Thread: ZELOS ASKED REV ROSWELL TO PROVE GOD EXISTS...OK READ THIS

...BY ZELOS I THINK.....GOD AND CREATISOM ARE TRUTH, PROVE IT

is not possible to prove the existence of God to a non believer who does not want to believe in such a system. Just as is it is nearly impossible to get an addict to admit he has a substance abuse problem, and is dying from the effects of the addiction! Both addicts and unbelievers are in deep entrenched denial, which means that they cannot accept reality, using denial as a to continue living in the fantasy!

I can prove that God exists and is the creator of everything to you Z, however, you must have faith in myself, yourself and the religion of your choice to accept any proof. Empirical or otherwise. If you don't want to believe in God and the light, the evidence then becomes subjective (because of your denial) which will allow you to rationalize away any proof. This lie must be believed by you to restore your secular or atheist world view. Call it anti spiritual equilibrium.

In spiritual equilibrium the atheist/SH psyche seeks to become homogenized with the (secular) world view of its peers. This world view is typically instilled in him (read you) by indoctrination, environmental factors, or by medical factors. (other than mental illness), heavy metal poisoning for example.

So, to summarize, "Any proof or evidence that the hostile subject requires to substantiate a religious, spiritual or deity based system, in the final analysis can be said to be subjective according to the addict or Secular humanist!

A historical tenant of religion is that one must have faith to come to God and to understand the spiritual world and its teachings. Science asks us to accept what may be fraud as fact, and to hide the obvious faith requirement, hoping that no one would notice that science facts rarely remain facts for long. The secular humanist is the mark and science is the confidence man in this modern version of an ancient game.

It may be said that science requires BLIND and even DUMB faith from their flock. Science hides the fact that faith is required for acceptance into the nazi party..I mean to be aceopted by the scienticffic peer establishment. Religious beleif revels in the faith requirmet because it unlike science has nothing to hide.

Hmmmmm' (stroking my goatee slowely lost in thought....) ...can you prove that god does not exist ?,,,,,and while we are on the subject, how do you beleive the universe began to exist? anyone feel free to entertain this question.

; { >

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

is not possible to prove the existence of God to a non believer who does not want to believe in such a system. Just as is it is nearly impossible to get an addict to admit he has a substance abuse problem, and is dying from the effects of the addiction! Both addicts and unbelievers are in deep entrenched denial, ... anyone feel free to entertain this question.

I agree that your comment is entertaining. You are obviously brain washed, you admit it yourself. You pretend that all that is needed to prove existence is to believe that which you cannt prove the existence of. You are an addict, as you say, and your substance is your god. I don't mind that at all, as long as you recognize your addiction. Your arguments about others are really arguments about you, obviously.

SOMEONE HAS MY COOKIES IN A BIND...couldnt edit new thread....anyway, ...

I agree that your comment is entertaining.

Yes, I attempt make reading a bunch of font on what I consider a serious subject as entertaining as possible. It hurts the raw communitive power of a message but I get tired of the same old cack caka' as a baby once said.

Sometimes it back fires esoiciallw\y when unable to edit the damn thing.

Yes, you see, we all are influenced by our environment, call it
brainwashing, if you want. The religious and the atheists are entrenched in their beliefs which may or not be true. However the athieist /SI is in denial as well. Without this denial , they would have no reality. deity based religon does not need denial as if freelly admits to requirng faith! Therefore religious thought and the religious paradgine is more truthful as well as correct and is true by default.

see simple huh?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ half asleep semi dream state lucid dreaming rambling ..........~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>>>

Rev it roswell up to rev it Jim Jones way down, its all the same rev, only the soul wave is changed, we are all fractions of God instilled into a mortal body for the exclusive illusion of individualism.

STILL CANT EDIT POST...ANYONE know whats up wit dat? show me the doe , I know I done and went down an did dat when I made mod one and 2 unhappy....anyway

each time a window opens I must re log in ....and when typing a reply if I get logged in after many attempts, the curser eats my font....no I aint on drugs or drinking that ountain LSD (moonshine) yet .....

it this keeps up I may start early this weekend.............

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Yes, I attempt make reading a bunch of font on what I consider a serious subject as entertaining as possible.

A bunch of font, is it?

Yes, you see, we all are influenced by our environment, call it
brainwashing, if you want.

You are the one who chose to call it that.

The religious and the atheists are entrenched in their beliefs which may or not be true. However the athieist /SI is in denial as well.

Let me get this straight. You claim to recognize that you are in denial.

Without this denial , they would have no reality. deity based religon does not need denial as if freelly admits to requirng faith!

I see. Without science to encumber you, you can state any hogwash you want, and claim that it is based on faith, and disprovable, and other simplistic jokes. LIfe must be easy when you don't have to think. When people challenge you, you just say that they lack faith. You, however, feel free to challenge them. Yes, you are funny.

Therefore religious thought and the religious paradgine is more truthful as well as correct and is true by default.

I suppose that you consider this to be logic. If this is the logic that you use to prove to yourself that there is a god, I feel sorry for you. You believe that truth is achieved by ignoring evidence and clinging doggedly to faith. How funny.

see simple huh?

Yes, you do seem simple.

I don't care that you belive in god. However, your simplistic statements about how faith in god must lead to the truth because it does not need to waste time with evidence is not something that could be attractive to people who are not afraid to challenge their understandings.

Why do you even bother to talk with atheists? You know that your simplistic view of the world can be attractive only to people who are brainwashed, as you claim yourself to be.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Science asks us to accept what may be fraud as fact, and to hide the obvious faith requirement, hoping that no one would notice that science facts rarely remain facts for long.

Hmmm....

Science doesn't ask us anything. Some scientists ask us things.

Ayurveda, for example, literaly means "Life Science" but, I dought that many atheists bieleve in the ideas of Ayurveda. Science takes many different forms, one could even consider religion to be a science (although they may not want to).

Also, (the atheist may not believe this) science requires faith too. The idea that facts are often disproved shows that at some point the scientist had faith in an idea.

is not possible to prove the existence of God to a non believer who does not want to believe in such a system. Just as is it is nearly impossible to get an addict to admit he has a substance abuse problem, and is dying from the effects of the addiction! Both addicts and unbelievers are in deep entrenched denial, which means that they cannot accept reality, using denial as a to continue living in the fantasy!

BULLSHIT, i can accept that god exist, if scientists witha objective way proof his existens. and its not reality.

In spiritual equilibrium the atheist/SH psyche seeks to become homogenized with the (secular) world view of its peers. This world view is typically instilled in him (read you) by indoctrination, environmental factors, or by medical factors. (other than mental illness), heavy metal poisoning for example.

more bullshit. I have gottan neither one of these things. and i still chose to be atheist becuase science have proven to answer mroe questions than religion, i want to know how the world is the real way, not the lazy mans way.

as i understand it ure saying u need faith to accept the proof, but then its not really proof. Its just faith. no proof.
all youve proven here is that ure projecting ur own stuff on atheists.
u call us brainwashed, but with this whole post uve proven ure the brainwashed.

if u can give me concrete proof, that can be said to mean that by ppl that isnt religius and understand the proof we can begin talking. but something based on faith is never proof.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Ayurveda, for example, literaly means "Life Science" but, I dought that many atheists bieleve in the ideas of Ayurveda.

Why? Is it because it is not popular in the west, and where it is popular most people are religious? Or, what exactly is your point?

Science takes many different forms, one could even consider religion to be a science (although they may not want to).

Sure, one might, mightn't one. What does this mean, if anything?

Also, (the atheist may not believe this) science requires faith too.

I agree. If we change the definition of faith from what is commonly used by scientists and theists, then it is certainly possible to develop a definition wherein you are quite correct.

The idea that facts are often disproved shows that at some point the scientist had faith in an idea.

See above.

Science takes many different forms, one could even consider religion to be a science (although they may not want to).

are you mad? science is based in scientific method and proof, religion is based on faith. its completly different

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Ayurveda, for example, literaly means "Life Science" but, I dought that many atheists bieleve in the ideas of Ayurveda.

Why? Is it because it is not popular in the west, and where it is popular most people are religious? Or, what exactly is your point?

It is actually more popular than you might think. General, yes, people are religious in India. My point is that this is a science, just like biology.

Science takes many different forms, one could even consider religion to be a science (although they may not want to).

Sure, one might, mightn't one. What does this mean, if anything?

It means exactly what I said.

Also, (the atheist may not believe this) science requires faith too.

I agree. If we change the definition of faith from what is commonly used by scientists and theists, then it is certainly possible to develop a definition wherein you are quite correct.

I would like to correct you on something. I am a scientist and I know many scientists, and most of them are not atheist. Is this scientific definition of faith that you speak of really the most common among scientists. (notice there is no ?)

Originally Posted by Zelos

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Science takes many different forms, one could even consider religion to be a science (although they may not want to).

are you mad? science is based in scientific method and proof, religion is based on faith. its completly different

ha haa, a correction in understanding is needed here. Science is the study of the (physical) world and the ideas and actions that occur within it. "Physical" being in paranthasis because the more modern quantum physics is not so physical.

What you call the scientific method is nothing more than systematic observation. This method can be applied to religion.

Please explain to me what "proof" is. How does one explain proof? To me, proof is faith. I have always been told in my science education that things are only disproved (which I am also sceptical of).

Originally Posted by DaBOB

It is actually more popular than you might think.

This is correct only because you use the word might. You were the one who said that most people do not know about Aruveda. I am familiar with it.

Science takes many different forms, one could even consider religion to be a science (although they may not want to).

Sure, one might, mightn't one. What does this mean, if anything?

It means exactly what I said.

I see. Nothing.

Also, (the atheist may not believe this) science requires faith too.

I agree. If we change the definition of faith from what is commonly used by scientists and theists, then it is certainly possible to develop a definition wherein you are quite correct.

I would like to correct you on something. I am a scientist and I know many scientists, and most of them are not atheist. Is this scientific definition of faith that you speak of really the most common among scientists. (notice there is no ?)

Yes. Your statement is not surprising and adds nothing. I am sure that if you ask your scientist friends, they will differentiate between faith and scientific understandings. Surely you don't seriously think that they will confuse the two, or do you? (Notice the ?)

I am surprised at you. You hang the threat of asking scientists over me as though you think that this will somehow change my opinion to yours. Your paragraph says nothing at all of substance, and your only question you deliberately removed the question mark to ensure that it asks nothing.

aaagghh. It is very difficult to say something here and not have people twist its meaning.

Originally Posted by Hermes

This is correct only because you use the word might. You were the one who said that most people do not know about Aruveda. I am familiar with it.

I never said people didn't know about it. I said "I dought that many atheists bieleve in the ideas of Ayurveda". Also, this is my opinion. I don't know too many atheists.

Originally Posted by Hermes

I see. Nothing.

Strange. Well I guess that sentence was not for you to understand then.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Yes. Your statement is not surprising and adds nothing. I am sure that if you ask your scientist friends, they will differentiate between faith and scientific understandings. Surely you don't seriously think that they will confuse the two, or do you? (Notice the ?)

I can differentiate them too. I have faith in my scientific understandings.

Originally Posted by Hermes

I am surprised at you. You hang the threat of asking scientists over me as though you think that this will somehow change my opinion to yours. Your paragraph says nothing at all of substance, and your only question you deliberately removed the question mark to ensure that it asks nothing.(Notice the ?)

I am not threatening at all. I am simply trying to say that not all scientists think the same way (I am new to your points of view). I don't try to change people's opinions, I simply try to be a good example.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

aaagghh. It is very difficult to say something here and not have people twist its meaning.

The fault lies with you. You said somthing that is very vague. I asked for clarification, and you refused. You demanded that I make sense of your words, and then you blame everyone but yourself when your words are not understood as you meant them.

Originally Posted by Hermes

This is correct only because you use the word might. You were the one who said that most people do not know about Aruveda. I am familiar with it.

I never said people didn't know about it. I said "I dought that many atheists bieleve in the ideas of Ayurveda". Also, this is my opinion. I don't know too many atheists.

I see. Based on the fact that you know few atheists, you claim to have a good idea of what many of them believe on a topic that most of them have never heard of. I guess that that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Hermes

I see. Nothing.

Strange. Well I guess that sentence was not for you to understand then.

It is up to you if you don't care if your words are understood.

I have faith in my scientific understandings.

I believe you.

I am simply trying to say that not all scientists think the same way

Why did you say so. This much is obvious.

Again with the squeaky shoes. :?

I don't think what I said was vauge. I say what I mean. If you do not understand than ask. You changed what I said.

Originally Posted by Hermes

The fault lies with you. You said somthing that is very vague. I asked for clarification, and you refused. You demanded that I make sense of your words, and then you blame everyone but yourself when your words are not understood as you meant them.

You asked for clarification.
I gave what clarification I could.
I demanded nothing.
I blamed no one.
Do you understand how you are putting words in my mouth now?

If you read my first post you would know that I was commenting on what REV ROSWELL said:

Science asks us to accept what may be fraud as fact, and to hide the obvious faith requirement, hoping that no one would notice that science facts rarely remain facts for long.

This should explain why I was making the points that I was (I hope).

Why do I feel like a four year old.

i define proof as observervations that tells that a certain theiry is right. THen there can be observations that says its not right, end then scientist works out a better theory

What language are you guys writing? internet argot? But the weird language is nothing next to the wierd thinking. Here are a few of the startlingly "brilliant" statements I have seen in this thread.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Science asks us to accept what may be fraud as fact,

It may be said that science requires BLIND and even DUMB faith from their flock.

fraud? for something to be a fraud the objective of the pitch must be to extract something from its supposed victim. religion asks for lots of money and time, what does science ask for? I mean when is the last time you had science people at your door or on tv asking for something? the typical formula for fraud is the exchange of something for nothing. Science offers an understanding that helps you do things in this world (called technology) and what is the price except for the effort to understand it? If anything, religion asks for more not less, passing the collection plate around in its meetings (which far outnumber 1000-1 those of science), and what does it offer for this collection? good feelings? pie in the sky? look, I am a religious man, but any person can see that the case for fraud against religion is far stronger than any such case against science.

I agree that science requires faith, but I do not see how it could possibly be called "dumb faith". Is it dumb faith because it requires such small leaps of faith? Is it dumb faith because it seeks for proof to justify its claims? Is is dumb faith because it doesn't ask you to accept things that could never be proven either true or false? Is it dumb faith because it doesn't ask you to accept things written thousands of years ago without any critical thinking or examination?

You know if you did not riddle your posts with dumb statements like this some people might think you had some good points.

Originally Posted by Hermes

You are obviously brain washed, you admit it yourself. You pretend that all that is needed to prove existence is to believe that which you cannt prove the existence of. You are an addict, as you say, and your substance is your god. I don't mind that at all, as long as you recognize your addiction.

The only thing that is obvious to me is that you think his silliness requires you to reciprocate. I would suggest that if his post has sufficient evidence of brainwashing/addiction then your post has equally sufficient evidence of your brainwashing/addiction. Talking like this makes it sound like you have more in common with him than differences.

Originally Posted by Zelos

and i still chose to be atheist becuase science have proven to answer mroe questions than religion, i want to know how the world is the real way, not the lazy mans way.

If science answers more questions than religion, and if answering questions is what they are both about then clearly science and religion together answer the most question of all and is clearly superior to either seperately. Therefore this is hardly a good reason for you to choose to be an atheist. I would suggest that your statement shows the laziest kind of thinking. If you really do not want the lazy mans way then I would suggest that you make a little more effort at understanding what both science and religion are really about and especially to do some thinking before you make posts like this.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Why do I feel like a four year old.

What did you expect when you started throwing sand in a sandbox with other four year olds. I guess that, just like me, it seemed to be the only game in town, at the moment.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Hermes

You are obviously brain washed, you admit it yourself. You pretend that all that is needed to prove existence is to believe that which you cannt prove the existence of. You are an addict, as you say, and your substance is your god. I don't mind that at all, as long as you recognize your addiction.

The only thing that is obvious to me is that you think his silliness requires you to reciprocate. I would suggest that if his post has sufficient evidence of brainwashing/addiction then your post has equally sufficient evidence of your brainwashing/addiction. Talking like this makes it sound like you have more in common with him than differences.

Perhaps it is you who is brainwashed. Shall I consider this a reasonable thing to say by virtue of the fact that you used the word yourself? It must be, as the fact that you even repsonded to this post qualifies by your own definition herein.

He previously made a post wherein he stated 4 separate times that he is brainwashed. I am simply accepting those statements of his. I am not the one who came up with this idea about him.

Your post makes it seem that you woke up with a hangover from yesterday, and want to take it out on everyone. Talking like this makes it sound like you have much in common with him.

If science answers more questions than religion, and if answering questions is what they are both about then clearly science and religion together answer the most question of all and is clearly superior to either seperately. Therefore this is hardly a good reason for you to choose to be an atheist. I would suggest that your statement shows the laziest kind of thinking. If you really do not want the lazy mans way then I would suggest that you make a little more effort at understanding what both science and religion are really about and especially to do some thinking before you make posts like this.

religion+science=religion

i think that humans want to know things. but there is 2 ways to do that. the hard way, or the easy way. religion is the easy way, it says its like that and then its like that. the hard way is the science where they come with ideas and then try and test it to see if its right, if its not they change it. religion doesnt change exept by how ppl read the old books.
as i see it religion answers no question with proof
science answer all relevant questions, eventualy <--- NOTICE THIS

Yes, I attempt make reading a bunch of font on what I consider a serious subject as entertaining as possible.
[quote] A bunch of font, is it? [quote]

Yes, brother Hermes, we all produce font here, we are true font producing critters we the Internet authors of factual and non factorial based font. Its all communication I sometimes attempt funny font to alleviate the tension of sinful or otherwise harmful font, and what is sinful or otherwise harmful and of no use to anyone type font? For more a mild example see quote #

:
Yes, you see, we all are influenced by our environment, call it
brainwashing, if you want

.

You are the one who chose to call it that.

Brainwashing simply means being highly influenced by outside influences. Everything we learn from is outside (other than self) could be called brainwashing. I call this type of learning indoctrinated learning, IL for short.

However, our original thoughts, and Ideas arise from outside information that has been extrapolated, processed and reviewed by our subconscious as well as conscious review is what I call cerebral temporal learning CTL for short.

Most secular humanists and some atheists can only interact and comprehend and react to the temporal universe in a limited method because they have been taught exclusively in the IL method. That is their reality.

It is such a limitation as to be a mental handicap. I might say that some extreme religious like radical Islam and the Christian AOG (army of God) are examples of IL when applied to the extreme right. The left being secular/athiests.

oh well , hell I must stop with the reply to this post as its time to load up the camera stuff and get on Unaka mountain. Thunder storms are coming and its a lightning photo op! Herms brother man I will finish VIA lappy or when I return...


; { >

Note one....... Brainwash (one of three.) to alter a person's behavior or desires with systematic techniques of indoctrination.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a thought ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Jesus was a messenger, with a simple method to extend biological life here on this small blue white speck in space. He was a God or advanced being that allowed himself to die for that simple truth. He was the hammer and that message was that simple truth. A nail without a hammer is useless to the carpenter from Nazareth. The message and the truth is if we do not began to care for our fellow man, we have no future on this planet or in the universe or in eternal life.

; { >

atheist is not the extreme of our sort. the extreme of our sort is atheists like "terminate religion and all its follower. religion shall die..." etc

u keep talking about the truth, something that Ã*s true can be proven by physical/chemical means. Prove its that your so called "Truth" is true by coming with evidence that doesnt need faith.

Limited? athists? the same with religius ppl. its not a group thing, rather a individual thing. its like saying all jews are bastarsdds because i got beaten by a jew (i dont have anything against jews, some of my brest friends are jews)

You guys were making me laugh so hard i had to register. I appreciate the rationale thinking of the logical types, but those responses would'nt be possible without the over the top religious opinions. So cheers to all of ya!

You guys were making me laugh so hard I had to register. I appreciate the rationale thinking of the logical types, but those responses wouldn't be possible without the over the top religious opinions. So cheers to all of ya!

I made my entrance onto the stage of this forum in the serious modetone. It had the desired effect. Then after reading a hermes reply, it occurred that there is a huge age spread here. The majority younger adults don't like any serious subjects other than sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Oh and the X box or playstation kinda thing. I can relate. I am a X box geezer type to the 13-23 year olds and a young "oh my God he is a real preacher type" to those 45 on up to real geezer hood.

You are welcome in any of my threads brother/sister stinky. Yes, help yourself to any of my threads, the written ones or....if you an are sister, stinky, help yourself to a tank tee and a pair of my silk boxer shorts...don't laugh...they look good on girls!

...Oh well that was sorta' un traditional Christian kinda' response...but I'm not a traditional jimmy swaggert Christian, nor am I a drink the koolaid Jim Jones type!

