Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[Walkntune]

Attempting to marry superstition with physics is an effort in futility.
Even Tesla failed in this.

No,Tesla did not believe in God and fell from his tower of Babel.
He went into a realm of divination in his mind which is very dangerous without faith in God and ended up going crazy.

Einstein got in touch with the creative force mentally but unfortunate for him he missed the mark as well because he did not use his heart and died a very lonely person.He did not believe in God either but only the God of Spinoza which is probably as close as the mind can get.

 

[Humanistheart]

You know this goes both ways. Your claims of Him not being the Messiah, you havent backed it up with anything.

About 80 posts back I listed several messianic prophicies that jesus failed entirely to fullfill. But this isn't about me. You made a claim referencing parable usuage in the OT. It's your job to provide the passage, not mine.

*sigh* How hard is it for you to look this up?

I'll ask the same of you, particularly since you are the one claiming it exists.

Geez do you think i would make such a claim and cant back it up with scripture?

Since you continually evade citing the reference your making yes, that is what I'm forced to conclude.

Maybe im just showing how pathetic it is for an atheist to tell a believer what a scripture means.

You can't even find the scripture your talking about, assuming it's real. It may be a good idea for you to reconsider what's pathetic here.

Maybe im showing how much you dont know scripture because you cant even find in the OT where God said I will open my mouth in parables. Or maybe i just seen you defeated on this subject so many times that i am still in awe that you fight this same fight over and over.

Again you lie, your god would be real proud of you if he wasn't busy causing earthquakes or not existing. I'd ask you to provide one example of my so called defeat on this topic, but if you're as reserved about actually backing up your claim here as you have been with showing biblical evidence you'll no daubt just claim its my job to prove you right, yet again.

up, except you dont take the scriptures as true so that would be a mute argument on your behalf.

In other words your not a believer so any facts you point out doesn't count.

No it just you. You, an atheist, try to tell believers what scriptures mean so i figure since you are so much more knowledgable of the scriptures than believers i shouldnt need to directly quote verses. Unless you are admitting now that you need help because you dont know what scriptures i am talkling about

What about this is hard for you to grasp? You made a claim, a claim you haven't supported. How, in your mind, is it my job to do your research for you? Are you unaware of the nature of debate?

Alledged huh? Yet this parable stuff is right there in your bible and you dont see it

Then prove it, and we'll get back to you accepting that jesus was not the messiah and your god concept doesn't exist. Oh but that's why your stalling, because you can't win the debate because deep down you know your messiah to be false.

 

[David69]

About 80 posts back I listed several messianic prophicies that jesus failed entirely to fullfill. But this isn't about me. You made a claim referencing parable usuage in the OT. It's your job to provide the passage, not mine.



I'll ask the same of you, particularly since you are the one claiming it exists.



Since you continually evade citing the reference your making yes, that is what I'm forced to conclude.



You can't even find the scripture your talking about, assuming it's real. It may be a good idea for you to reconsider what's pathetic here.



Again you lie, your god would be real proud of you if he wasn't busy causing earthquakes or not existing. I'd ask you to provide one example of my so called defeat on this topic, but if you're as reserved about actually backing up your claim here as you have been with showing biblical evidence you'll not daubt just claim its my job to prove you right, yet again.




In other words your not a believer so any facts you point out doesn't count.



What about this is hard for you to grasp? You made a claim, a claim you haven't supported. How, in your mind, is it my job to do your research for you? Are you unaware of the nature of debate?



Then prove it, and we'll get back to you accepting that jesus was not the messiah and your god concept doesn't exist. Oh but that's why your stalling, because you can't win the debate because deep down you know your messiah to be false.

Hey, someone in that jesus is the messiah thread is having the same auguments as you two guys... and it goes on and on and on.. look, I'm not Religious but heres something for you to chew over as your hungry for prophecy talk...

Copyd from Jesus is the Messiah...
I am the lord of the dance lets talk!
I do not know Religion and I cant beleive most of the stuff that has suposedly been said... Born of a virgin! could this have a different meaning?

Does this mean anything.... Jesus: " I send forth my Angel, I am the root of David, we are one!!!" Translate please???

If he is saying that he has bared fruit that blossoms into the second coming, known as the messiah or even the false merssiah.... through David wont Jesus forfill the phrophecys??? The Messiah will take mankind forth when the Eagle lands on the moon ( 3000+yr mayan Phrophecy forfilled. "The Eagle has landed. The Messiah was born in 1969!!
Jewish messianic Rabbi prophet thingy left papers after his death (about 2006) with details of the coming Messiah. "He will declare himself to a Jew even though he is unsure of himself. The non religious will accept him at first... his people. He will reveal himself to the world a year after the death of some named holy person who is still alive today but in a coma since 2006.

