Scientific Hypothesis of God was banned

[Sheldon]

From the fact that the universe has a cause

That's not a fact, I suggest you Google fact and look at the definition.

 

[Sheldon]

You're describing theology as dangerous,

Pretty sure I did not claim that? Again you are turning a specific claim into a broad assertion. Theology need not be dangerous, but religious doctrine often contains pernicious ideas and beliefs, those are not the same claim. Unless I am misremembering what I posted.

and I'm replying it is tied to nationality, that you are missing the origin of said danger.

1. That was not what I claimed.
2. I made no comments on the origins of theistic belief, or on nation states. This is an assumption you made about what I think.

I'm not criticizing you or your character or your existence, nor spreading rumors about you, nor slandering you.

Good to know, but you were making sweeping unevidenced assumptions about what I think.

I'm not building a case against your character nor making "Sweeping claims" about you.

You did however make sweeping claims about what I think though, that didn't seem to follow from the assertions in my post. My assertion that religions contain doctrinal teachings that are pernicious, is not at all inconsistent with nationalism also being pernicious, and I already believed that about nationalism.

Do you agree that religious doctrine often contains some pernicious ideas? Like homophobia as one example...

 

[Sheldon]

I think the real issue is not whether science can prove God but rather it cannot explain the reason for our existence.

That is a begging the question fallacy, you don't het to simply assume there is a reason.

I always ask What started the big bang and why...where did the energy and matter come from?

Why do you ask this? If you know we currently don't have any evidence that supports a conclusion?

The explanation I'm hearing these days is that nothing, became something for such a tiny amount of time, it basically remained nothing and that doesn't breach the law that energy and matter cannot be created! I have to ask, why do people who believe such a statement think Christians are naive and stupid?

Where did you hear that? Does it have any scientific basis?

The truth I think is that most people never even bother to question that fundamental issue about the big bang...it does not even enter their heads!

What issue, and why would you think you have posed a valid question about an accepted scientific theory that science has not?

Even Stephen Hawkings answer to that question is surprising.the real answer from science is "we don't know yet"!

That is not remotely surprising, why would it be?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you agree that religious doctrine often contains some pernicious ideas? Like homophobia as one example...

I think religion follows the path of whatever is legal in a country and reflects the character of the country. Here is one possibility: that if homophobia thrives in our country it is because of the country and the people in the country, and they, in turn, make homophobia religious. 1950's America all upset about wars and newly aware of the value of its children, many of whom will grow up without fathers, it obsesses over them. It becomes idealistic and portrays an exact way of life, a pattern of living which each child should expect. It projects Leave it to Beaver and Andy Griffith as the way to live. That's how we get the 1950's. The children rebel. They don't want to be told who to be. That's how we get the 1960's. None of this comes from religion, but it shapes religion. Then religion claims "I did that."

Did Pharoahs make their religion be about Egypt's military, because their country was a military dictatorship? Probably. One of the Pharoahs (Akhenaten) tried to change the culture and turn the country away from military conquests. He tried to change the religion, too. He was deposed, and the religion was restored to suit the country's attitudes about war. They wanted to be warlike, and they picked a religion to suit themselves.

The pagan religion of Rome was originally not about feeding men to beasts or having people die as entertainment, but it allowed that as the country became about that. The religion followed the country becoming increasingly savage. But then after much savagery the country changed again in the direction of less savagery. The people decided things should change. Rome also became more prudish than ever before, and so did its religion.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans living on earth O planet is O a body separated by space. Sits in space first.

O God in its womb said a human thinker. A planet.

Standing on top of the planet inside a heavens. Bio life. Conscious life knowing a human equals as information a human. The form human ended as a human in an experience human.

Has no beginning as you are equals a human. Ends as biological death.

So you either die naturally. Or die by human choice versus human survival.

You say as the human....light is above me first. Light is cooled. I live safely in light time by those stated conditions. I age I die. By heavens surrounding earth status.

Science of life on earth O God.

No science thesis at all. You know consciously there is no science thesis.

As a human living thinking.

Basic common sense. Lots of humans no longer use common sense.

