I believe that the bible is MOSTLY true...there are false things in it. If the bible is from God...then lame and evil men have obviously polluted it...then that goes to reason that God allowed that to happen for whatever reason...which is why some Preachers say it is supposed to be based on faith.
*Sighs*
Originally posted by Bardock42
We have to realize though that god's existence is even more unlikely than the Universe as we now know it just suddenly appearing.When we deal in probabilities...god (especially the Christian God) sucks his own balls.
Of course, you do not have the astrophysics to back that up...If you actually studied astrophysics, you would know that sometimes, things are attributed to God...like they will say something generic like "the way god intended", or "if god wanted it this way", etc. Some horrendously complex problems have God in the mix because it is the only way they can explain it to get to a solution...seriously.
Astrophysics has waaay too many unknowns for physicists to attribute happenings and properties to anything but God.
Really though...you shouldn't make fun of a person that YOU don't believe is real.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course, you do not have the astrophysics to back that up...If you actually studied astrophysics, you would know that sometimes, things are attributed to God...like they will say something generic like "the way god intended", or "if god wanted it this way", etc. Some horrendously complex problems have God in the mix because it is the only way they can explain it to get to a solution...seriously.Astrophysics has waaay too many unknowns for physicists to attribute happenings and properties to anything but God.
Really though...you shouldn't make fun of a person that YOU don't believe is real.
Hahahaha, no astrophysics NEVER attributes anything to God. Man, you are funny.
Also, I make fun of Luke Skywalker a lot for example and he is just as fictional as God.
Besides, in this case I wasn't even making fun of Godsy, I was just saying he is unlikely.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahahaha, no astrophysics NEVER attributes anything to God. Man, you are funny.
Why don't you study astrophysics for a few years at a university and then come back to me on that. HAHAHA!! I can't believe how funny you are! 😆 😆 😆
Have you even taken any classes on astrophysics? I highly doubt that because you would have to have a bachelors degree in general physics AND then you can take a post grad degree in one of the physics fields....HAHAHAH!! You are so funny.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why don't you study astrophysics for a few years at a university and then come back to me on that. HAHAHA!! I can't believe how funny you are! 😆 😆 😆Have you even taken any classes on astrophysics? I highly doubt that because you would have to have a bachelors degree in general physics AND then you can take a post grad degree in one of the physics fields....HAHAHAH!! You are so funny.
Hahahahhahaha, have you? 😐
Or hey, why don't you post astrophysics papers where they use "God" to explain something. I am sure you can find the newest and best on Arxive.org.
You go for it, and stop pretending like you know shit about anything. Idiots, like you, just don't.
Originally posted by Marchello
***Evidently, from your hostility, you do not believe there is a God. Therefore, I will go on that premise.(A)To say that you believe there is no God has problems. On what would you be basing your belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all?
(1)If EVIDENCE, then what positive evidence is there that DISPROVES God's existence?
(a)There can be NO such evidence since evidence is physical in nature [i.e., EVIDENCE is an EFFECT and/or RESULT of something in REALITY]. How could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
(b)Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but NO ONE can rightly testify that God does not exist.
(2)If lack of evdence, then it means he has NOT yet seen ALL evidence and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheistic position is INCONSISTENT with his statement.
(3)If logic then WHAT logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
(a)At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does NOT mean there is NO God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are INSUFFICIENT.
(b)Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is a refutation of all possible proofs...since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does NOT disprove God's existence.
(c)If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist...it has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since NO PROOF of God's NON-EXISTENCE has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
(4)If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
(5)If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
(B)For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are NO logical proofs that God does NOT exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.Marchello
your argument is built on shaky ground. please read this. if more people do we can avoid a lot of sensless argumentation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
also. bear in mind that the god of the bible claims certain attributes which can be logically tested for consistancy as the attributes themselves are part of logical understanding. even if you start with the basis of omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence/omnibenevolance. many irrefuteable contradictions show up, affectively nulling and elminating such MODELS OF GOD{god itself as an unknowable can not perhaos be refuted but all byblical models CAN be, realise that}.
plus there are numerous contradictions between what he claims and what practically happens. plus the irrefuteable fact of the contradictions and fallacies in the bible.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahahahhahaha, have you? 😐Or hey, why don't you post astrophysics papers where they use "God" to explain something. I am sure you can find the newest and best on Arxive.org.
