INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

godnotgod · Mar 9, 2013

yaddoe said:
I don't believe there was ever a moment where God dwelt by himself in a midst of absolute nothingness.

That would not be possible anyway, as the very infinite nature of God cannot be contained in anything. It would be more accurate to say that God is Absolute Nothingness itself.

Absolute Nothingness has no 'midst', as that would be a 'place', but since there is no-thing, 'place' is non-existent.

Nothingness is the default state. It never changes; it always is. The world of existence, of becoming, of arising, of subsiding, is temporal. It comes and it goes, like a cloud in the sky. Therefore it is illusory. It has no abiding substance or permanence. It is our everyday world of ups and downs; of relative joy and relative suffering; of conditional existence. But Nothingness is the state of Absolute Joy, which has no opposite, and does not change. It is this state that is our true nature. The rest is a dream from which it is necessary to awaken if Absolute Joy is to be experienced.

Alan Watts discusses Nothing - YouTube

Skeptisch · Mar 10, 2013

ImmortalFlame said:
Typical 1robin tactic:

1- Make a specific claim.
2- Be asked for evidence of that claim.
3- Present evidence of claim.
4- Evidence is thoroughly and completely refuted and claim is revealed to be entirely untrue.
5- Desperately try to make out like the claim was actually a different claim, and blame any inconvenient facts on giant, scientific conspiracy while asserting that you have lots of other evidence for it that you will probably never present.

I've seen dishonesty in my time, but this is a whole other level.

Those readers who think there must be a supernatural God please be assured that if s/he exists s/he gave us the capacity to reason and use logic and critical thinking and to have doubts. Surely we will not be punished for using the faculties s/he gave us. So please dont be afraid and use your brain.

The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it

[youtube]UTedvV6oZjo[/youtube]
Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse - YouTube

godnotgod · Mar 10, 2013

yaddoe said:
The problem is there is no basis that anything has ever come from nothing.

Well, then there is only one other possibility, barring that 'anything' is illusory, and that is that anything came out of some 'something', which, in turn, necessarily came out of some other 'something' and so on. But that imposes the problem of infinite regression, does'nt it? So logically speaking, all things must have come out of nothing, because they cannot originally have come out of something, which is the only other choice.

And the third possibility, that everything is illusory, also complies with having come out of nothing.

One thing you will notice about this line of reasoning, is that something coming out of something else involves time, space, and causation, rendering it a linear flow of events and created things; that something came out of nothing, however, is not bound by time, space, and causation, as it is always emerging out of this present moment all together, in one single event.

SkepticThinker · Mar 10, 2013

1robin said:
You are nothing if not prolific. I diassagree with this but no longer care, for today anyway. I will post soon, have a good weekend.

You have a nice weekend too.

Flat Earth Kyle · Mar 10, 2013

godnotgod said:
That would not be possible anyway, as the very infinite nature of God cannot be contained in anything. It would be more accurate to say that God is Absolute Nothingness itself.

Absolute Nothingness has no 'midst', as that would be a 'place', but since there is no-thing, 'place' is non-existent.

Nothingness is the default state. It never changes; it always is. The world of existence, of becoming, of arising, of subsiding, is temporal. It comes and it goes, like a cloud in the sky. Therefore it is illusory. It has no abiding substance or permanence. It is our everyday world of ups and downs; of relative joy and relative suffering; of conditional existence. But Nothingness is the state of Absolute Joy, which has no opposite, and does not change. It is this state that is our true nature. The rest is a dream from which it is necessary to awaken if Absolute Joy is to be experienced.

[youtube]ssf7P-Sgcrk[/youtube]
Alan Watts discusses Nothing - YouTube

If God was absolute nothing that would still be something from nothing, unless as you say everything is nothing, but in the fact that everything is exactly that a thing, it is obviously something. And so it is apparent that nothing came from nothing.

godnotgod · Mar 10, 2013

yaddoe said:
If God was absolute nothing that would still be something from nothing, unless as you say everything is nothing, but in the fact that everything is exactly that a thing, it is obviously something. And so it is apparent that nothing came from nothing.

Yes. In saying that 'everything comes out of nothing' is only to use the convention of referring to 'things' as if they were real. The reality is that 'everything' is only an illusion, manifested by the Absolute, and so it is because of Nothingness that Everything is. And so we can say:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation".

It is not so much that 'nothing came out of nothing', but rather that 'nothing IS nothing', and that [the illusion of] 'everything comes out of nothing'.
I say this because the Absolute does not 'become' anything; it is merely projecting an illusion.

Heathen Hammer · Mar 11, 2013

Skeptisch said:
Those readers who think there must be a supernatural God please be assured that if s/he exists s/he gave us the capacity to reason and use logic and critical thinking and to have doubts. Surely we will not be punished for using the faculties s/he gave us.[youtube]UTedvV6oZjo[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo

You should read the Bible.

Basically any time Man used his free will, it resulted in God killing someone. Or worse.

God despises everything that makes humans, human.

godnotgod · Mar 11, 2013

Skeptisch said:
Those readers who think there must be a supernatural God please be assured that if s/he exists s/he gave us the capacity to reason and use logic and critical thinking and to have doubts. Surely we will not be punished for using the faculties s/he gave us. So please dont be afraid and use your brain.

Join critically-acclaimed author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and world-renowned theoretical physicist and author Lawrence Krauss as they discuss biology, cosmology, religion, and a host of other topics, here: (it is 2 hours long, so get some snacks)

opcorn:

[youtube]YUe0_4rdj0U&NR=1[/youtube]

1robin · Mar 11, 2013

SkepticThinker said:
You never thought that? Then why do you keep asserting it's impossibility?
"Higher complexity chemical evolution" is apparently only problematic in your mind and it runs counter to the available evidence. I see you've shifted the goal post here.

Apparently you just do not get the making a gram of marble dust does not mean that in a trillion years you would ever get the Taj Mahal. Nature only builds very very simple thing never complex ones without the complex codes it can't produce either. We were not discussing if nature can produce two rocks that are alike of make gold. WE are discussing can it make the most complex arrangement of matter in the known universe, They have tried, and fell on their face resoundingly every single time even when cheating.

They are organic compounds (formed from gases in the Miller-Urey experiment) which are used to build proteins which catalyze metabolic reactions, respond to stimuli, replicate DNA, etc. Which again, is the point.

Yes they cheated and built something that no one had ever suggested could be built. Everyone knows that nature can make very low complexity things. Se we have a billion step stair case with steps that increase in height all the way up, you found someone who cheated and reached the first step or two and you yell eureka we were at the top. When a bullet is made do you declare victory, when they kickoff is made do know who won and go home, when writes the first letter in a book do you give them a Nobel. What not actually get what you claim not 1/100 millionth of it, even if they cheat along the way. THIS MEANS NOTHING.

It's strange that you would assert that water destroys amino acids because water was one of the components used to carry out the Miller-Urey experiments.

There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earths primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen-"reducing" gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases.
The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photo dissociation of water vapor. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million older than the earliest life. There is also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 billion of years ago (Rosing, M.T. and Frei, R., U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenlandindications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217:237244, 2004). Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old showed that "there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in todays atmosphere. To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earths history than previously thought." (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009) NB: these "dates" are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific groundssee "How long were the days mentioned in the Biblical creation account?" and "Evidence for a Young World").
Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:1924, p. 20)
All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The MillerUrey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.
Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.
No geological evidence has been found anywhere on earth for the alleged primordial soup. See "Primeval soup failed paradigm"
Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See "Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem."
Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than functional molecules. See "Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem."
Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction (formose) which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See "The RNA World: A Critique."
Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemical are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, & 9).
Not all of the necessary building blocks are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See "Origin of life: Instability of building blocks."
Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same handedness)proteins have only left-handed amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only right-handed sugars. Miller experiments produce race matesequal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. See "Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem."
Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10650 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerization simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes. See "Proteins and Casket Draws, Could monkeys type the 23rd Psalm?" and "Cheating with Chance."
The origin of coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encodeda vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize. See "Self-Replicating Enzymes?"
The origin of machines requires design, not random energy. E.g: the Nobel prize-winner Merrifield designed an automatic protein synthesizer. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid sequence is determined by a program. A living cell is like a self-replicating Merrifield machine.

See "Primeval soup failed paradigm"
"The RNA World: A Critique."
(cf. points 4, 7, & 9).
See "Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem."

During the last two decades, the notion of a primordial soup has not fared too well either. Studies of the atmosphere, ultraviolet radiation, and the delusional effect of a large body of water, have convinced many scientists that the ocean could not have developed into the "hot dilute soup" that was envisioned by Darwin, Oparin, and Haldane.
The Origin of Life and The Suppression of Truth
the reversibility of these chemical reactions ensures that any building blocks which may have become bonded will rapidly become unbounded in a watery environment unless they are removed from the solution in equilibrium.43,44 However, removing the building blocks from equilibrium requires a mechanism or a metabolic machine (which do not arise by chance). Continued below:

1robin · Mar 11, 2013

So what? Quit avoiding the point.

