My favorite argument for the existence of God

Michael · Feb 2, 2018

Skreeper said:
The Bible does a great job at being wrong about a lot of things too.

Science also has it's share of false starts.

Skreeper · Feb 2, 2018

Michael said:
Science also has it's share of false starts.

The important difference is that science can correct its mistakes. You cannot do that with the Bible.

doubtingmerle · Feb 2, 2018

Arius said:
For the hundredth time, how do species evolve from one distinct species to another distinct species if not while they are alive?

gradually over many generations.

bhsmte · Feb 2, 2018

Arius said:
Science is:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The Bible does a great job of getting us started on science.

What science is not:
A bunch of credentials from different atheist and Jesuit built and funded universities thinking now you have the right to make up fantastic stories and claim them as science.

My once hero Dr. Dino Hovind stopped talking to me (three times) when he heard I had proof/evidence of God, because it conflicted with his trinity-god theory which there was no evidence of, but had to be believed in on blind faith which was "not debatable".

But he never used my observation that: "Evolution does not believe in Evolution/speciation", so that there, .. and that he is still spinning and twirling through the cold dark vacuum of space that is expanding and slowing down at the same time because of the magical gravity, we no longer see eye to eye, nor do we worship the same God. He makes his living from Christians, so I guess he can't afford to let God in his life, his home, or his church.

I asked for your qualifications, not unsupported opinion.

bhsmte · Feb 2, 2018

Arius said:
Science is:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The Bible does a great job of getting us started on science.

What science is not:
A bunch of credentials from different atheist and Jesuit built and funded universities thinking now you have the right to make up fantastic stories and claim them as science.

My once hero Dr. Dino Hovind stopped talking to me (three times) when he heard I had proof/evidence of God, because it conflicted with his trinity-god theory which there was no evidence of, but had to be believed in on blind faith which was "not debatable".

But he never used my observation that: "Evolution does not believe in Evolution/speciation", so that there, .. and that he is still spinning and twirling through the cold dark vacuum of space that is expanding and slowing down at the same time because of the magical gravity, we no longer see eye to eye, nor do we worship the same God. He makes his living from Christians, so I guess he can't afford to let God in his life, his home, or his church.

I asked for your qualifications, not unsupported opinion.

Michael · Feb 2, 2018

Skreeper said:
The important difference is that science can correct its mistakes. You cannot do that with the Bible.

One can choose to interpret the Bible differently over time however, and religions do change through the centuries as the switch from Judaism to "Christianity" demonstrates.

HitchSlap · Feb 2, 2018

Arius said:
Science is:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The Bible does a great job of getting us started on science.

What science is not:
A bunch of credentials from different atheist and Jesuit built and funded universities thinking now you have the right to make up fantastic stories and claim them as science.

My once hero Dr. Dino Hovind stopped talking to me (three times) when he heard I had proof/evidence of God, because it conflicted with his trinity-god theory which there was no evidence of, but had to be believed in on blind faith which was "not debatable".

But he never used my observation that: "Evolution does not believe in Evolution/speciation", so that there, .. and that he is still spinning and twirling through the cold dark vacuum of space that is expanding and slowing down at the same time because of the magical gravity, we no longer see eye to eye, nor do we worship the same God. He makes his living from Christians, so I guess he can't afford to let God in his life, his home, or his church.

The bible knows nothing of science, and got more things wrong than it got right. As for hovind, he's an arrogant narcissist, fraud and ex con, who'll say anything to get you to part with your money.

HitchSlap · Feb 2, 2018

bhsmte said:
I asked for your qualifications, not unsupported opinion.

I suggested hovind & bible, and the irony that he admits to it. lol

Can spot 'em a mile away.

Larniavc · Feb 2, 2018

Speedwell said:
Evolution does not require that creatures evolve during their lifetimes.

Not so.

For some people their X gene does not express until adolescence (let’s discount secondary mutations).

Then homo sapien sapien becomes homo sapien superior.

And anyone with Kree ancestry complicated the matter even further (but we don’t need to talk about them for obvious reasons).

Kylie · Feb 2, 2018

Arius said:
Evolution Religion is not science, as I keep presenting evidence of that from the get go,

You can make the claim all you want, but you're still wrong.