You go for it, and stop pretending like you know shit about anything. Idiots, like you, just don't.
I can't. I can't post anything from any professors at MIT, Cambrige, or CIT...I don't know where to look. Would I even have access to official works from them without having to pay for it?
Here's something for you, read some of Stephe Hawkings books...he mentions God several times in most to all of his books. (And if you knew anything about him...his contemporaries don't hink he has contributed that much to modern astrophysics...try to learn that from a book!)
Have I got any post grad physcis study under my belt? No. Have I made personal studies? Yes. Can you do the same at a university library before you continue to make ingnorant statements? Yes.
This is a closed case my friend.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't. I can't post anything from any professors at MIT, Cambrige, or CIT...I don't know where to look. Would I even have access to official works from them without having to pay for it?Here's something for you, read some of Stephe Hawkings books...he mentions God several times in most to all of his books.
Have I got any post grad physcis study under my belt? No. Have I made personal studies? Yes. Can you do the same at a university library before you continue to make ingnorant statements? Yes.
This is a closed case my friend.
He also states openly how he in no way means a personal God.
Totally different thing. If I am going to call my cat God, you'd call me a theist, wouldn't you.
Also, here you find me some: http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph
Until then I shall call you "full of shit dude"
Also, I study Mathematics at one of the most prestigious German Universities, so how about some STFU juice for you, *******?
Originally posted by Bardock42
He also states openly how he in no way means a personal God.Totally different thing. If I am going to call my cat God, you'd call me a theist, wouldn't you.
Also, here you find me some: http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph
Until then I shall call you "full of shit dude"
Also, I study Mathematics at one of the most prestigous German Universities, so how about some STFU juice for you, *******?
Did you notice how I did not capitalize god when making those quotes? there was a reason. How about you try to pay attention AND study a bit more before you make fun of other's religions.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Did you notice how I did not capitalize god when making those quotes? there was a reason. How about you try to pay attention AND study a bit more before you make fun of other's religions.
Originally posted by full of shit dude
Of course, you do not have the astrophysics to back that up...If you actually studied astrophysics, you would know that sometimes, things are attributed to God.
Nice try, liar.
Now, find me the papers. You can find tons of serious publications on Arxiv .... I figure you didn't know that, seeing as your research was conducted in your anus.
Originally posted by dadudemonHe is far from a god loving Christian my friend
I can't. I can't post anything from any professors at MIT, Cambrige, or CIT...I don't know where to look. Would I even have access to official works from them without having to pay for it?Here's something for you, read some of Stephe Hawkings books...he mentions God several times in most to all of his books. (And if you knew anything about him...his contemporaries don't hink he has contributed that much to modern astrophysics...try to learn that from a book!)
Have I got any post grad physcis study under my belt? No. Have I made personal studies? Yes. Can you do the same at a university library before you continue to make ingnorant statements? Yes.
This is a closed case my friend.
Dude, even the site you posted has references to "god" in them and they are using god the way I was!!!
You just proved me right...What the hell is wrong with you? You are not right...there is something wrong with you.
EDIT- in every case, I mean lower case god. I made an error earlier...
Mathematics is not the same as astrophysics...do you know how many times mathmaticians and physicists have argued like we are? It is like montagues and capulets. Both are studies are math but with a different philosophical perspective and goals. I have proven with sound physics that the universe does not need a god to exist..recently other physcisists have come up with their own theories. You are arguing with the wrong person...I just didn't like how ignorant you were being with no one to keep you in check because no one knew any better and I did not like how you were making fun of billions of peoples religion.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Show me.