Advised.

Then human memory says I remember we came from somewhere else higher than life. Says it is just memory. Memory is just memory.

Once no creation or space existed. It was all eternal. A memory only.

The eternal surround supported eternal beings and one language spirit was separate from being an eternal body.

The eternal being was curious about the one varied language body spirit that manifested in their communications. As it was different.

Why it was held investigated that caused O flow to stop as language. The eternal thinned in a fixed held position and it burst. O was separated into a space womb.

We were still in the eternal body. Not the burnt mass language spirit lost.

Only when the space surrounding O planet earth as the ethereal by gas water substance filled in space did the eternal being cross over.

Into its caused causes. Inherited.

The heavens owning the cause.

Memory says it was proven to us as humans to be real.

As life lived before on earth. Machines destroyed all life on earth. Human machine parts artefacts found instant snap frozen in fusion and coal.

After the saviour ice body was earth inherited we came back again. As the heavens cooled. We returned into life inheritance again.

It was not wanted. Says human consciousness to live on earth.

Out of the eternal.

So we own and use memory that depicts where our human life came from.

As water by its mass was existing as water by its mass. Water in creation is a mass.

Oxygenation is by tree garden plant nature.

We are not nature. We move separately inside the heavens not fixed by the status mass only.

Memory is what we use to depict thinking stories. By a human thinking using self memory.

We say our holy human life O ovary ova ovah moves as a God by term.

A description. O the cell splits into two O DD. Two form OO. G spiral flow inside O.

The creator movement only.

A description.

G O D...a thought description is not a power it is a thought.

We taught space plus heavens mass pressure held O the cell to its form.

Without it the flow as a heavens is just mass. So never change O gods heavenly form. Pressure system.

Pretty basic human advice to humans by humans as humans for human life continuance.

Memory is just thoughts it owns no reality the human lives their owned reality.

And has to be accepted ...human reality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Intelligent Design, look the video in Scientific Christianity strikes again
was aimed not to prove God, but to introduce Hypothesis of God's existence into Scientific Community.

Why? Before the developing scientific proof of God, one must ask the question: "Is there God?"
And this question must sound in a peer-review scientific journal.

But, sadly, the Christianity is not yet legalized. Unlike bisexual activity.

That requires tangibility. There is none.

Science dosent deal with conceptual matters.

Refer to philosophy in such cases.

 

[rational experiences]

That requires tangibility. There is none.

Science dosent deal with conceptual matters.

Refer to philosophy in such cases.

Science did you human invent earths the planet body presence as a human..as a thinker...as a machine builder from the planets products?

No.

First was no science.

Then changed by science human chosen God terms irradiated human brains by science machines caused effects. Lying self possession as a theist scientist. Was the human scientists destroyer self thesis.

You then said believed by science that you were a God as he him his thinking statements concepts.

As O cell split created in varying places by O form G spiral O cell DD.

The term a concept only by thesis study is first humans just thinking. First human means first you are a human as still we are a human.

Thought by humans.
Chosen by humans all concepts. Men thought first as science was NEVER first actually by human conditions.

In human life coercing science was called lying.

Natural a human used word meaning stated all states natural naturally existed first.

Wasn't said by a human theist scientist it was said by a natural observing human.

What you lie about. A natural human taught natural truth was first.

As you personally did not create creation it is only. Theist conceit thought.

Your claim I machine reacted and gained the reaction I wanted was an act of change and destroyed creation.

Is lying to state I am proven correct in science.

The statement my beginning thesis an act of destruction brought about change to pre existing some type of form is what you claim your proof is. Thoughts and not origin matter mass or type of.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That requires tangibility. There is none.

Science dosent deal with conceptual matters.

Refer to philosophy in such cases.

I'd recommend a book of laws as well.

 

[rational experiences]

I'd recommend a book of laws as well.

You mean the human science on planet earth the law is written in stone. Being stone.

Gods body in space womb law planet earth is the presence holy stone.

The law O body of gods stone erection volcano that spurted the new spirit stone gas into space as heavens beginning.

A known earth taught science reasoned.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You mean the human science on planet earth the law is written in stone. Being stone.

No, I mean a book of laws so he can see nowhere is specified that Christianity is illegal for him to practice.

 

[leroy]

Straw man fallacies you falsely assign to others, do not carry a burden of proof, unless you'd care to quote me making any such claim?

.

You do this all the time.
Honestly it is very tedious to talk with you



1 I claimed that courts can only determine ancestry when the samples are 1 or 2 generations apart (implying that DNA used in courts can´t be used to determine if we share a common ancestor with chimps)

2 you replied by saying that the claims is laughable and stupid (implying that my statement is wrong)

3 I asked you to provide your evidence that shows that my claim is wrong

4 And you reply by saying that it´s a strawman.

And the sad thing is that you do this all the time, first I make a claim, then you disagree, then I ask for evidence, then you repent and claim that it is a strawman.

Species evolution through natural selection is an accepted scientific fact, and based on the evidence of an accepted scientific theory in good standing. I don't need to evidence your straw man claims about it.

"Fossils, anatomy, embryos, and DNA sequences provide corroborative lines of evidence about common ancestry, with more closely related organisms having more characteristics in common. DNA underlies the similarities and differences in fossils, anatomy, and embryos."

If you really wanted to learn about evolution you could find the facts as easily as anyone else, but you just want to deny those facts, in favour of creationism

No doubt about that, the only specific claim that I am making (and that you disagree with) is that DNA tests as used in the court are irrelevant and have nothing to do with proving human/chimp common ancestry.

So do you agree or disagree with me with this specific claim?
Focus on that specific claim, do not make comment on other irrelevant stuff please.

 

[leroy]

No of course not, how does the one evidence the other?

How can I ever know, if you haven’t define “evidence”

 

[leroy]

I , it is pure assumption, usually based on the use of begging the question fallacies, so far from being a logical deduction it is irrational.



.

Ok, Ok, quote a specific comment where I made a logical fallacy and then explain why is that a fallacy………………quote the actual claim.

After you failed to do this task I will expect an apology for your false accusation.

 

[leroy]

As opposed to the assumption a deity is eternal? Except wait a minute, we know a universe is possible, we don't know any deity is possible. Now I'm no philosopher it is true, but how is an assumption about something we know exists, existing in a different state, and changing by an as yet unknown natural phenomena, which we also know are possible, less likely than unevidenced assumptions about something no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for, using inexplicable magic? I think you just made Occam cry...

Again, what is the point of quoting my comments if you are going to say something irrelevant?

The specific claim that I made is that an “eternal universe” requires more assumptions than a finite universe.

The first assumes

1 that there was something before the big bang

2 this “something” is past eternal

While a finite universe makes only 1 assumtions

1 ether that everything started at the big bang

2 or there was something “finite” before the big bang

So so you agree with this specific claim? (in red above)

 

[leroy]

You're playing the man, and not the ball, again. One can only infer you have no answer to the objections I raised to your first cause argument, and it's flawed assumptions about causation.

"Dinosaur fossils have furnished clues to such intimate details as when during development these reptiles reached sexual maturity and how they attracted mates. Meanwhile studies of birds and crocodilians—the closest living relatives of dinosaurs—hint at what the external reproductive anatomy of dinosaurs looked like. And computer modelling offers the possibility of testing theories about how these giants managed to do the deed itself. Much remains to be discovered, but scientists are slowly drawing back the curtain on dinosaur amour."




there is only one logic, and I have not contributed anything to the scientific theory of evolution, if you think you have valid scientific objections publish them, when you get your Nobel prize I will pay due deference, in the meantime given hwo much objective scientific evidence has been amassed for species evolution, your objections are no less absurd than denying the rotundity of the earth.



The scientific world disagrees with you, and given your obviously biased against this accepted scientific theory, in favour of your religious beliefs, I can only view your claims in that context. Science rewards those who falsify ideas as much as those who validate them, despite this, and the obvious antipathy of global religions to wards species evolution, it remains an accepted scientific fact after over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny.