He will cross the abyss filling in the cracks on his way. no devil or God will stop him for it is his birthright! His name is on his right thigh! He has a brother called Peter.
He is of the Davidic line. His throne has his name on it. He will reveil to the world the power that he suposedly stolen from God... The only godly power he has, brings the world together! He will come from the most northern horn! His virgin bride is apointed by God and he name means just that! He is not a Jew or muslim nor Religious. He sees the world through untainted eyes, he is the judge and he will Rule with an Iron fist! There is a temple being built right now. The Pope is visiting the northern horn this year. etc etc etc!
People need to read between the lines or turn things upside down to see the truth instead of acting out prophecys suposedly from God for there own gain. "oh look the end is nigh, lets blow away the Jews and the west! blardy blardy blar!

This Messiah has to have something real special to bring world peace! and it isnt Magic but allowing the world to see for themselves the truth and the truth only and then all sides will have all the blanks filled in and they will receive that glorious light for themselves and they will beleive and accept the truth... even the atheists and muslims and Jews and christians and at first they will look at this ordinary looking person with no job no Religion and say... What, THAT, HIM!!!! But all will relate to him and the world will love there neigbour and come together as one.
The end time is just that... The end of a time; an age, and now it is a new age, a new begining!!!
I am David born in 69 my brother is Peter I stood up to my Jewish Doctor and Declared who I am before I heard of that prophecy. My bride is called Christine and I am the one and I am here to claim my birth right and only I can know the meaning of the mark of man because it is my identity and it connects me with Jesus and when my seed was planted when he was thirty in that most northern horn. I am that Angel and that chosen one. etc etc etc.

So thers a bit food for thought bud!

 

[logician]

Well prove it.

It can easily be proven that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god cannot exist.

All other god are not worthy of worship.

Cheers

 

[The Neo Nerd]

See this is exactly what you all have been saying yet in order for this to be true then the universe HAS TO BE eternal, self-existing, the USP. But no one yet has show anything to suppport this. But on the contrary the universe demands that there was something else before it and the evidence from science proves this.

why is your god exempt from this argument?

 

[cottage]

See that is what quantum mechanic scientist are saying but in reality all this stuff still does happen even if we dont personally experience it. thats where SR theory comes in and fills the gap. It wont let me copy and paste so go to the EPR [the one with the dice and scroll down to quantum theory explanation

Super Relativity - Einstein Podolosky and Rosen - A Unified Field Theory that Supersedes Quantum Mechanics and String Theory

The point I’m making, which appears to be overlooked is that science itself is a feature of the universe, and there is nothing to say any of the above hypotheses are true or that they apply beyond or outside the universe. In order to prove that the universe was caused to exist it must first be proved that cause is necessary and that the principle exists in all possible worlds. Apart from cause not being logically necessary, there is rather startling realisation that we don’t even know what causation is! All we do know is that there appears to be a constant conjunction between two events; but we don’t actually see the cause, or how one thing must relate to the other, and a case has been made that an effect may even precede a delayed cause. Yet even if causality were fully understood, and known to be true in the same way that a square cannot have fewer than four equal sides, it still wouldn’t follow that everything existent must have a cause for its existence.

 

[Walkntune]

Super Relativity - Einstein Podolosky and Rosen - A Unified Field Theory that Supersedes Quantum Mechanics and String Theory

I think it's funny that physicists still try and stand on their Quantum mechanics formulas when Tesla was trying to show them the truth so long ago.
Some Physicists would rather stand on numbers and formulas than stand on reality.
Another quote I loved by Tesla was " Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another quote I loved by Tesla was " Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

If the math is right and the reasoning is valid, there's nothing wrong with using math.

Like the old line goes: when you get to university, biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, and physics is math.

 

[Walkntune]

If the math is right and the reasoning is valid, there's nothing wrong with using math.

Like the old line goes: when you get to university, biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, and physics is math.

As long as we understand reality is wrought of mind right? As long as our minds reason right and the numbers work, then all of reality must conform!!!!
In QM the reasoning is valid and the math correct but why is the reality not lining up???

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As long as we understand reality is wrought of mind right? As long as our minds reason right and the numbers work, then all of reality must conform!!!!

No. Do you have a problem with the idea that the universe is consistent with itself?

In QM the reasoning is valid and the math correct but why is the reality not lining up???

In what way do you think that "the reality is not lining up?"

 

[Walkntune]

No. Do you have a problem with the idea that the universe is consistent with itself?
In what way do you think that "the reality is not lining up?"

