Probality of God

[ramset]

Eatin
Quote:

But I am also beginning to see why there are so many religious people on an overunity forum.  Overunity research (along with theories on chemtrails, moon landing hoax, 9/11 "truth", etc.) seems to attract people eagerly willing to suspend reason.

------------------------------------
I suppose this statement hits the nail on the head,one mans perception of reason is another mans "your kidding Right".........[two way street around here !]

Thats why prince charming resorts to charts and such [no fudge room].

Your other observation,the high percentage of persons of faith on this Forum,
Begs the question ,why are you fellows here ?

If you "believe" in OU and suppression of technology?[one goes with the other *]
Then what methods did you use to dismiss all the other Science and or theories?
[I believe this does not apply to you ...a complete Unbeliever ]

See,the peeps that come here to taunt ,They would not get all the attention "W"
Has gotten Here [their unbelievers].

There was some confusion about "W" ,most here thought him an atheist,He cleared that part up but refused to apply the same degree of "rigor" to explain his "reasoning" behind that position.[agnostic]

We'll leave that alone [the chart thing].

Thx
Chet

[Newton II]

Here is what I think.  I think the theists on this board are not equipped or motivated to defend their positions on scientific grounds.

But I am also beginning to see why there are so many religious people on an overunity forum.  Overunity research (along with theories on chemtrails, moon landing hoax, 9/11 "truth", etc.) seems to attract people eagerly willing to suspend reason.

What is science?   

Things which you cannot understand,  things which are beyond the scope of your knowledge,  things which  science cannot explain -  come to conclusion  that they are wrong or don't exist.    Do you call it science?

Read Einstien's theories,  if you don't understand them,  come to conclusion that theory itself is wrong? 

With the present day's scientific knowledge can you create atleast one house fly in the laboratory without using cells of another fly?

[TechStuf]

Good points, NewtonII.  In the end, soon enough, there will be no excuse left for those who refused to examine the evidence of God's Awesome Hand upon His creation.  They demand a silver platter exposition, a cornucopia of elemetary proof of God catered to their very laps, while blindly trusting the 'lords' of the science halls, and their horrendous history of rank revisionism and cowardly corruptions....



No excuses....None at all.


http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=10749


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter1/realmatrix.htm




Blessings in Christ

[Magluvin]

mags the religulous godtard bully returns to bully some more...
still bent on assassinating someones character INSTEAD OF PRESENTING A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR GODFAIRY...  how christian of you.
we've been over this before you godtard. all of that was me obeying your holey babble... that was me doing unto you zealots as you have done unto others... try being less of a fucking hypocrite...

slander and libel of your imaginary godfairy...  yup. you belong in an institution.

do you really think the opinion of a moronic godbot like you means anything to me mags?


now... once again you insane godbot troll... please present the methods you used to falsify all the other gawds humanity has created and then present the methods you used to validate your gawd. i would like to compare and contrast as well as offer peer review.

thank you for your cooperation.

First off, what are your guidelines for proof? There must be some criteria that you require. Im not talking about 'the' method. Im talking about what kind of proofs would have to be on the table? Specific proofs, even though you very well know that it is written that you are a Fool to ask for physical proof, being that you are well read. 

In order for you to request scientific proofs,  you must be in the belief that science is finished looking for things. You must be in the belief that science is complete and is deemed omnipotent and therefore since science has not shown evidence that God exists, then you contend with confidence that he doesnt.

Or... you know very well that God cannot be proved by science and use it as your tool to hold up your end of a debate. 

Well science is not omnipotent. Not yet anyways. I dont know how far it will go. They are developing mind controlled video games now. This will lead to mind control. If they can read thoughts, there is potential for 2 way communication eventually.

But were not there yet, let alone science being able to detect spirits or even God, even if God allowed that to be.

So your, prove God with science, is what 'you' would call a red herring. I smell hypocrite.

You said this...

"slander and libel of your imaginary godfairy...  yup. you belong in an institution."

Well, what would be a good 'reason' or 'logic' in saying such a statement in which I was referring to? But you wont answer that. Because it would show that you are a fool.
Answer it. You cant? Why not use science to explain it? Logic? Reason? 

Science is not your tool. It is your crutch. 

I only expect those things that you said to come from someone whom is already or should be in an institution. Now tell me, am I lying? Or maybe that language is common in your family. You learned it from somewhere. 


Magzimus Leviticus

[WilbyInebriated]

First off, what are your guidelines for proof? There must be some criteria that you require. Im not talking about 'the' method. Im talking about what kind of proofs would have to be on the table? Specific proofs, even though you very well know that it is written that you are a Fool to ask for physical proof, being that you are well read. 

In order for you to request scientific proofs,  you must be in the belief that science is finished looking for things. You must be in the belief that science is complete and is deemed omnipotent and therefore since science has not shown evidence that God exists, then you contend with confidence that he doesnt.

Or... you know very well that God cannot be proved by science and use it as your tool to hold up your end of a debate. 

Well science is not omnipotent. Not yet anyways. I dont know how far it will go. They are developing mind controlled video games now. This will lead to mind control. If they can read thoughts, there is potential for 2 way communication eventually.

But were not there yet, let alone science being able to detect spirits or even God, even if God allowed that to be.

So your, prove God with science, is what 'you' would call a red herring. I smell hypocrite.

You said this...

"slander and libel of your imaginary godfairy...  yup. you belong in an institution."

Well, what would be a good 'reason' or 'logic' in saying such a statement in which I was referring to? But you wont answer that. Because it would show that you are a fool.
Answer it. You cant? Why not use science to explain it? Logic? Reason? 

Science is not your tool. It is your crutch. 

I only expect those things that you said to come from someone whom is already or should be in an institution. Now tell me, am I lying? Or maybe that language is common in your family. You learned it from somewhere. 


Magzimus Leviticus

your post doesn't address the questions i asked of you and thus is a red herring logical fallacy...

once again you insane godbot troll... please present the methods you used to falsify all the other gawds humanity has created and then present the methods you used to validate your gawd.