Prove there's a god.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572162 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
... A life has meaning at a certain scale of space and time...
All that meaningfulness means nothing WHEN the certain scale of space and time is ended.

Your life is meaninglessly meaningful. I get it.

By the way, in light of scientific fact that you provided, all that meaning you speak of is pure philosophy and "pipe dreaming".

Science proves/supports my claim that your existence is meaningless, eventually futile.

Science itself agrees with me that your existence is meaningless.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#572163 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
If god is all knowing he knows all. Past, present and future.
If god knows the future than it is already determined and he is powerless to change it.
If he in fact has the power to change the future than the future is undetermined and he is not all knowing.
OK, I've heard it....

The pirate is giving God human attributes & limitations....

Got it.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572165 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
god cannot be omniscient and omnipotent...
Lets begin by asking: how did you arrive at this conclusion?

By what line of logic or method of research or experimentation?

It is certainly not a scientifically valid expression; because science cannot be built on a negative argument.

Therefore the moment you assume the negative; you enter the realm of unscientific garbage. But that seems to be your natural habitat. Let me know whats going on.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#572166 Dec 11, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
He is asking an invalid question. We as believer hold that God was not created/caused; therefore he is beyond the principle of causation.
God uses the principle of causation as a tool for creation; but it does not apply to Him because He was not created. He transcends principle of cause and effect.
His sophisticated babbling is nothing more than that: sophisticated babbling.
You are correct.

God is the cause AND the effect.

*atheists are scratching their heads now*
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572167 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you are blind you simply believe what others tell you is the truth?
No. Thats what YOU do.

You cant see the reality, so you rely on others men's idea to define your reality. You call it scientific thought.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#572169 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
God made man in the and beasts in some order of a couple days depending on which book of the bible you read.
Dinosaurs predate humans by millions that's 1000000's of years. How long are gods days?
You're applying a very common atheist mistake: God doesn't have "days".....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#572170 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This one should get a few Christians' dander up.
Not so much.

*YAAAAAAWNS*

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#572171 Dec 11, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Dinosaurs?!
Where is bacteria in the bible?
Dumb ass.....
It's not a biology book.
RIIIIGHT...

It's a book of mythology.

You tell'em, Ar Ar.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#572174 Dec 11, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
All that meaningfulness means nothing WHEN the certain scale of space and time is ended.
Your life is meaninglessly meaningful. I get it.
By the way, in light of scientific fact that you provided, all that meaning you speak of is pure philosophy and "pipe dreaming".
Science proves/supports my claim that your existence is meaningless, eventually futile.
Science itself agrees with me that your existence is meaningless.
The light from a candle is not meaningless because the candle is eventually blown out.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#572175 Dec 11, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets begin by asking: how did you arrive at this conclusion?
By what line of logic or method of research or experimentation?
It is certainly not a scientifically valid expression; because science cannot be built on a negative argument.
Not at all sure why you would think that. I can think of several 'negative arguments' that are very important in science. For example, that the different types of perpetual motion machines are impossible. That violation of any number of conservation laws is impossible. That global decrease of entropy is impossible.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572176 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
It's hard to say how much reality is in the Jesus stories. There was definitely no supernaturalism: nobody born to a virgin, nobody following stars to mangers, nobody performing miracles, and nobody resurrected from the dead.
Was there an itinerant holy man named Jesus? Probably. Probably several.
Was there a Jesus of Nazareth? Probably not, Nazareth doesn't seem to have existed when it was needed. And we know that there was no census in Bethlehem when it was needed to support the story.
My guess is that there was no Jesus - that the character was purely a composite based on earlier mythological traditions.
<quoted text>
No, not necessarily. But his relevance will plummet.
I notice that you doctored my quote: "What race of gods; the race of the god/gods that you dont believe in"...

Thats not fair; but science is not about fairness so I dont expect scientific thinkers to have much equity in thought or action.

You would love to hear that there is no evidence of a historical Jesus; but thats your fatal flaw.

The historical existence of Jesus is confessed even by people who should have been more interested to see his memory wiped out of the earth. Even those who should have preferred to see the memory of him wiped out reported about him.

That stunt was tried by one evolution theory advocate who had to apologize for it.

At the point: 9:30

&fe ature=related

You are a liar and the product of liars.

You dont even understand what is meant by the expression "there is no need for God". That term relates to the idea that it is not necessary to involve God in studying the universe; but the absence of a need to involve God in the investigation does not mean He was not involved in the creation.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572178 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The light from a candle is not meaningless because the candle is eventually blown out.
But when all the world that the candle is in will dissolve into non-existence; the world, the light, the candle and even the person who lighted it are meaningless.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572179 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all sure why you would think that. I can think of several 'negative arguments' that are very important in science. For example, that the different types of perpetual motion machines are impossible. That violation of any number of conservation laws is impossible. That global decrease of entropy is impossible.
The moment you can build a science on a negative argument; you have open the floodgates for all kinds of entities.

If you open the floodgates of valid negative arguments; you'll be up to your neck in mythical creatures by tomorrow. Good luck!

“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

just better than yesterday

#572180 Dec 11, 2012
Laconic Assassins wrote:
<quoted text>You're not qualified to do anything except kiss butt. Oh yeah, you just did. <pucker up> ~~smile~~
You hurt my feelings you big, mean evil brute.
Perhaps tact rather than knuckle dragging might help improve your civility.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#572181 Dec 11, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the Tripoli thing?
That was a negatiation & ass kissing tactic to not go to war with Muslim pirates.
It was intended to let them know that America will not have a Holy War - a war casued by and for a religion.
Nothing more.
Except that we're not a christian nation.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572183 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's start by defining science.
Will you agree science is a process?
The process begins with a hypothesis, it can be a positive or negative, or lack of positive.
A scientific fact can in fact be a negative. Such as an absolute such as the speed of light. No matter what arbitrary numbers you use to describe it, it is still a definable absolute number.
One could therefore prove the speed of light by showing it is not every other possibility. You can hold every negative position and show a positive.
The negative is a description of the positive.

The accurate description of a thing as "NOT white" is not possible until one is able to say "IT IS" some other colour.

Furthermore, no negative fact can be tested except by evaluating the positive and then it is actually the positive that is tested. So science as it involves testability is based on the positive.

SO all that talking says nothing.

It merely demonstrates your will to dispose of even the fundamental principles of science in order to prove your meaningless point.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#572185 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all sure why you would think that. I can think of several 'negative arguments' that are very important in science. For example, that the different types of perpetual motion machines are impossible. That violation of any number of conservation laws is impossible. That global decrease of entropy is impossible.
I did see one somewhere that has been going for several years. It was really neat. I'll see if I can find it again.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#572186 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all sure why you would think that. I can think of several 'negative arguments' that are very important in science. For example, that the different types of perpetual motion machines are impossible. That violation of any number of conservation laws is impossible. That global decrease of entropy is impossible.
Here it is:

God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572188 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
He is using the typical religious view that science is not a process of discovery.
Science is an attempt to understand. To define the universe.
Religion is a small minded view that we already know how it all works..... Magic
Actually that's YOUR idea of religion. Not everyone believes in magic. I don't.

You are simply trying to impose your stupidity on others; spreading propaganda in the process.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#572189 Dec 11, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tlx2PgESXhsXX
OK. Days. It will go for several days.

It's not perpetual, but this thing is pretty clever. Maybe up to 99% efficient.

Still, his hopes to DRAW energy from it is fantasy. It would need better than 100% efficiency.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min June VanDerMark 599,751
White Lives MATTER 7 min Johnny 107
Poll Rush Limbaugh Show Turns 27 9 min Here Kitty Kitty 0
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 38 min RiccardoFire 6,474
The Christian Atheist debate 54 min HipGnosis 2,003
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Truths 612,908
Renzenberger : STEALING MILLIONS from their dri... 2 hr fixxitman1 12
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr WasteWater 272,417
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 6 hr sangili karuppan 7,502
More from around the web