I am, however, more of a david Koresh/pope/Vlad the impaler type of Jesus Christ worshiping, God loving, Open theist Christian! (GOOGLE OPEN THEIST) Yes brace yourselves, I am an open thiest, hell raisin' spank the devil, assault rifled enabled, bible thumping, Harley driving, do it my way or the hi way, or get off the hood of my car kinda guy! I am damn near insane a devout freak, trapped on a planet infested with the truly insane masses !

frogive me I digress....


Mercifully (for the anti religious types and at least two mods here) I will summarize...My church and I practice extreme Christian hood, we are modern day Christian Templars with the agenda of helping those that cannot help themselves, and to give a free treasure map to find eternal life for those who have lost theirs or never had a map. Don't want a map? I don't believe you everyone wants to find that treasure chest! ....oops digressing again...

We are EXTREME Christians and unlike 99% of the three plus BILLION Christians on earth we follow the scriptures with emphasis on the will and intent of Jesus Christ's teachings! Its all about his ultimate message.

That message is? There is only one way to save earth and the universe. That is to know God and try to follow the simple teaching of Jesus. The alternative is death of everything, the absolute elimination of the temporal universe.

2000 years to learn a simple religious truth! We aren't learning truth because we desire sin!

Nor have I got it right! Sin (which is anything that harms you) is tasty and I am a diet, but I sure am starving.....Hey anyone got some diet meds for sin?

answer is yep god do....I need the god diet pill ....I am a sinner


; { >

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

is not possible to prove the existence of God to a non believer who does not want to believe in such a system.

Why is it always assumed that atheists DON'T WANT to believe in God? It's not about WANT. I just DON'T believe in God because I've never found the slimmest of reasons to. If I had my choice, God would exist and I would believe. But, by all indications he doesn't, and I don't.
Then you make statements like the one I quoted, which just reinforces my lack of belief. To me that reads "It's only possible to believe in God if you delude yourself into doing so." Meaning you see what you want to see. That's a little shallow for me, but unfortunately I think a lot of people believe simply because they want it to be true. That just isn't a good enough reason for me.
As far as the "science requires dumb faith" kind of crap, please stop with this nonsense. Either lose your ignorance of science and educate yourself at least in some small degree so you quit making comments like that, or stop talking about science altogether if you refuse to learn even the most basic facts about it.
The only faith you really need to trust in science is that the laws of the universe aren't going to change overnight on you. And because 1) this doesn't seem to happen and 2) science works REALLY WELL - then you have objective reasons to "believe" it. No faith involved.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Either lose your ignorance of science and educate yourself at least in some small degree so you quit making comments like that, or stop talking about science altogether if you refuse to learn even the most basic facts about it.

I think most, if not all, of the people in this thread are not only educated in science but, also respect it at some level.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

The only faith you really need to trust in science is that the laws of the universe aren't going to change overnight on you.

Hmmm... how should I put this...

These laws you speak of, are created by us to describe an observed phenomena. We call something a law because we have a collective faith that this phenomena is predictable and will not change. A faith that is often found through mathematics.

What happens to the law when the phenomena does change? (My answer) A new law is created.
Isn't there a saying: Laws are ment to be broken.

I am not saying that gravity will just disapear tomorrow, I'm just trying to make a point. (that it could disapear tomorrow)

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I think most, if not all, of the people in this thread are not only educated in science but, also respect it at some level.

On what do you base this guess?

Why is it always assumed that atheists DON'T WANT to believe in God? It's not about WANT. I just DON'T believe in God because I've never found the slimmest of reasons to. If I had my choice, God would exist and I would believe. But, by all indications he doesn't, and I don't.

God exists, and even in the most devout atheist, its that voice in your head when you lie down to sleep, self is a manifestation of God, its one small part of an infinite system.

If you want to believe in God then you can believe in God. I detest Christian clergy that turn more people away from the true God than the devil could, they may be satanic, who knows? well meaning people are the same, they hurt the work of God and distort his words (scripture). If you want to believe in God its not difficult. Its very easy.

I believe in God because my belief in science fairly forces me to! My learning in science and theology is an aid find God. Science isn't a sin, however the peer system as well as other aspects of western greed and tenured religious hate is.

I did not want to believe in God! That's why my major studies were in science and related subjects! To disprove God! However (thank you God) That education and life convinced that the universe WAS created! God is the default reason for the universe to begin to exist, science was wrong, and not only, wrong tenured science has a adgenda that is global innature,
sinster in a way that will influence our ...everything.

To my horror I began to experience a paradigm shift where everything I held dear was pulled out form under me like, well not like a rug but the experience was so profound and shattering that it must have been ally babas magic carpet that was violently jerked away, leaving me totally humble. I was a bad person at the time and humble was for pus,,,ummmm ...ahhhh' not a trait that existed in my soul or body, at that time I worshiped no God, and hurting someone was a fact of life. I thought is was eat or be eaten...I was ravenous for everything.

Anyway, digressing is my disorder among many.....

Hey bible prophesy coming to pass also shook me. Israel becoming a state was prophesied 2000 years ago (or thereabouts)! BTW the bible tells me (and many others) that this little middle eastern state will be at the center of world war three and Armageddon.....stay tuned and turn on CNN

the end is near...

maybe

no man knows the day or the hour ...big J said that....

; { >

Science asks us to accept what may be fraud as fact,

Piltdown man was science fact for 40 years. Science Fraud = fact.


What is today's piltdown man? What intentional frauds are "they" teaching our child today? How many careers have these ugly hypocritical bastards destroyed today? One, ten, one hundred? ONE is too many.

Or do you think piltdown man was a fact mitchellmckain? really 40 years and to this day it is still in some text books. That makes them true horror fiction, you might want ask me to clarify rather than assume anything. I am happy to explain my extreme veiws.

So fraud = fact . I rest my case, and trust me I have thousands of other reasons not to blindly trust me or my children to the mentally pedophiliac hands of government indoctrinated teachers that teach the official party line

; } >

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

God exists, and even in the most devout atheist, its that voice in your head when you lie down to sleep, self is a manifestation of God, its one small part of an infinite system.

I'm not sure what voice you are talking about. But using the word "devout" doesn't seem appropriate when talking about most atheists. An atheist lacks belief in God. Some actively disbelieve in God, some simply don't believe in God. I'm one of the latter, and there's a difference.

If you want to believe in God then you can believe in God.

I could pretend to believe in God, but I don't think I can just snap my fingers and really believe in God. I am just not wired that way, I need a reason. That reason not being there is why I'm an atheist. Other people's feelings have never really been very persuasive to me and at the end of the day, what other people think and feel is all they have when talking about why they believe.

My learning in science and theology is an aid find God. Science isn't a sin, however the peer system as well as other aspects of western greed and tenured religious hate is.

I have tremendous respect for people who view science as a way to seek God. Science is the study of how God (if He exists) did it, and to deny science as vehemently as some do, on religious grounds, really boggles me sometimes. I don't think most atheists are anti-religious by any means, we just don't care. But if you want some funny looks from people, try telling them you're an atheist sometime. I never see people get funny looks when they announce that they're Christian, but when someone finds out I'm an atheist it's as if I just said I worship Satan or something. The ignorant equate atheist with immoral and it seems like there's a lot of ignorance.

I did not want to believe in God! That's why my major studies were in science and related subjects! To disprove God!

You'll forgive my skepticism, but this is usually a line that the religious say but I don't really believe it anymore. People don't really study science to disprove God because anyone who has a basic background in science understands that science is neutral on the subject.

God is the default reason for the universe to begin to exist, science was wrong, and not only, wrong tenured science has a adgenda that is global innature, sinster in a way that will influence our ...everything.

This doesn't make sense. What do you mean "science was wrong". Science is often wrong, and when it is we revise our models when we get new information. That's how it works. There's certainly no agenda other than seeking to explain the natural world. If you want an agenda, look at the Discovery Institute or other religious "scientific" groups. They don't even HIRE people unless they sign agreements about their religious beliefs and basically admit that they will not go where the evidence takes them, but instead they will only go down paths that reinforce their particular set of religious beliefs. Ignoring the rest of the evidence, using intentionally sloppy methodology to skew the data, sometimes fabricating their own evidence, and often using topics and arguments that have long been invalidated by real scientists. I could go to AIG or DI right now and find things posted on their sites that have been discredited for so long that it's downright dishonest to keep it on their site. Now THAT's bias and I certainly wouldn't call it science.

Hey bible prophesy coming to pass also shook me. Israel becoming a state was prophesied 2000 years ago (or thereabouts)! BTW the bible tells me (and many others) that this little middle eastern state will be at the center of world war three and Armageddon.....stay tuned and turn on CNN

Yeah people think it's been coming to pass for what, 2000 years or so now. Although WW3 really is a possibility, and the devestation could truly become biblical, pardon the vocabulary.

...by Da....I think most, if not all, of the people in this thread are not only educated in science but, also respect it at some level.

by H On what do you base this guess?

No guess needed. I respect science. Just as I respect the military uniform of our nation. However I don't always respect the man wearing the uniform. Understand what I mean? Science is benign and a necessary tool. However when science is perverted for goals unscientific or to harm I don't respect it, I loathe it. My education is a matter of public record. Is yours?

The net makes everyone a Google wizard, so, flaming someone's credentials is only an exercise in frustration, and useless. Personal attacks are an indication of ignorance or fear. The exchange Ideas should be the only goals in a debate or forum. Everything else is BS and has the same value as BS.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

...by Da....I think most, if not all, of the people...

You can call me Bob.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

However when science is perverted for goals unscientific or to harm I don't respect it, I loathe it.

You must REALLY be against the religious scientific institutes then, right? The Intelligent Design movement in particular - that's as textbook a case of perverting science, promoting ignorance, and intentionally deceiving to further an agenda as there can be.

religion asks for lots of money and time, what does science ask for? I mean when is the last time you had science people at your door or on TV asking for something?

I like your style so far. You don't accuse, but tend to assume...I reckon everyone does that a bit, but really read the above!

When is the last time Jim Jones got a multi million contract to study koolaid? I agree that the fundy who gets on the tube on the plasma TV and tells me to send him a thousand dollars to heal some ailment is repugnant! He is an insufferable con, and not a very good one, which says something about a congregation that supports him. I own a micro mission and a modest church. I have never solicited donations and have not filed for a 501c (tax exempt status) . Science is well funded. Scientists are well paid. Most churches aren't and most preachers aren't in the 150k range of salary, if they are they need to give 100k to the needy.