Now get an education and stop being such a hater!!!!
Originally posted by dadudemonoh shut up,relax,how is he hating?,you need to examine the context of the word god,and for gods sakes chill out
No. you look it up. I will not show you crap. It is right there in your face to look it up. try it...it is easy...type in the word god into the search and then see the context that the word god is used in and you will see that it is being used the same way...it is not pointing to a specific person...more like a generic branding on jargon used to describe things...just like I was trying to point out...if they were soooo opposed to the concept of god because a god does not in anyway exist, why kept using it in official papers? Simple, it helps them explain things...LIKE I WAS SAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠Now get an education and stop being such a hater!!!!
"Albert Einstein made fundamental contributions to the development of quantum mechanics. However, he was never satisfied with the quantum worldview. In fact, during most of his life he attempted to find inconsistencies and paradoxes within quantum mechanics. His famous quote "God does not play dice" shows how disturbing was to Einstein one of the most important aspects of quantum mechanics: non-determinism. In this paper we will present the basic concepts of quantum mechanics, we will describe Einstein's attempts to destroy it and we will discuss why we can nowadays state that, in this regard, Albert Einstein was not right."
"God" in a quotation in an entirely unreligious way
"We measure the 2-point correlation function, xi(AG), between galaxies and quasar absorption line systems at z<1, using the dataset of Morris & Jannuzi (2006; paper I) on 16 lines of sight (LOS) with UV spectroscopy and galaxy multi-object spectroscopy. The measurements are made in 2-D redshift space out to pi=20/h Mpc (comoving) along the LOS and out to 2/h Mpc projected; as a function of HI column density in the range N(HI) = 1E13-1E19 cm^-2, for CIV systems and as a function of galaxy spectral type. This extends the absorber-galaxy pair count analysis of paper I. We find that the peak amplitude of xi(AG) at the smallest separations increases slowly as the lower limit on N(HI) is increased from 1E13 to 1E16 cm^-2, and then jumps sharply (albeit with substantial uncertainty) at N(HI)>1E17 cm^-2. For CIV absorbers, the peak strength of xi(AG) is comparable to that of HI absorbers with N(HI)>1E16.5 cm^-2.
We do not reproduce the differences reported by Chen et al. between 1-D xi(AG) measurements using galaxy sub-samples of different spectral types, but the full impact of systematic differences in our samples is hard to quantify. We compare the observations with smoothed particle hydrodynamical (SPH) simulations and discover that in the observations xi(AG) is more concentrated to the smallest separations than in the simulations. The latter also display a `finger of god' elongation of xi(AG) along the LOS in redshift space, which is absent from our data, but similar to that found by Ryan-Weber for the cross-correlation of quasar absorbers and HI-emission-selected galaxies. The physical origin of these `fingers of god' is unclear and we highlight several possible areas for further investigation."
"finger of god" no God to explain anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingers_of_God
"Einstein initially objected to the probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics - the idea that God is playing at dice. Later he changed his ground, and focussed instead on the point that the Copenhagen Interpretation leads to what Einstein saw as the abandonment of physical realism. We argue here that Einstein's initial intuition was perfectly sound, and that it is precisely the fact that quantum mechanics is a fundamentally probabilistic theory which is at the root of all the controversies regarding its interpretation. Probability is an intrinsically logical concept. This means that the quantum state has an essentially logical significance. It is extremely difficult to reconcile that fact with Einstein's belief, that it is the task of physics to give us a vision of the world apprehended sub specie aeternitatis. Quantum mechanics thus presents us with a simple choice: either to follow Einstein in looking for a theory which is not probabilistic at the fundamental level, or else to accept that physics does not in fact put us in the position of God looking down on things from above. There is a widespread fear that the latter alternative must inevitably lead to a greatly impoverished, positivistic view of physical theory. It appears to us, however, that the truth is just the opposite. The Einsteinian vision is much less attractive than it seems at first sight. In particular, it is closely connected with philosophical reductionism."