Not at all. I have a problem with science thinking the universe is consistant with us. Nice play with words though.
Science always changes with awareness though doesn't it?
Not really interested in going into a Quantum mechanics verses Quantum theory debate on this thread.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think it's funny that physicists still try and stand on their Quantum mechanics formulas when Tesla was trying to show them the truth so long ago.
Some Physicists would rather stand on numbers and formulas than stand on reality.
Another quote I loved by Tesla was " Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

Tesla was a brilliant man, but his futile search for free energy has never shown verifiable or predictive results and is as psudoscientific as the perpetual motion machine.

Electric Power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for coal, oil or gas . . .
-- Nikola Tesla
I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of [cosmic rays]. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges -- ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor.
-- Nikola Tesla
The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.
-- Nikola Tesla

 

[Walkntune]

Tesla was a brilliant man, but his futile search for free energy has never shown verifiable or predictive results and is as psudoscientific as the perpetual motion machine.

Electric Power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for coal, oil or gas . . .
-- Nikola Tesla
I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of [cosmic rays]. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges -- ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor.
-- Nikola Tesla
The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.
-- Nikola Tesla

Yes Tesla is still pretty far ahead of science which is recently really grasping the idea of different string theories and understanding that energy is all that exist.
I can tell Einstein had a strong clue himself with such quotes as
When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.
(Albert Einstein)

The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.
I never knew Tesla figured this out. Very interesting.

 

[AK4]

Okay, no pressure. This is all just a bit of fun.

You can’t use science or scripture to prove God. God, eternity and necessary existence are all metaphysical concepts; and scripture, a written account, can never be a full and final proof for a Supreme Being. Self-evidently God cannot be dependent upon his creation for his existence, and therefore it is specious to argue from a supposed creation to a supposed creator, since that is fallaciously assuming the former in order to imply the latter. And so the challenge is to demonstrate how there cannot fail to be a personal, worshipful deity, who is the cause and sustainer of all existence. And having successfully done so it follows that something like the biblical God is the cause of all causes, and the universe must therefore be an effect.

Okay, sorry for the delay but i needed a concrete answer that went beyond the bible to back me up on the personal God thing. It hit me yesterday and the answer to God being personal is that we have no freewill. Thats it. If we had freewill then yup you can say God is not personal, but since we dont have it that makes someone/thing in control of us/all things. If you can prove we have freewill then you have proven God is not personal.

 

[AK4]

No, it's not. Just saying "science!" while engaging in rhetorical hand-waving is not support.

Okay do I really need to post all the stuff on the big bang? The big bang is like common knowledge in science and everyone should know about it, so that’s why I don’t post anything on that, unless there is something “new” or something I really want to stress my point.

No, you haven't. When you stated that all effects need causes, you said that this was supported by "science". When pressed about what this meant, you didn't give anything meaningful. You also did nothing to explain your implicit assertion that what "science" (or rather, what you consider to be science) says about how things work would still be applicable at the Big Bang.
In fact, at the quantum level, science suggests that some effects don't require causes, and science is silent on all events that happened before Planck Time, or the point a small fraction of a second after the Big Bang occurred.
Again common knowledge of cause and effect. Now there is the misconception in quantum mechanics that some are saying there can be an effect without a cause, but they admittedly say that QM doesn’t fully explain things and that there is something going on that we just can explain yet, hence comes in the Super Relativity theory that tries to fill in the gaps. The Theory of Super Relativity - The Complete Unified Field Theory

No, I think what's closer to the truth is that you deeply believe certain things to the point where they seem obvious to you and you can't understand why other people don't accept them.

On the contrary, its not just because I believe blindly these things nor is it valid to say I cant understand why people don’t see what I see. I DO understand and see their position, I also came from their same line of thinking and probably could argue their position better than themselves, but until I started questioning everything and broke out of that flock, I was just part of the sheeple.

And I'm not singling you out. I know it's something that anyone can be guilty of: a crappy argument for something we already accept as true can seem very convincing. We don't tend to see the holes in the reasoning when the conclusion is something we already accept.

Again I don’t just accept something blindly or on face value. For I know this world is one big lie.
Except the problem with this argument is that it's another fallacy: argument from ignorance. Just because you can't imagine how something could be possible doesn't mean that it actually is impossible.

No, but you guys are accepting something that has no evidence of ever being. LOL isn’t it ironic. You guys get on believers for doing this with God, yet yall are doing this on an eternal universe. Talk about blind faith.

Also, you're still engaging in special pleading, because there's also absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the universe was created by an intelligent, personal entity.

