People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[hobelim]

If we cut down, or plant a tree, are we playing a bit of our God ourselves?

Only to the extent that children who play house are responsible adults.

Any living being whose existence can be attributed to another source, even the universe, cannot be God. Thats just logic.

When Jesus said that God was the source of his being he effectively denied being God. When he said that he was ascending to his Father and our Father, his God and our God, he made it clear that his relationship to God was exactly the same as our relationship to God.


God is not a self-negating multiplicity or conglomerate of many little gods...

God is the only living being in existence whose existence is absolute. Thats why there can only be one God; not two, not three.

There is no other God in existence in any universe either equal to, above, or below him.

 

[Avatar4321]

You wont convince those that know God that He doesn't exist. Those who have sought Him out humbly find Him
when they do they obtain a witness from the Spirit that burns into their hearts.

If you aren't going to put in the effort to know God, is it any wonder that you don't? But just because you don't doesn't mean others haven't

 

[BreezeWood]

Ffirst, "he" is Breezewood, which should have been easy for you to figure out. Second, I clearly know more about this topic than you, as I use concepts in context and explain them, while you drop phrases you have found through Google into your whiny insults.

You, like Breezewood, tried to argue the absurd idea of "no transitions". You even misrepresented scientists and their work to attempt this. I would call you dishonest, but that would mean you actually understand the concepts you misrepresented. You do not.

That's funny because all I see you doing here is linking us to various theories and speculations which you proclaim as proven facts that can't be refuted. I don't really give two shits how smart you think you are-- I'll put my science credentials up against yours any day of the week and I bet I'll win. But this isn't a pissing contest about who can make the biggest online anonymous boast about how smart they are.

You've pretty much given up replying to me in this thread because I keep kicking that ass up one side and down the other but that's okay, I am used to know-it-all geniuses who bite off more than they can chew and then have to run hide from honest debate.

It's easy to proclaim that all fossils are transitional if you believe all living things are, and have been, in a constant state of transition. But you have not supported your premise. All you're doing is reinforcing your faith-based belief that all things are transitioning. When we state that you have no evidence of transitional fossils, it means that you have no examples of Genus taxon A in transition to Genus taxon B. There has never been an example of cross-genus evolution. All evolution we have evidence for is within the genus taxon of it's particular family. Brown owls are unable to camouflage themselves in the snow and avoid predators, so over time, lighter-colored owls fare better and tend to reproduce more lighter-colored owls. Over time, a new grey owl or white owl becomes as new species. But the owl never becomes a chicken!

.

There has never been an example of cross-genus evolution. All evolution we have evidence for is within the genus taxon of it's particular family. Brown owls are unable to camouflage themselves in the snow and avoid predators, so over time, lighter-colored owls fare better and tend to reproduce more lighter-colored owls. Over time, a new grey owl or white owl becomes as new species. But the owl never becomes a chicken!

There has never been an example of cross-genus evolution .. /.. But the owl never becomes a chicken!


there we go again, the impossible because boss does not want to "believe" it possible so negates in their mind the physical evidence for the capability by the metaphysical presence to accomplish the very feat as displayed through metamorphosis to transform from one being to another -

without transitory physical evidence but in a single instance, parent to offspring that from that time forward a new species emerges. no, their will not be physical evidence to convince boss otherwise and is in itself the evidence for the procedure to have occurred in past history.

the transitory evidence that is revealed in fossil remains is the beings metaphysical component testing the procedure before its completion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dude, you are just kind of making stuff up as you go. I was not taught by my schools or universities that way. I have two children...they are not taught that way. They are taught science in science class. If they want religious teaching, then I will have to send them to religious teaching. But anyone who says science and faith or religion are incimpatible is 100% correct, in that, while they may live alongside each other, there is no overlap. Faith and science are opposites.

No they're not.

I haven't seen you disprove anything I've posted. You run around calling it dogma and yet you won't answer the question of what dogma I've posted.

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

Yes, they are opposites. And I would never attempt the folly of trying to disprove magical nonsense. That's part of the point of it being magical nonsense, and why magical thinkers like you wield it.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Dude, you are just kind of making stuff up as you go. I was not taught by my schools or universities that way. I have two children...they are not taught that way. They are taught science in science class. If they want religious teaching, then I will have to send them to religious teaching. But anyone who says science and faith or religion are incimpatible is 100% correct, in that, while they may live alongside each other, there is no overlap. Faith and science are opposites.