So what? He cheats so he can create one of the simplest steps but still needs a billion more complex ones and you claim that it does not matter, life came from non-life. That is so absurd I do not think this is a conversation worth having. If I cheated and passed one question on the Pilot test would you let me fly your family around? Either create life or quit claiming you know it happened, it is very simple. I do not come in to work drink a cup of coffee and there for claim I got all the bugs out of the Rubidium gas oscillator and rebuilt the entire F-15 intermediate automated test system and go home.

This is false. The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere contained 0.1% oxygen (maybe even less).

Even if this was true 1% of fire near 99% gas is pretty destructive. No, that is the old model. The new model is less than fact but gaining ground everyday:

Now, scientists at Rensselaer are turning these atmospheric assumptions on their heads with findings that prove the conditions on early Earth were simply not conducive to the formation of this type of atmosphere, but rather to an atmosphere dominated by the more oxygen-rich compounds found within our current atmosphere including water, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/12/life-catalyst-atmosphere-of-early-earth-was-dominated-by-oxygen-rich-compounds.html

Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old showed that "there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in todays atmosphere. To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earths history than previously thought." (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009) NB: these "dates" are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific groundssee "How long were the days mentioned in the Biblical creation account?" and "Evidence for a Young World").
Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemical. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:1924, p. 20)

So what? Quit avoiding the point.

So you do not care that he cheated to get what pathetically inadequate stuff he did. This is not science this is lunacy. You might as well pick up a handful of dirt and claim to have invented a man because it has carbon in it. Not the right carbon and only half of the types needed for any life for. Again simply do what you claim and there is no room for contention. Until then quit claiming it's true.

There is more than one Miller-Urey experiment. There are also others conducted by other scientists that I mentioned to you days ago.
See:
-Juan Oro was able to produce the organic compound known as adenine which is one of the 4 bases of RNA and DNA.
-Friedrich Wohler was able to synthesize the organic compound known as urea.
-Sidney W. Fox showed that amino acids can spontaneously form small peptides.
-Sol Spiegelman was able to produce a life form with just 48 nucleotides.
-Sumper and Eigen discovered that given the right conditions, a mixture containing no RNA at all but only RNA bases and Q-Beta Replicas, can spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA.
Should I go on? Are you going to continue to evade the point?

I sure you can and will but it won't get you any life. Abiogenesis states that LIFE only comes from LIFE. Not that scientist can't cheat and make some of half of one of the millions of things needed for life. Things stand as they always have, life comes from life without exception and I have no idea what you think these experiments prove, aside from the fact a scientist will use a million of a gram of evidence to claim a metric ton of proof.

I'm not saying amino acids are life. I'm saying they are the elements that make up life, just like proteins and nucleotides. Without them, you don't have life as we know it. It's not all that complex, especially when it can be shown that one builds upon the next and that they come together and produce chemical reactions.

What you are claiming is that gets us closer to life than we ever were and it is wrong. It was already universally conceded that low equilibrium complexity can arise by nature. Two sticks falling off a tree might land parallel a few times, 10000 never will. I never said otherwise. Nature make iron, wood, crystals, nitrogen etc., what it doesn't make is 747s, Elephants, or biological computers without information it can't produce either.

Miller is not the best they have and you know that since I've already mentioned several others. Ignoring them doesn't bolster your argument.

I knew of them long before you posted them and they were ignored because they haven't gotten out of the low complexity starting gate to even get on the road to produce life. Again just show the simplest cell grew on it's own. Don't get some copper and tell me MIG-29s sprang up by natural processes.
I will use this example to show that faults and dishonesty in those experiments:
Sol Spiegelman was able to produce a life form with just 48 nucleotides. This has nothing what so ever to do with the creation of life from non-life. He started with life (a virus) and actually made it less complex. So? You know why he started with life (BECAUSE HE NOR ANYONE ELSE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY).
This is getting old, produce some life or admit your belief it exists is faith not science.

I find it extremely odd and somewhat hilarious that you consider the formation of organic materials from inorganic materials (something you've said is impossible) to be abject failures. Are you kidding me?

