Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

Sorry, it doesn't nullify anything. Spiritual nature created both matter and the law of conservation of matter.

Prove it!

Self evident. By laws of conservation of matter, physical nature couldn't have. Two options remain: The universe has always been, and thus, is God... or... Spiritual nature created the physical universe.

Sorry, it doesn't nullify anything. Spiritual nature created both matter and the law of conservation of matter.

Prove it!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfY7L30aCC4mP0CUzUWS_Y_bSW1rYZ6gwNotxhfCpeHonHvs5d

Prove it!

Prove it!

If it was not created by a superior intelligence by all means demonstrate how it came in to existence !

I'm not the one making the claim.

However matter is a form of energy and it has been proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So, I answer the question, and instead of responding to my answer, you two butt munchers start chortling back and forth like giddy little school girls, pretending I can't answer your question? Save your little cartoons for when they are relevant.

A Ed says, it is physically impossible that physical nature created the matter of the universe. Didn't happen... couldn't happen! Two other options remain, and both indicate spiritual nature. Either the universe is omnipresent and omnipotent, which makes the universe, God... or... A spiritual force created matter. Take your pick, but physical nature did not create matter, you've said so yourself.

 

[edthecynic]

Sorry, it doesn't nullify anything. Spiritual nature created both matter and the law of conservation of matter.

Prove it!

Self evident. By laws of conservation of matter, physical nature couldn't have. Two options remain: The universe has always been, and thus, is God... or... Spiritual nature created the physical universe.

Ed says, it is physically impossible that physical nature created the matter of the universe. Didn't happen... couldn't happen! Two other options remain, and both indicate spiritual nature. Either the universe is omnipresent and omnipotent, which makes the universe, God... or... A spiritual force created matter. Take your pick, but physical nature did not create matter, you've said so yourself.

You are such a pathological liar, I said no such thing. That was YOUR idiotic pontification, don't pass your bullshit on to me.

Here is what I said:

Prove it!

If it was not created by a superior intelligence by all means demonstrate how it came in to existence !

I'm not the one making the claim.

However matter is a form of energy and it has been proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

That means that energy has always existed (cannot be created/can't increase) and will always exist (cannot be destroyed/can't decrease) in the same total quantity.

It is impossible for a spirit to create energy, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, and matter is a form of energy. Therefore it is self evident that the physical precedes the spiritual. You have it ass backwards, as usual.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, you suffer from preconceptions about your angry gawds which makes you a poor candidate for accepting reason and rationality.

Humans are humans no matter their characteristics. You see hollie this is due to change within a family usually isolated from others. This is the sort of evidence that evolutionist extrapolate from to build their theory of evolution.

Nonsense only ID'iots / fundies would propose.

At least you don't bother hiding your stupid bigotry, bitch

 

[JimBowie1958]

I believe you have no argument once again and are reduced to exposing your ignorance because of your contempt for believers.

I hit you with a question and you avoid it like the plague. How are you ever gonna learn if you continue to evade my questions that throws doubt on your faith filled beliefs ?

You suffer from continued confusion. Furthering conspiracy theories as a way to promote your embrace of fear and ignorance is an emotional and intellectual defect only you can address.

Still avoiding the question.

He's too good to answer your question; who do you think you are?

lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sorry, it doesn't nullify anything. Spiritual nature created both matter and the law of conservation of matter.

Prove it!

this could take awhile how bout some pizza?

Well, pizza would be a step up for you, no doubt.

 

[Boss]

Prove it!

Self evident. By laws of conservation of matter, physical nature couldn't have. Two options remain: The universe has always been, and thus, is God... or... Spiritual nature created the physical universe.

You are such a pathological liar, I said no such thing. That was YOUR idiotic pontification, don't pass your bullshit on to me.

Here is what I said:

If it was not created by a superior intelligence by all means demonstrate how it came in to existence !

I'm not the one making the claim.