No they're not.

I haven't seen you disprove anything I've posted. You run around calling it dogma and yet you won't answer the question of what dogma I've posted.

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

Yes, they are opposites. And I would never attempt the folly of trying to disprove magical nonsense. That's part of the point of it being magical nonsense, and why magical thinkers like you wield it.

Point out to me where there's any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

That should be quite the trick since I've not provided any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

Still waiting for you to point out that 'religious dogma' you keep saying I'm guilty of promoting.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[hobelim]

Yes, they are opposites. And I would never attempt the folly of trying to disprove magical nonsense. That's part of the point of it being magical nonsense, and why magical thinkers like you wield it.

If magical nonsense cannot be disproven what makes you so sure its magical nonsense?

People claim a belief in a virgin birth.. You can't find a way to disprove that?

Some scientist...

your dismissive claims of magical nonsense is just a cop out whenever your intelligence fails you....not much better than saying "did not" when people said "God did it." or when someone says there is a God, you say, "Is not, poo poo head. Nya na na na naa!"

 

[Uncensored2008]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

And what if they don't, will you put them in concentration camps for "wrong think?"

The obsession you Stalinists have with persecuting the religious is startling.

Hah...you attributed persecution to him out of nowhere, then used your madeup bullshit as evidence of a equally non-existent larger trend. Very "Rushy" of you. No really, some people have to practice little cons and tricks like those. You seem to be a natural.

Drooling Matty is well known,

What banned Stalinist retard were you?

Huh? Stalinist? Wha? I gotta say, i never knew that I should be so scared of Stalinists and commies until I came the this forum. So this place is the actual "basket", eh?

Well, those who promoted the same shit you do did slaughter 200 million captive people..

Matthew wants nothing less than to put yellow cross armbands on every hated Christian in the nation and move them off to forced labor camps. No word yet whether the DNC has adopted this as an official plank for the 2018 election, but they are at lease VERY sympathetic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. .....

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

Good post.

I am agnostic, but I see nothing in the evidence to preclude the concept of intelligence in evolution, quite the contrary. Evolution is a fact, it is the method that species on earth have developed. It is however a mechanism, saying nothing of how life began or if evolution is guided.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'd actually lean towards the Universe being God, that here's the Universe that's a imperfect, but organized thing, just like us, and everything else in the Universe.

What if the Universe it's self has some kind of consciousness, or plan?

Even the Stars behave like Life, they're born from Nebulae, they supernova to create new Nebulae.

Is that like a God?

Is it like a God that everything we touch is transformed by our actions?

If we cut down, or plant a tree, are we playing a bit of our God ourselves?

What makes the universe imperfect? You make a strange statement.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dude, you are just kind of making stuff up as you go. I was not taught by my schools or universities that way. I have two children...they are not taught that way. They are taught science in science class. If they want religious teaching, then I will have to send them to religious teaching. But anyone who says science and faith or religion are incimpatible is 100% correct, in that, while they may live alongside each other, there is no overlap. Faith and science are opposites.

No they're not.

I haven't seen you disprove anything I've posted. You run around calling it dogma and yet you won't answer the question of what dogma I've posted.

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

Yes, they are opposites. And I would never attempt the folly of trying to disprove magical nonsense. That's part of the point of it being magical nonsense, and why magical thinkers like you wield it.

View attachment 153186

Point out to me where there's any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

That should be quite the trick since I've not provided any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

Still waiting for you to point out that 'religious dogma' you keep saying I'm guilty of promoting.

*****CHUCKLE*****
"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

And what if they don't, will you put them in concentration camps for "wrong think?"

The obsession you Stalinists have with persecuting the religious is startling.

Hah...you attributed persecution to him out of nowhere, then used your madeup bullshit as evidence of a equally non-existent larger trend. Very "Rushy" of you. No really, some people have to practice little cons and tricks like those. You seem to be a natural.

Drooling Matty is well known,

What banned Stalinist retard were you?

Huh? Stalinist? Wha? I gotta say, i never knew that I should be so scared of Stalinists and commies until I came the this forum. So this place is the actual "basket", eh?

Well, those who promoted the same shit you do did slaughter 200 million captive people..

Matthew wants nothing less than to put yellow cross armbands on every hated Christian in the nation and move them off to forced labor camps. No word yet whether the DNC has adopted this as an official plank for the 2018 election, but they are at lease VERY sympathetic.

