Examining the evidence there is of God

[rational experiences]

All baby men today are proven liars only.

As origin mother father owned no machines inventions all statuses fake in built civilisation.

You ignore the advice as men who organised self idolisation in organisations.

Pretty basic human men warnings.

As father's mother's origin human bodies returned back to dusts skeletal in heavens laws and it's minerals.

Proving evaporated heavens waters had minerals within it.

You are totally informed as a scientist that humans own no biological thesis as a science by a lying baby human man.

Consciousness the baby First self your life is not a scientist.

Indoctrinated behaviours is a scientist.

Why a biological human is pre determined advised that your bad behaviours sacrificed the baby man's life is self warned.

Being a king rich or poor man it doesn't matter.

You all die sacrificed.

We are advised by past human behaviour corresponding to now behaviour.

As DNA re inherited behaviours to destroy were pre lived pre chosen already. As humans.

Men gave themself a God title to claim I destroy innocent life as the rich man had first. Not a God man he's greedy. Yet science Invented after rich man's evolvement destroyed all man's life.

Innocent human therefore say I know God destroys you destroyer rich man scientist. I only infer after to its advices as I'm so abused its how victims respond to abuse.

Scientist incensed asked how religious humans believe in his life's destruction. It's easy actually. You took personal innocence our lives into destruction by mans choice only.

It's termed cause and effect. So why be incredulous?

His answer is he doesn't use the machines to hurt us. His rich brother did lying. As he is implicit too.

In the past it was easy to see a brother scientist. Rich satanic men hid. Why their organisation survived.

 

[CG Didymus]

Mathematics has proof just as liquor does, but everything else is based either on faith or evidence. And neither is absolute.

Some religions do seem to claim they have the absolute truth. But, since they disagree and contradict each other, they all can't be true, and I think there is a good chance that none of them are. However, they do work for those that believe in them. But, I wonder, would they work if they weren't believed to have the absolute truth? I don't think those types of religions would be successful. Their appeal is that they claim to have The Truth. If they claimed to have anything less than the absolute truth, I don't think people would care enough about them to join.

 

[rational experiences]

Spiritual rich or poor men think.

They say I named O as body of god.

So the universe is a sun god...very evil. Gods creatures planets owned own heavens law with mother space womb infinite one way. Why night is Said nite also.

Scattered gods once O bodies not with infinite law anymore owned by suns explosion.

As an evil body sun was cooling too. Evil as unlike the Gods body it didn't hold. It burst and attacked.

So I told science O God owned the created universe as I have to see god and live on the body God to make all science claims. God.

I said God.

In gods image I am held. A law. Not a thesis.

My god I taught was my owned human DNA image Inside. Life held God within owned bones like earth the solid. Skeleton exact a human within.

With gods heavens I owned biology.

So two God types were owned by my body image.

Is the teaching.

When man Invented transmitter science not a gas or water mass they invented AI heavens recordings too.

As earth moves earths communicates back and forth across space to itself.

I realised in new Jesus attack that man of old technology human had put man's image voice into heavens himself by machine causes.

I discussed why it had occurred. It wasn't natural.

Men with machines our destroyer.

Past Jesus attack. I became a rich man healer saviour father mother roles virgins. Assisted the sick and poor starving. Together. I was named a monk. I reminded myself my closest ancestor in animal beast was a monkey. Not a giant.

Honour all life.

Satan's star came back. Satanic rich man mind returned.

I then failed my Jesus teachings my mind fell out of its chemical function.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Numbers you placed for information yourself as a human. You say science is exact yet numbers you claim are powers.

It's why you falsely claimed a human owned powers by numbers

Somehow I don't remember getting into claimed human owned powers. I just talked about the observation that 2+2=4. I mentioned that the idea could be argued to be cultural, but then how do we explain the fact that virtually all cultures independently arrived at 4 for the 2+2?

The concept of claimed human owned powers does merit discussion but to me it sounds a bit off topic and I'm having a hard time coming up w/ the time and energy for it.. First we'd have to define it, and that would be just the beginning.

 

[Pete in Panama]

To me it revolves around the idea of absolute truth, absolute good, etc...

Why bother with this kind of thinking? Are you a God?...

Huh, my first impulse was to ask why ur asking, like --you don't know? Then it occurred to me that we've found ourselves in some kind of power struggle and the reason u asked was in order to force me on the "defensive". Please understand that I try to step back from conflict/confrontation/power-clash, that kind of convo. Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are a lot of good people who are into that stuff but my problem is I'm not very good at it and that I do well to leave it to the experienced professionals.

It's a big world and there are lots of good ways of doing things. You got your good ways and u appeared to be reaching an obstacle --one which I'd found a way around-- so I shared what I found. If I'm trespassing in your belief system I apologize and I'll cease and desist.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Mathematics has proof just as liquor does, but everything else is based either on faith or evidence. And neither is absolute.