.. starting with speciation.
Dawkins mocks the Christian Religion because he is a cult Leader and has nothing but hate in his heart. I guess that's what digging up graves and robbing them of the skull and bones of the families loved ones does to him.

Where in the world do you get your ideas?

Have you ever learned anything about evolution that did not come from someone who thought it was blasphemous?

Because evolution calls humans animals who evolved (but not evolved at the same time) from gorillas.

No it doesn't.

I suppose atheist believe in God? Well actually I was debating this one atheist who was getting real hateful and angry, so I asked him: "Why do you hate God so much?"
He said: "How could I hate God when I don't believe he exists, .. so how can I hate something that doesn't exist!?"
I asked him how many people does he know that debate, argue, hate on something or someone who doesn't exist?
Because I know of none.

Then by that logic, the fact you are arguing against evolution is proof that evolution is real!

Which is why I'm not, .. or no longer a Christian. They're the ones invented the Big-Bang story, and turned God into an idea, .. an "it", .. concept rather than what the Bible reveals who He is. On top of that, they took Gods son Word and turned him into their sun-god.

Good for you.

That doesn't mean that other people can't do it.

No it doesn't. It points to a single creator, using the same source "dust".

How closely are gorillas related to us? - Berggorilla & Regenwald Direkthilfe e.V.
- Certain genes that were analyzed differ by only 1.2% between humans and chimpanzees, by 1.6% between humans and gorillas and by 1.8% between gorillas and chimpanzees.
Taking a motorcycle and a car apart also shows

If we take a motorcycle and a car apart, and compare the motorcycle parts to all the parts in a car, we would find that basically they are both made out of the same materials, same type of nuts and bolts, glass, plastic etc. and tracing it back, we would find the same creators, us humans. This doesn't prove that the car evolved from a motorcycle, which evolved from a nut (amoeba).

You don't actually understand evolution, do you?

But the body is made of dust particles, "for dust thou art, and to, .."

No it's not.

I agree, Religion is not better. And I agree with you 100% Religion is bad whether it claims science, or god/gods. I know of one that took over both.
Now religious deeds like visiting the widows and the orphans, that would be true religion. But not creating gods, and doctrines for those gods like the Christian Religion has by creating the Big-Bang story and replacing Gods creation with it.
This is why they created space, and their universe and renamed all the stars after their gods: Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc.

Wow, if you think Mars, Jupiter and Venus are stars, then you REALLY need to go back to school.

About 10 billion a month, so far Trillions of dollars for fake moon landings, Mars landings, fake drawings passed of as actual photos of planets which don't exist etc. The BB- created an imaginary universe.

Are you a conspiracy theorist? Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? Do you think the government is trying to vaccinate us with chemtrails?

Have you heard of "Operation Paperclip"? They are the ones that created snake-tongued NASA. Look it up and you will see "what benefit" taking over the minds and hearts of people through magical deception can bring, .. one is, you can ask any amount of money you want, and the other is you can rule over the whole world.

You says the sort of things I would expect a conspiracy theorist to say...

Remember Satan offering Jesus the "whole world" if he just bowed down to him and worshipped him?

I've read it, but then I read Darth Vader promising Luke that they could rule the galaxy as father and son too.

Oops, spoilers.

Well guess who bowed down instead, a population of evolving apes and now rule the world!? That's why both snake tongued NASA and 666CERN dedicate themselves to Satan, and sacrifice both money and human lives to him.

Wow. Can we talk about reality for a moment?

But you know Satan, the more you give him,. the more he requires; next plan; Agenda 21, 2030 which is a staggering 6.5 billion human souls. Promising the half billion left; the Whole World to themselves.

And how do you know Satan's future plans?

Conspiracy Theorist-
Lol, ..
President Kennedy was murdered! Electricity, Solar are all free energy! "ah, there goes another conspiracy theorist", .. got to love it.
If I talk against the BB or Evolution stories, then I am labeled a "science hater", .. if I say I love people, I am labeled a 'stalker', .. oh well, it's not that the Bible didn't warn us Believers about that?

I'm really concerned for you.

Kylie · Feb 2, 2018

Michael said:
False dichotomy. If an atheist like you, without any formal training on the topic of God can "see the truth" as you put it, like I "see the truth" (actually just lack belief) about exotic matter, that doesn't mean every Priest agrees with your assessment, or that they are consciously and intentionally lying does it?

Tell me, did this sound like a valid argument before you typed it? Because it certainly isn't now.

You mean a lack of empirical evidence perhaps? Since when was 'having faith' in something without empirical supporting evidence a "cover up"?

Who are you to judge if there is empirical evidence or not? Have you examined the research?

He was a professional patent clerk at the time.

So?

Strawman. FYI, the guy who wrote the cosmology theory I hold belief in also won a Nobel prize in MHD theory (physics).

And I'm sure you can find professional pilots who think 9/11 was an inside job. So what?

Care to prove me wrong?

How many billions of dollars does the oil industry spend on dowsers to find new oil deposits?

Evidently you didn't follow any of the links I provided you in that thread because I listed numerous *published papers* that all contradict mainstream theory, most of which were written by "professionals".

Then why don't you link to the papers instead of your own post?

That's simply not true. They could have gone to the lab and recreated his experiments anytime they wished. They could still do so with respect to his solar theories in fact.

You know that being able to reproduce something in the lab is not always an accurate representation of reality.

No, I have a whole list of reasons as to why he's right, starting with the fact that it works in the lab.

EU/PC - Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory.

If that argument doesn't convince actual scientists, why should it convince me?

You have the burden of proof standing on it's head. I don't need to provide evidence *against* exotic matter, in fact it's impossible to demonstrate a negative. They need to provide evidence *for it*. They tried to the tune of billions of dollars and they failed. I lack belief in their dogma.

Oh rubbish. You make a claim that goes against current scientific understanding and you claim it's not on you to support it?

What else would you have me call it?

How about "the currently accepted model" rather than "absurdly bad dogma" or "supernatural dogma" or "pure ignorance" or "placeholder terms for ignorance".

Oh well. I do enjoy discussing cosmology theory and particle physics theory on a science forum.

Maybe one day you will realise that you can have discussions about other topics as well.

MissRowy · Feb 2, 2018

Unfortunately with some its like bashing your head against a brick wall. They just don't want to listen to PURE SOLID FACT.

bhsmte · Feb 5, 2018

MissRowy said:
Unfortunately with some its like bashing your head against a brick wall. They just don't want to listen to PURE SOLID FACT.

To some, certain facts, can be downright scary.

Astrophile · Feb 5, 2018

Arius said:
This is why they created space, and their universe and renamed all the stars after their gods: Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc.

About 10 billion a month, so far Trillions of dollars for fake moon landings, Mars landings, fake drawings passed of as actual photos of planets which don't exist etc.

Have you ever looked at any of the planets through a telescope? Would you even recognise Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn if you saw them in the sky?

Arius said:
Remember Satan offering Jesus the "whole world" if he just bowed down to him and worshipped him?

If Jesus refused Satan's offer, how did Christianity become the world's dominant religion?

Michael · Feb 5, 2018

Kylie said:
Tell me, did this sound like a valid argument before you typed it? Because it certainly isn't now.

It does if you think about it, but apparently you didn't. Let me spell it out: There is no conspiracy.

Who are you to judge if there is empirical evidence or not? Have you examined the research?

Yes, I have. I've read numerous papers from LHC, PandaX, AMDx, LUX, Xenon-1T, etc. In fact I've read pretty much every paper that I cited for you in the Thunderbolt's link too.

And I'm sure you can find professional pilots who think 9/11 was an inside job. So what?

How flippant can you be? Alfven literally wrote the book on MHD theory, and 99+ percent of the known universe is in the plasma state.

How many billions of dollars does the oil industry spend on dowsers to find new oil deposits?

Eh?

Then why don't you link to the papers instead of your own post?

It seemed silly (over overly time consuming) to copy and past dozens of papers and links for you into this thread. The whole point of my starting that thread (years ago) is to keep a running list of links and paper which directly and indirectly refute LCDM. There's not point in reinventing the wheel.

You know that being able to reproduce something in the lab is not always an accurate representation of reality.

So why do you reject the concept of God again?

If that argument doesn't convince actual scientists, why should it convince me?

Your faith in astronomers is not at all unlike one's faith in their clergy you know.

Oh rubbish. You make a claim that goes against current scientific understanding and you claim it's not on you to support it?

No, it's not. It's impossible to prove a negative. I can't *provide evidence* that invisible elves do not exist, someone must provide evidence that they do exist.

How about "the currently accepted model" rather than "absurdly bad dogma" or "supernatural dogma" or "pure ignorance" or "placeholder terms for ignorance".

It's all the same from my perspective and all the same in the lab.

Maybe one day you will realise that you can have discussions about other topics as well.

Maybe one day you'll realize that I do.

Ophiolite · Feb 5, 2018

bhsmte said:
I asked for your qualifications, not unsupported opinion.

I'm not sure if it works semantically, or logically, but perhaps there is an equivalence between no qualifications and unsupported opinion.

Kylie · Feb 5, 2018

Michael said:
It does if you think about it, but apparently you didn't. Let me spell it out: There is no conspiracy.

Of course not. It's just a small group of people who hold a position that has insufficient evidence to convince mainstream cosmology that they are correct.

Yes, I have. I've read numerous papers from LHC, PandaX, AMDx, LUX, Xenon-1T, etc. In fact I've read pretty much every paper that I cited for you in the Thunderbolt's link too.

Well, good for you. I could get my daughter to read them too. READING means nothing. UNDERSTANDING is what's important. So, let me ask you what qualifications do you have that allows you to understand this subject better than the majority of professional cosmologists?

How flippant can you be? Alfven literally wrote the book on MHD theory, and 99+ percent of the known universe is in the plasma state.

The existence of stars (I assume that's what you mean, since stars are plasma) does not mean that your ideas are correct.

Eh?

You said that mainstream cosmology hasn't produced any useful results. I said that if mainstream cosmology hadn't produced any useful results, it is unlikely that they would not have been continually funded. After all, what sort of idiot funds things that have never produced useful results? This is why we don't find dowsers working for oil companies, because dowsing is not a reliable method of finding new oil deposits. Any oil company that spent money on dowsers would be stupid, because they would be spending money and not getting any useful results. This mindset - don't spend money on things that don't work - is not confined to the oil industry. It would apply in comsological research as well. So why is it that mainstream cosmology is still funded if it doesn't produce any useful results, as you say? Do you think that the people who provide the funding are stupid?

So why do you reject the concept of God again?

Oh for crying out loud, do you really think that lab reproducability is the only way of seeing if something is accurate? I reject the concept of God because the concept of God is inconsistent with everything I see about reality.

Your faith in astronomers is not at all unlike one's faith in their clergy you know.

lol, that's a terrible argument.

No, it's not. It's impossible to prove a negative. I can't *provide evidence* that invisible elves do not exist, someone must provide evidence that they do exist.

Ah, but you are making positive claims, aren't you? You are presenting an alternative idea for how the universe works, and this idea has been examined and dismissed by nearly every scientist in relevant fields.

It's all the same from my perspective and all the same in the lab.

So you just decide to poison the well.

And you need to learn that the lab is not the be all and end all of science.

Maybe one day you'll realize that I do.

Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of your posts are about your unorthodox ideas about cosmology.

Michael · Feb 5, 2018

Kylie said:
Of course not. It's just a small group of people who hold a position that has insufficient evidence to convince mainstream cosmology that they are correct.

So what? Science isn't a popularity contest. Most folks preferred Newton's formulas for gravity over Einstein's at first. It was once a 'mainstream scientific belief' that the Earth was the center of the universe too. Popularity never dictated "truth", particularly in the field of astronomy.

Well, good for you. I could get my daughter to read them too. READING means nothing. UNDERSTANDING is what's important. So, let me ask you what qualifications do you have that allows you to understand this subject better than the majority of professional cosmologists?

Who said anything about "better than"? The fact I've read Alfven's work and Birkeland's work and Peratt's book for myself puts me *light years* ahead of the vast majority of your LCDM crowd. None of those papers on DM experiments supports their claim to start with.

