve did not know animals weren't suppose to talk. They just accepted it and the message being delivered.

>>Just because something in real life happens to line up with a book doesn't mean the book is real or has credibility. A creator isn't a theory, it's a faulty hypothesis at best.<<

Your last sentence is opinion while I've used the Bible, reasoning and historical evidence for my explanation. Science isn't the only way to ascertain the truth for people who are broad in their scope. Now, kindly answer my question above in your own words since you're so fond of science, and then we can move forward.

 

[Epitah]

So, you're admitting you know very little about science but expect scientific explanations? Otherwise, please explain the Big Bang Theory and how the universe started in your own words.

In regards to this question, you can't have it both ways. Science does not accept the Bible nor any supernatural explanations. Moreover, there was no science then.

It also shows to me and others here that you are a person of limited scope. Science is not the onlyhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/if-god-doesnt-exist.433708/page-164#post-14651907 way to ascertain truth. We have factshttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/if-god-doesnt-exist.433708/page-164#post-14651907 in which we can use to reason with and also there are historical truths. We can use law to determine what happened and who is telling the truth. Thus, I use facts, reasoning, historical truths and other methods including science to ascertain truths while you are limited to your narrow science. Tsk.

The word serpent is clearly explained as a snake in the Bible. I gave you the passage, so you can look it up yourself. We know animals cannot talk even though a parrot or other birds can copy what was said.

As for the rest, this happened outside our realm which is timeless and spaceless. God created angels before His other creations. ""Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7

He also created free will. Angels are spiritual beings who have personalities that include emotions Luke 2:13-14, intelligence 2 Corinthians 11:3, 14, and wills 2 Timothy 2:26. Satan was an angel who was cast out of heaven along with many other angels who decided to follow him and chose to sin 2 Peter 2:4. In terms of free will, the Bible reveals this was an exercise of their ability to choose Jude 1:6.

During this time, He also created heaven which is explained in Genesis.

Because of free will, there were some powerful angels led by Satan who wanted an equal or separate share of heaven and to rule like God. They were banished because they disobeyed God's will.

God created all the angels then and there will be no more. Angels in the material world refer to messengers, prophets, priests and church leaders. For example, if someone sends you a telegram and they were instructed to read it to you, you are not going to question how they know something about you or your situation. The message is what's important.

Thus, Adam and Eve did not know animals weren't suppose to talk. They just accepted it and the message being delivered.

There are entire textbooks about the Big Bang, I have no idea why you don't research it yourself. I mean, if I do that's not going to change your mind, and if I don't that's not going to change anything aside from you advertising your lack of understand of the concept of "i dont know"

I still can't find a damn thing on these invisible particles you speak of, by the way.

Also, you make so many assertions in that post but don't back up anything, and they are all contingent on the existence of a creator. None of this is actual science. We know snakes can't talk. so why are you trying to scientifically justify a book that has a talking snake. or is it just a possessed snake, or someone has shapeshifted into a snake? Citing the bible is doing you no good

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you notice a pattern?

You write "Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"


....and I jam your words back down your throat.


Aren't you embarrasses at your own ignorance?

How is that jamming my words down my throat exactly?

People who happen to be scientists and physicists speaking out against religion and irrational thought does not equate to a grand scheme against religion just because they feel like it. This is like, lizard people running the white house level of conspiracy.

You:
" It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"



Me, jamming your words back down your throat:
Certainly not behind closed doors....'else how can they bring fools like you into the fold.

"In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one an -other on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven
Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature.
“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”. In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?"
David Berlinski



"Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion?"

I just proved that that is exactly what is being done.


You didn't miss it the second time....

....did you?

 

[Epitah]

I just proved that that is exactly what is being done.

How is that proof of what you're saying?

If divine intervention was useful to understanding reality scientists would most certainly be using it.

how come a common trend in these arguments is that you just seem constantly paranoid

 

[Dr Grump]

[


You imbecile...he just gave you the definition of the term.

There is no other understanding of the term "God."



And, If you are unsure of the meaning of "imbecile," it is listed in the dictionary under your picture.

More self-flagellating waffle from a loon. Who gets to decide on the definition? The one he posted is his own. Nothing more, nothing less.