If I am trying to see if Hoover dam arose on its own then the fact I can only get two bricks to stack on each other is a failure. I never said anything one way or another about organics. Organic does not equal alive. The law of abiogenesis is referred to as a law because it has no known exceptions, none. This is getting redundant and tiresome. Either produce it (it is that easy to prove your claim) or quit claiming you know it happened, and then get back to me. If I claim and you disagree that golf balls exists, I would settle it by getting you a golf ball not talking about trajectories of the making of 1 gram of gutta-percha in a lab.

It is very simple. I said life only arose from life.
You say no it came about by unintentional nature.
Simply produce this life, known to have arisen without intelligence. Then I will retract my claim.
If you cant then you should retract yours.
This is the same old inch of evidence and light year of claim.

1robin · Mar 11, 2013

camanintx said:
1) This is not a Law but more like a rule of thumb for making approximations.

It said law, but rule of thumb is fine with me. You do realize that even if it was considered a probability worth considering it is still absurdly improbable and most of the actual contingent probabilities are far far higher than this, and there are many of them all which must come true. What are the chances nothing will explode into everything? Given that what are the chances it will have any structure at all? Given that a knifes edge balance to allow life? On and on and on. You are basically taking a 1 in much higher than 50 chance gamble for the purpose of dismissing God. I wont take 1 in 36 odds at the roulette table. I would certainly not wager my soul on the odds I could select any specific atom in the universe without intention.

2) Mathematicians do not agree with it.

I never said it has unanimous consent. I said it is a well-known guide line or principle. However the law, rule guideline is not the issue. The issue is that you need to win the lottery a few hundred times without a failure to get life. This is not science it is faith based preference. I we were to consider as worthy of attention everything not equal to zero it would make science impractical. It would make the explanation for every single event infinite. Science would still be on its first question.

1robin · Mar 11, 2013

Ouroboros said:
Borel's law:

p=1 only when n->∞. It's not p=1 when n=x. Creationists epic fail!

Borel strong law of large numbers - Encyclopedia of Mathematics

With that said:

Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And so on... it's just another fundamentalist creationists weak attempts of throwing as much as they can on the wall and hope some of that spaghetti sticks.

Fine, by all means go back to question one in science and examine every possibility no matter what it's odds. Only someone with more faith given less reason than a Christian would wager on something that has a 1 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of being true. Especially since the numbers are far far worse. This is not science it's preference. Why not borrow enough money to but South America with the collateral being that you will win the lottery the next 50 times in a row. You will not get the loan and we would never get life. Maybe you can explain to them the fault with Borels law/rule.

camanintx · Mar 11, 2013

1robin said:
It said law, but rule of thumb is fine with me. You do realize that even if it was considered a probability worth considering it is still absurdly improbable and most of the actual contingent probabilities are far far higher than this, and there are many of them all which must come true. What are the chances nothing will explode into everything? Given that what are the chances it will have any structure at all? Given that a knifes edge balance to allow life? On and on and on. You are basically taking a 1 in much higher than 50 chance gamble for the purpose of dismissing God. I wont take 1 in 36 odds at the roulette table. I would certainly not wager my soul on the odds I could select any specific atom in the universe without intention.

Why do creationists always come back to Pascal's wager when discussing probabilities?

I never said it has unanimous consent. I said it is a well-known guide line or principle. However the law, rule guideline is not the issue. The issue is that you need to win the lottery a few hundred times without a failure to get life. This is not science it is faith based preference. I we were to consider as worthy of attention everything not equal to zero it would make science impractical. It would make the explanation for every single event infinite. Science would still be on its first question.

You still have a very poor understanding of probabilities. Something with a chance of 1 in 10^50 may seem impossible but when nature is playing the lottery billions of times a day for millions of years, hitting the jackpot becomes a virtual certainty.

1robin · Mar 11, 2013

ImmortalFlame said:
Typical 1robin tactic:

1- Make a specific claim.
2- Be asked for evidence of that claim.
3- Present evidence of claim.
4- Evidence is thoroughly and completely refuted and claim is revealed to be entirely untrue.
5- Desperately try to make out like the claim was actually a different claim, and blame any inconvenient facts on giant, scientific conspiracy while asserting that you have lots of other evidence for it that you will probably never present.

I've seen dishonesty in my time, but this is a whole other level.

Well since you proved so well what you claimed here how can I argue with nothing?.

ImmortalFlame · Mar 11, 2013

1robin said:
Fine, by all means go back to question one in science and examine every possibility no matter what it's odds. Only someone with more faith given less reason than a Christian would wager on something that has a 1 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of being true. Especially since the numbers are far far worse. This is not science it's preference. Why not borrow enough money to but South America with the collateral being that you will win the lottery the next 50 times in a row. You will not get the loan and we would never get life. Maybe you can explain to them the fault with Borel’s law/rule.