For brevity I will say a true Christian needs no church, or preacher, etc. A TRUE christen needs only Jesus and true compassion for his fellow man. If he is a true Christian the latter requirement will come natural as will eternal life.


: } >

ps no good storm today, it was dry and hot....got some good shots or a red tail hawk tho'

However when science is perverted for goals unscientific or to harm I don't respect it, I loathe it.

....by Neutrino.....You must REALLY be against the religious scientific institutes then, right? The Intelligent Design movement in particular - that's as textbook a case of perverting science, promoting ignorance, and intentionally deceiving to further an agenda as there can be.

No I have specific opinion because I have not researched all them. Some are wonderful and some aren't. Some take the 6k thing as fact, and some suscribe to the 14 billion year or so thing. Some think that God works in thier life every day 24-7, while others think god is on a drug binge at astral beach, because he hasn't give them a 300 sl Mercy' bennnnnnz or somthing....

I feel that a nano sec is to god is what a million or a billion or a trillion years to man...hey god is eternal...time only exists to serve mass /energy and other things in our temporal universe.

So, some ID is agrees with me, because it seems to be a more viable theory than the universe begin to exist from nothing, in my opinion.

The ID thing is a new thread If you want to debate it open a thread , let me know, I will be there like stink on the BS that you say it is.

Your critique of all ID is subjective in the extreme and has no merit, as you do not support your claim with facts. Try again, and you may ask me to clarify my statements rather than intentionally misinterpreting my words, if you really want to debate and or communicate.

If you want an example of pervie science monster consider atheist North Korea scientists killing an entire family in the lab for fun. Thats documented, and one way that they test toxic biological agents! Need lab rats? Even using rats should be a crime. Hey what about using North korean scientists? ....nah..

Is this what modern un fretted secular humanism produces?....does it make human life expendable? Sadly, yes, it does.

Another example? That would be when a well funded scientist or group attacks, and attempts to destroy someone with a new Idea! They fear and hate him because he has an Idea that would destroy their self serving science fraud or the false entrenched theory of the day. They gotta' keep that grant money flowing! History is full of such abominations and many,many others.

Now science the discipline is pure, and of course we need it as a tool. Its the implementation and the window dressings of the western sciencfic method that becomes sadistic and turns the purity into a greedy, evil De Sade like system.

; { >


over and out toto its time to set the booby traps and activate the x box mine field...bed time so to speak and its not toto it is bogie the basset

Is is dumb faith because it doesn't ask you to accept things that could never be proven either true or false?

If it is nither true of false being proven how can you believe in it? You are just making a guess

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Your critique of all ID is subjective in the extreme and has no merit, as you do not support your claim with facts.

I quite agree wit you that his arguments against ID are completely without merit, as he does not support his claim with facts. ID supporters, on the other hand, do not need facts, do they? Their goofy arguments should be taken as scientific fact without the need for evidence. Why should IDiots be required to understand science? It is not fair to god, is it?

Is is dumb faith because it doesn't ask you to accept things that could never be proven either true or false?

If it is nither true of false being proven how can you believe in it? You are just making a guess

Yes, all of reality is a guess, and requires dumb faith. In science faith is paramount. Even probability is subjective when all the factors cannot be entered into the equation. However, ID and or creation is more probable than the universe began to exist from nothing or the infinite universe wishful thinking farce. Due to my education, spiritual communication, life history, as well as the history and predictive power of prophesy, I feel that a religious explanation is vastly statistically more probable than the current best theory that science can "create" (eh).

The above was a simple answer to your complex question, and to explore fully would require more time than my eyelids are going to give me. I have some important REM events to attend to...

nothing is as it seems .... I think big Al said that, and he was correct, oh so correct.

: { >

ID supporters, on the other hand, do not need facts, do they? Their goofy arguments should be taken as scientific fact without the need for evidence. Why should IDiots be required to understand science? It is not fair to god, is it?

Much, if not most of science facts change into lies or untruths.

So they are myth at best and fraud at worse. Who looks like the fool when defending any of the lies or frauds of the past? I feel sorry for them because thier life was lived in vain and in a provable lie, they sure did beleive that lie didnt they? Pathetic and sad.

I have provided proof of fraud, so again I am correct on my statment, and you, are well, wrong.

; { >

nite nite.... [/b]

much science facts change to lies or untruth so they are myth at best

Which "science facts" are you referring to? Specifically.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Much, if not most of science facts change into lies or untruths.

This statement is quite illuminating. It shows that you do not understand how science works.

I have provided proof of fraud, so again I am correct on my statment, and you, are well, wrong.

Quite cute of you to claim that. When you say that I am wrong, it shows that you are corect, considering that you are a religious person who has little understanding of how science works. I don't care that you believe in god. However, your pretense to be able to make meaningful statements about science is quite humerous. As you say, your comments about science are either myth or fraud. Which is it?

I am way beyond lost right now... :?

Can someone summarize what we are talking about again?

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I am way beyond lost right now... :?

Can someone summarize what we are talking about again?

It seems that the Rev is proving that god exists by claiming that his complete lack of understanding of how science works is valid proof that god must therefore exist.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Hermes

You are obviously brain washed, you admit it yourself. You pretend that all that is needed to prove existence is to believe that which you cannt prove the existence of. You are an addict, as you say, and your substance is your god. I don't mind that at all, as long as you recognize your addiction.

The only thing that is obvious to me is that you think his silliness requires you to reciprocate. I would suggest that if his post has sufficient evidence of brainwashing/addiction then your post has equally sufficient evidence of your brainwashing/addiction. Talking like this makes it sound like you have more in common with him than differences.

Perhaps it is you who is brainwashed. Shall I consider this a reasonable thing to say by virtue of the fact that you used the word yourself? It must be, as the fact that you even repsonded to this post qualifies by your own definition herein.

Uh... you need to brush up on your logic. My statement accused no one of anything. It was a "if this then that" statement. If the precedent is not the case then the antecedent is not being claimed. Nor did I support the idea of brainwashing in any way for the same reason.

Originally Posted by Hermes

He previously made a post wherein he stated 4 separate times that he is brainwashed. I am simply accepting those statements of his. I am not the one who came up with this idea about him.

I was not aware that your accusations were based on anything but the starting post of this thread. So you can logically counter my claim by simply stating that you never claimed that this particular post by him is sufficient proof of him being brainwashed or addicted.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Your post makes it seem that you woke up with a hangover from yesterday, and want to take it out on everyone. Talking like this makes it sound like you have much in common with him.

The irrationality of Roswell's post seem to deserve some criticism but I don't like to take sides in a mud fling like this so I sought to criticize the all the irrationality I could find on either side (though it missed the mark a bit in the case of your post). I stand for the respect of both religion and science and the rational dialogue between them.

Originally Posted by Zelos

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If science answers more questions than religion, and if answering questions is what they are both about then clearly science and religion together answer the most question of all and is clearly superior to either seperately. Therefore this is hardly a good reason for you to choose to be an atheist. I would suggest that your statement shows the laziest kind of thinking. If you really do not want the lazy mans way then I would suggest that you make a little more effort at understanding what both science and religion are really about and especially to do some thinking before you make posts like this.

religion+science=religion

Jees if I were Roswell I would applaud complete victory, for this equation suggests that science added nothing to the world that religion did not already provide. But I am not Roswell and I utterly disagree with this.

But of course that is not how you intended your equation. Instead you supported the idea of the communists that religion is a disease and that it corrupt science. This is utterly comtemptable. You imply that a reglious person cannot be a scientist at all. The ignorance displayed by this is not imaginable in a person with any intellegent awareness of the reality of our world, the human beings in it, science or religion.

Originally Posted by Zelos

i think that humans want to know things. but there is 2 ways to do that. the hard way, or the easy way. religion is the easy way, it says its like that and then its like that. the hard way is the science where they come with ideas and then try and test it to see if its right, if its not they change it.

Not quite. Proof is only available in mathematics, if you assume that mathematics is consistent, but then Godel proved that it is impossible to prove that mathematics is consistent. So intead we can only aim for rationality without the certainty of proof. So an intellegent modification of your 2 ways to know things is the (hard) rational way and the (easy) non-rational way. Now the requirements for rationality are far more loose than for your pipe dream of proof, so the only real fit to your idea of an easy way (non-rational way), is the habit that people have of spouting opinions without thinking they need to support their opinions with any reasons at all.

Originally Posted by Zelos

religion doesnt change exept by how ppl read the old books.
as i see it religion answers no question with proof
science answer all relevant questions, eventualy <--- NOTICE THIS

Science is not based on proof but upon evidence. This is why the claims of science are required to be such that they can be tested in an objectively verifiable manner. Religion tends to make claims which are not testable in this way. However this restricts science to the discussion of only those things which are measurable or objectively observable. And the presumption that this is the totality of reality (to use the word of Eddingtion) is absurd.

Therefore, your claim is really a statement that only the questions which science can answer are interesting to you. But if that is the case I cannot for the life of me figure out why you are participating in the threads under the religion topic.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Science is not based on proof but upon evidence.

This is a very important point. Science is not about proof.

This is why the claims of science are required to be such that they can be tested in an objectively verifiable manner. Religion tends to make claims which are not testable in this way. However this restricts science to the discussion of only those things which are measurable or objectively observable. And the presumption that this is the totality of reality (to use the word of Eddingtion) is absurd.

I agree. Science cannot verify or refute religion. I have no problem with people believing in some form of god. What I dislike is when people who believe in god and know nothing of science claim that their belief in god empowers them to pass judgment on science from within a science perspective. In other words, ID is extremely stupid not because its fundamental premise that god created the world can scientifically be demonstrated to be wrong, but because it pretends to be a scientific theory when it is nothing of the sort.

I agree. Science cannot verify or refute religion. I have no problem with people believing in some form of god. What I dislike is when people who believe in god and know nothing of science claim that their belief in god empowers them to pass judgment on science from within a science perspective. In other words, ID is extremely stupid not because its fundamental premise that god created the world can scientifically be demonstrated to be wrong, but because it pretends to be a scientific theory when it is nothing of the sort.

I agree with this but so what religion does not have to be scientific to be true. There are alot of things that science can not explain. Science is not the final word on how everything in the world happens. God does not have to be restricted to a theory to exist.

God exists, and even in the most devout atheist, its that voice in your head when you lie down to sleep, self is a manifestation of God, its one small part of an infinite system.

i say it again, prove it.

