Does God Exist?

[Hollie]

Fort Fun Indiana - Do you think the law of conservation of matter and energy was violated at the origin of the universe?

Also, did you realize that "nothing" can contain something? For example, dark matter and dark energy.

Note also String theories. No string's attached?

Job 26:7 states that the earth is hung upon nothing in empty space. Newton discovered what that nothing is: gravity. But show us a picture of a graviton!

It was a really profound error to post the Bible verse, above. Gravity is among the most powerful and consistent forces in nature. The verse you posted displays the ignorance of the natural world that was prevalent 2,000 years ago.

The problem faced by various forms of intelligent design proponents is that the movement was not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, a vocal proponent who was the primary Pom Pom flailer for the movement, acknowledged that it is about religion and philosophy, not science, (Belz).

(Belz, Joel. 1996. Witnesses for the prosecution. World Magazine 11(28): 18. World Magazine Article)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

 

[Indeependent]

Fact...Every scientist on YouTube, when asked where the first piece of matter came about, always answers, "It's almost as though a god created it"

Hahahaha


Dude.

That is not a "fact". You literally just pulled that right out of your ass.

How many lectures on this subject and how many YouTube videos have you watched where someone asked this question.
It's a simple question...answer it.

I am not your assistant. Tell us the lie about "almost all" of the scientists again. That was a good one.

Wow!
You haven't changed a bit in the last year.
Tell us again from which University you received your Science Degree.

Irrelevant.

This is how you frauds always act when you are caught in a silly lie. Ding, you, this newtonian fellow...all operating from the same charlatan playbook...

I didn't think Indeependent or Ding were quoting from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin - reassessing current theories" by Charles B. Thaxton Walter L. Bradley Roger L. Olsen:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

So, do you disagree with any of the evidence from chemistry presented in that book?

Yes, the entire book is a verbose, beguiling attempt at reiteration of hoyle's fallacy. Which is itself just a tired reiteration of zeno's paradoxes. These mysteries vanished when we learned how to sum infinite series. But the specious reasoning at it's heart did not, and clearly it still persists inside religious circles, just like other archaic, vestigial philosophy from the bronze age. But i am sure the people at the fraud clearinghouse Discovery Institute are quite amazed and beguiled. The global scientific community? Not so much.

The Global Scientific Community is run by mostly atheistic donors.
Step out of line and you're permanently unemployed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Global Scientific Community is run by mostly atheistic donors.

Haha, so this is the latest garbage you are pulling out of your ass, eh?

Well, for that little quantum mechanical device in your hand...we say, "you're welcome".

You are a moron to imply they are "inventing science" to suit their beliefs. Really stupid.

The science speaks for itself. As a scientist, you either produce science, or you are unemployed. This isnt a nutball religion, dont confuse your guys's MO with that of the scientific community.

 

[Indeependent]

The Global Scientific Community is run by mostly atheistic donors.

Haha, so this is the latest garbage you are pulling out of your ass, eh?

Well, for that little quantum mechanical device in your hand...we say, "you're welcome".

You are a moron to imply they are "inventing science" to suit their beliefs. Really stupid.

The science speaks for itself. As a scientist, you either produce science, or you are unemployed. This isnt a nutball religion, dont confuse your guys's MO with that of the scientific community.

You are stating that it is intellectually honest to state 100% agreements among scientists.
Who's the moron?

Curious...
From which University did you receive your degree in Quantum Mechanic?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are stating that it is intellectually honest to state 100% agreements among scientists

I never stated or implied that, liar.

Stop asking me about my education, you fraud.

 

[Indeependent]

You are stating that it is intellectually honest to state 100% agreements among scientists

I never stated or implied that, liar.

Stop asking me about my education, you fraud.

Someone with credentials would never shy away from making some sort of statement concerning their credentials.
Your main credential seems to be your anger driven ego.

 

[ding]

You are stating that it is intellectually honest to state 100% agreements among scientists

I never stated or implied that, liar.

Stop asking me about my education, you fraud.

Someone with credentials would never shy away from making some sort of statement concerning their credentials.
Your main credential seems to be your anger driven ego.

