Probality of God

[WilbyInebriated]

No, the definition of faith is believing in something you can't see.  There is no difference in believing in something you can see, or believing in something you can't see.  Belief is how we perceive things to be.  How we perceive things to be, doesn't necessarily reflect the true nature of what we see or what were not able to see.  The adversary (TPTB, satan, the devil, lucifer, and all other things which opposes the truth) has inverted every truth imaginable to mankind, and this includes both what we can see and what we can't see.  There is as much extant material evidence or logical proof for the things which we do not see as to the things which we do see.  Saying there is no extant material evidence nor logical proof for the existence of God is a lie from the adversary.  There is not one shred of material evidence or logical proof which proves gravity is a real force, but yet we perceive gravity to be a real force and to curve space-time.  Our perception of gravity doesn't necessarily reflect it's true nature.  Our perception of light doesn't necessarily reflect it's true nature.  Our perception of God, doesn't necessarily reflect the true nature of God.

In my next post, I'm going to show the true nature of gravity and of light by asking the right questions.  If we don't ask the right questions, then we're not going to get the right answers.  Why would I do this.  To show you non-believers what you think you see is a lie, and what you think you don't see is the truth.

Gravock

shut up you godtard... quit making up your own asinine definitions for words that are already defined...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.



and don't bother with your asinine "gravity" dissertation...  it is nothing more than a red herring.

present some... ANY extant material evidence and/or a logical proof for the existence of your imaginary friend or at least be honest enough to admit that you have none and operate on faith alone.  you godtards are so silly...


as far as "material evidence of gravity"... go jump off a 10 story building godtard. there is your extant evidence. you godtards are so silly.

[gravityblock]

A wave must posses Acceleration in order to exist. When a rope, see image below, is moved across a table top in order to create a wave, if the rope is not Accelerated, the wave will not exist. A rope that only moves at a velocity does not create a wave, it simply moves the rope across the table top.  Light, which moves at a constant velocity in a vacuum of 299,792,458 m/s can not possibly create or be a wave.  Science erroneously claims light has an instantaneous velocity of 299,792,458 m/s without first having to undergo a period of acceleration.  We'll see how this is a partial truth which inverts the true reality of things.  So, if light doesn't have Acceleration to be a wave, then what does (this is the right question which needs to be asked)?  Gravity has an acceleration of 9.82 m/s² in order to create a wave.  Accelerating at 9.82 m/s² for 30,585,600 seconds (exact lunar year) = the Velocity of Gravity and the measured speed for Light in a vacuum of 299,792,458 m/s.  Orbit and expansion acceleration are One!  In other words, light has no velocity and acceleration.  Science was right about light not having acceleration, but it was wrong and inverted the truth about light's true velocity.  We only perceive light to have an instantaneous velocity of 299,792,458 m/s without first having to undergo a period of acceleration because we are already moving at that speed via expansion acceleration of mass.  Thus, we are moving past stationary light via expansion acceleration!  There are other proofs than this, such as there is only one proper angel which light reflects off a curved surface.  If light moved, then we would never be able to see the complete circumference of the moon because there is only one proper angle which the light from the sun would reflect off the curved surface of the moon back into our eyes.  We would only see a dot and not the entire circumference of the moon if light moved!  Like I said, what you think you see (light moving) is false, and what you think you don't see (expansion acceleration) is true.  How we perceive things to be is the inverse of the true reality of things!

Gravock

[eatenbyagrue]

No, the definition of faith is believing in something you can't see.  There is no difference in believing in something you can see, or believing in something you can't see.  Belief is how we perceive things to be.  How we perceive things to be, doesn't necessarily reflect the true nature of what we see or what were not able to see.  The adversary (TPTB, satan, the devil, lucifer, and all other things which opposes the truth) has inverted every truth imaginable to mankind, and this includes both what we can see and what we can't see.  There is as much extant material evidence or logical proof for the things which we do not see as to the things which we do see.  Saying there is no extant material evidence nor logical proof for the existence of God is a lie from the adversary.  There is not one shred of material evidence or logical proof which proves gravity is a real force, but yet we perceive gravity to be a real force and to curve space-time.  Our perception of gravity doesn't necessarily reflect it's true nature.  Our perception of light doesn't necessarily reflect it's true nature.  Our perception of God, doesn't necessarily reflect the true nature of God.

In my next post, I'm going to show the true nature of gravity and of light by asking the right questions.  If we don't ask the right questions, then we're not going to get the right answers.  Why would I do this.  To show you non-believers what you think you see is a lie, and what you think you don't see is the truth.

Gravock

This is idiotic.  We cannot see air, but we know it exists, and not on faith.  We cannot see atoms, but we know they exist, and not on faith.  We cannot see black holes, but we know they exist, and again, nothing to do with faith.


Faith is not a perception.  It is an irrational belief without evidence.

[gravityblock]

shut up you godtard... quit making up your own asinine definitions for words that are already defined...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Hebrews 11:1 states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition.

Gravock

[WilbyInebriated]

Hebrews 11:1 states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition.

Gravock

what hebrews 11:1 states doesn't mean jack squat... jesus fucking christ you're ignorant.

faith has no evidence you lunatic. that's why it's called faith.