Science is not based on proof but upon evidence. This is why the claims of science are required to be such that they can be tested in an objectively verifiable manner. Religion tends to make claims which are not testable in this way. However this restricts science to the discussion of only those things which are measurable or objectively observable. And the presumption that this is the totality of reality (to use the word of Eddingtion) is absurd.

youre right. but if its not testeble it have nothing to do with reality.

and that formula is to show that science, wich makes sense, added with religion, wich doesnt make sense, equals to something that doesnt make sense. This thread is about proving him for me/others, yet you havent come with any evidence that doesnt ened faith

and when it comes to te existens of the universe. it doesnt mean there is a god, i can give u atleast ca 5 different theories that explain big bang and the start of the universe without god. the thing this all have in common is that the universe/higher stuff allways have been

but if u can give me proof that god exists, physical and mathetmatical proof, or evidence i´ll start beliving in him, but not unitl that day

Is this the same skinwalker mod that locked my post? Oh brother skinwalker , I will indulge your leading question ...read on ...


Scientific Frauds in the last one hundred years in addition to the 40 year FRAUD of piltdown man.

Java Man FRAUD

Nebraska man FRAUD A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922
Java man FRAUD

Orce man:FRAUD Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982.

Or consider a scientists who fancied himself an artist, Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings FRAUD...

Brontosaurus FRAUD.... One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed as postulated. A collage of bones that.

Want something more recent? Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis:
Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

The New age Secular Scientists are (SS? Heh, HO so that's too cool! a nazi deaths head SS emblem with live the secular science lie OR your gonna take a shower logo)

The Storm troopers of our and the worlds science nazi party!

Live the lie! Blindly eat their BS with lip finger licking predictability, they count it. I am a little bit near sighted but not blind, and when I see a steaming pile of secular BS I know it for what it is, do you?

yum!

; } >

by mich.....Jees if I were Roswell I would applaud complete victory, for this equation suggests that science added nothing to the world that religion did not already provide. But I am not Roswell and I utterly disagree with this.

Heh, sometimes zelous like myself shoots his own foot, we rarely agree on anything and when he makes a misstatement (is that a word?) I rarely take advantage of it.

FYI complete victory is at hand, but its not victory, it will be more like assimilation, resistance is futile, just give it up brother.

A radical Muslim might say convert or die infidel! I, who am an open theist christen, will say convert, or... die in a eternal way. None of that easy mortal croaking! The muslims are so ...so...ummmm hi strung.

I will use the weight of truth like a Templars sword. I will use the power of over three billion christians like an army of crusaders to spread that truth. I will ...... Stay tuned.

chop chop fizzzzz fizzzzzz oh what a
day it alredy is mine starts at 2am est

its still early...too early....

; { >

and? there have allways been frauds in archoelogy. but taht is no proof for gods existens. All you have proven is that there is ppl miss leading science. But if thats a atempt to tell evolution is wrong its pathetic. it have seen in action today and is a fact

and? there have allways been frauds in archoelogy. but taht is no proof for gods existens

If "there has always been frauds in science", then science has always been a fraud. thanks brother. I know you didnt attend to support me but I see that as god working in my favor, that makes you almost a angel. I need more angles, we all do.

: { >

Ps..I was answering a specific question from skinwalker.

I am going to start a new thread called "God exists proof is in the temporal pudding" but Its gonna take a while to prepare it from scratch.

no, god isnt working in your favor, ebcause he have obviusly forgot adding itnelligence to your genome.

just because there have been fruads in science doesnt mean science is fruad, its a science to see pass these fruads.
its like saying, religion have had crackpots and therefor is crackpot. it really is but thats a different story.

archeology can u earn money in, when u can earn money ppl fruad it. think before answering next time thank you.

..by zelos...but if u can give me proof that God exists, physical and mathematical proof, or evidence i´ll start believing in him, but not until that day

I understand your skepticism. When I was younger I had the same ideas, In your case, I would agree that it is healthy to believe as you do, because when and if you do begin believing in what I call the one truism and the light, you will make a very good solider for Christ, and the light.


I feel that for the foreseeable future God as it relates to how the universe began, will need to be accepted as a viable theory, much like the unproductive string theory is, and that is both must be accepted on faith and critical reasoning.

Now to your statment/question in the quoted block above.

The very fate of the universe (spiritual and temporal) and how long man is allowed to inhabit this earth demands that we live or at least accept the message that christ died for. Doubt me?

look at what's going on in the middle east today. Who knew that Israel could become nation state again after it was destroyed about 2000 years ago? War is doing its evil of killing there today as I type this.What makes this war different from the ones on the past is the Geo political landscape of the world has changed! Today this little firefight could become a thermonuclear WW3!

This war was predicted by bible prophesy thousands of years ago. How could any one of known millennia ago that at the tiny middle east was going to be at the center of world events.

How Indeed!!!!

its a God thing brother, and its in the bible, which is an oracle into the future as well as the past.



; } >

oh wow, i didnt know that the bible acctualy mentioned nuclear weapons, nuclear war etc. oh wait, it doesnt. it jsut some vage claims. that proofs nothing becuase its to vage, u need to come with a prediction like
"in 2000 years, on the 11/9 in their count, 2 towers called world trade center will fall by terrorsists from the middle east" this is a pretty exact prediction, the chance for that bieng predicted and come true is much more less and useble in "evidence". while "there will be a greate war in the future" isnt. its so wage it fits almost any war.

truism? haha dont make me laugh. u cant call it truism until youve proven it. bible predictions shall be so exact there is one chance in a billion or less that 2 events can be put on that prediction.

come with some real proof that can be used. not some bullshit that ppl have used before you for other predictions

I believe in God because I believe he has helped me out in life; whenever I ask for his help I always make it through.
I do not care whether you believe scientific facts are the only truth to life, I'm scientific and religious and has lived life freely and well, you live however you want.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

If "there has always been frauds in science", then science has always been a fraud. thanks brother.

LOL. And there's no frauds in religion, right? I can find frauds in religion just about everyday when I turn on my TV. Frauds in science are much fewer and more far between because science has PEER REVIEW and scientists keep each other in check. PEOPLE are the frauds and there will be people who are frauds in every discipline. The argument that they exist in science, like religion and elsewhere, is completely irrelevent. I'll respond to more later, but I'm at work right now

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

So, some ID is agrees with me, because it seems to be a more viable theory than the universe begin to exist from nothing, in my opinion.

Well ID usually refers to biology, as a concept to try and challenge evolution. It generally doesn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe, but since it isn't really a real theory in any way, shape, or form you'll sometimes see people use it for that purpose as well. "Theories" like these that you see from DI and similiar groups are almost always as ambiguous as possible.

The ID thing is a new thread If you want to debate it open a thread , let me know, I will be there like stink on the BS that you say it is.

I agree, it's a topic for another thread. Which is why...

Your critique of all ID is subjective in the extreme and has no merit, as you do not support your claim with facts. Try again, and you may ask me to clarify my statements rather than intentionally misinterpreting my words, if you really want to debate and or communicate.

...doesn't really make sense. I wasn't writing a persuasive essay on why ID isn't science, I was using it as an example and stating a fact about it. If you want to get into the why's we can. In another thread. It's clear-cut unscientific nonsense that shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as evolution.

However, 5 seconds of time spent looking up ID on wikipedia yields the following in their introduction:

An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not sciencebecause they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[7]

The next paragraph informs us that the US Federal Courts determined it a violation of the Constitution to teach ID in schools because it is "not science and is essentially religious in nature."

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

If "there has always been frauds in science", then science has always been a fraud. thanks brother.

Do you consider yourself to be good at logic, odd sister? I wonder if you are sufficiently intelligent to realize that you show exceptional lack of ability in logic.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

This war was predicted by bible prophesy thousands of years ago. How could any one of known millennia ago that at the tiny middle east was going to be at the center of world events.

How funny you are. I do believe that you want to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

If "there has always been frauds in science", then science has always been a fraud. thanks brother.

LOL. And there's no frauds in religion, right? I can find frauds in religion just about everyday when I turn on my TV.

Please do not say this, because according to the rev if you could find a single fraud in religion then all religion must necessarily be fradulent.

sorry to late, religion is a fruad. sorry rev, im really sorry. not really

his logic is illogical and emotion based, he uses emotions and not logic

Originally Posted by SoteK

I believe in God because I believe he has helped me out in life; whenever I ask for his help I always make it through.
I do not care whether you believe scientific facts are the only truth to life, I'm scientific and religious and has lived life freely and well, you live however you want.

im ready to bet it was you who helped your self but praying makes you feel good and help you helping yourself

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Is this the same skinwalker mod that locked my post? Oh brother skinwalker , I will indulge your leading question

The question was honest and to the point. The answer, however, is deceptive and misleading. I am, indeed, the moderator that closed the thread, which degenerated from discussion to petty bickering and invited participants to start new threads on topics they seemed passionate about.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Scientific Frauds in the last one hundred years in addition to the 40 year FRAUD of piltdown man.

It would seem that piltdown is one of the only two actual "frauds" you mention here and the only one that come close to being originated by a scientist. If you could refer to Charles Dawson as a legitimate scientist and not simply an antiquarian. Antiquarianism, you see, was a significant problem for archaeology in the post-Victorian era. But you conveniently omit that it was science and scientists that corrected the hoax we know as "Piltdown."

Indeed, it was science that filtered, corrected, and otherwise revised each of the cases you mention, which look as though they are lifted from some religious nutbar's creationist website. Leaving me to conclude that Ophiolite characterization of your understanding of science as "infantile" to be correct, though I'm sure you'll take that as an ad hominem comment rather than an observational criticism that happens to be accurate. "Infantile" in the sense that your understanding of how science works is immature and could be improved upon.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Java Man FRAUD

"Fraud" refers to the intention to deceive. I fail to see where science or scientists have done so with regard to Java man. The data are clear on the find: a braincase of about 815 cc; size and morphology consistent with Homo erectus. It would see that your understanding of primate evolution, adaptation and morphology is as infantile as your understanding of the usage of the term "fraud." If not, then it was a simple regurgitation of some creationist nutbar's website or book without bothering to look at the data which are actually present.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Nebraska man FRAUD A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922

Again, I'm not sure what the "fraud" part is. There was no intention to deceive. Anyone who has actually read the data that Osborn wrote in his paper (1922) would see that this was the hypothesis of a single investigator employing the means at his disposal. Moreover, Osborn was careful not to make undo claims of human ancestory or to refer to the find as evidence of an ape-man. It was the popular media, not the scientific establishment that made this leap. Osborne merely described the tooth as primate.