Dude has no credentials.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Someone with credentials would never shy away from making some sort of statement concerning their credentials.

And a fraud tries to talk about credentials instead of the material. And probably lies about his own credentials, too. I don't care about yours, and your opinions of mine are quite irrelevant. this is just a red herring by you to avoid getting embarrassed on the material. All of you frauds do this.

So, did you read about zero-energy theory? Of course you didn't, you fraud. It was important enough for you to lie about and prattle on about for 3 pages, but not important enough to actually learn anything about it. that shows, quite definitively, that your agenda does not involve any honest discussion of a scientific topic,. It shows definitively that your agenda is to muddy discussion to try to squeeze in your iron aged religious dogma.

this is clear proof, and you have exposed yourself.

 

[ding]

Someone with credentials would never shy away from making some sort of statement concerning their credentials.

And a fraud tries to talk about credentials instead of the material. And probably lies about his own credentials, too. I don't care about yours, and your opinions of mine are quite irrelevant. this is just a red herring by you to avoid getting embarrassed on the material. All of you frauds do this.

Or tries to pass himself off as an expert without presenting credentials.

 

[Indeependent]

You are stating that it is intellectually honest to state 100% agreements among scientists

I never stated or implied that, liar.

Stop asking me about my education, you fraud.

Someone with credentials would never shy away from making some sort of statement concerning their credentials.
Your main credential seems to be your anger driven ego.

Dude has no credentials.

And it wouldn't shame him to admit such.
He wants to present as an authority.

 

[Indeependent]

Someone with credentials would never shy away from making some sort of statement concerning their credentials.

And a fraud tries to talk about credentials instead of the material. And probably lies about his own credentials, too. I don't care about yours, and your opinions of mine are quite irrelevant. this is just a red herring by you to avoid getting embarrassed on the material. All of you frauds do this.

So, did you read about zero-energy theory? Of course you didn't, you fraud. It was important enough for you to lie about and prattle on about for 3 pages, but not important enough to actually learn anything about it. that shows, quite definitively, that your agenda does not involve any honest discussion of a scientific topic,. It shows definitively that your agenda is to muddy discussion to try to squeeze in your iron aged religious dogma.

this is clear proof, and you have exposed yourself.

I never presented myself in any whatsoever an being credentialed in the multitude of sciences to which you espouse to be an expert.
Most of the people I know spent about 6 years studying any of the subjects you pretend to know inside and out.
Please let us know If you have spent 6 years learning and mastering these subjects.

In terms of generating matter from a complete absence of matter, you have yet to present a Link from a scientist that I can forward to people I know who have PhDs in Physics.

By the way, it took a 3 second Google search to prove you're a liar in regards to zero-energy theory generating matter from a complete absence of matter...

Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I never presented myself in any whatsoever an being credentialed in the multitude of sciences to which you espouse to be an expert.

And I never claimed to be an expert. See? You just can't even stop yourself from lying. You just invented that in your mind because of how may times I have embarrassed you. In reality, it doesn't take an expert to embarrass you. A 7th grader could embarrass you, for example, on the topic of evollution

In terms of generating matter from a complete absence of matter, you have yet to present a Link from a scientist that I can forward to people I know who have PhDs in Physics.

Then ask them about zero-energy theory. or read about it yourself. You , of course, will not do either of these things. Or, ask them about cyclical theories of the universe, where no such transition is necessary.

 

[Indeependent]

I never presented myself in any whatsoever an being credentialed in the multitude of sciences to which you espouse to be an expert.

And I never claimed to be an expert. See? You just can't even stop yourself from lying. You just invented that in your mind because of how may times I have embarrassed you. In reality, it doesn't take an expert to embarrass you. A 7th grader could embarrass you, for example, on the topic of evollution

In terms of generating matter from a complete absence of matter, you have yet to present a Link from a scientist that I can forward to people I know who have PhDs in Physics.

Then ask them about zero-energy theory. or read about it yourself. You , of course, will not do either of these things. Or, ask them about cyclical theories of the universe, where no such transition is necessary.