"Well, those who promoted the same shit you do did slaughter 200 million captive people.. "

This is so stupid. And the same people who promote th same shit you do owned slaves and were traitors who killed real Americans. And going a little further back, they roamed europe and committed genocide. I guess that makes you a genocidal-slaver-traitor, right? You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Dude, you are just kind of making stuff up as you go. I was not taught by my schools or universities that way. I have two children...they are not taught that way. They are taught science in science class. If they want religious teaching, then I will have to send them to religious teaching. But anyone who says science and faith or religion are incimpatible is 100% correct, in that, while they may live alongside each other, there is no overlap. Faith and science are opposites.

No they're not.

I haven't seen you disprove anything I've posted. You run around calling it dogma and yet you won't answer the question of what dogma I've posted.

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

Yes, they are opposites. And I would never attempt the folly of trying to disprove magical nonsense. That's part of the point of it being magical nonsense, and why magical thinkers like you wield it.

View attachment 153186

Point out to me where there's any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

That should be quite the trick since I've not provided any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

Still waiting for you to point out that 'religious dogma' you keep saying I'm guilty of promoting.

*****CHUCKLE*****
"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

That's the best you have? Prove that I'm wrong. Show me the magical nonsense and dogma that you believe I'm promoting. Is it the field equation by Einstein? Would you like me to provide some other premise for proving God exists from someone like Dyson, Newton, or some other scientist? I'm really not sure what dogma and magical nonsense I'm promoting that leads to your disapproval.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Given your constant attempts to misinform and create confusion about scientific theories and process, i think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you pantheistic dogma includes substituting your own magical thinking for scientific knowledge. I'm sure you would provide many examples of this, if given to a moment of honesty. No?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Given your constant attempts to misinform and create confusion about scientific theories and process, i think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you pantheistic dogma includes substituting your own magical thinking for scientific knowledge. I'm sure you would provide many examples of this, if given to a moment of honesty. No?

I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you. Most people would call that...

...Wait for it...

...MAGIC and DOGMA

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Given your constant attempts to misinform and create confusion about scientific theories and process, i think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you pantheistic dogma includes substituting your own magical thinking for scientific knowledge. I'm sure you would provide many examples of this, if given to a moment of honesty. No?

I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you. Most people would call that...

...Wait for it...

...MAGIC and DOGMA

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you."

That's not why I accept the dominant theories, not do i think they can all be called "facts". that's just you, being dishonest, as one would expect from a snake oil salesman. And you are also lying about accepted theories not standing up to the facts.... more embarrassing bullshit dogma that you have fooled yourself into believing is compelling.logic.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Given your constant attempts to misinform and create confusion about scientific theories and process, i think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you pantheistic dogma includes substituting your own magical thinking for scientific knowledge. I'm sure you would provide many examples of this, if given to a moment of honesty. No?

I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you. Most people would call that...

...Wait for it...

...MAGIC and DOGMA

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you."

That's not why I accept the dominant theories, not do i think they can all be called "facts". that's just you, being dishonest, as one would expect from a snake oil salesman. And you are also lying about accepted theories not standing up to the facts.... more embarrassing bullshit dogma that you have fooled yourself into believing is compelling.logic.

Yes! Yes! Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?,,, You have consensus and the almighty power of the consensus must prevail!

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Given your constant attempts to misinform and create confusion about scientific theories and process, i think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you pantheistic dogma includes substituting your own magical thinking for scientific knowledge. I'm sure you would provide many examples of this, if given to a moment of honesty. No?

I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you. Most people would call that...

...Wait for it...

...MAGIC and DOGMA

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you."

That's not why I accept the dominant theories, not do i think they can all be called "facts". that's just you, being dishonest, as one would expect from a snake oil salesman. And you are also lying about accepted theories not standing up to the facts.... more embarrassing bullshit dogma that you have fooled yourself into believing is compelling.logic.

View attachment 153313

Yes! Yes! Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?,,, You have consensus and the almighty power of the consensus must prevail!

*****CHUCKLE*****

"Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?"

Let's unpack the stupidity here:

First of all, ya paranoid freak, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Stop trying to make yourself some sort of "martyr", when really you are just a cackling peddler of anti-scientific nonsense. Lending yourself faux martyr status doesn't suddenly make your bullshit, "true".

Secondly, not a single scientist claimed the ice caps would be gone by now, so your comment shows not only utter ignorance of the topic, but the fact that you know less than nothing about the topic. That's right, less than nothing. I.E., not only do you know nothing about the topic, the things you think you know are all wrong. Yes, you have net negative knowledge about the topic. In other words, a teacher would have to spend time simply correcting your dishonest, incorrect bullshit just to get you to the point where your knowledge of the topic is the same as an newborn baby. How embarrassing for you... and it's made even more embarrassing by your aggressiveness. "Aggressively stupid"... it's worse than stupid.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Given your constant attempts to misinform and create confusion about scientific theories and process, i think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you pantheistic dogma includes substituting your own magical thinking for scientific knowledge. I'm sure you would provide many examples of this, if given to a moment of honesty. No?

I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you. Most people would call that...

...Wait for it...

...MAGIC and DOGMA

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you."

That's not why I accept the dominant theories, not do i think they can all be called "facts". that's just you, being dishonest, as one would expect from a snake oil salesman. And you are also lying about accepted theories not standing up to the facts.... more embarrassing bullshit dogma that you have fooled yourself into believing is compelling.logic.

View attachment 153313

Yes! Yes! Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?,,, You have consensus and the almighty power of the consensus must prevail!

*****CHUCKLE*****

"Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?"

Let's unpack the stupidity here:

First of all, ya paranoid freak, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Stop trying to make yourself some sort of "martyr", when really you are just a cackling peddler of anti-scientific nonsense. Lending yourself faux martyr status doesn't suddenly make your bullshit, "true".

Secondly, not a single scientist claimed the ice caps would be gone by now, so your comment shows not only utter ignorance of the topic, but the fact that you know less than nothing about the topic. That's right, less than nothing. I.E., not only do you know nothing about the topic, the things you think you know are all wrong. Yes, you have net negative knowledge about the topic. In other words, a teacher would have to spend time simply correcting your dishonest, incorrect bullshit just to get you to the point where your knowledge of the topic is the same as an newborn baby. How embarrassing for you... and it's made even more embarrassing by your aggressiveness. "Aggressively stupid"... it's worse than stupid.

I may be a tad aggressive but I'm not the one being aggressive and abusive. As for the ice caps being gone...



...One of your ^^^high priests^^^ proclaimed in 2009 that the ice caps were supposed to be gone in five years. Now that would have been 2014 that all those polar bears would have no habitat and here we are almost four years later. Did I miss something about how that global warming theory magically divined all of this? Maybe if you manipulate the data 'just so' the next time it won't blow up in your face.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Boss]

Again, like I said earlier, the word "supernatural" is something we created to define things that can't be explained by physical nature. Over the years, the things we once thought were "supernatural" phenomenon have been explained and they forever leave the realm of "supernatural" because we then have an explanation. So to say something is "supernatural" simply means you currently don't have a physical explanation. It doesn't mean there isn't one... just that you don't currently have one. In a sense, is that not the exact same thing as relying on "God did it" as a placeholder for explanation?

No matter what the natural world turns out to be, if God created it he is not a part of it, hence supernatural. If he is part of it he has given up control and is subject to its limitations and is no longer all-powerful, omniscient, etc.

I've never heard anything so stupid in my life. God gave you the ability to turn your grunting noises into language so you could communicate with others, not so you could formulate goofy semantics arguments and be absurd.

 

[Boss]

there we go again, the impossible because boss does not want to "believe" it possible so negates in their mind the physical evidence for the capability by the metaphysical presence to accomplish the very feat as displayed through metamorphosis to transform from one being to another -

What the fuck is wrong with you? Where did you read me saying something was impossible? I'm discussing what we have evidence for... not what is POSSIBLE!

All kinds of things are POSSIBLE! Mikiu Kaku asks his students to calculate the probability they will wake up in the morning on Jupiter! Now that would clearly seem to be an impossibility.... but his point is that as impossible as it seems, there IS a mathematical probability that can be calculated. It would take longer than the universe has existed but it's still possible.

So there is literally not ANYTHING that is impossible. Please just STOP trying to cajole everything I say into this same childish complaint and try to act your age. I'm really sorry that whatever "right-winged" thing I did has ruffled your feathers to the point that you can't resist teeing off on me every time you see me post something. I hope that you can someday get over it but I'm going to tell you like it is... you keep this stupidity up with me and I WILL add you to my ignore list. I'm out of patience with you and this pedantic whining.