Osborn was wrong and very much a minority in his assessment (the wonders of peer review). In fact, George MacGurdy, a figure well-respected in anthropology even today, completely dismissed the claim by Osborn, citing a the poor sample. And, just a few short years after Osborn's claim was published, science officially corrected itself by correctly identifying the tooth (Gregory 1927).

It would seem that, in this case there is no "fraud" and, secondly, science corrected itself.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Orce man:FRAUD Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982.

Again, you say "fraud" as if there is some intent to deceive, yet you don't say what the "fraud" is, exactly with regard to Orce Man. But, if we are to continue in our assumption that you are copy/pasting from some creationist nutbar's website, we can proceed with the usual creationist nutbar claim: that Orce Man is presented by science as evidence of hominid species when it is actually equine.

This is actually a debate that has not been settled, and may not until new data is arrived at. Initially, a couple of researchers used fractal analysis to determine that the skull fragment that was recovered is most likely human. Later, one of these two researchers discovered that the methodology used at arriving at this assessment may have been faulty and that the skull may be equine in origin.

What's relevant here is that science is saying it doesn't know! There is no grand claim bent on defrauding the world as creationist nutbars would have us believe. Indeed, to suggest that there is, is fraud in and of itself. The fraud here is attempting to deceive the lay-person that science is making a false claim. If this were the case, would we truly expect to see one of the researchers attempt to correct his own conclusion?

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Or consider a scientists who fancied himself an artist, Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings FRAUD...

True (by the way, it's Haeckel). His drawings from the 19th century were wrong and he knew he was being inaccurate. But when this was discovered, authors began using other drawings and stopped using his. Moreover, many scientists over the years have thoroughly discussed the problems with Haeckel's drawings and his theory. Off the top of my head, I recall Gould's book Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977).

The continued mention of Haeckel by creationist nutbars represents the logical fallacy of ad hoc reasoning (as do each of these cases), where it is assumed that because a single person of science has a wrong opinion or presents data of poor scholarship, then science itself is the problem. But it is science that has policed itself in each and every case.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Brontosaurus FRAUD.... One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed as postulated. A collage of bones that.

The dinosaur that was called brontosaurus did exist -and it's fossil remains still do. The researcher who examined it was unaware that it was of the same Genera as the Apatosaurus ajax, discovered in 1877. The "Brontosauraus" was initially thought to be a separate genera, and was discovered in 1879. Further examination and data led researchers to reclassify the genera to that of Apatosaurus 30 years later and the species was re-designated A. excelsus. The original name of "Brontosaurus" stuck with popular culture and is still incorrectly in use today.

Only an infantile understanding of science could possibly see "fraud" in this case.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Want something more recent? Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis:
Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

Again, only an infantile understanding of science and the issue of this case would lead one to see scientific "fraud." The Archaeoraptor was, indeed, fraudulently passed off as legitimate. But it was the scholarship of science that refused to accept it. The article that the popular magazine National Geographic ran was based upon a paper that was presented and summarily rejected by two of the leading scientific journals: Science and Nature. The poo-poo is on popular media and the ignorance of the layperson willing to accept claims without provenience and validity.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

The New age Secular Scientists are [...] [t]he Storm troopers of our and the worlds science nazi party!

This rhetoric would appear to have the effect of further classifying your understanding of science and scholarship as infantile. Not only have you failed to support this derision, you've effectively argued against it with your copy/paste of the creationist propaganda above, since each of these are evidence of how effective science is at policing and reviewing itself.

But in the end, we're back to my question. I asked if you could support the claim of "most" or even "much" of "science facts change to lies or untruth so they are myth at best."

Not only did you fail to do so. You failed miserably by showing only a few cases in which science has been successful in revising itself appropriately in light of new evidence. There is no qualification of the usage the terms "most," "much," or "fraud." What remains in an intellectually dishonest attempt at derision of science for reasons we are left to infer. My personal inference would be that the house of cards you call a worldview hinges on certain scientific facts being wrong, therefore the employment of logical fallacies like special pleading (a.k.a. ad hoc reasoning) are needed to devalue science as a whole.

I'm satisfied that science, as a method, is safe from the infantile ramblings of its detractors.

References:

Gibert, J. & Palmqvist, P. (1995). Fractal analysis of the Orce skull sutures. Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 28, pp. 561-75.

Gould, Stephen J. (1977). Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press

Gregory, WK (1927). Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man. Science, vol. 66, pp. 579-81

MacCurdy, George (1924) Human Origins. A Manual of Prehistory (in 2 volumes). New York: D. Appleton and Company

Osborn, HF (1922). Hesperopithecus, the anthropoid primate of western Nebraska. Nature, vol. 110, pp. 281-3

Palmqvist, P (1997). A critical re-evaluation of the evidence for the presence of hominids in lower Pleistocene times at Venta Micena, southern Spain. Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 33, pp. 83-9.

If I am correct all of the great, respected, scientists (einstein being my favorite) have all studied science for the same reason anyone studies religion. It is a feeling, or a need, to search for the truth.

For those athiests that are speaking here I hope you can understand this. Science isn't about making new technology (thats just what pays the bills). If you are true scientists it would be advisable that you have more respect for religion.

Don't get me wrong, I know alot of you do respect religion.

What I am trying to say is science and religion are after the same thing in the end. I personally think of science as nothing more than another branch of religion. Maybe you could try to think of religion as another branch of science.

To be continued...

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Don't get me wrong, I know alot of you do respect religion.

I'm an anthropologist who specializes in archaeology. Ancient religion and belief is my main interest, so I have great respect for religions. Indeed, I have great respect for the religious.

But I quickly lose both when either attempts to impose its mythology on science or government. If people want to believe in zombie messiahs, global floods and flying spaghetti monsters, that's their prerogative. But the moment I must change my life because of their superstitions; the day that my government bases decisions on the same, I find the need to point at the man behind the curtain.

that they are after the same thing i agree on, both look for answers of question. as i said earlier, one is the easy way, one is the hard way

The main reason why Religion is flawed in our time is because of the fact it's ancient in our modern world. Many "miracles" in ancient times aren't anymore and we humans fail to believe them because it just doesnt seem plausable in our life; if religion was progressive we would have different thoughts to religion God inspired men to create.

I'm an anthropologist who specializes in archaeology. Ancient religion and belief is my main interest, so I have great respect for religions. Indeed, I have great respect for the religious.

So we must agree to disagree. I feel the intent to fraud was there, and that the secular science machine applies the academic peer type thumbscrews to keep their obedient (like you skinwalker)bot in line, which causes mistakes and fraud. A lie is a lie. There are many lies and fraud on the record for all to see, you use smoke and mirrors to attempt deception, to fool the layperson whom you seem to blame for all this humanists secular science BS. Its the leaders, just as Hitler was the leader of the SS, and lied to his people while he exterminated the Jewish scapegoats with apparent glee, and all were murdered using the rule of secular humanist state law!

I do believe that the Secular Humanists paradigm is coming to a close, thank God. You skinwalker represent a fairly begin SI (secular humanists), which renders you harmless. You go about your life in comfy denial. You loathe in established religious beliefs of what I loathe in the established (usually tenured) scientific community. I played the game that you are playing today, and was a good science robot. I dared not say anything spiritual, or did not deviate from the party line. Most of my colleagues smugly lived their day to day professional lives in denial or ignorance, except the few who could think for themselves, what became of them? that too is another thread, hint: think psychological Operations for God. (my first military MOS was 37f)

The mainstream media, government, and corporate goons have been doing psychological manipulation for about one hundred years, its no wonder that the Stepford wives and husbands infest our Science community today, they are products of Orwellian design.

This thread has about ran its course, do what you will with it, hey stay tuned for ID the truth is in the pudding, and God made it from scratch...beware, cause and effect, universe making mechanisms, or better the lack of mechanisms will be a topic of discussion. I will answer all the previous replies on pg. 4-5 if they merit a response form me.

: } >


ps while some answers may seem ummmm' what was the word you used, I think it was infantile, to you, these answers are intended to appeal to the general reader, try to wrap your genius supersized gray matter around that if its possible for you to lower yourself eye to eye with the poor uneducated common man. Im beginning to respect you a bit more, because there are tiny bits of hope shafting through your newer posts, there may be an eternal chair for you yet up yonder' mongst the blue white first generation stars, where the true salvation and potential of the human sprit will be realized!...ahhhh that is unless all of us reject the teachings of jesus christ....If we refuse christ, we are going to be toasted by a 50,000 star type fission and fusion processes right here on our little blue home.

TA DA,.hey I have to practice my dramatic grammar somewhere...

this post had only BREEF eDiT..sO theerre mite B a misstke r 2 init

you yet.

; { >

Originally Posted by Rev Roswell

I feel the intent to fraud was there,

And yet there is no evidence. Furthermore, you've fallen drastically short of demonstrating "fraud" that qualifies as "most" or as "much" of science. What are current data which you find to be "fraudulent?" What is the evidence to support the assertion?

Originally Posted by Rev Roswell

and that the secular science machine applies the academic peer type thumbscrews to keep their obedient (like you skinwalker)bot in line, which causes mistakes and fraud. A lie is a lie. There are many lies and fraud on the record for all to see, you use smoke and mirrors to attempt deception, to fool the layperson whom you seem to blame for all this humanists secular science BS.

What's fascinating here is your vernacular. I find it alarmingly similar to that of pseudoscience proponents and conspiracy theorists. They frequently deride skeptics and scientist who refuse to buy into their schtick as being part of some "establishment" that is out to suppress "true knowledge," yada, yada.

And for all your weak attempts to criticize me et al for using "smoke and mirrors to attempt deception" and similar nonsense assertions, let me remind you that I was at least willing to provide sources of reference to back my words. I didn't copy/paste the rhetoric or propaganda from some website, but gave real, tangible sources that can be accessed by anyone with a decent library at their disposal. Moreover, the sources I provided were relevant and in context.

I'm confident that the "layperson" who reads this thread will see who is being deceptive and vague among us; who is willing to muddy the waters and resort to logical fallacy after logical fallacy in the attempt to make their point.

Originally Posted by Rev Roswell

Its the leaders, just as Hitler was the leader of the SS, and lied to his people while he exterminated the Jewish scapegoats with apparent glee, and all were murdered using the rule of secular humanist state law!

None of that paragraph has any sense in it. Playing the Hitler card in a discussion about science and religion is really a stretch, is it not? I'll not bother to mention that Hitler was trying live up to the genocidal and homicidal mythology of Moses and others of the Old Testament, hints of which is seen in Mein Kampf as Hitler confirms his Christian beliefs and up-bringing.

Rhetoric like yours relies on too much logical fallacy to be taken seriously. One non sequitur after another as you attempt to deride those that dare to think critically and question the very nature of the superstitions you apparently bank your entire life upon. Those superstitions are your business. If they work for you; provide you with comfort and security -more power to you. I only respond here because you dare to assert them as supreme and necessary and dare to deride those that subscribe to other superstitions or none at all.

Originally Posted by Rev Roswell

I do believe that the Secular Humanists paradigm is coming to a close, thank God.

None of your other beliefs have been shown to have any evidence, why should this one be accepted?

Originally Posted by Rev Roswell

ps while some answers may seem ummmm' what was the word you used, I think it was infantile, to you, these answers are intended to appeal to the general reader,

What makes you think the "general reader" of a science forum is incapable of intellectual discourse? You go on and keep talking down to the "general reader." I'll go on thinking a bit more highly of them if you don't mind. I think we have among the more intelligent and capable membership of several other boards I've visited. They don't need infantile arguments and explanations. They want to apply their intellects and not have others "lower themselves to their level" in the presumptuous manner you suggest.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

[I feel the intent to fraud was there,

Your intent to commit fraud is quite apparent as well.

You loathe in established religious beliefs of what I loathe in the established (usually tenured) scientific community.

You are truly someone to be pitied. You confess to loathing the scientific community, yet you have made it abundantly clear that you have extremely little understanding of it. When several people try to clue you in, you tell us that you are not allowed to attempt to understand science because you believe god and are therefore not allowed to think.

ps while some answers may seem ummmm' what was the word you used, I think it was infantile,

Surely you cannot now claim not to know what people think of your infantile pretensions to debunk the fraud that you call science. It is a shame that you have convinced yourself that thinking is evil, and that you must keep a closed mind to everything science.

to you, these answers are intended to appeal to the general reader, try to wrap your genius supersized gray matter around that if its possible for you to lower yourself eye to eye with the poor uneducated common man.

I do not know if you are poor, but it is clear that you are uneducated. Since you recognize it and admit it here, why do you pretend to be so knowledgable? You are as foolish as I would look if I pretended to be an expert on the one true version of the one real god, you know. the single sect that is not going to hell like all of the others that you are not a member of.

the biggest fraud here is REV, trying to fraud ppl that science is a fraud

I have to say REV, I think you need some more sleep or need to start editing your posts more.

I understand what you are getting at though. The fraud and brainwashing stuff. Maybe these words are too harsh. If I were to step in their shoes I could see why they think it is you who is "brainwashed". But, then most religious speakers have that sound to them. I think it is because of the speaker's faith in the beliefs.

You can't really accuse someone of something bad (for lack of a better word) and expect them to understand. Also, you must understand that there are many who take advantage of religion in unhealthy ways, just as there are those who do so with science.

aaah I have said too much already....

Originally Posted by Zelos

Science is not based on proof but upon evidence. This is why the claims of science are required to be such that they can be tested in an objectively verifiable manner. Religion tends to make claims which are not testable in this way. However this restricts science to the discussion of only those things which are measurable or objectively observable. And the presumption that this is the totality of reality (to use the word of Eddingtion) is absurd.

youre right. but if its not testeble it have nothing to do with reality.

We covered that already. That is absurd. You may be interested in nothing but science, but there is reason that science is not the only occupation of human beings. Do you think that science could run the everyday life of human beings. That would be disastrous for both human life and for science as well.

Originally Posted by Zelos

and that formula is to show that science, wich makes sense, added with religion, wich doesnt make sense, equals to something that doesnt make sense. This thread is about proving him for me/others, yet you havent come with any evidence that doesnt ened faith

Agreed. If religion does not make sense to you then it would not make sense to add it science in your mind. But science which makes sense added with religion which makes sense equals something that makes sense and which answers more questions than science alone. As for proving anything, do not presume that I am taking Roswell's side or that I think his objective is worthwhile for I have criticized his ridiculous statements more than anyone elses. He has not, however, responded to my criticisms at all.

Originally Posted by Zelos

and when it comes to te existens of the universe. it doesnt mean there is a god, i can give u atleast ca 5 different theories that explain big bang and the start of the universe without god. the thing this all have in common is that the universe/higher stuff allways have been

Agreed. God is only one of a number of unprovable and untestable ideas about the ultimate origin of the universe.

Originally Posted by Zelos

but if u can give me proof that god exists, physical and mathetmatical proof, or evidence i´ll start beliving in him, but not unitl that day

I don't believe such evidence is possible. I believe that the requirements of science concerning the restriction to testability, to what is measurable or to what is objectively observable, is ultimately the distiction between what is physical and what is spiritual. Therefore I think any attempt to mix religion and science or attempt to use scientific methods to establish religious claims will only produce a pseudoscience like creationism that consists of little more than pure rhetoric.

It cannot be proven that God does exist and it cannot be proven that God doesnt exist. Period. But with EVERYTHING we know about science, how can something come from nothing. And without something you cannot have nothing. Thats like what came first the chicken or the egg? So, what came first something or nothing. And as I said before, you cannot have nothing without something, that something being God. What is God? Nobody knows. They cant know. To know is to be God. And all I can possibly explain as a human being is that God is more powerful,...is more...something than humans could EVER know. PEACE.

redrum: who have said there were nothing from the ebgining of our universe?

Agreed. If religion does not make sense to you then it would not make sense to add it science in your mind. But science which makes sense added with religion which makes sense equals something that makes sense and which answers more questions than science alone. As for proving anything, do not presume that I am taking Roswell's side or that I think his objective is worthwhile for I have criticized his ridiculous statements more than anyone elses. He has not, however, responded to my criticisms at all.

religion+science=religion
just becuase u mix them doesnt mean its making more sense, its acctualy making less sense and is just a dirty trick to fool ppl, like those stinking creationists in america, they are such a doosbags

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Zelos

but if u can give me proof that god exists, physical and mathetmatical proof, or evidence i´ll start beliving in him, but not unitl that day

I don't believe such evidence is possible. I believe that the requirements of science concerning the restriction to testability, to what is measurable or to what is objectively observable, is ultimately the distiction between what is physical and what is spiritual. Therefore I think any attempt to mix religion and science or attempt to use scientific methods to establish religious claims will only produce a pseudoscience like creationism that consists of little more than pure rhetoric.

I think that, while you may think it is impossible, science is a search for God, or whatever you want to call it. The idea of having a unified theory that explains anything. A single equation that applies to everything. Is this not the ultimate truth that we are seaking, through sience? Is this truth not God?

Originally Posted by redrum4196

It cannot be proven that God does exist and it cannot be proven that God doesnt exist. Period.

I disagree. Anything can be proven. You are implying, but left out the very important point that, god cannot be proven BY SCIENCE. I am sure that religious people have what they consider proof of the existence of god.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I think that, while you may think it is impossible, science is a search for God, or whatever you want to call it.

I call it a misunderstanding of the difference between religion and science.

The idea of having a unified theory that explains anything. A single equation that applies to everything. Is this not the ultimate truth that we are seaking, through sience? Is this truth not God?

Correct, it is not god. Do you really have such a simple understanding of god?

If we were to come up with such a theory, what would be left to do. We would understand everything. We could do anything. We would be like angels in our heaven of eternal bliss. Sounds alot like God to me. This theory may be simple once we find it but, it is also so complicated it may never be found.

Hmm... Unless maybe, we are able to open our minds to it.

Is this truth not God?

no, its just the fundamental of the universe. but that doesnt mean we know everything that formula can do.

when we know everything we are the gods.

Exactly!!

Sorry, I will explain later I have to go now.

mohaha, maybe each human can then get its own planet with their own intelligent bieng to be god over

Originally Posted by DaBOB

If we were to come up with such a theory, what would be left to do. We would understand everything. We could do anything. We would be like angels in our heaven of eternal bliss. Sounds alot like God to me.

So, science is just another religion looking for god by another name. The goal of all scientists is to become god. That makes sense to me. Who could argue with this logic, other than scientists?

Originally Posted by Hermes

. Who could argue with this logic, other than scientists?

Anyone who understood logic.

call it a misunderstanding of the difference between religion and science.

Yes, I call it an engineered misunderstanding , that makes it a great deception!

We the general population, (read not in the top 3% or so) of the income bracket, (call us the peasants of the world) are going to continue pay the price to exist in this designed hell. Eventually we will pay the ultimate price of admission into the antichrists final solution.


; { >

Note we will NOT need to enter into a binding contract with the great deceiver if only we ditch the pride thing and apply the messengers truth, its easy, its good, and its the only way to save our fleshly (dumb for 2000 years) asses.

; { >

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS>>>>>I have been hacked or have a computer virus, BOT,mal ware, or some other cookie snatching critter running amuck in my system, my responses (I cannot log on, or stay on this site after many attempts even with an auto dial and a keystroke program)...so my responses will be limited and intermittent until I find the bastards IP ...forgive me Jesus for calling him/her a bastard they are a F%$^*&O((()()(*()()*&^(*^$%(*)(*)(_)_) SOB.....Hey I am a work in progress and that anger thing remains a problem ...heh

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS>>>>>I have been hacked or have a computer virus, BOT,mal ware, or some other cookie snatching critter running amuck in my system, my responses (I cannot log on, or stay on this site after many attempts even with an auto dial and a keystroke program)...so my responses will be limited and intermittent until I find the bastards IP ...forgive me Jesus for calling him/her a bastard they are a F%$^*&O((()()(*()()*&^(*^$%(*)(*)(_)_) SOB.....Hey I am a work in progress and that anger thing remains a problem ...heh

So does that mean we are going to have to wait still further for this proof you say you have, but still haven't produced?

.

Who could argue with this logic, other than scientists?
Anyone who understood logic.

Many entrenched scientists (almost always secular humanists or atheist types) DO understand logic. They do not understand that they have been programed from K1 to base this logic within the parameters designated by their master who has the encrypted key to their distorted world view. And then there are the scientists that know there is an agenda and pursue it with the vigor of a fascists freaks genocidal fantasy, sadly for this last group, their world view and their struggle to implement their harmful agenda is dying a slow death.