For (hopefully) the last time:

The bogus probability calculation is a meaningless exercise that only calculates the probability of life arising BY RANDOM CHANCE and fails to take account of natural forces. The exact same mathematical model used to claim that life is infinitely unlikely can be applied to almost any physical object in the known universe and demonstrate that it, too, is infinitely unlikely. In order to make an accurate mathematical model of the probability of life arising, you first must understand every remotely possible means by which life may arise, what form that life takes, and every single facet of the natural world that could influence that event. Since we do not yet know these things, any possible calculation from the possibility of life cannot possibly be accurate and can be thrown out of the window. No calculations put forward to determine the probability of life arising have any basis in reality, and fail to take account of basic scientific facts or the input of natural, chemical processes - rather than RANDOM CHANCE - in the formation of life.

In short: Stop flogging this ridiculous dead horse.

1robin · Mar 11, 2013

yaddoe said:
Hey check it out
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/87669-god-did-not-create-anything.html

I do not get it.
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
1:1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The word ceate was translated from : ברא bara'

It means: Verb

בָּרָא (bará) (pa'ál construction)

To create.

××¨× - Wiktionary

OR:

1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
b) (Niphal) to be created
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
c) (Piel)
1) to cut down
2) to cut out
2) to be fat
a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

It is translated 42 times in the Bible as create and only 9 times as to change.

This requires no additional debunking.

Ouroboros · Mar 11, 2013

According to my calculations (based on random chocolate chips thrown on a rug and then counted the passing cats), the chance of God existing is 1 in 1 googolplex. Therefore, God cannot exist. So sayeth my kitten random number probability test. Ceiling cats are never wrong! ktxby

Skeptisch · Mar 11, 2013

Heathen Hammer said:
You should read the Bible.

Actually I did and no matter in what context, or timeslot, these ridicules lines below were written I dont want to be part of something capable of saying or writing them:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

mr.guy · Mar 11, 2013

1robin said:
Well since you proved so well what you claimed here how can I argue with nothing?.

lol retard.

SkepticThinker · Mar 11, 2013

1robin said:
Apparently you just do not get the making a gram of marble dust does not mean that in a trillion years you would ever get the Taj Mahal.

Well no, that wouldn't make sense because we know that buildings don't reproduce themselves. In fact we know from our experience with buildings, that they don't build themselves. And it has nothing to do with their complexity. I think you're getting lost in your analogies.

1robin said:
Nature only builds very very simple thing never complex ones without the complex codes it can't produce either.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Scientists who spend their lives studying and demonstrating this stuff disagree with you.

Nature produces human beings from sperm and egg so I'd say nature is capable of producing complex things.

1robin said:
We were not discussing if nature can produce two rocks that are alike of make gold. WE are discussing can it make the most complex arrangement of matter in the known universe, They have tried, and fell on their face resoundingly every single time even when cheating.

Actually, no, they have not resoundingly fallen on their faces every single time. Quite the opposite, actually. The fact that you completely ignore and/or dismiss the findings of all these scientists is perplexing.

1robin said:
Yes they cheated and built something that no one had ever suggested could be built.

What?

1robin said:
Everyone knows that nature can make very low complexity things. Se we have a billion step stair case with steps that increase in height all the way up, you found someone who cheated and reached the first step or two and you yell eureka we were at the top.

Um, no. We yell "Eureka, organic matter can be produced from organic matter! That's one of the first step in understanding our origins!"

No one says we're reached the top. What they say is, we've discovered a possible pathway to explain the origins of life on earth. There is no "top." Get serious.

I mean, if a scientist discovers the first step in figuring out how cancer could be cured, do you poo poo all over them and just tell them to give up because they haven't immediately found the full-blown cure yet? Get serious.

1robin said:
When a bullet is made do you declare victory, when they kickoff is made do know who won and go home, when writes the first letter in a book do you give them a Nobel. What not actually get what you claim not 1/100 millionth of it, even if they cheat along the way. THIS MEANS NOTHING.

Read what I wrote above.

It may mean nothing to you (big surprise), but it means something to people who care about what is true and what isn't; to people who care about fully understanding the world we live in; to people with inquisitive minds who want explanations.

INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

Thou art That

Well-Known Member

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Thou art That

Nope, you're still wrong

Thou art That

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Woke gremlin

Christian/Baptist

Coincidentia oppositorum

Well-Known Member

crapsack

Veteran Member