However matter is a form of energy and it has been proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

That means that energy has always existed (cannot be created/can't increase) and will always exist (cannot be destroyed/can't decrease) in the same total quantity.

So "energy" is omnipotent and omnipresent? I'm glad I could help you and Dorito find God.

It is impossible for a spirit to create energy, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, and matter is a form of energy. Therefore it is self evident that the physical precedes the spiritual. You have it ass backwards, as usual.

What it would be, is a violation of your conceptions of the first law of thermodynamics. Nothing in science has ever proven to be "impossible" and you should learn that if you are going to use science to make arguments. It's not self-evident that physical precedes spiritual, because spiritual energy created the physical. Everything you point to, tells us this. Your own theories negate the possibility of physical nature creating the universe, matter is energy and can't be created, or energy is omnipotent and omnipresent, which makes it God. Neither case disproves spiritual energy, and both support the argument for it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

have a good weekend everyone and you to cock breath.

how would you know what cock breath smells like?
Speaking from experience are we?

Don't know I just figured with all that slapdick talk it must lead to something else.

Slapdick and condescension is all these idiots have any more.

The scientific community is getting totally embarrassed these days.

They claimed the world was over-heating and we would all die in a boiling planet if we didn't stop putting more CO2 in the atmosphere and de-industrialize. Ooops, we haven't slowed down growth in CO2 levels and temperatures have been stagnant for the last 15 years.

They claimed that LENR could not work for various reasons, but guess what? IT WORKS and it turns out that we have missed two decades of funded research on LENR because the scientific establishment is more fond of the research money for hot fusion than they are of advancing science and technology.

How long did these bastards oppose truthful scientific research and new ideas by trying to humiliate and ostracize fair minded scientists for proposing that continents drift, that evolution is not gradual and uniform, that heavier than air flight is possible, and more?

The best thing that could happen for scientific research is to take control of the funding from the so-called scientists who are really just bureaucrats and give it to a committee formed from 20 names randomly chosen from a fucking phone book.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well sorry, dear, but your young earth creationist model is still a hoax.

Run along now and go play in the street. Your cutting and pasting from silly creationist sources has once again made you the Butt (Kyle Butt), of ridicule and derision.

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."

There are more than one assumption that is in error.



Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

edited for pseudoscience content.... and religious bias.

Which is no worse than your anti-religious bias.

But you being a fucking idiot makes it far worse.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Everyone that saw you spin and lie to try and hide your ignorance.

not an answer .who is everyone?
I have nothing to hide or lie about .
it's obvious who the ignorant poster is..

You are a fucking liar and you have been lying and twisting posts from the start of this thread.

No one owes you anything here after all your ignorant, monkey-shit-throwing hate for religion you have posted.

Civilization advances anyway, in spite of sycophantic dimwits like you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

edited for pseudoscience content.... And religious bias.

please point out the pseudoscience content and be specific.

all of it!
Plus the religious bias!

YWC, do you see that this puissant isn't going to discuss anything with you? He will not answer your questions as he is a conceited narcissist .

 

[JimBowie1958]

have a good weekend everyone and you to cock breath.

how would you know what cock breath smells like?
Speaking from experience are we?

Yes, you are, whore.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Common Decay Series
Main Article: Radioactive decay Samarium-Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
Rhenium-Osmium (Re-Os)
Uranium/Thorium-Lead. (U/Th-Pb)
Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr)
Potassium-Argon dating (K-Ar)
Argon-Argon (Ar-Ar)
Lutetium-Hafnium (Lu-Hf)
Carbon-Carbon (14C-12C)

Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Have you ever considered why it is that the entirety of your posting is derived from fundamentalist Christian ministries as opposed to reputable, peer reviewed science sources?

Are you too stupid to realize the tautology you have presented? People who propose disruptive advances in science are almost always considered not reputable.

You are the epitome of what is wrong with the scientific establishment. We need more scientists who can actually think independently and do good research and not frauds like you who always have to hide behind the consensus you imagine you have.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hollie, pandas thumb and talk origins lol.

