There Is Evidence For God

[edthecynic]

neither Prager nor the bigot's bible of hate can cope with the fact that science has proven that energy always existed!
IOW, energy existed before man created God.

"Science doesn't do proofs." - Professor John Lennox, Oxford
His lecture on YouTube, A Matter of Gravity, is something you need desperately to watch.
It will make you gnash your teeth and get very angry.

again we have an IDIOT fake scientist Christian trying to disprove a repeatable experiment with lies!!!
A repeatable experiment will make you gnash your teeth and get very angry.

 

[dudmuck]

Prager's comment that, now, the fact that there was an origin to the universe, and the Bible always claimed, is accepted by even atheistic science.....

neither Prager nor the bigot's bible of hate can cope with the fact that science has proven that energy always existed!
IOW, energy existed before man created God.

What a stupid claim.
But....exactly what one would expect from you.

Again your homeschooled STUPIDITY is showing!!!
It has been PROVEN with a REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That proven SCIENTIFIC fact annihilates creationism at its core!!!!

You said it was proven that energy was always here, yet modern science believes there was a beginning to the universe, to time itself.....as the Bible states.

How stupid must you be to claim that something existed before anything existed.....AND....that you can prove it.

Maybe it’s time for you to have a brain scan….it’s possible the squirrel has died.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You reject all evidence. Stop playing inane word games.

But all concepts are clusters of words, even in Science.

That you cannot grasp their meaning or importance does not make them a game, any more than mathematics might be a game to a monkey.

 

[PoliticalChic]

some fool claimed that there is proof that energy always existed.

Only a homeschooled FOOL would claim that they can disprove an experiment with a LIE!

Well, fool, where is that proof?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You said it was proven that energy was always here, yet modern science believes there was a beginning to the universe, to time itself.....as the Bible states.

Please show where SCIENCE says there was a beginning to energy, idiot!

Don't worry.....I'll help you.


Jot this down:
Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."



The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prager's comment that, now, the fact that there was an origin to the universe, and the Bible always claimed, is accepted by even atheistic science.....

neither Prager nor the bigot's bible of hate can cope with the fact that science has proven that energy always existed!
IOW, energy existed before man created God.

What a stupid claim.
But....exactly what one would expect from you.

Again your homeschooled STUPIDITY is showing!!!
It has been PROVEN with a REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That proven SCIENTIFIC fact annihilates creationism at its core!!!!

You said it was proven that energy was always here, yet modern science believes there was a beginning to the universe, to time itself.....as the Bible states.

How stupid must you be to claim that something existed before anything existed.....AND....that you can prove it.

Maybe it’s time for you to have a brain scan….it’s possible the squirrel has died.

What a stupid post.


From a stupid poster, of course.

 

[edthecynic]

Jot this down:
Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."

jot this down:
What "THING" is God?????
Energy is NOT nothing like your God, unlike your "God" energy can be measured!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

some fool claimed that there is proof that energy always existed.

Only a homeschooled FOOL would claim that they can disprove an experiment with a LIE!

Well, fool, where is that proof?

Like a typical homeschooler, you never learned how the First Law of Thermodynamics was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule!!!!!

 

[ChemEngineer]

You reject all evidence. Stop playing inane word games.

But all concepts are clusters of words, even in Science.

That you cannot grasp their meaning or importance does not make them a game, any more than mathematics might be a game to a monkey.

Clusters of words can be meaningful and accurate, or they can be nonsense. Yours are all too often the latter, but you cannot differentiate the difference between the two extremes any more than a monkey can.

The hateful atheist (but I repeat myself), Richard Dawkins, claims, as my high school biology teacher did, that if you put all the monkeys in the world in a room with all the typewriters, they would eventually write all the works of Shakespeare. Monkey business, in your mathematical words and those of Dickie Dawkins. Let's examine these claims.
There are at LEAST forty different keys on a typewriter keyboard, not even counting upper and lower case options. So for monkeys to type just 100 successive characters at random in any correct sequence would be 1/40 to the 100th power. This is equal to 1 chance in 6.22301 to the 161st power. JUST for 100 keystrokes, much less a book.

Dickie Dawkins, whose books are, like Carl Sagan's, fraught with errors states that his definition of "impossible" is one chance in 10 to the 40th power. Others use one chance in 10 to the 50th power. For perspective, 10 to the 50 grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Jump in to your choice of any of these 15 spheres and find the ONE grain of specially marked sand, on your first and only try. Sure, that's "possible" (wink, nudge).

 

[Hollie]

You reject all evidence. Stop playing inane word games.

But all concepts are clusters of words, even in Science.

That you cannot grasp their meaning or importance does not make them a game, any more than mathematics might be a game to a monkey.

Clusters of words can be meaningful and accurate, or they can be nonsense. Yours are all too often the latter, but you cannot differentiate the difference between the two extremes any more than a monkey can.

The hateful atheist (but I repeat myself), Richard Dawkins, claims, as my high school biology teacher did, that if you put all the monkeys in the world in a room with all the typewriters, they would eventually write all the works of Shakespeare. Monkey business, in your mathematical words and those of Dickie Dawkins. Let's examine these claims.
There are at LEAST forty different keys on a typewriter keyboard, not even counting upper and lower case options. So for monkeys to type just 100 successive characters at random in any correct sequence would be 1/40 to the 100th power. This is equal to 1 chance in 6.22301 to the 161st power. JUST for 100 keystrokes, much less a book.

Dickie Dawkins, whose books are, like Carl Sagan's, fraught with errors states that his definition of "impossible" is one chance in 10 to the 40th power. Others use one chance in 10 to the 50th power. For perspective, 10 to the 50 grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Jump in to your choice of any of these 15 spheres and find the ONE grain of specially marked sand, on your first and only try. Sure, that's "possible" (wink, nudge).

What a truly pointless attempt at comparison yielding a waste of bandwidth.

It seems that angry, self-hating religionists have this strange fixation with monkeys.

 

[Hollie]

As usual, this thread has gone the way of every other thread claiming evidence for gods.

No evidence.

Strange, that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You reject all evidence. Stop playing inane word games.

But all concepts are clusters of words, even in Science.

That you cannot grasp their meaning or importance does not make them a game, any more than mathematics might be a game to a monkey.

Clusters of words can be meaningful and accurate, or they can be nonsense. Yours are all too often the latter, but you cannot differentiate the difference between the two extremes any more than a monkey can.

The hateful atheist (but I repeat myself), Richard Dawkins, claims, as my high school biology teacher did, that if you put all the monkeys in the world in a room with all the typewriters, they would eventually write all the works of Shakespeare. Monkey business, in your mathematical words and those of Dickie Dawkins. Let's examine these claims.
There are at LEAST forty different keys on a typewriter keyboard, not even counting upper and lower case options. So for monkeys to type just 100 successive characters at random in any correct sequence would be 1/40 to the 100th power. This is equal to 1 chance in 6.22301 to the 161st power. JUST for 100 keystrokes, much less a book.

Dickie Dawkins, whose books are, like Carl Sagan's, fraught with errors states that his definition of "impossible" is one chance in 10 to the 40th power. Others use one chance in 10 to the 50th power. For perspective, 10 to the 50 grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Jump in to your choice of any of these 15 spheres and find the ONE grain of specially marked sand, on your first and only try. Sure, that's "possible" (wink, nudge).

You seem to think I disagree with that. I dont.

Though something may be possible, that doesnt mean it is plausible, and random events giving us the beneficient design we see in our universe convinces me that it is not random.

It *is* design.

Not sure we really disagree.

 

[edthecynic]

Though something may be possible, that doesnt mean it is plausible, and random events giving us the beneficient design we see in our universe convinces me that it is not random.

Everything in the universe will crash into each other eventually, hardly a "beneficient design."

 

[Agit8r]

If there were evidence for god, faith would be meaningless

 

[PoliticalChic]

If there were evidence for god, faith would be meaningless

How does that conform with the godless religion of Militant Secularism?


“The secularists Stewart represents just refuse to acknowledge that their religious beliefs are in fact religious beliefs, and of a far creepier and deadlier kind than Christians’.

….the belief that it is possible to fix the world by applying government pressure? That is not a belief that can be wholly validated by research or experience. In fact, research and experience both indicate that central planning usually makes life even more nasty, brutish, and short.

So what is this unfounded, undocumented, unprovable faith in government power to correct human psyches and behavior if not a religious (metaphysical) belief? It is also an unprovable and metaphysical belief about what a human is — a thing that can be “corrected” by politics and whose “error” is not intrinsic to itself. Again, these are all metaphysical, religious beliefs with no empirical basis or possibility of being fully empirically proven.

The secular, pagan, atheist types are the ones who claim religious assumptions are evil. They do so because they erroneously believe they are free from such assumptions. But in truth, no one is.”” Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'

 

[JimBowie1958]

If there were evidence for god, faith would be meaningless

There is no ABSOLUTe evidence that leaves one with no decision regarding faith, but there is evidence.

It is similar to how astronomers used to look at the wobbles of outer planets looking for a planet behind that one.

The evidence was never 100% till the actual planet was found, but the gravitational and orbital evidence was fairly accurate, with only few errors involved.

 

[Agit8r]

If there were evidence for god, faith would be meaningless

There is no ABSOLUTe evidence that leaves one with no decision regarding faith, but there is evidence.

It is similar to how astronomers used to look at the wobbles of outer planets looking for a planet behind that one.

The evidence was never 100% till the actual planet was found, but the gravitational and orbital evidence was fairly accurate, with only few errors involved.

That may be, but there is nothing that proves that one's god is the right one. For all that the Muslim know's the Christians are right, and a Hades of some sort awaits. For all that the Christian knows, Elah/Allah will be flipping the Christians over on his barbeque.

And these are but two personifications of the same god. Perhaps the pagan Hebrews were right to make offerings to Ashtoreth, before the Patriarchalists overthrew their society. Between these, no one can decide, except by their own feelings.

 

[esalla]

I don't know of any Darwinists who can prove one species became another.

Already documented. No need to impose your ignorance in a public message board.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Show the documentation of speciation hollie

We are interested in your disease

 

[esalla]

If there were evidence for god, faith would be meaningless

There is no ABSOLUTe evidence that leaves one with no decision regarding faith, but there is evidence.

It is similar to how astronomers used to look at the wobbles of outer planets looking for a planet behind that one.

The evidence was never 100% till the actual planet was found, but the gravitational and orbital evidence was fairly accurate, with only few errors involved.

That may be, but there is nothing that proves that one's god is the right one. For all that the Muslim know's the Christians are right, and a Hades of some sort awaits. For all that the Christian knows, Elah/Allah will be flipping the Christians over on his barbeque.

And these are but two personifications of the same god. Perhaps the pagan Hebrews were right to make offerings to Ashtoreth, before the Patriarchalists overthrew their society. Between these, no one can decide, except by their own feelings.

Dna is a molecular computer language that rearranges atoms into life. Languages do not form without a writer

 

[Agit8r]

If there were evidence for god, faith would be meaningless

There is no ABSOLUTe evidence that leaves one with no decision regarding faith, but there is evidence.

It is similar to how astronomers used to look at the wobbles of outer planets looking for a planet behind that one.

The evidence was never 100% till the actual planet was found, but the gravitational and orbital evidence was fairly accurate, with only few errors involved.

That may be, but there is nothing that proves that one's god is the right one. For all that the Muslim know's the Christians are right, and a Hades of some sort awaits. For all that the Christian knows, Elah/Allah will be flipping the Christians over on his barbeque.

And these are but two personifications of the same god. Perhaps the pagan Hebrews were right to make offerings to Ashtoreth, before the Patriarchalists overthrew their society. Between these, no one can decide, except by their own feelings.

Dna is a molecular computer language that rearranges atoms into life. Languages do not form without a writer

Assuming you are correct, who is the writer. And how can you be certain what attributes the writer posesses?