Is it not special pleading to say the universe is eternal? So in your own words again “you're still engaging in special pleading, because there's also absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the universe” is eternal or self-existing.
No, everyone is welcome to any opinion that agrees with the facts. But the whole point of an argument like yours is to limit the spectrum of valid opinions.

You believe the universe had an intelligent creator. I don't. Without further information, at this point we just agree to disagree. However, you took it upon yourself to prove that your opinion is the only correct one on this topic. Until you validly and conclusively answer every relevant objection to your argument, you have not established that your way is the only way. Until then, I can still be just as content in my belief that the universe didn't have an intelligent creator as you are in your belief that it did.

See this is my point. When I show something to substantiate my argument and because your opinion does not agree with what I present, you take that as I haven’t validly and conclusively answered the objection. Its no different when I tell people we have no freewill and I show them evidence upon evidence yet because of their opinions and stubbornness they THINK I haven’t validly and conclusively answered the objection. Is that my fault if someone cant handle the truth?
When I asked why the definition was correct, I was getting at something else: for a definition of God to be necessary and complete, it must be sufficient: the set of attributes it contains must be one that can only be posessed by God.

You said that God is "the placer". Now... in my mis-spent youth, I worked for a while in a warehouse as an order picker. I would take products off the shelves and place them in boxes or on pallets for shipment. By the strict definition of the term, I am a "placer". Now... hopefully you will agree that I am not God. Therefore, defining God as "the placer" doesn't work, since that definition includes many non-God things.

Care to try again?

See that is the misconception of what people think God is. The bible basically tells us that we “mimic” some of Gods qualities. God is love. We love. Is it the same level? No. But we are told to be like Him so your rebuttal here does not stand.

 

[David69]

Amazing grase...
even the toughest nuts will crack open to let in the glorious light.

 

[AK4]

In fact, Super Relativity, like other theories in physics, shows the impossibility of a being that could directly influence or manipulate matter or energy in our universe.

I guess that would depend on ones point of view. Non believers see the universe "working itself" while believers can see God working the universe. I guess you can say that non believers think that a God manipulating something like the universe and everything in it all at once is impossible for a God.

 

[AK4]

Why? It's entirely possible -- likely, even -- that the universe is not eternal and that God doesn't exist. What basis is there for concluding that either God or the universe must be eternal?

Have you really thought on this? One has to be eternal otherwise eventually you will have eternal death or better stated, eternal nothing.

Seems to me your standard of evidence gets a lot lower when you're talking about God. I don't agree that either God or the universe must be eternal, but even supposing that were true, why assume it's God? We know the universe exists, and we have no evidence that God exists, so if we're going to arbitrarily assume that one or the other is eternal, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that it's the universe

Only if the universe didnt have a beginning then it would be more probable than the God concept.

 

[AK4]

About 80 posts back I listed several messianic prophicies that jesus failed entirely to fullfill. But this isn't about me. You made a claim referencing parable usuage in the OT. It's your job to provide the passage, not mine.
I'll ask the same of you, particularly since you are the one claiming it exists.
Since you continually evade citing the reference your making yes, that is what I'm forced to conclude.
You can't even find the scripture your talking about, assuming it's real. It may be a good idea for you to reconsider what's pathetic here.

Again you lie, your god would be real proud of you if he wasn't busy causing earthquakes or not existing. I'd ask you to provide one example of my so called defeat on this topic, but if you're as reserved about actually backing up your claim here as you have been with showing biblical evidence you'll no daubt just claim its my job to prove you right, yet again.




What about this is hard for you to grasp? You made a claim, a claim you haven't supported. How, in your mind, is it my job to do your research for you? Are you unaware of the nature of debate?

I say the same for you. You say you posted it about 80 posts ago. I admit when you jumped in this thread with that nonsense I did ignore it because I saw you make the same claim in other threads so I wasn’t going to reread your nonsense again.

Then prove it, and we'll get back to you accepting that jesus was not the messiah and your god concept doesn't exist. Oh but that's why your stalling, because you can't win the debate because deep down you know your messiah to be false.

LOL. This is amusing. Like I said, from jump, I wouldn’t have stated the parable thing [again from jump] if I couldn’t support it with scripture. I guess I will stop “stalling” and give you more clues. One is mentioned in the psalms and the other is in Matthew. Come to think about it, this one fulfilled prophecy isn’t that secretive.

 

[AK4]

why is your god exempt from this argument?

What makes the God concept exempt from this is that a God concept demands that nothing can be before it, hence no beginning. Why this doesnt work for the universe is because the universe had a beginning.