Hollie surround yourself with defenders of the faith you become just as ignorant.

As expected, no defense of silly creationist claims to magic.

That would be due to the fact that magic is indefensible in the realm of reason and rationality.

So much for fire breathing dragons on Noah's Ark.

though you are dumb as a bag of rocks, at least you are capable of refuting your own straw men.

 

[JimBowie1958]

it's not condescending or bullshit .
the stupidity is yours or willful ignorance. it's hard to tell with you guys.
the facts: modern dating are not for any practical purposes flawed.
there is no evidence for a young earth.
there is no proof for or against the existence of a god or thousands of them.
any theory that presupposes god is a false premise and not evidence.
faith in a god or gods is subjective and cannot and should not be argued as fact.

get it.

No, YOU don't get it. Dating can be flawed, and mistakes are often made that peer review fails to catch.

And there is evidence of God, but people determined to not recognize it can always come up with some hypothetical scenario to essplain things, from imaginary time to human beings just being lucky enough to win the Great Cosmic Dice Roll.

And in theology one starts with axioms or revelation as a starting point and it is no less rational than science is.

Short comings in scientific knowledge do not prove God, but the overwhelming 'fine tuned' nature of our universe make is not only plausible but highly probable.

But no doubt you can find some other essplanation that you would prefer; ANYTHING other than GAWD! Now that is irrational.

theology like belief in a invisible friend are by definition not rational..

Except that I am not speaking of an invisible friend, you liar.

dawes, you are pretty fucking stupid, but one day you might wake up and realize that you are not doing much more than any well trained monkey can do.

But the good news is that you and your fellow haters and liars are going to lose, and you will likely die an isolated, friendless failure...as you deserve.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, pandas thumb and talk origins lol.

Hollie surround yourself with defenders of the faith you become just as ignorant.

As expected, no defense of silly creationist claims to magic.

That would be due to the fact that magic is indefensible in the realm of reason and rationality.

So much for fire breathing dragons on Noah's Ark.

though you are dumb as a bag of rocks, at least you are capable of refuting your own straw men.

What a shame that your arguments are as ineffective and pointless as those of the other Christian fundie.

 

[Hollie]

Humans are humans no matter their characteristics. You see hollie this is due to change within a family usually isolated from others. This is the sort of evidence that evolutionist extrapolate from to build their theory of evolution.

Nonsense only ID'iots / fundies would propose.

At least you don't bother hiding your stupid bigotry, bitch

Oh my. I've noticed a pattern of behavior among the more excitable of the creationist. They get their limited knowledge of science from Christian fundamentalist websites.

 

[edthecynic]

Self evident. By laws of conservation of matter, physical nature couldn't have. Two options remain: The universe has always been, and thus, is God... or... Spiritual nature created the physical universe.

You are such a pathological liar, I said no such thing. That was YOUR idiotic pontification, don't pass your bullshit on to me.

Here is what I said:

That means that energy has always existed (cannot be created/can't increase) and will always exist (cannot be destroyed/can't decrease) in the same total quantity.

So "energy" is omnipotent and omnipresent? I'm glad I could help you and Dorito find God.

It is impossible for a spirit to create energy, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, and matter is a form of energy. Therefore it is self evident that the physical precedes the spiritual. You have it ass backwards, as usual.

What it would be, is a violation of your conceptions of the first law of thermodynamics. Nothing in science has ever proven to be "impossible" and you should learn that if you are going to use science to make arguments. It's not self-evident that physical precedes spiritual, because spiritual energy created the physical. Everything you point to, tells us this. Your own theories negate the possibility of physical nature creating the universe, matter is energy and can't be created, or energy is omnipotent and omnipresent, which makes it God. Neither case disproves spiritual energy, and both support the argument for it.

Energy is a PHYSICAL entity which can be measured. You have just made the spiritual and God, physical and therefore no longer spiritual.
Thank you

The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment, therefore you cannot just pontificate that it is not impossible to create or destroy energy. You must set up a repeatable experiment that proves it is possible to create or destroy energy. Until then you are full of shit.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, it doesn't nullify anything. Spiritual nature created both matter and the law of conservation of matter.

Prove it!

Self evident. By laws of conservation of matter, physical nature couldn't have. Two options remain: The universe has always been, and thus, is God... or... Spiritual nature created the physical universe.

Ah. Spiritual nature created the universe because it works by magic, without any consideration of the known physical laws.

How convenient.

 

[Hollie]

Common Decay Series
Main Article: Radioactive decay Samarium-Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
Rhenium-Osmium (Re-Os)
Uranium/Thorium-Lead. (U/Th-Pb)
Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr)
Potassium-Argon dating (K-Ar)
Argon-Argon (Ar-Ar)
Lutetium-Hafnium (Lu-Hf)
Carbon-Carbon (14C-12C)

Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Have you ever considered why it is that the entirety of your posting is derived from fundamentalist Christian ministries as opposed to reputable, peer reviewed science sources?

Uh maybe it's because I believe in creation and not naturalism.

Sure, which is why your (Christian fundamentalist arguments for magic), are utter failures.

The simple solution is to require the ID’iots to publish their work for peer review and to provide the relevant science community an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. As we have seen, creationist don’t provide such publications. What little they do publish amounts to reiteration of biblical tales and fables.

All the phony re-labeling of “creationism” as “ID” has been an total failure. The requirements for proving claims and assertions are a shared burden by both the science community and creationist. Christian fundies wish to grant themselves an exception / exemption from the standards of proof, convincing themselves that magical gawds fall under the “because I say so”, weasel. Creationist are not doing science by insisting that "the gawds did it" and then supplying nothing to support the contention of "gawd" at all. It's simply a dead end. And ID is the same dead end-- it's simply calling god something else.

 

[Hollie]

Common Decay Series
Main Article: Radioactive decay Samarium-Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
Rhenium-Osmium (Re-Os)
Uranium/Thorium-Lead. (U/Th-Pb)
Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr)
Potassium-Argon dating (K-Ar)
Argon-Argon (Ar-Ar)
Lutetium-Hafnium (Lu-Hf)
Carbon-Carbon (14C-12C)

Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Have you ever considered why it is that the entirety of your posting is derived from fundamentalist Christian ministries as opposed to reputable, peer reviewed science sources?

Oh and Hollie this is a lie, I have spoken on mutations and what I observed in the lab. Hell I have even given you my own theory why we see change within a family and I believe the science community agrees with me and if you had taken much science you would have to. Where we disagree is on the large scale evolution which is called Macro-evolution.

Oh and YWC, I got a chuckle reading of your “observations” and your “theory”. Your observations and theories have been shown to be nothing more than cut and pasted “quotes” that you mine from Christian fundie websites and Harun Yahya. As you know, these “quotes” have been exposed by me as frauds, and lies.

What is laughable about the creationist argument is the insistence that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the origination of new biological forms either during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, or at any time in earth history and therefore the Christian gawds are proven. All of that is lies and falsehoods invented by creationist.

That term -- "materialistic" -- is what SCIENCE is founded upon. Magical creation by gawds is asserting something outside the realm of what science considers SCIENCE. We see with regularity that Christian fundies appeal only to ignorance and superstition in their claims to magical gawds, a 6,000 year old earth and their continued falsification and lies as they attempt to persuade the gullible and the ignorant. "Substandard", “lies” and “falsification” leaps out at me regarding the magical gawds argument -- and I simply have to read your arguments and the lies and falsehoods you have posted to confirm that.

It's very easy for creationists or ID’iots to pursue this matter in the proper way.

First, establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "materialist" realm (i.e., the "supernatural"). Then, establish a theory that relies on the established theory and shows a correlation. Then the ID’iots / creationist will have something worth reviewing.

Personally, I for one would welcome it.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iosy asserts a supernatural cause and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?