If God doesn't exist...

[defcon4]

That dude is the perfect example of a horrible spokesperson for religion. Purposely does something knowing it's annoying us.

They don't annoy me. I like them and I like his *****CHUCKLE*****-ing

If that's his attempt to convince or convert.

He is NOT proselytizing.

Maybe those videos are brainwashing videos. Like looking in Medusa's eyes. I won't watch them

They don't mesmerize me.

Don't watch those videos those videos are made by his cult and they're brainwashing people who watch enough of them

They are not cult videos.

 

[sealybobo]

You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.

I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.

Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.

Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?

God is and does what God chooses to do.

Now would be the appropriate time to post your General Theory of Supermagical Creation.

You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I think gazing at magic crystals is a poor substitute for deriving knowledge.

But still nothing on your General Theory of Supermagical Creation. That's disappointing as how does one study the gods without a blueprint for their "design"?

Many gods exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature. If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.

We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., gods to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.

It seems we need a miracle to allow you to present a coherent argument for your hierarchy of gods.


*****guffaw*****

Yea sure but then God came for real and talked to Moses then Mary then Mohammad then Joseph Smith. All those gods before weren't real and God came and set the record straight 4 times.

If you don't believe God talked to Joseph Smith how do you explain Utah? They're all insane? Oh come on.

And what about Mohammad? He clearly spoke to God.

And clearly the Jesus stories are all based on facts too. What's wrong with you?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.

Which god would that be?

However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[zaangalewa]

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

You are following the normal rules of propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?

Dear zaangalewa
After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
who are used to being slammed by the other.

if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.

For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.

It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.

I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?

(A) Dear @zanngalewa maybe you are neutral and it doesn't affect you if people identify as theist or nontheist.
But I have friends who do have issues with this, and it gets in the way of solving problems.

The division between Christian and nonchristian has even become politicized as dividing left and right,
rich and poor, to badmouth each other in the media and cost millions in lawsuits, hate campaigns, and lobbying
that could otherwise be invested in agreed solutions if both sides of these conflicts could communicate!

So this is costing us time, money, resources and relationships.

(B) as for Jesus being crucified, if that hadn't happened then all of humanity could not be saved.
It was a necessary sacrifice. What was "not good" was the vicious cycle of sin and suffering
that could not be broken without divine intervention.

So this is like saying is it bad to have to induce a coma and cut up a patient, and cause
the patient months of painful recovery, in order to conduct the operation to save the patient's heart?

In the case of Jesus dying and being resurrected, the point is to break the cycle
of sin and suffering permanently so we never have to go through that again.
the harmony between God and man, God's will and laws and man's are reconciled.

so that part is GOOD that the lasting benefits outweigh the pain suffering
and sacrifice it took to establish that.

In the process, it is tragic and causes suffering for each of the individual
steps and stages to happen.

Humanity goes through cycles of grief from denial and projection,
to numbness and anger, before arriving at a higher state of spiritual peace.

The journey itself is a good thing, but some of the painful fearful
things that have to take place along the way are regrettable and not ideally what we want to happen in the longrun.

(C) the main key factor in the Bible and Christianity
is the transforming power and grace of FORGIVENESS
to heal hearts and minds, the physical body and personal relationships and humanity collectively.

By restoring faith in love, of truth justice and peace, then we can receive these blessings
that God/Life offers for the taking. So the whole process of humanity is to learn from
and forgive the past so we can build a society and life of harmony we really are designed for anyway.

The point is to restore the natural harmony and balance that was lost,
and all the "bad things" along the way are part of learning from experience and consequences
so we understand the difference and can CHOOSE more effective ways by free will reason and conscience.

That dude is the perfect example of a horrible spokesperson for religion. Purposely does something knowing it's annoying us.

If that's his attempt to convince or convert.

Maybe those videos are brainwashing videos. Like looking in Medusa's eyes. I won't watch them

So still you are not able to say what's your "knowledge" why you don't believe in god. But what happens really if you meet in everyone else always only your own shadow?

 

[Hollie]

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.

Which god would that be?

However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****

I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods. You have been offered the opportunity to present your General Theory of Supernatural Creation but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge. That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks


*****SNICKER*****

 

[defcon4]

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.

Which god would that be?

However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****

I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods. You have been offered the opportunity to present your General Theory of Supernatural Creation but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge. That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks


*****SNICKER*****

So you want to know the truth?

*****SMILE*****

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.

Which god would that be?

However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****

Scientists don't talk about God in the lab. Ever.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.

Which god would that be?

However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****

I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods. You have been offered the opportunity to present your General Theory of Supernatural Creation but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge. That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks


*****SNICKER*****

So you want to know the truth?

*****SMILE*****

Annoying people for god like your little buddy?

 

[defcon4]

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.

Which god would that be?

However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****

I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods. You have been offered the opportunity to present your General Theory of Supernatural Creation but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge. That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks


*****SNICKER*****

So you want to know the truth?

*****SMILE*****

Annoying people for god like your little buddy?

That music was for your enjoyment only. See? I am a nice guy after all...

 

[zaangalewa]

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.

Which god would that be?

However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****

Scientists don't talk about God in the lab. Ever.

When Einstein said "Gott würfelt nicht" (god doesn't throw dices) he said somehow he thinks god is an intelligent being what makes not always superflous decisions and throws dices. His motivation was to take a deeper view how the "old one" made it. He had the imagination there should be a more simple reality behind some laws in physics.