; { >

Ps your post didn't make sense but I hope that my reply was in spirit with your intent. If one did not understand logic, or apply it in everyday life, well, they would starve or die quickly, because you must use logic to find food or water.
You know like the fridge was in that room yesterday is it there today (logic would tell them ......most of them ...yes)

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

your post didn't make sense)

On the contrary it made perfect sense.

So does that mean we are going to have to wait still further for this proof you say you have, but still haven't produced?

Yes, You must wait until you are better, or at least until you see the God doctor, because you are spiritually sick in a truly terminal way! It doesn't need to be this way as your illness has a 100% cure rate! it also has a 100% mortality vs incidence rate if you do not seek help/


Where did I say I had proof? I don't remember taking the whole post into consideration ever saying that. Proof is making an augment then accepting that theory, if you subscribe to the modern science of the day, example string theory that one is really in trouble, the theory of evolution of the species, that is a theory taken as fact by most SH scientists

I can however make a better argument for a creator God than that everything came from absolutely nothing like the space between some secular ears. No, I retract that, even they are children of God, that have been programmed by a secular system government schools, so they don't know, like most addicts in active addiction.

I did say that its impossible to prove a concept to someone that could not understand or comprehend the concept. Because like an addict the secular humanist is in DENIAL no proof would be acceptable to this spiritually sick person as he would rationalize it away.

Read my posts before making fanciful inaccurate snide remarks please.

Use your logic.


If you doubt my word...ask the administrator to show my log on attempts/and how many times I have been booted off while trying to reply or post a thread....or I have a system printout. logon connective summery do doe

; { > oh ye of little faith...heh

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Where did I say I had proof?

In the title!
You quite clearly implied that you were going to fulfill the request made for proof.

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

Read my posts before making fanciful inaccurate snide remarks please.

I have an aversion to reading gibberish sorry. I never intended to make a fanciful remark, my intent was to spark a recognition of the implications of your spurious claims.

talking about the traits of God he effectively explains how an infinite God cannot have traits, since these would limit his character. He then lists the various characteristics of God and examines them in detail. Traits taken for granted become very questionable on careful examination: immutable, ineffable eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, all loving, all good. The negative traits (immutable, ineffable, etc.) simply are meaningless since they only describe what God is not, and makes God equivalent to nothing at all. He then demonstrates how the positive characteristics contradict one another; if God is omniscient then he's not really omnipotent since he can't change the future he sees. His arguments in this section are extremely persuasive and will provoke intense thought by the reader. He also looks at the impossibility of a finite being ever being able to comprehend an infinite Being.

Hmm... Unless maybe, we are able to open our minds to it.

Rev stroking nappy goetee...indeed DaBOB....indeed! : } >

You quite clearly implied

To imply one has a gun in his pocket is different from proving it to you. My job is to help you understand the question! Because if ones mind is closed to the question there is no hope to know the answer.

God is a . 45 auto loader ... Its real but you cant see it can you?





: { >

REV, proof/evidence that need spiritual faith etc is no proof. proof shall be possible to be comprehend by any scientist no matter what its belives is. Else its just faith proof that is no proof

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Zelos

but if u can give me proof that god exists, physical and mathetmatical proof, or evidence i´ll start beliving in him, but not unitl that day

I don't believe such evidence is possible. I believe that the requirements of science concerning the restriction to testability, to what is measurable or to what is objectively observable, is ultimately the distiction between what is physical and what is spiritual. Therefore I think any attempt to mix religion and science or attempt to use scientific methods to establish religious claims will only produce a pseudoscience like creationism that consists of little more than pure rhetoric.

I think that, while you may think it is impossible, science is a search for God, or whatever you want to call it. The idea of having a unified theory that explains anything. A single equation that applies to everything. Is this not the ultimate truth that we are seaking, through sience? Is this truth not God?

This statement shows a complete misunderstanding of what physics is all about. A unified field theory (a "theory of everything") is still just physics which means that all it will do is explain how all the different measurable quantities in physics are related. Outside of physics it would be utterly absurd to call it a theory of everything. It will do nothing to help psychologist to understand the human mind, medical doctors to understand the human body, meterologist to understand the weather, geologists to understand the earth, biologists to understand the origins of life and species on this planet, etc. etc. etc....... and these are just sciences in which a unified field theory will be utterly useless. Will it solve the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? NO! Will it solve increasing destruction of our environment by human technology and increasing human population? NO! Will it solve the growing economic problems and instabilities throughout the world? NO! Will it solve the increasing ineffectiveness of education system? NO! Will it solve the moral/ethical controversies regarding sexuality, abortion, human genetics, and international relations? NO! Will it do diddly squat to satisfy the religious/philosophical needs, questions and feelings of 99.9% of the human race? NO!

A mathematical equation can only relate mathematical quantities. It requires a very peculiar kind of tunnel vision on the world to see it in terms of mathematical quantities the way that physics does and more than 99% of the human race has niether the ability nor the inclinaton to even try to do so. It is complete madness to restrict our idea of reality to these measurable quantities and the equations that show the relationships between them.

Passionately, elegantly, concisely, and accurately expressed, as always.

[Except for the last part about accuracy, which you sometimes fall down on, when disagreeing with me. :wink: ]

dupe

dupe

Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL

You quite clearly implied

To imply one has a gun in his pocket is different from proving it to you. My job is to help you understand the question! Because if ones mind is closed to the question there is no hope to know the answer.

God is a . 45 auto loader ... Its real but you cant see it can you?





: { >

You really haven't a clue have you?
So if I believe something is real, that is the proof that it exists? That is complete twattery and even most children would be above employing that kind of flawed logic.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Passionately, elegantly, concisely, and accurately expressed, as always.

[Except for the last part about accuracy, which you sometimes fall down on, when disagreeing with me. :wink: ]

"Concise" may not be a good descriptor either. Some people find my posts wordy and belaboured, so perhaps you mean something more like "to the heart of the issue" rather than "concise"?

[The legal clause is perfectly understandable. You wouldn't want me taking you to court on the claim of conceding on any of the issues where we have disagreed.]

Originally Posted by Zelos

i define proof as observervations that tells that a certain theiry is right. THen there can be observations that says its not right, end then scientist works out a better theory

This is true, Zelos. However, the fact that scientists can give you better answers than theologists does not mean that 'God' does not exist. 'Proof as observations that tells that a certain theory is right'? Then, Zelos, you will agree with me that all cannot be observed; there are elements which cannot be grasped by any science (unless we talk of behavioral sciences). Walk with me a little further, please...

'God' is a word. If there is anything which has caused conflict, words would be highest ranking. Let's change the term, say 'The Force' or 'The Spirit', but I prefer 'Quintessence'- the fifth element. Now, we're ready to look at what this is.

Since you are science inclined I imagine you are aware of Le Chatelier's Principle. What this principle tells us: If a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium moves to counteract the change.

The universe is a dynamic equilibrium. For every action, there is a counteraction. This is what some theologists would call 'karma'.

Reflect, isn't it simple to do an evil thing and difficult to do a good thing. Let's classify them scientifically: The 'good' thing we'll classify 'positive' and the 'evil' thing we'll classify 'negative'. Thus, when a positive endeavor is atempted, there is a negative force attempting to counter it. When a negative endeavor is attempted, there is a postive force attempting to counter it.

Now, the nature of these opposing forces differ as opposing forces always will. It is this nature which causes the positive endeavor difficult to achieve and the negative endeavor easier. The reason for this, I'm afraid I cannot tell you. But if you take a moment and observe, you'll see the truth of this.

In this light I assume the above explanation can be considered proof of karma. For, in essence this is what karma is. Popularly, karma is good in return for good and evil in return for evil. Now, if your observation is keen, you'll realize that in fact this is what I've ultimately explained above. If not, I'll be delighted to enlighten you.

Now, what has guided human beings in resolving Universal Principles of good and evil, right and wrong, licit and illicit? I don't know of all the world, but I call it the 'Conscience'. It influences mankind in every decision taken, in every plan executed.

Inherent conscience is the quality of quintessence within you.

The Religious Problem arises when you think of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. The truth about the quintessence is that it is within one and all. A force imperceptible to the senses, a spirit with the qualities of mystique, a unifying guide. Explanation of the quintessence is beyond the power of words. If you want answers, look within you, Zelos. Observe and obtain the proof of these truths.

The question of the existence of 'God' is up for much argument. This is definitely inexhaustive. But I can tell you one thing: close your ears to the world and listen; remember the quintessence resides within.

So, if 'God' does not exist from a religious view-point, at least you can agree with me that the quintessence exists from a scientific view-point.

Talk to me...

~1~

Originally Posted by Monté

'God' is a word. If there is anything which has caused conflict, words would be highest ranking. Let's change the term, say 'The Force' or 'The Spirit', but I prefer 'Quintessence'- the fifth element. Now, we're ready to look at what this is.

I wonder if you do not yourself use the word god, or if you are trying to wrap up god in a word that is more palatable to science types.

The universe is a dynamic equilibrium. For every action, there is a counteraction. This is what some theologists would call 'karma'.

Reflect, isn't it simple to do an evil thing and difficult to do a good thing. Let's classify them scientifically: The 'good' thing we'll classify 'positive' and the 'evil' thing we'll classify 'negative'. Thus, when a positive endeavor is atempted, there is a negative force attempting to counter it. When a negative endeavor is attempted, there is a postive force attempting to counter it.

Now, the nature of these opposing forces differ as opposing forces always will. It is this nature which causes the positive endeavor difficult to achieve and the negative endeavor easier. The reason for this, I'm afraid I cannot tell you. But if you take a moment and observe, you'll see the truth of this.

In this light I assume the above explanation can be considered proof of karma.

I agree that this can be considered proof of karma, but not to me. Anything can be considered proof of anything to the right person. You explain how positive begets negative and vice versa, and then you claim that by some mechanism that you cannot explain, this is proof that positive begets positive and vice versa. This is big leap that you expect us to make for you.

Inherent conscience is the quality of quintessence within you.

The Religious Problem arises when you think of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. The truth about the quintessence is that it is within one and all. A force imperceptible to the senses, a spirit with the qualities of mystique, a unifying guide. Explanation of the quintessence is beyond the power of words. If you want answers, look within you, Zelos. Observe and obtain the proof of these truths.

This sounds to me like an attempt to introduce god as a scientific concept. Tell me if I am wrong.

So, if 'God' does not exist from a religious view-point, at least you can agree with me that the quintessence exists from a scientific view-point.

Do you believe in god? I don't see any other use for this statement. You introduce a vague concept that sounds scientific in nature, and then attempt to equate it with god for an unexplained reason.