Sounds like u have a different understanding of what is absolute, or u at least are most interested in disagreeing w/ any thing I say on the subject.

Do you see any thing w/ humanity or in the known universe as being what we can describe as absolute?

 

[F1fan]

Huh, my first impulse was to ask why ur asking, like --you don't know? Then it occurred to me that we've found ourselves in some kind of power struggle and the reason u asked was in order to force me on the "defensive". Please understand that I try to step back from conflict/confrontation/power-clash, that kind of convo. Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are a lot of good people who are into that stuff but my problem is I'm not very good at it and that I do well to leave it to the experienced professionals.

It's a big world and there are lots of good ways of doing things. You got your good ways and u appeared to be reaching an obstacle --one which I'd found a way around-- so I shared what I found. If I'm trespassing in your belief system I apologize and I'll cease and desist.

Look at how you responded to my question. You picked this one thing to respond to but avoided the question completely. I asked you a question about your thinking that there's an absolute truth and good, but you made your answer about me. If you have valid answers to questions you don't have to be defensive, you just offer the valid answers. Defensiveness comes when a person is trapped, and they trap themselves. by making claims they can't answer with evidence. The evidence for any god is weak at best, but in the whole there is none for the extraordinary nature of the claims.

This is the sort of religious thinking that gets questioned yet believers avoid examining what and why they think they way they do. I asked you many more questions and you refused to offer answers. If theists are going to participate in discssuions and present their beliefs as truth, but then can't, or refuse to answer questions, it suggests they have no actual answers and just superficial beliefs. This is one reason why I am an atheist, believers have beliefs, but can't answer really hard questions. Beliefs and reasons for belief are suverficial, and going beyond the superficial theism fails.

 

[rational experiences]

Somehow I don't remember getting into claimed human owned powers. I just talked about the observation that 2+2=4. I mentioned that the idea could be argued to be cultural, but then how do we explain the fact that virtually all cultures independently arrived at 4 for the 2+2?

The concept of claimed human owned powers does merit discussion but to me it sounds a bit off topic and I'm having a hard time coming up w/ the time and energy for it.. First we'd have to define it, and that would be just the beginning.

When you first begin as a theist you count.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1...0.

You referenced before a zero are numbers I added.

When you calculate powers you use + as a fallen cross X.

What philosophers secretly said.

You don't do 1 X 1. You do 2 X 2.

Where's your power?

Not in addition nuclear says minus -1 -2 -3. 0 1 2 3 4 etc.

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.

False cross. You hadn't owned powers of mass. Pretended you did.

Numbers in time men said are my pretend.

O time remains a cycle circuit circle.

It doesn't count.

I however said the circuit was 12 months.

As O is just a circle.

You don't actually begin nor end time so clocks lied. It was only used for civilisations purposes.

When you claim you time shifted mass you hadn't. You only destroyed further than what the sun infinite law had said Wise men.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sounds like u have a different understanding of what is absolute, or u at least are most interested in disagreeing w/ any thing I say on the subject.

Do you see any thing w/ humanity or in the known universe as being what we can describe as absolute?

Math. Everything else is up to interpretation and the possibility of new evidence that throws a monkey wrench into it. Counts can be discreet. Error could make the counts of the same counted group different for different counters. I think for the most part two apples will be two apples no matter how you slice it.

I'm not disagreeing just to be contrary. I see absolute as unchanging. The same for everyone no matter who, what, where or when. I just don't see that some of what you are trying to call absolute is absolute.

I often wonder how a person could know something is immortal. Even if we were immortal, how would we know? We could just have incredibly long lives and not have reached the end of them yet. Or something could seem immortal to us, because it has a long life and outlives us. Our sun will still be burning long after I am gone, but it is not expected to burn forever.

 

[joelr]

The Nature of God is infinite. God is not "a being" in the sense of a person.

Provide evidence. Not speculation.
Provide evidence of infinity. Provide evidence a being can have an infinite consciousness. That is very speculative and pure science fiction.

Provide evidence a being can be infinite, yet sound like a grumpy king who hates other religions and punishes those of other faiths.

Why would you think that "nature" is unconscious, whilst it produces conscious beings?

It produced self replicating chemicals, which you can research. Eventually a proto-RNA developed, still no consciousness. After time a basic nervous system evolved and billions of years later through evolution they became complex.
A consciousness nature is not needed to form, galaxies, planets, atmospheres, combinationjs of gas, chemical compounds forming into peptides with nucleobases which slowly become more complex. No consciousness needed.
Nervous systems formed as a result of being needed. Nature is a combination of forces and probabilities manifesting. Not a brain which is the only way a consciousness arises.

Nature is real but does not have consciousness. Gods in fiction are conscious. Not in real life. It's why an actual God never contacted you, it's in your mind only.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Provide evidence a being can have an infinite consciousness. That is very speculative and pure science fiction..