Or take Nils Bohr and lots of the most popular phycicists of all times who discussed about god in Kopenhagen. Only Dirac, no one else - (Dirac had by the way great psychological problems too) - was absolutelly convinced god is not existing. Nils Bohr said in the end of this discussion with smiling eyes to him: "Now we know: God is not existing and Dirac is his prophet".

Scientists are by the way free men. If they speak about god then they speak about god - so easy is it.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.

Which god would that be?

However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****

Scientists don't talk about God in the lab. Ever.

When Einstein said "Gott würfelt nicht" (god doesn't throw dices) he said somehow he thinks god is an intelligent being what makes not always superflous decisions and throws dices. His motivation was to take a deeper view how the "old one" made it. He had the imagination there should be a more simple reality behind some laws in physics.

Or take Nils Bohr and lots of the most popular phycicists of all times who discussed about god in Kopenhagen. Only Dirac, no one else - (Dirac had by the way great psychological problems too) - was absolutelly convinced god is not existing. Nils Bohr said in the end of this discussion with smiling eyes to him: "Now we know: God is not existing and Dirac is his prophet".

Scientists are by the way free men. If they speak about god then they speak about god - so easy is it.

Cavemen speculated about God just like Einstein did and just like you do.

Did Einstein discover God or the theory of relativity?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods.

The only screeching I'm seeing here is coming from you and a few other close minded people with beliefs similar to yourself.

You have been offered the opportunity to present your General Theory of Supernatural Creation but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.

No. The pattern is to have people, such as yourself, to put things into what other people say while pathetically attempting to insult them.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on.

Still haven't read the rest of this thread eh?

Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

I observe God and all his/her wondrous works everyday.

That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.

Actually the dynamic being displayed here is screaming, hysterical atheist fundies who insist that no evidence has been offered while refusing to read the rest of the thread much less ask me what are my beliefs about God.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present.

I never said I was a creationist....

However if you want proof of God's existence just look around you.

So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks


*****SNICKER*****

Looks to me like you and a few others are the ones really attempting to vilify.

Do you have your analytical inquisition equipment and robes of empirical power all cleaned and prepped so you can interrogate the masses?

*****CHUCKLE******

 

[Hollie]

I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods.

The only screeching I'm seeing here is coming from you and a few other close minded people with beliefs similar to yourself.

You have been offered the opportunity to present your General Theory of Supernatural Creation but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.

No. The pattern is to have people, such as yourself, to put things into what other people say while pathetically attempting to insult them.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on.

Still haven't read the rest of this thread eh?

Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

I observe God and all his/her wondrous works everyday.

That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.

Actually the dynamic being displayed here is screaming, hysterical atheist fundies who insist that no evidence has been offered while refusing to read the rest of the thread much less ask me what are my beliefs about God.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present.

I never said I was a creationist....

However if you want proof of God's existence just look around you.

So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks


*****SNICKER*****

Looks to me like you and a few others are the ones really attempting to vilify.

Do you have your analytical inquisition equipment and robes of empirical power all cleaned and prepped so you can interrogate the masses?

*****CHUCKLE******

So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive General Theory of Supermagical Creation.

That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'

 

[the_human_being]

Is There a God?

 

[Hollie]

Is There a God?

Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.

 

[zaangalewa]

Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.

Which god would that be?

However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals. I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a “philosophical“ argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****

It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****

Scientists don't talk about God in the lab. Ever.

When Einstein said "Gott würfelt nicht" (god doesn't throw dices) he said somehow he thinks god is an intelligent being what makes not always superflous decisions and throws dices. His motivation was to take a deeper view how the "old one" made it. He had the imagination there should be a more simple reality behind some laws in physics.

Or take Nils Bohr and lots of the most popular phycicists of all times who discussed about god in Kopenhagen. Only Dirac, no one else - (Dirac had by the way great psychological problems too) - was absolutelly convinced god is not existing. Nils Bohr said in the end of this discussion with smiling eyes to him: "Now we know: God is not existing and Dirac is his prophet".

Scientists are by the way free men. If they speak about god then they speak about god - so easy is it.

Cavemen speculated about God just like Einstein did and just like you do.

Did Einstein discover God or the theory of relativity?

Albert Einstein speculated not about god - nor would I say I am speculating about god. Einstein was as important for our basic knowledge about the biggest physical structures of the universe as he was important for our basic knowledge about the most little structures of the universe. In his life he spoke about god in different contextes and with changing views. But whatever he said - I would say he had always in his life an intuitive way to communicate with god. He called him often "Der Alte" (="the old one") what shows to me he lived not in fear of god and saw god in a very familiar way full of humor.

The "theory of relativity" is one of his most popular works - and I don't have any idea what you ask with the question: "Did ... discover god?". We Christians are using for example sentences like "Examine me, god, and discover my heart" (Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 136)

 

[the_human_being]

Is There a God?

Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.

I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.

 

[Hollie]

Is There a God?

Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.

I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.

I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.


In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb

Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.

Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can exclude Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.

 

[sealybobo]

Is There a God?

Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.

I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.

Wrong! It's actually very easy to accept the God hypothesis since we don't know the answer to how we got here.

It actually takes thinking and being willing to challenge the threat that you'll burn in hell if you don't believe. You're not thinking logically but instead you're playing it safe. You aren't even able to contemplate there might not be a God. That's really all we're saying. And what does it matter?

Think about it. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't a creator of the universe. What harm is there in not believing? Can you tell me?

 

[sealybobo]

Is There a God?

Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.

I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.

I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.


In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb

Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.

Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can exclude Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.

Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.

The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect

If there was no cosmos what would there be?

Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.

Not knowing is half the fun.