Again, Einstein's concept of God, in no way relating to what you claim.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604217 Finger of God again
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507220 God used as an analogy
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410245 "God given" as euphemism for axiom
Man, full of shit dude, it...it just doesn't look good for you.
Maybe, avoid the thread for a few pages and then come back totally disregarding what has been said earlier?
Originally posted by Marchello
***Evidently, from your hostility, you do not believe there is a God. Therefore, I will go on that premise.
You, my buddy, are the most hostile person on KMC Religion Forums.
Originally posted by Marchello
(A)To say that you believe there is no God has problems. On what would you be basing your belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all?
-Lack of Evidense of existance of God
-Reason
-Logic
-Bible contradicting Science
-Bible contradicting Reality
-Bible contradicting itself
-Bible copying Pagan stories
-Illogical and unrealistic stories from the Bible
-Bible portraying God as an immature, jealous, wrathful man
-Bible preaching hostility and violence
-Bible preaching revenge
-Bible supporting slavery and genocide
-Earth NOT being the Center of Creation
-Facts which make the Bible appear false
-The Fact that the Bible was written by MEN
-Bible being sexist
-Bible having logical paradoxes
-Descriptions of God being contradicting
-Error in the Bible- two chapters under different authors and titles are simply replicas of eachother
-Bible demeaning the role and existance of women
-Adam and Eve story is fiction
-Lack of mention of Dinosaurs, how do they fit in?
-Evolution discreditting creationism
-Fact that Creationism has no evidense to back it up
-Bible claiming that animals were meant to serve man, even though there are thousands of animal species which exist independent from human race, and do not serve us in anyway
-Bible telling us to loathe Earth, because of its evil
- religions which preceded Christianity, Islam, and Judaism
-Existance of Hell being illogical if God is all loving
-existance of Hell being illogical period
-lack of evidense for existance of heaven and hell
-lack of evidense for existance of Satan
-lack of evidense for existance of angels
-lack of evidense for existance of demons
-paradox of Omnipotence
It seems as though beleiving in God actually causes more problems than not beleiving....
I can go on and on..would you like me to ?
Originally posted by Marchello
(1)If EVIDENCE, then what positive evidence is there that DISPROVES God's existence?
1) Science is not in the business of proving negatives.
2) What positive evidense is there that Disproves the existance of Zeus ? Or Santa Clause ? Or the Tooth Fairy ?
3) Let me ASK YOU, What EVIDENCE backs up God's existance ?
Originally posted by Marchello
(a)There can be NO such evidence since evidence is physical in nature [i.e., EVIDENCE is an EFFECT and/or RESULT of something in REALITY].
There is absolutely no physical evidense to prove God's existance though, is there ? Kinda caught yourself there..... 🙄
Originally posted by Marchello
How could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
What evidense is there that God is the creator of reality, separate from it, and that he much less even exists ?
We invented the definition of God, we also invented God
Originally posted by Marchello
(b)Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but NO ONE can rightly testify that God does not exist.
So how can you rightly testify that he does exist ?
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, NOT US
(
Originally posted by Marchello
2)If lack of evdence, then it means he has NOT yet seen ALL evidence and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheistic position is INCONSISTENT with his statement.
I beleive that God is the Universe, not a sentient being. God changes, grows, and exists through us. While you beleive that God is separate from us, I beleive God is us. God isn't male or female, God is everything. That is my beleif.
I don't have to prove a thing, because I am not claiming my beleif as fact. However, you are claiming your beleif as fact, so therefore, IT IS YOU WHO MUST SUPPLY PROOF FOR YOUR CLAIMS
Originally posted by Marchello
(3)If logic then WHAT logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
-Existance of Hell is illogical
-If God cannot be defined within the confines of logic, then God's existance is illogical by default.