Have you tried asking someone with the necessary expertise in evolutionary biology?

Here are my objections and questions to your first cause argument, since you ignored them.

1. How many things outside of time and space did you test, before you determined that anything outside of the temporal universe needed a cause?
2. How did you test anything outside of time and space?
3. Since time itself is dependant on the physical universe, how could it have a "beginning"?

As I said it is a false dichotomy fallacy to imply we are faced with a choice between the scientific fact of species evolution, or an unevidenced creation myth. Even in the astronomically unlikely event that species evolution were entirely falsified, this would not lend any credence to creationism.[/QUOTE]

1.How many things outside of time and space did you test, before you determined that anything outside of the temporal universe needed a cause
2. How did you test anything outside of time and space?
3. Since time itself is dependant on the physical universe, how could it have a "beginning"?

And this are my objections to your claim that ancient Dinosaurs like T-Rex had sex and reproduced.

1 How many animals have you seen having sex 65M years ago / How many of them have you tested for "sucesfull sex?)

2 How do you test any sexual activity from 65M+ years ago

3 HOw can you test that the "laws of sex and reproduction" where the same 65+M years ago?
I know that my objections are absurd, but you are presenting the same type of objection.

How many things outside of time and space did you test, before you determined that anything outside of the temporal universe needed a cause?

How did you test anything outside of time and space?

None, I simply tested the causal principle with as many samples possible………. Is that good enough for you? If not why not? Why are you making an arbitrary exception when the causal principles gets to a point where it has theological implications that you don’t like?

Since time itself is dependant on the physical universe, how could it have a "beginning"?

I don’t see the problem, both time and the physical universe begun to exist probably at the big bang …. Where is the contradiction?

 

[leroy]

An



What's the cause of the popping into existence of virtual particles?

An imbalance of energy in the “quantum sea”


D

id it? How did you determine that it didn't just change form with the big bang?

What the evidence shows is that even if there was something before the big bang , this “something” could have not been eternal. I am not claiming certainty; I am just claiming that given the evidence we have to date, the universe likely had a begging.

Bzzzt.
Causality is a phenomenon that applies within the space time continuum.

How do you know that?

That's preposterously false.
Common ancestry is extremely falsifiable.
Just like it is falsifiable and verifiable to say that you and me share parents.
All you need to do is compare our DNA.

How do you falsify the claim that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor? I don’t deny that this proposition is true, all I am saying is that the lack of falsifiability is not a big of a deal, many valid theories/hypothesis/models etc. are unfasifiable but they are still valid scientific tools

 

[leroy]

Dude.......................................

Tree of life SVG - Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

That tree is the result of an automated process that graphs out matches of DNA from fully sequenced genomes from a great many species.



.

And what does the tree of life have to do with DNA tests use in court to prove father son relations?

If paternity tests happen to be wrong or unreliable, would that falsify evolution (common ancestry)? (

If evolution (common ancestry) is proven wrong, would that prove that paternity tests are not reliable ?

My point is that I agree with both common ancestry and the reliability of paternity tests, I am just sayifn that they are independent things and none of them depends on the other to be true

 

[rational experiences]

The human a natural first self human. Says I am first consciously the first presence holy natural highest... not for a big bang blast placement claiming that was my beginnings. He said it possessed consciously to agree.

That human life is first only by the need to make the claim.

Brain entrainment. After the brain dementia effect heavy metals fallout. Had to preach a human owns first position in creation. As proof theists want us destroyed.

A humans as a thinker says....when a human wasn't a human first.

First when you were radiation or first when you were a God source.

When first you are just a human. And it was by human imposed human law that it was stated for humans by humans.

A human is first in thesis thinking.

The law.

Law in life about life owning life. First a human only.

It was stated....rewritten by English in the holy war to stop rebuilding Jerusalem science circuit temple. Humans who knew science by theory temple pyramid nuclear was evil.

Why the shroud looked like a sacrificed English Roman Jew in image. 1000 years later.

The substance theories God inferred beginning as creating creation has nothing to do with humans. It is about a theme by science saying it is present cold then gets blasted changed.