What is "a being"?
..still sounds much like you refer to a person, to me.

Provide evidence a being can be infinite, yet sound like a grumpy king who hates other religions and punishes those of other faiths..

God does not hate religions. He hates insincerity and undue oppression of others.

It produced self replicating chemicals, which you can research. Eventually a proto-RNA developed, still no consciousness. After time a basic nervous system evolved and billions of years later through evolution they became complex.
A consciousness nature is not needed to form, galaxies, planets, atmospheres, combinationjs of gas, chemical compounds forming into peptides with nucleobases which slowly become more complex. No consciousness needed.
Nervous systems formed as a result of being needed. Nature is a combination of forces and probabilities manifesting. Not a brain which is the only way a consciousness arises.

..and all this happened, just because it could.
That belief is not for me, thankyou.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Look at how you responded to my question. You picked this one thing to respond to but avoided the question completely....

Ah, you're the good guy & I'm the bad guy. We can leave it there if you want.

Do take care.

 

[Pete in Panama]

When you first begin as a theist you count.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1...0.

You referenced before a zero are numbers I added.

When you calculate powers you use + as a fallen cross X.

What philosophers secretly said.

You don't do 1 X 1. You do 2 X 2.

Where's your power?

Not in addition nuclear says minus -1 -2 -3. 0 1 2 3 4 etc.

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.

False cross. You hadn't owned powers of mass. Pretended you did.

Numbers in time men said are my pretend.

O time remains a cycle circuit circle.

It doesn't count.

I however said the circuit was 12 months.

As O is just a circle.

You don't actually begin nor end time so clocks lied. It was only used for civilisations purposes.

When you claim you time shifted mass you hadn't. You only destroyed further than what the sun infinite law had said Wise men.

OK, if u say so. Maybe we can come back to this in a few weeks.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Math. Everything else is up to interpretation and the possibility of new evidence that throws a monkey wrench into it. Counts can be discreet. Error could make the counts of the same counted group different for different counters. I think for the most part two apples will be two apples no matter how you slice it.

I'm not disagreeing just to be contrary. I see absolute as unchanging. The same for everyone no matter who, what, where or when. I just don't see that some of what you are trying to call absolute is absolute...

My guess is that you consider arithmatic truths to be absolute, that we can add 2+2 and get 4 here or on the moon or if we ever travel to another galaxy and our descendants will get the same answer and when we model the beginning of the known universe we can assume it was true then. That's what I mean by "absolute".

Another absolute truth has to do w/ honest reporting of scientific findings. Isaac Asimov was a Humanist leader, a prolific writer, and a professor of biochemistry. He said when a scientist published a scientific paper he had to report truthfully the results of his experiments. If later reviewers found that he had falsified his data then his career would be ruined and he'd never be forgiven.

The truth or falsehood of the paper was absolute and not subject to personal understanding, no "I believe it's true therefore it's true". I consider this approach as one that accepts truth as being absolute.

...I often wonder how a person could know something is immortal. Even if we were immortal, how would we know? We could just have incredibly long lives and not have reached the end of them yet. Or something could seem immortal to us, because it has a long life and outlives us. Our sun will still be burning long after I am gone, but it is not expected to burn forever.

Given the fact that the observable universe is finite, we have to conclude that immortality in this universe is impossible and if it were possible it would be undesirable.

Immortality beyond this universe is hard to think about.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

OK, if u say so. Maybe we can come back to this in a few weeks.

I have tried quite a few times to unravel what is offered by @rational experiences, but alas the language is not structured to my understanding.

Regards Tony

 

[Pete in Panama]

I have tried quite a few times to unravel what is offered by @rational experiences, but alas the language is not structured to my understanding.

Regards Tony

--which is exactly where I was left too. Ah well, it's a big forum and there are sooo many folks to chat w/. I do hope all's well w/ u & yours.

 

[F1fan]

Ah, you're the good guy & I'm the bad guy. We can leave it there if you want.

Do take care.

Why do you see yourself as a bad guy?

I debate to offer an invitation for believers to present their case for what they think is true. Many believers accuse non-believers as "not getting it" or being blind, or myopic, or evil. These accusations go without clarification, or evidence.

Why didn't you answer my questions? If you are not in a debate forum to actually debate, and answer questions, then what is your intention here?

 

[rational experiences]

OK, if u say so. Maybe we can come back to this in a few weeks.

Man of science basically said all powers are one.

Man of science today says I agree I want the base source of all things. One.

God is one the beginning.

First.

Notice one and first in words wasn't considered any number. As the God of numbers was TH. As Egyptian God of science is the history.

FourTH.

So 2 X 2 fallen cross + multiplication was power. Said man. Not yet owning any power.

So where's God power of one?

In any chosen substance he changed.

As all was God he said.

Men today first use humans living position...greed I want. Not science first.

Greed and I want destroyed all life on earth.

As I want thought upon the first as a Theist is stories advices. If only I could access that past. One it's position beneath all powers.

Which meant eradicating all there is.

Everything else.

So he theoried god in the beginning was nothing.

Yet God was everywhere as all things.

Today his brother wise asks a basic question...so why no universe?

Seeing you said God was the planets. A sun a hell God. And scattered gods stars?

You do a review of his bad man behaviours.

He claims he wants God to find God own god then wield the creation of all things himself. As if he then invents any type of power resource by machine.

As it's God body not human body he wants to invent. The con he does a machine thesis about God and biology claiming I'll find out. I'll put a machine between you and human parents.

I'll react it claiming a machine invented a baby creator...human man. Himself. Self idolator.

Ultimate power ultimate greed non stop energy supply.

His wise brother said he's trying to burn us all to death.

As the resource of his God is his machines body mass from deep space. Nothing is deep space.

He tried to unlock his machine so it always blows up. Whilst the heavens falls burning.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...I debate to offer an invitation for believers to present their case for what they think is true...

That's a valid point and I should have seen that. There are a lot of very good people who debate and a lot of good comes from debate.

At issue here is the fact that I am not debating, I'm exploring the reality of what we see and I'm trying to learn from your point of view. What I'm seeing in your understanding is a very good approach to how reality works, but everytime you and I say something differently --even when we're saying the same thing w/ different wording-- we end up in a needless conflict, we're debating and I would much rather simply continue our search for the truth. Let's get back to our original question of absolutes. I'd be grateful for your take on the moral need for accuracy in scientific publications.

Asimov (humanist leader, prolific writer, professor of bio-chemistry) explained that a scientist has to relate accurately the results of his experiments and if he lied his career would be ruined and there'd be no forgiveness. To me this represented an absolute truth or falsehood in the publication. There was no individual preference involved (nobody could say "it's true because I feeel it's true) and independent reviews would always find the same conclusion of true/false.

If you don't like the word "absolute" then please offer another word to describe this non-personal independently verifiable reality, but it's the topic that I'm interested in.

 

[F1fan]

That's a valid point and I should have seen that. There are a lot of very good people who debate and a lot of good comes from debate.

At issue here is the fact that I am not debating, I'm exploring the reality of what we see and I'm trying to learn from your point of view. What I'm seeing in your understanding is a very good approach to how reality works, but everytime you and I say something differently --even when we're saying the same thing w/ different wording-- we end up in a needless conflict, we're debating and I would much rather simply continue our search for the truth. Let's get back to our original question of absolutes. I'd be grateful for your take on the moral need for accuracy in scientific publications.

Are you open to explanations in science about why humans believe in religious concepts? Would you resist learning if you found out that humans believe subconsciously due to social influence and conformity, not the emotional reasons they think is true?

Asimov (humanist leader, prolific writer, professor of bio-chemistry) explained that a scientist has to relate accurately the results of his experiments and if he lied his career would be ruined and there'd be no forgiveness. To me this represented an absolute truth or falsehood in the publication. There was no individual preference involved (nobody could say "it's true because I feeel it's true) and independent reviews would always find the same conclusion of true/false.

Accuracy in science journals would be an issue of ethics, not morals. Ethics in science has become a crucial part of it. My education is in psychology, and the history of psychology is disturbing. Many experimenters in the late 1800's and early 1900's did many cruel and inhumane things to humans and other animals. Much of this was due to the influence of Christianity and the assumption that humans are special, and animals do not have feelings. The mentalli ill were treated like animals since they lacked the cognitive ability that was thought to be the seat of the soul. Of course science learns, and advances, and by the late 60's ethics in all the sciences were changed to reflect more progressive understanding.

One part of ethics has been transparency and accuracy. There have been stories in recent years of bad ethics by labs, mostly in medicine trials, but the pressure for this behavior has been greed by pharma and other industries that rely on certain results in science. The US government has cut funding for many universities that conduct research and the result is cuts to research and raising costs to students. The lost funding has meant many universities need to show results to get funding, so it becomes an ethical dilemma. The USA as a nation has a conservative movement that has more contempt for science and exvertise, and many republicans want to cut funding to higher education. This will only cause more problems, and force any research into the private sector where a profit motive will tank ethics.

If you don't like the word "absolute" then please offer another word to describe this non-personal independently verifiable reality, but it's the topic that I'm interested in.

It seems the word you mean is objectivity. Scientists don't claim that their work is absolute, quite the opposite. But the work has to be objective, and that means realy on facts and data, and avoid any unwarranted assumptions, like religious assumptions.

There's a reason why results in science do not indicate any supernatural. The results don't support the assumptions and beliefs of theists. It's not personal, it's objective.