Can you prove that God exists?

Math falls flat when a Quantum Limit is reached.

It IS possible to cross a room in finite time.

 

Sure you WILL cross a room in finite time, but can you measure EXACTLY how long it takes? Our understanding is only as exact as our measuring stick.

 

Quantized Time?

 

Time-quants eh? I don't buy that for a second. Even if the highly theoretical concept was true our measuring sticks aren't nearly sensitive enought to measure it. Go below Planck Mass and all hell breaks loose with time. TIme as studied as a 'thing' seems to seem like it must have a finite piece. But understood as a function of gravity I think prooves it must be infinitely divisible, just as mass is.

 

i would have to ask what is the point of attempting to prove or disprove the existence of anything. and also to point out that no proof of anything is ever irrifutable. there is only such a thing as a preponderance of evidence or there is not. or there is a personal feeling, whatever its origen, or there is not.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Now mass is not infinetly divisible.

When it drops below the "energy density of an electron", it no longer display all the properties of mass. It is "less than" a single quanta of mass. it is no longer "mass".

A basic energy is divisable- but it's something else that results, not mass.

Uncertainty states that Time must also exist for us as so-small-and-that's-all pieces.

Remember Einstiens wasted years and a failed attempt to demonstrate otherwise.

This is a Quantum Universe. And that's the loop-hole that allows for god and themnax's "other beings", although they are as yet undescribed.

 

Remember the Mystery in Which You Live - Which Is God!

· There is a way to stop being righteous: if you love. “If you will love people and persist in that feeling, allow yourself to love people all the time, then you will not be righteous...”
· If you love then you will be able to tell someone that they are doing something that is not right without any anger, any righteousness.
· When you are being righteous you forget for the moment that you love them.
· Whenever you do not love, whenever you do not feel, you start getting angry.
· You have to be able to love all the time, to feel all the time, to feel the world all the time.
· The devotee of My Teacher wakes up in the morning feeling Him, feeling God. The devotee knows that God is all over this world, all inside the world, and inside everyone and everything. My Teacher’s devotee feels that the world is about Love.
· The people on television (and all ordinary people like us) do not know that the world is about Love, about God and that is why they do not love very much. That is why they are always talking about themselves and about negative things.
· You cannot stop being righteous by trying to stop being righteous. You will stop being righteous when you forget about being righteous, which means you have to remember to love.
· You are all the time remembering what you have to remember to be angry and righteous. Instead, you have to remember what you have to remember to be Happy, and that means you have to Remember God, or the Lord, or the Divine.
· Do not wait for love just to happen. You have to practice loving people. And you have to communicate love to them.
· Even the really bad people are with God just like you. They have some things to learn, but you cannot teach them without loving them.
· You cannot teach anybody anything without being Happy with that person. And you cannot be Happy with anybody else unless you are Happy. You cannot wait for others to do something to make you Happy. You have to be Happy, and then you make other people Happy too.

 

THE LIBERATOR (ELEUTHERIOS)

ONE: Truth is the Ultimate Form (or the inherently Perfect State) of "knowledge" (if mere knowledge becomes Realization).
Truth is That Which, when "known" (or, rather, when fully Realized, even via the transcendence of all knowledge and experience) sets you Free from all bondage and all seeking.
Truth is Eleutherios, the Liberator.

TWO: God is not the awful Creator, the world-making and ego-making Titan, the Nature-God of worldly theology. God is not the First Cause, the Ultimate Other, or any of the Objective Ideas of mind-made philosophy. God is not any Image created (and defined) by the religious ego. God is not any Power contacted (and limited) by the mystical or the scientific ego. God is not any Goal that motivates the social ego.
God is Truth, or That Which, when Perfectly "known" (or fully Realized), sets you entirely Free.
God is Eleutherios, the Liberator.

THREE: God is not, in Truth, the Cause (or the Objective Origin) of the conditional world and the ego (or the apparently separate self-consciousness). All causes (including any Ultimate Objective Cause) are only conditional modifications of conditional Nature.

Every cause is moving Energy, or the conditional mover of Energy. Therefore, the Ultimate Cause is, Itself, only Energy, or the Ultimate conditional mover of Energy. No cause, and no Cause of causes, is Truth Itself, since to know a cause (or the Cause) is merely to know an object (or the Object) and not to be liberated from bondage to the search for objective (or otherwise conditional) existence itself.

The knowledge of objects does not set you Free, since it is the knower (rather than the known) that knows itself to be bound. Freedom can only be Realized by transcending the subject (or knower) of knowledge, not by increasing the objects of knowledge. Therefore, Freedom is not Realized even in the attainment of an Ultimate Object of mere (or conditional) knowledge.

FOUR: God is not the Cause (or the Objective Origin) of the world. God is the Source (or the Perfectly Subjective Origin) of the world. The Cause of causes is not Truth, since to know such a Cause does not set you Free. Therefore, if you are to be Free, the Perfectly Subjective Source of that Cause (and of all causes) must be "known" (or, rather, Realized in Truth).

The Existence of God is not proven (or even rightly affirmed) by appeal to the process of objective causation. But the Existence of God is Self-Evident in the "consideration" of the Perfectly Subjective Source of all causes, all effects, all seeking, all mere (or conditional) knowledge, and the conditional self-consciousness that engages in causes, effects, seeking, and mere (or conditional) knowledge.

FIVE: God is Consciousness, or the Perfectly Subjective Source of the apparent conditional world and the apparent conditional self. The Deep Space of Consciousness is the Matrix in Which the Origin and the Ultimate Condition of conditional self, mind, body, world, the entire cosmos of conditional Nature, and the Universal Field of Energy is inherently Obvious. When This (Deep Space of Consciousness) is "known" (or fully Realized), the apparent conditional world and the apparent conditional self are fully "known" (and thus transcended) in the Realization of Truth. To "know" (or to Realize) God as Consciousness, or the Perfectly Subjective Source of the conditional world and the conditional self, is to transcend both the conditional world and the conditional self by means of Truth, or the only "knowledge" (or Realization) That can set you Free.

SIX: God is not "known" (or Realized) by the body (or in the process of bodily experience), since God is not reducible to any kind of object (or Objective Force).

.....Truth is That Which, when "known" (or fully Realized) sets you Free. Therefore, Realize the Truth.
Reality is What Is, no matter what arises or changes or passes away. Therefore, "Locate" (and Realize) Reality.
To "Locate" (and Thus to "know", or fully Realize) Reality is to be set Free. Therefore, Reality is Truth, and to Realize Reality is to Realize the Truth.
God is the Source (or the Source-Condition and not merely the immediate, or otherwise remote, and active, or otherwise effective, Cause) of whatever arises, changes, or passes away.

....The conventions of human life and civilization are based on the mechanical, arbitrary, and uninspected identification of Consciousness with the patterns of experience. Thus, human pursuits are, as a matter of convention and habit, directed toward self-centered elaboration of experience, self-fulfillment via experience, and strategic escape within (or from) the context of experience. Both conventional science and conventional religion are conventions of egoity in the embrace and pursuit and avoidance of experience. All conventional human pursuits are a bewildered search founded on uninspected egoic identification with experience rather than "radically" intuitive Identification with the inherent Happiness of Consciousness Itself, or Self-Existing and Self-Radiant Transcendental (and inherently Spiritual) Divine Being (Itself). Thus, either experience, or conditional Nature, or materiality, or God as the Reality that is Other than the conditional self and conditional Nature tends to be presumed and propagandized as the First, the Ultimate, the One, or the Most Important Principle--but such presumptions are simply the Ultimate Illusions or deluded Visions that are developed from the base of the ego (or Consciousness presumed to be limited and bound by experiencing)."

That was just a brief excerpt from "The Liberator (Eleutherios), The Epitome Of Perfect Wisdom And The Perfect Practice" by Da Avabhasa (The "Bright"). He has other books that explain in detail (in language we can understand) some of what I have excerpted above. Contact the Dawn Horse Press to get a list of His Teaching Work: 1 800 524 4941.

 

I’m confused.



My friend, Dick Shonarry, said that 'righteous' means: acting in a just, upright manner, doing what is right and virtuous, as in ‘a righteous man’; morally right, fair and just, as in ‘a righteous act’; or morally justifiable, such as ‘full of righteous anger’; and if used as slang, it means good, excellent, satisfying, pleasant, authentic, etc.



Perhaps you mean ‘self-righteous’?

 

Sorry, Self, but a little more Reflection is required.

Your whole post is an opinion based on unwarranted assumptions.

How can believers fear the search for thier god?

I think I'll eat 10 grams of mushrooms and ask god to explain himself.

 

Sorry Gecko, but I'm seriously losing my respect for your intelligence. You say some very silly things at times.

Oh come on! Bible Code is not literature. It's searching for statistical improbabilities in The Bible. The literature itself is irrelevant.

Here you go being dumb again. When have I said that anything was obvious? I've drawn no conclusions.

Why do you keep implying that The Bible Code is only persued by religious people? The Bible Code is the alleged scientific proof of God! It should be of equal interest to both believers and non-believers. Simple logic. The only people who won't care about proving or disproving God are ignorant people who are happy to believe in something because they like making up their beliefs more than knowing the truth.

Of course. But why would anyone want to analyse Mother Goose to find evidence that whoever wrote it was inspired by a being of vast intelligence to humans? That's pretty unlikely.

The Bible is the only text that has brought up any alleged improbabilities, despite many control books being studied.

It's not what you might traditionally think of as science, and it is quite unprecedented, but that doesn't mean it's not science. I would say it is one of the purest sciences there is.

I'll break this explanation down into separate statements, so you can stop me at the point which you think I'm going wrong, okay?

1. Science is the study of the nature of the world we live in. How it works, and why things are the way they are.

2. One of the most important (if not fundamental) questions therefore is: why does the universe exist in the first place?

3. There are two popular hypotheses to answer that question: Either the universe either exists for no reason whatsoever, or it exists because an intelligence designed and created it.

4. There is no overwhelming scientific evidence to support either theory, so either theories are valid hypotheses at this time, since neither can be disproven.

5. Under the hypothesis that there is a "god" who created the universe, it would be reasonable to assume that he would probably let us know of his existence, rather than remaining anonymous. The ability to do this would be incredibly easy, after all.

6. If he was to let us know of his existence, a good place to look for such message(s) would be a book alleged to have been indirectly written by him (The Bible). This does not mean he definitely wrote it, but it's as good a place as any to look.

7. If God wanted, he could encode hidden messages into this book. This does not necessarily mean he has, but he could.

8. If any messages do exist, it would be impossible for them to have been put there by the authors of the original book since the codes can only be decoded using state of the art technology (unavailable when the book was written) and encoding would be vastly more complicated than decoding. Plus, the book had many authors, separated over many centuries. Plus, the book would almost certainly not have reamined unchanged since it was originally written, meaning it would be highly unlikely any messages intentionally placed by humans would remain intact.

9. So, if it was proven that messages had been intentionally encoded into The Bible, it would be a strong indication (if not proof) that a vastly intelligent being placed the messages there. It would also be more than likely that this being had designed our universe, since any being living within our universe could not ensure that his codes would remain unchanged.

10. So proving that the Bible Codes are real would more or less prove God.

11. Statistical analyses are a sufficient method of determining with a great deal of certainty if Bible Codes are significant (ie deliberate and intelligently coordinated messages) or insignificant (ie random chance).

12. Such statistical analyses are therefore highly scientific since they seek to mathematically prove a very popular hypothesis of why the universe exists.

It's Hebrew, not Greek! (Shows how little you know of this.) Gecko, you must surely know by now (I've said it enough times already) that studying the Bible Code is not about reading The Bible itself. Nobody involved with studying the Bible Code has needed to read any of The Bible. Reading The Bible is irrelevant. How many different ways can I put this!?

I have never said that The Bible is proof of its own validity. I am of the opinion that much The Bible represents the word of God, but that is just my personal opinion. I am not certain, and I have never implied that there is anything written within The Bible that proves it is the word of God. You cannot prove God by reading something a human wrote, and no intelligent person would believe you could.

Do I not seem open to discussion to you? If anyone doesn't seem open to discussion, it's you. I'm very open minded about the subjects in question, here, but you don't seem capable of even entertaining certain notions. Plus you don't seem to be listening to anything I'm saying. Half of your replies to me don't actually match up with what I've said. You seem to be inventing things that I've said!

Like, when have I ever preached my own beliefs? I don't preach and I never have. I respect my own right to form my own opinions, and I respect other people's right to form their own opinions.

You think my arguments are of no value? As I said: I'm losing respect fairly quickly. You're acting like a jerk.

I simply ask your opinion on something and you accuse me of trying to preach my own opinion — even though I have no opinion! Unbelievable.

 

You sure have a lot to say about something on which you have no opinion. If you want someone to take you serious about this, it would be best to examine your statements for contradictions and eliminate the convoluted path to your final point. Which, BTW, really should be an opinion of some sort, in order to justify the time spent.

Don't take any offense at what I say, I'm only trying to give constructive criticism on the art of debate. Ask my boyfriend, he'll tell you I'm qualified. lol

 

DM,

"Why do you keep implying that The Bible Code is only persued by religious people?"

It's a Joke. It's just a book-you can't prove otherwise, preacher. It doesn't prove itself.
We non-religious laugh at the latest attempt at self justifacation.

"The Bible Code is the alleged scientific proof of God!"

It's Bullshit! It's not science.


"Of course. But why would anyone want to analyse Mother Goose to find evidence that whoever wrote it was inspired by a being of vast intelligence to humans? That's pretty unlikely."

Unlikely?- but no more so than you're chosen text!
I rather think I can put Humpty-Dumpty back together again before anybody but a believer would buy your nonsense!

"The Bible is the only text that has brought up any alleged improbabilities, despite many control books being studied."

I could teach you about chaos or cluster theory- but you're not interested in anything other the biblical self-justification, so what's the point?
But if you knew you'd understand.

"It's not what you might traditionally think of as science, and it is quite unprecedented, but that doesn't mean it's not science. I would say it is one of the purest sciences there is."

Say what you like- using an word as something unrelated to it's accepted meaning is called "slang". At that's what your nonesense code is- slang science.

It ain't Science, no matter how many religious wakos say it is. and apples ain't oranges, eithier.

"I'll break this explanation down into separate statements, so you can stop me at the point which you think I'm wrong, okay?

1. Science is the study of the nature of the world we live in. How it works, and why things are the way they are."

Your vital error: there's no "why" involved- just what IS.

When we say "two bodies attract because of gravity", that's a description of what we observe. But we don't really know what gravity is or why it is there; we just know that two bodies attract. Gravity is a sufficently rigid explanation of what we observe to calculate and predict orbits. But why it's "there"- who knows?

"2. One of the most important (if not fundamental) questions therefore is: why does the universe exist in the first place?"

This is entirely homocentric.
It's only important to man- and not even all of us.

Human life may be more valuble than other life to you and me, but there's no reason but conciet to suppose it's inherently more valuble too the guys on Alpha Epsilon IV.

"3. There are two popular hypotheses to answer that question: Either the universe either exists for no reason whatsoever, or it exists because an intelligence designed and created it."

This is religious arrogance/ignorance. popularity has NOTHING to do with science.

Science- REAL science- ask "what IS"? That's all.

"4. There is no overwhelming scientific evidence to support either theory, so either theories are valid hypotheses at this time, since neither can be disproven."

Science doesn't apply to your RELIGIOUS ASSUMPTION.

"5. Under the hypothesis that there is a "god" who created the universe, it would be reasonable to assume that he would probably let us know of his existence, rather than remaining anonymous. The ability to do this would be incredibly easy, after all."

It's not a hypothesis. It's a assumption- no evidence. The bible's a book. So what consequence a day dream might have do not interest me.
You can't tell me what or where your god is, but you know all about what a god would do!

"6. If he was to let us know of his existence, a good place to look for such message(s) would be a book alleged to have been indirectly written by him (The Bible). This does not mean he definitely wrote it, but it's as good a place as any to look."

How about a better place-with no humans involved in the writting?
I read a book that makes the bible look as simplistic as a cookie fortune. And if your god exist, he wrote it himself.
And I know some of the code. You can test it.
I've explained it over and over again, ad nauseum.
But few believers get an inkling.

Strange that the Scientists see possibilities while the Believers see only rigid, unbending structure!

"7. If God wanted, he could encode hidden messages into this book. This does not necessarily mean he has, but he could."

If "he" exist, he DEFINETLY hide "code" in my book. Your book is only a single type in it. A period on a page.

"8. If any messages do exist, it would be impossible for them to have been put there by the authors of the original book since the codes can only be decoded using state of the art technology (unavailable when the book was written) and encoding would be vastly more complicated than decoding. Plus, the book had many authors, separated over many centuries. Plus, the book would almost certainly not have reamined unchanged since it was originally written, meaning it would be highly unlikely any messages intentionally placed by humans would remain intact."

It's BULLSHIT! As repetatively elaborated on. They wanted to find a message- so they found it. Where's the surprise?

"9. So, if it was proven that messages had been intentionally encoded into The Bible, it would be a strong indication (if not proof) that a vastly intelligent being placed the messages there. It would also be more than likely that this being had designed our universe, since any being living within our universe could not ensure that his codes would remain unchanged."

It can't be proven- don't you get it? Not even in theory.
It requires some modicum of faith.

There's no god- so there's no message.
Give evidence of god (and no, the bible doesn't count) and then we'll disscuss a possible message.

You're on the merry-go-round. "God put in the code so that proves he exist because the code exist and was put there by god."

"10. So proving that the Bible Codes are real would more or less prove God."

you just repeat the same thing! your proff lies in you premise.

"11. Statistical analyses are a sufficient method of determining with a great deal of certainty if Bible Codes are significant (ie deliberate and intelligently coordinated messages) or insignificant (ie random chance)."

you just repeat the same thing! your proff lies in you premise.

"12. Such statistical analyses are therefore highly scientific since they seek to mathematically prove a very popular hypothesis of why the universe exists."

you just repeat the same thing! your proff lies in you premise.

Alas, math is a description, not a "proff". 1+1=2 DESCRIBES something- it DOES NOT PROVE IT.

Stop pretending you know what science is- you clearly don't

"It's Hebrew, not Greek! (Shows how little you know of this.) Gecko, you must surely know by now (I've said it enough times already) that studying the Bible Code is not about reading The Bible itself. Nobody involved with studying the Bible Code has needed to read any of The Bible. Reading The Bible is irrelevant. How many different ways can I put this!?"

What it shows is that I'm a sneaky little bastard, and that you are easily manipulated by your blind faith.

Indeed, only an under-educated christian would give that predicted knee-jerk reaction!
So greeks read the bible in english or hebrew do they?
Your christian based racism snuck out a little there!

If you get a blackjack system out of the bible, it's STILL the results of bible study.
How can the bible give scientific results if it's not studied?

You're getting in way over your head. You're logic needs work.

"I have never said that The Bible is proof of its own validity."

That, Sir, is ALL you say!

" I am of the opinion that much The Bible represents the word of God, but that is just my personal opinion. I am not certain, and I have never implied that there is anything written within The Bible that proves it is the word of God. You cannot prove God by reading something a human wrote, and no sane person believes you can."

They why do you have a problem with those of us who wish to know for sure "IF". Got no strength in your faith?

If the bible thumpers and thier phony "scientist" would get out of the way, some of us practical types might make a little progress toward that IF.

It's sad that I don't even believe in your god, yet I know more about him then you can imagine or read in the bible.

"Do I not seem open to discussion to you? If anyone doesn't seem open to discussion, it's you. I'm very open minded about the subjects in question, here, but you don't seem capable of even entertaining certain notions. Plus you don't seem to be listening to anything I'm saying. Half of your replies to me don't actually match up with what I've said. You seem to be inventing things that I've said!"

I cut right to the chase- you make an assumption that is unwarranted, and then you rationalize reasons why it's true- all validated by the original assumption.

Since I don't blindly accept the assumption, the rationalizations are null sounds.

On the other hand, you color ALL your rationalization with that assumption, rendering you incapable of "an open mind".

I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

If I wanted to discuss the bible, I'd go to the christain forum.
I'm into the big picture.

 

Gecko,

So, you're open to the possibility that God may exist, yet you can't even entertain the notion that God might write a book for us? Why are you so certain The Bible is not God's word?

Again, why are you so certain that The Bible has nothing to do with God?

Of course I'm interested! Anything you have to say that could persuade me that The Bible is insignificant or false is extremely important to me, since I'm a Christian. My life would be changed significantly if my opinion on The Bible changed. Although I don't see what chaos theory has to do with The Bible.

Great! Explain it to me, then.

Rethink this. Science is based on asking questions and answering them. "Why?" is just as valid a question as "how?" or "does?" "can?" or "is?". Questions like these are the curiosity that starts any science, and questions like these are an important part of many, if not all, scientific studies.

Do you accept that the study of how the earth was formed is science? Or the study of where stars come from? Or the study of what caused the big bang? Isn't that science? If so, how is it any different to study "what caused the universe" or "why the universe exists". I don't see any difference in the question.

If you think questions such as why gravity exists are outside the bounds of science then I think you have a somewhat limited definition of what science is.

All science is only important to man. So what?

Huh?

Really?

Well, there are two popular theories on time travel: fixed time theory and parallel dimension theory.

There are also two popular theories on why spiral galaxies are spiral: Destiny wave theory and stochastic self-propagative star formation.

Are these theories irrelevant to science?

Of course not! Theories give scientists a basis for experiments, which can then be proven/disproven and help towards discovery and understanding. The strength of a theory is directly related to its popularity. For the scientific community to embrace a theory, it has to be seen as viable by a great many scientists, without being refuted. Any theory that is globally popular must be a sound theory. That doesn't mean it's correct (the two most popular theories are often mutually exclusive, so at least one must be wrong) but it does mean it's a valid theory.

You're just being stupid, now. If you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and an assumption, you're not qualified to be having this conversation.

There you go again being stupid. Since when do you need evidence to make a hypothesis? I think your grasp of science is poor.

"6. If he was to let us know of his existence, a good place to look for such message(s) would be a book alleged to have been indirectly written by him (The Bible)."

Like where? I'm sure there are people looking in other places for messages from God, although I can't think of anywhere in particular to look off the top of my head.

Huh?

Yes, it's true that you acn find messages anywhere if you look for them. The Bible Code is not about finding messages, it's about conducting experiments to validate whether or not there is any statistical significance to the findings.

If you decide to search for the word "Yeshua" in The Bible Code, and that word comes up 10,000,000 times — that statistic alone could well be meaningless and insignificant. But if you jumble up the text 10,000,000 ways and the only combination that gives the word is the original one, then that is statistically significant since the odds of that happening by chance were infinitesimal. This is just a simplified example of course.

continued...

 

... continued

It can be proven just as well as anything else that is proven with probabilities. Like I said, if I toss a coin 10,000,000 times and it's heads every time then I have proven that the coin is biased. Of course, it's not completely proven since it could just be a coincidence, but it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and anyone sensible who saw the results of the experiment would have faith in the coin being biased.

Are you the same Geckopelli I used to know? I thought you had an open mind about the existence of God. You seem to have changed. You're now a lot less open minded, and you seem dumber than before.

Why should I give evidence of my opinions, and not you? You can't prove your belief of why the universe exists, can you?

I never said I believe the code existed. I said I wouldn't be surprised if it did (because I believe in God), but I don't have an opinion on the Bible Code since the debate is currently ongoing between some of the smartest people on the planet and I'm not one of them.

I have never begged a question in my life. I'm far too logically-minded for that.

Okay, here it comes. Ladies and gentlemen, I proudly present to you: ****THE WORLD'S DUMBEST STATEMENT! ****

So 1+1=2 is not proof. Sure.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

Racism? What are you talking about? "Charistian-based racism"? You really know nothing of Christianity. Racism totally defies Christian teachings.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Both the old and new Testaments have been translated into almost every language there is.

Honestly, what does any of this have to do with racism. You're not making any sense.

Please find me a quote of me ever saying this. I think you'll struggle.

Err...? What are you smoking Gecko? Why would I have a problem with someone wanting to know if the Bible is authentic? I'm one of those people myself — as I keep saying over and over. Really, I don't know why I bother writing this. You're not likely to pay any attention to it.

What do Bible thumpers have to do with this conversation? As far as I'm aware, I'm the only Christian here, and I have never preached to anyone.

And what "phony scientists" are you talking about? I was talking about Bible Code. There is nothing phony about the study of The Bible code" It's been studied by many of the world's greatest statisticians. There is nobody better qualified to study it than the people who do study it.

Meaning what?

I have never done that. Again, I ask you to show me something I've said was true that rests on an assumption. You will struggle.

What assumptions have I made?

You obviously want to talk about evidence proving/disproving God (as you're in this thread), but you don't think it's appropriate for people to make suggestions about where that evidence may be! What kind of discussion were you expecting to find in here?

 

Gecko,

Why do I need to prove God to you or anyone? You can't prove your theory and I can't prove mine. We're quits.

You seem convinced that the words of The Bible are false. You also seem to think that chaos theory can prove this. You said that if I understood things how you understand them then I would see that The Bible was false. Is it unreasonable for me to ask you to reveal what it is you think you know that invalidates my opinion?

You don't necessarily have to understand the concept of zero to understand the concept of infinity. It's only when you're using infinity in maths that you need zeros.

So what? You're saying that because our scientific understanding is continually growing (and we have much yet to understand) we're stupid and we can't be trusted?

Yes but obviously it it impossible to determine what caused the universe to exist using conventional science. If someone made our universe, the only way we could ever know would be if they told us themselves. We can't 'detect' them since they are not in our universe.

They're the same question. (They both have the same answer.)

True, but if the universe was invented by a person, then science is suddenly personal, as well as scientific.

Not sure what you mean by this. What does religion have to do with life on other planets? We haven't even made contact with intelligent alien races yet, so what is the relevance?

So what is the basis for a scientific experiment then? Why do people decide to conduct scientific experiments? How do they decide which experiments to conduct? Surely the answer has to be: to test a hypothesis?

So you're saying that a theory can be incredibly popular — and flawed? I wouldn't have thought that possible. But my knowledge of history is pretty bad and you seem to think that it has happened several times, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I only mentioned the two most popular theories out of interest, anyway. There are no doubt others but I was only talking about the theory of God at the time so it makes no difference.

When?

I don't go to church.

A hypothesis is defined merely as a tentative explanation. It doesn't have to be based on anything. An assumption is completely different as itn't not hypothetical. An assumption takes something unproven to be true. The only person out of us two who has taken something unproven to be true is you. I don't make assumptions, but you seem convinced God doesn't exist.

That's not really a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for something unknown. The reason for the moon crossing the sky is known. Hypotheses are no longer necessary.

I do not assume God is real. I think God is probably real, but I don't assume he is. To assume he was real would be to conclude that he was definitely real, with no conclusive proof.

But you on the other hand do assume God is not real!

What's a middle schooler?

So how would your god tell people of his existence? Neon lights in space flashing "I exist"? Tell me what your god would do to make his presence known.

My god is omnipotent, too. Omnipotence pretty much comes with the job when you design an entire universe. My god does not live in the pages of a dusty old book! God exists everywhere and everywhen. And the Bible is relatively brand new, considering humans have been around for millions of years and The Bible was only written a couple of thousand ago.

If your god controls everyone then your god sucks because he doesn't give anyone the gift of true free will and we are no more than puppets. My god allows us free will, which means we don't get stopped when we start wars.

Why do you think religious people are hypocrites?

Yes. All humans are sinners.

Why?

 

Okay then. I'd be very interested to know why that is wrong. I'm no statistician but I did A-level statistics at school and I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.

If you don't care why the universe exists then why are you here? If you don't care if God exists or not then why are you always here on these forums? Surely you're not a preacher — you seem to hate preachy people.

Why do you say that? Have I demonstrated any particular lack of logic lately? If so, tell me.

You said that 1+1=2 is not proof. In itself, that equation is proof. If the numbers represent other things then of course it isn't proof.

When did I assume Christians were all english speaking? I don't think I even mentioned the English language, did I?

What does language have to do with racism? Racism is intolerance for other races.

Explanation for these statements?

It's a while since I wrote that! You have a good memory.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me like you just wrote a load of nonsensical things and you can't be bothered justifying them. Fine by me.

 

I Exist!!!!