On earth earth as his science God is cold a substance he didn't invent the presence of owning it's own beginnings by space planet body that he mines then blasts himself.

Ignored as self relevant human is a liar theist advice.

As science is in reality a human standing on earth.no matter what mind sickness your ego expresses about knowing everything.

Even the big bang he says something higher and colder changed to survive blast burning then cooled.

Earth he has blasted Multi times we are barely living now. Sick sacrificed and unnaturally dying the teaching relative to nuclear science causes.

The bible teaching.

It is a human sickness in the mind state of human reality and should be labelled as such. For humans thinking theory is dangerous to life and threatening. What law was imposed for.

As was the mental status assessed and reviewed about dangerous and human minds behaviours.

Any human pretending first that they are not a human owns no self respect for human life... commonality family human agreement of self presence or a healthy living environment. Learnt.

Men who got attacked by man's science learnt science so argue against its non realistic and life threatening causes. You have to learn to argue. As science first owned no disagreed argument.

Said the bible. The brothers all agreed first.

What I learnt about what was meant.

The teaching exact. Once I was innocent of knowing fallout. I did not listen as men babies now adults to my spiritual natural father's human advice in nature.

I learnt I was wrong.

How a scientist all just humans argued for humans as we are innate conscious aware human for human life on earth in its nature first and not science first.

As science was in fact man with a machine that in natural status never existed.

So if you believe in artificial as a treason to prove a machine is correct you want us all destroyed.

Pretty basic a human liar is the worse mental condition.

 

[rational experiences]

What I learnt about human science posession reasoning. Just mind and belief the destroyer by what men invented then built.

As science is a weapon.

Their claim save life I will save humans I must die to prove it. Blowing self up with self invention. Is proof of the scientist in human life.

Acting out his mind man human theists possession. We must be saved so I must die. Then I will have non stop sex as my reward.

Reasoning the old teaching sex is a sin. No sex no babies we age die out. No humans on earth to suffer life. Remain in spirit eternal said the human theist where I belonged first.

As human sex in the heavens is only biological. We live inside the heavens first as used biological advice. All biology allows the sex act. It however is recorded by image humans first sex virgin billions of times around the earth globe. Fed back to our psyche.

Like watching a tv program of your life status. Possessed by the advice of copying what is transmitted back to the origin theist placement. A human designer.

We are seeing our mind possession the theist. Why human atheism science is wrong.

Theists who say you are an ape wrong.

No need to argue we are all humans always were just humans. First two human parents human.

The story human is just a human and it is about time that science honoured our place as it is exact equals answer a human only.

Why theism should not be allowed as it is a proven human mind failure to honour self presence as a holy healthy natural life.

What was agreed before a long time ago as I am hearing humans memory the reason to be taught by previous human living experiences.

 

[rational experiences]

An imbalance of energy in the “quantum sea”


D

What the evidence shows is that even if there was something before the big bang , this “something” could have not been eternal. I am not claiming certainty; I am just claiming that given the evidence we have to date, the universe likely had a begging.






How do you know that?





How do you falsify the claim that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor? I don’t deny that this proposition is true, all I am saying is that the lack of falsifiability is not a big of a deal, many valid theories/hypothesis/models etc. are unfasifiable but they are still valid scientific tools

Science by human thinking.

Bacterias.

He looks at them as a human being pretending he is a God creator.

The teaching human theist atheist against a human being.

Common ancestor he says the human as I live with bacterias on my body. In the water inside my body that I share with the environment. Water as mass the common body.

Human the common ancestor is first the speaker owner. I own it as a pretend God speaker first then I discuss non ownership in the same circumstance.

So if you want to be first in water life you destroy the human body by thesis machines caused by his control choice transmitted fallout atmosphere radiation. By my science choice.

How to inherit just what I believe is living beginnings. By my owned choice a destroyer scientist.

Known seen observed realised by his just a human family.

Knowledge bacterias live within my human life and outside my human life.

Reality who asked you to thesis about a bacteria? Answer I chose to study as a human pretending they theory a creators act. As himself a man.