The existence of stars (I assume that's what you mean, since stars are plasma) does not mean that your ideas are correct.

Actually most of the mass of the universe isn't found inside stars in the first place, it's found *between* stars, which is another of Birkeland's successful predictions I might add.

You said that mainstream cosmology hasn't produced any useful results.

Because it hasn't.

I said that if mainstream cosmology hadn't produced any useful results, it is unlikely that they would not have been continually funded.

That's not true. Name one dark matter experiment that has produced a successful result? Do they keep funding them anyway?

After all, what sort of idiot funds things that have never produced useful results?

Governments.

This is why we don't find dowsers working for oil companies, because dowsing is not a reliable method of finding new oil deposits. Any oil company that spent money on dowsers would be stupid, because they would be spending money and not getting any useful results.

Now you're just confusing private enterprise with governmental funding. They aren't the same thing. Private companies have to answer to someone.

This mindset - don't spend money on things that don't work - is not confined to the oil industry. It would apply in comsological research as well.

Actually no. Private companies are interested in a profit, or they won't do it. Governments on the other hand invest in all kinds of scientific studies which are not profitable at all.

So why is it that mainstream cosmology is still funded if it doesn't produce any useful results, as you say?

Politics.

Do you think that the people who provide the funding are stupid?

You're asking me if I think that governments are stupid. The answer is yes.

Here’s a List of Stupid Things the Government Spends Money On

Oh for crying out loud, do you really think that lab reproducability is the only way of seeing if something is accurate?

In many cases, yes.

I reject the concept of God because the concept of God is inconsistent with everything I see about reality.

How so? But somehow you think exotic matter and exotic energy, space expansion and inflation are not inconsistent with everything we see about reality here on Earth? Got some examples of where those things has any *other* application?

lol, that's a terrible argument.

Not really. It's simply a valid comparison.

Ah, but you are making positive claims, aren't you?

That depends on the specific argument I'm making. With respect to the standard particle physics model there is *ample* evidence to support it, whereas there is none to support exotic forms of matter.

You are presenting an alternative idea for how the universe works,

In some cases yes, but I'm free to reject any idea without doing so. What evidence did you present to demonstrate that God does not exist again? Are you able to simply "lack belief" without having to demonstrate a reason for that lack of belief other than a lack of evidence to support the concept?

and this idea has been examined and dismissed by nearly every scientist in relevant fields.

Even that belief is false. Most of them have never read the appropriate material in the first place.

So you just decide to poison the well.

No, I point out the obvious. The will is *poisoned" with metaphysical constructs galore and I had nothing to do with it.

And you need to learn that the lab is not the be all and end all of science.

Yet you seem to reject God for exactly the same reason since you haven't demonstrated that *all* God concepts are inconsistent with the world around you.

Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of your posts are about your unorthodox ideas about cosmology.

Unfortunately even a discussion of my completely *orthodox" beliefs in particle physics puts me at odds with the LCDM model. I can't discuss major fields of science without coming into conflict with LCMD. I do have a special passion for astronomy and solar physics and I always will.

Johan Abrahams · Feb 6, 2018

Skreeper said:
Okay there buddy you need to sober up and stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking.

I am smoking the Spirit.

Johan Abrahams · Feb 7, 2018

But while I am "smoking the Spirit"

My favorite argument for the existence of God

others are dying.

True Love - Page 21 - The Skeptics Society Forum

And when you read this link you will notice that I linked those in "darkness" to you. So they read your posts. And you will also see that while we call them "those in darkness" they call you the "delusional". The reason is because they say there is no God and you are "delusional" for saying you have met Him because how could you have met Somebody that does not exist.

Now if you follow the link you will see that I am giving them the evidence that Jesus said we should give for His existence.

Mat. 12
38 ¶Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So let us stick to the Truth and stay with what Jesus said we should do. Because when we stick to the Sign we will find the Anointing there. When we follow our own arguments we will find no Power to sustain it.

Mat. 22
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

So there are "arguments for the existence" and then there is The Sign.

My favorite argument for the existence of God

Contributor

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Leading a blameless life

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Ms Snarky

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Defeater of Illogic

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads