Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you still trying to argue that it is possible to prove the existence of a supernatural being using science?No, they are not. They are theoretical. There is a difference.No. Not everything. Some are observations and measurements. In the case of gravitons they a hypothetical. Besides, like I have already explained to you cyclical models have problems. Specifically, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. You don't understand this concept which is why you can't discuss it. Do you know how CERN describes the beginning of the universe?Everything we are discussing is hypothetical!!!!! So, what's your point? And, for the record, gravitons are theoretical, not hypothetical. There is a difference.No, wrong. Gravitons are only hypothetical. So 0, until we can prove otherwise.Because it is infinitely reusable. You get that the problem with observing gravitons isn't that so few exist, but that they convert so quickly that observing them is practically impossible, right?"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.
So how exactly does a graviton affect the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of the rest of the universe which is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
A hypothesis has never been tested. The existence of gravitons has been tested - repeatedly - and the math is sound; unlike your God that has never been so much as detected, let alone tested, with any mathematic confirmation.
Actually, I can answer that last question. Because for every effect (The Big Bang), there must be a preceding cause. So, the only way to avoid that with the causer of the Big Bang (such must also have had a cause to come into being), it requires Special Pleading (It was eternal), thereby avoiding infinite regression, and no God.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
Why do you need to avoid it? All the science points to it.Actually, I can answer that last question. Because for every effect (The Big Bang), there must be a preceding cause. So, the only way to avoid that with the causer of the Big Bang (such must also have had a cause to come into being), it requires Special Pleading (It was eternal), thereby avoiding infinite regression, and no God.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god cannot exist - only that "God does not exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
Then you admit that there was no "First cause"? That every cause had a preceding cause ad infinitum? Really??????Why do you need to avoid it? All the science points to it.Actually, I can answer that last question. Because for every effect (The Big Bang), there must be a preceding cause. So, the only way to avoid that with the causer of the Big Bang (such must also have had a cause to come into being), it requires Special Pleading (It was eternal), thereby avoiding infinite regression, and no God.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
No, because the only way to break the cause and effect cycle is something that did not need a cause because it had no beginning (i.e. it was eternal).Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
So you are expecting to find natural evidence for a supernatural being?And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god cannot exist - only that "God does not exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
Don't be silly All the data points to a first cause.Then you admit that there was no "First cause"? That every cause had a preceding cause ad infinitum? Really??????Why do you need to avoid it? All the science points to it.Actually, I can answer that last question. Because for every effect (The Big Bang), there must be a preceding cause. So, the only way to avoid that with the causer of the Big Bang (such must also have had a cause to come into being), it requires Special Pleading (It was eternal), thereby avoiding infinite regression, and no God.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Some atheists say that a god can't exist, and the others are really agnostics without knowing it.And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god cannot exist - only that "God does not exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
I dispute the existence of a "supernatural" being. Nature is all-encompassing. As such, it is not possible for something to exist outside of everything.So you are expecting to find natural evidence for a supernatural being?And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god cannot exist - only that "God does not exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
Now you're just contradiction yourself. You just got done saying all science points to infinite regression, and now you are denying infinite regression. Which is it?No. At least not from the Laws of Nature I know about. That would be perpetual motion. Perpetual motion does not exist because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.Then you admit that there was no "First cause"? That every cause had a preceding cause ad infinitum? Really??????Why do you need to avoid it? All the science points to it.Actually, I can answer that last question. Because for every effect (The Big Bang), there must be a preceding cause. So, the only way to avoid that with the causer of the Big Bang (such must also have had a cause to come into being), it requires Special Pleading (It was eternal), thereby avoiding infinite regression, and no God.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Point me to the atheists who say that god can't exist. Not the ones who say that God does not exist, but says God can't exist. Because you certainly have not run across one on this forum.Some atheists say that a god can't exist, and the others are really agnostics without knowing it.And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god cannot exist - only that "God does not exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
Dispute all you want. I have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.I dispute the existence of a "supernatural" being. Nature is all-encompassing. As such, it is not possible for something to exist outside of everything.So you are expecting to find natural evidence for a supernatural being?And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god cannot exist - only that "God does not exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
.No. Not everything. Some are observations and measurements. In the case of gravitons they a hypothetical. Besides, like I have already explained to you cyclical models have problems. Specifically, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. You don't understand this concept which is why you can't discuss it. Do you know how CERN describes the beginning of the universe?Everything we are discussing is hypothetical!!!!! So, what's your point? And, for the record, gravitons are theoretical, not hypothetical. There is a difference.No, wrong. Gravitons are only hypothetical. So 0, until we can prove otherwise.Because it is infinitely reusable. You get that the problem with observing gravitons isn't that so few exist, but that they convert so quickly that observing them is practically impossible, right?"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.So, quantum matter is not a part of the universe? That is your claim? Further, you do realize that, according to Einstein, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics don't break down.
So how exactly does a graviton affect the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of the rest of the universe which is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
You don't understand this concept which is why you can't discuss it. Do you know how CERN describes the beginning of the universe?
Good for you. You have your beliefs. They are entirely unproven proven, but you have your beliefs. Just quit stating your beliefs as if they are facts. They aren't.Dispute all you want. I have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.I dispute the existence of a "supernatural" being. Nature is all-encompassing. As such, it is not possible for something to exist outside of everything.So you are expecting to find natural evidence for a supernatural being?And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god cannot exist - only that "God does not exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
Your eternal being is a somewhat plausible theory, but like I've always said, you just need some proof. And because you can't find proof, it's eternal. The simpleton's circular convenience.No, because the only way to break the cause and effect cycle is something that did not need a cause because it had no beginning (i.e. it was eternal).Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.
But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.
And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.
And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
Is midweek a new liquor?
You have always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible? And you accused me of drinking, lol? Re-read that and get back to me.
God as in the god of the bible who was so pooped after 6 days that he needed a day off?Dispute all you want. I have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.I dispute the existence of a "supernatural" being. Nature is all-encompassing. As such, it is not possible for something to exist outside of everything.So you are expecting to find natural evidence for a supernatural being?And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god cannot exist - only that "God does not exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.
Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?
No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
Your belief that there is no god isn't proven either. So cut it out as well.Good for you. You have your beliefs. They are entirely unproven proven, but you have your beliefs. Just quit stating your beliefs as if they are facts. They aren't.Dispute all you want. I have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.I dispute the existence of a "supernatural" being. Nature is all-encompassing. As such, it is not possible for something to exist outside of everything.So you are expecting to find natural evidence for a supernatural being?And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god cannot exist - only that "God does not exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.
And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever, Isaiah 40.8.Apparently I have more than you do. According to you, you have nothing..Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?
seriously, do you have a link verifying the attributions for any of the figures within the 4th century compilation of your book. can you explain why not or why the history of christianity has been so one sided - why you are so vehemently opposed against people making their own choices that you attempt to write laws and other means to oppress them -
why does your religion lend itself entirely to the politics of hatred as demonstrated throughout history. fearing a free Spirit so much as having a need to kill them ...
Apparently I have more than you do. According to you, you have nothing.
you have the deaths of innocent people as the reality of your agenda disguised as a religion.
According to you ...
that is according to bing ... the righteous 4th century inquisitor.