-Biblical contradictions, there are masses of them
-The dinosaurs existed, the Bible makes no mention of them. Why did they exist for millions of years only to be wiped out ? This conflicts with the concept of Creationism greatly
-The Bible cannot make up its mind whether or not animal came first, or man came first
-Why is God sexist ?
-How can God be all loving, but still utilize Hell as punishment ? that is illogical.
-Free Will and Omnipotence/Omniscience cannot co exist. God is either all powerful and all knowing, or we have free will. You can't logically have it both ways, and its already explained why in other threads.
-If humans have free will, and animals don't, why do animals make choices ?
-If animals were meant to serve man, like the Bible says, then why do so many animals exist that do not serve man, in fact, attack man as well ?
-Logical Paradox of Omnipotence, alreayd explained in other threads
-If God is infinite and all powerful and so great, how can a self-contradicting book possibly explain him to us?
-Moses committed genocide against Canaan under God's decree, that is not Love
-God burnt down Sodom and Gomorrha, that is not love
-God is actually more violent and terrifying than Satan, that makes no sense if we are supposed to love God and he love us as well
And two other threads I made posed these logical problems and NO Christian was able to answer them:
1) If you make it to Heaven, but someone you love ends up in Hell, how can you possibly have eternal happiness in Heaven knowing your loved one is burning in Hell ? How can ANYONE in Heaven be happy knowing that other people are being tortured for all eternity ?
That is selfish....that cannot be possible that someone can be all loving, and have eternal bliss, when they know full well that others are suffering greatly for eternity
Explain that to me..how will Heaven be bliss if Hell exists?
2)The concept of Hell itself poses a Great Logical Problem.
You, Marcello, are a parent. And I ask this of all parents. If you child disobeys you, would you send them to a place where they will be tortured ? Like a concentration camp?
If your child did not beleive in you, or thought your words to be false, even when you were right, would you torture them?
If you love them, then obviously the answer is no. You would not torture your own children, even if they killed someone.
So God, who is supposed to love us more than our own parents do, who is supposed to be Love Embodied...
Would send us to Hell why ?
How could a God, a being, who loves us like a parent, or even more so, possibly condemn or judge or consign us to a place where we will be tormented for all eternity and/or destroyed ?
That makes absolutely no sense, and I dare you to try and explain that for me.
Originally posted by Marchello
(a)At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does NOT mean there is NO God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are INSUFFICIENT.
I didn't say there was NO GOD...I said there is no CHRISTIAN GOD.
The Bible, and its mythology pose to many contradictions and logical problems. Therefore, It is highly reasonable, even probably, to conclude that the Christian God does not exist.
Originally posted by Marchello
(b)Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is a refutation of all possible proofs...since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does NOT disprove God's existence.
Once again...
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
Because of the logical problems and contradictions that the Bible and its mythology pose, it is REASONABLE to CONCLUDE that the Christian version of God is non existant.
However, YOU as well as OTHERS (JIA) make claim that he DOES EXIST. That is a BOLD CLAIM. So if you claim this as Truth, then it is YOUR DUTY to PROVE IT.
Originally posted by Marchello
(c)If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist...it has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since NO PROOF of God's NON-EXISTENCE has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
Please read above ^ 🙄
You obviously don't get it yet.....
Originally posted by Marchello
(4)If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
Read Above
Originally posted by Marchello
(5)If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
Read Above ^
Originally posted by Marchello
(B)For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are NO logical proofs that God does NOT exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.
Read Above ^
Originally posted by Marchello
Marchello
We know who you are, I don't get how your not embarrased signaturing your RANT that you vomit on the forums.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So it is okay to say "God sucks his own balls" in your opinion?And no, I wasn't as upset as my post lead the readers to believe.
That was just a way of saying he is not as likely as other possible explanations. It wasn't literal, though in a way meant to offend Marchello, as he annoys me.
And if you want to put me in my place do it with something I am wrong about or you have a knowledge of.