You just posted that you don't claim to be an expert yet you immediately ridicule anyone who disagrees with your point of view by pointing out that you agree with the expert.
Do you read anything you post prior to clicking "Post reply".

Why would I have to study "zero-energy theory" when the Hypothesis starts off by showing you were incorrect?
You explicitly claimed that "zero-energy theory" is proof of "generating matter from a complete absence of matter".
The article itself claims this isn't part of the Hypothesis.
Do you read anything you post prior to clicking "Post reply".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You just posted that you don't claim to be an expert yet you immediately ridicule anyone who disagrees with your point of view by pointing out that you agree with the expert.

excuse you... when you say hilariously dumb, false shit about evolution, you aren't "disagreeing with MY point of view". this is you, being a frauid again, in the same manner as your childish pursuit of ino on my credentials.

You tried to give the impression that scientists sit there like dumbasses and scratch their heads when asked if there are any possible explanations for a a "no matter state" became a state with matter. That was totally stupid garbage you invented to try to wedge in some iron aged religious dogma. And you have been doing this little red herring tap dance ever since.

Why would I have to study "zero-energy theory" when the Hypothesis starts off by showing you were incorrect?

Like this stupid lie.

You explicitly claimed that "zero-energy theory" is proof of "generating matter from a complete absence of matter".

And this one. 100% shameless lie.

you really are a shameless, embarrassing little liar.

 

[Indeependent]

You just posted that you don't claim to be an expert yet you immediately ridicule anyone who disagrees with your point of view by pointing out that you agree with the expert.

excuse you... when you say hilariously dumb, false shit about evolution, you aren't "disagreeing with MY point of view". this is you, being a frauid again, in the same manner as your childish pursuit of ino on my credentials.

You tried to give the impression that scientists sit there like dumbasses and scratch their heads when asked if there are any possible explanations for a a "no matter state" became a state with matter. That was totally stupid garbage you invented to try to wedge in some iron aged religious dogma. And you have been doing this little red herring tap dance ever since.

Why would I have to study "zero-energy theory" when the Hypothesis starts off by showing you were incorrect?

Like this stupid lie.

You explicitly claimed that "zero-energy theory" is proof of "generating matter from a complete absence of matter".

And this one. 100% shameless lie.

you really are a shameless, embarrassing little liar.

All one has to do is read your posts; it;s the same every time.
Try understanding every word of an article before you tout it for something it isn't.
All anyone has to do is Google it or click on the supplied Link.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Don’t really know why I’m posting this ...

 

[ding]

And when these scientists -- almost assuredly atheists -- say, "its almost like god dit it!", its not a nod to god's greatness, its a nod to the notion of saying "god did it!" and having "utter ignorance" being the same idea.

The science speaks for itself. As a scientist, you either produce science, or you are unemployed. This isnt a nutball religion, dont confuse your guys's MO with that of the scientific community.

"...It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

You just posted that you don't claim to be an expert yet you immediately ridicule anyone who disagrees with your point of view by pointing out that you agree with the expert.

excuse you... when you say hilariously dumb, false shit about evolution, you aren't "disagreeing with MY point of view". this is you, being a frauid again, in the same manner as your childish pursuit of ino on my credentials.

You tried to give the impression that scientists sit there like dumbasses and scratch their heads when asked if there are any possible explanations for a a "no matter state" became a state with matter. That was totally stupid garbage you invented to try to wedge in some iron aged religious dogma. And you have been doing this little red herring tap dance ever since.

Why would I have to study "zero-energy theory" when the Hypothesis starts off by showing you were incorrect?

Like this stupid lie.

You explicitly claimed that "zero-energy theory" is proof of "generating matter from a complete absence of matter".

And this one. 100% shameless lie.

you really are a shameless, embarrassing little liar.

I just want to make it clear that when it comes to the discussion of what created the material world, you are like a flat earther rejecting science whereas I am exploring all options, even the ones that offend your delicate homosexual sensibilities.

 

[ding]

I can only assume that Fort Fun Indiana believes that Arthur Eddington,
Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, Wolfgang Pauli and George Wald weren't real scientists because they have all embraced the pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind.