Probality of God

[gravityblock]

Yep. The smarter ones change the subject before they get too deep. 

But this one, he brought his own shovel.

Mags

And a pitchfork to see if he's done.  I must say, he's already well cooked beyond recognition.  In the end, there will be nothing left of their folly, including their tools.

Gravock

[Magluvin]

And a pitchfork to see if he's done.  I must say, he's already well cooked beyond recognition.  In the end, there will be nothing left of him and his tools.

Gravock

Ashes to ashes.   

I make fun. But I also feel for these guys. Some seem to just hate God, while knowing he exists.

Something must have happened in their lives that they blame God for. Everyone loses someone that they love. Most everyone has things happen to them in their lives that they believe is unfair.  Some blame God for letting these things happen.  And some never let it go.  Job was hit from all angles. But in the end, he was still good with God, and God was good with him.

Its all part of what and how they believe God should be if they had it their way. Some say they have read and reread the Bible for 40 odd years and they did not get the message.

I come on hard here because any sign of weakness and then the pack feeds. Also I want to show their flaws in what they say, of which there is quite a bit, so that unwitting others dont end up following their lead. Expose them and they lose their teeth.

Maybe 1 or a few might end up realizing that they are acting as fools once it is presented on them as such by just finally realizing that they are being foolish and that they are not the masters of the universe with all the answers as we see on these pages.. Not many though, if any, of a group such as this.

But I always have hope.

Mags

[gravityblock]

Again I feel obliged to intervene in this discussion, which repeatedly is deviating from proper reflection of given observations.

One reason for this is gravocks incapacity to retorically correct confront his unorthodox view points in a relative context to the accepted observations. Gravock is of course very eager to present proof of what seems fully plausible to him, but when one starts to use non accepted frame of references as arguments, he immediately start losing listeners.

However, the theory of light propagating lineary from A to B is still just an assumption based upon experiments done with a source and a detector. By turning on a lightsource at a recorded point in time we have been able to measure a response in the detector at a certain point in time, thus giving us a time measure relating to the distance between the light source and the detector.

This however does not count as proof of any light actually traveling from A to B. It is merely our sound conclusion since we lack any alternative explanation.

Could it be that mankind's experimental results and observations are accurate, but wrongly interpreted when explained?

What if light is something that does not travel from A to B?

The life long efforts invested by our brightest physicists are all based on a few untouchable fundamental concepts, being the very base for their complex models. But if the foundation of the base is at fault, the rest of the structure will falter.

Let's make an intellectual experiment and imagine the possibility that all observable
events just are mere responses to one single underlying universal energy field.


This is fully possible, since it is, as I have said before, very easy to misread an effect for a cause, if the cause is not directly observable.
For example, just imagine all known physical phenomenons being mere secondary responses to this single underlying field.

In such a scenario our experience of light would be depending upon the field value at the point of source relative to the point of detection, thus creating the illusion of light travelling from A to B.

Instead we maybe just were observing the differential field value and the time differential between these to points in the field. When the lamp is turned on, it may thus only create the illusion of reaching you from the point of departure when in fact the only thing the lamp did was creating a field differential detected by you.

You have to understand that the propagation of light is just as hard to nail as the push/pull alternative regarding gravity.

So laugh as much as you want at gravocks halting attempts to defend his viewpoint, but never forget that hitherto none of us really are in the position to tell what the dynamics behind the phenomenon of light really is.

I advice you all to keep an open mind, scientific revision is always around the corner.

Gwandau

Gwandau,

Don't you think science should present both versions, before they accept one over the other?  A version presenting a theory of light moving which reflects the physical world and a theory of light being stationary which reflects the spiritual world.  A theory of gravity pushing (spiritual) and a theory of gravity pulling (physical).  A theory of a Creator (spiritual) and a theory of a creation (physical).  They are the inverse of each other reflecting an invisible world (spiritual) and a visible world (physical).  You say I present my theories as facts, yet you fail to realize both versions are correct, assuming of course the foundation is solid as explained below.  There is both a spiritual (Creator) and a physical world (creation).  However, when science chooses to only present one version, then the theory of a creation becomes a false theory of a big bang (effect) without a Creator (Cause).  Then, the theory on the expansion acceleration of the universe becomes a false theory of 'dark energy'.  It's ironic, they need a theory on 'dark energy' since they left the 'Cause or a Creator' out of their false big bang theory.  It's also equally ironic how their false theories on 'dark energy' appears to be an effect their trying to describe of the True reality for the cause of gravity, which is found in the version they chose to leave out.  Then, they have the audacity to call the True reality "dark" energy due to their inversion of the Truth. Continuing on with this, then we get into more nonsense where one error leads to a greater error.  By leaving one version out, then it perpetuates a lie, and this lie perpetuates a greater lie, etc.  There can be no foundation when science chooses the effect (creation) over the Cause (God), by only presenting one version.  As you can see, they are truly the author of confusion.

Then, you have people say there is no scientific evidence for God solely on the basis of science wrongfully choosing to only present one version.  If science was true to itself, as it should be, then it should present both versions so people can learn the Truth instead of a lie.  There is scientific evidence for God, but science has wrongfully left God out of the equation.  The adversary of God has done this intentionally to turn people away from their True God and Creator.  Now, you'll find this Truth, which I speak of, also written in the Word of God (below are a few verses).  It clearly says the creation is a shadow of the Creator.  The physical world is a shadow of the spiritual world.  In other words, It says the physical world is not the true form of reality (the physical world is the inverse of the true reality).  If you reject the True form of reality (the version science conveniently leaves out), then you reject the Truth (God).  "As above, so below". Science is a false religion in and of itself because it leaves out the True form of reality.  Science, in it's current form, is satanic at it's very core.  Now, ask yourself how the written Word of God knew of the True form of reality which I speak of, before the invent of science in it's current form, choosing to present only one version that perpetuates a lie?  This knowledge written in the Word of God could have only originated from God himself.

Hebrews 10:1 says, "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near".  (English Standard Version).

Colossians 2:17 says, "These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

Gravock





 

[gravityblock]

Ashes to ashes.   

I make fun. But I also feel for these guys. Some seem to just hate God, while knowing he exists.

Something must have happened in their lives that they blame God for. Everyone loses someone that they love. Most everyone has things happen to them in their lives that they believe is unfair.  Some blame God for letting these things happen.  And some never let it go.  Job was hit from all angles. But in the end, he was still good with God, and God was good with him.

Its all part of what and how they believe God should be if they had it their way. Some say they have read and reread the Bible for 40 odd years and they did not get the message.

I come on hard here because any sign of weakness and then the pack feeds. Also I want to show their flaws in what they say, of which there is quite a bit, so that unwitting others dont end up following their lead. Expose them and they lose their teeth.

Maybe 1 or a few might end up realizing that they are acting as fools once it is presented on them as such by just finally realizing that they are being foolish and that they are not the masters of the universe with all the answers as we see on these pages.. Not many though, if any, of a group such as this.

But I always have hope.

Mags

Yes, I feel for them also.  I'm afraid some may be beyond hope, according to their own words, but I pray this strong delusion which the adversary has casted over them will be lifted so they may see the Truth, and accept their One True God and Creator.

Gravock

[WilbyInebriated]

From what you say here, your definition of faith is that we just assume God is there.

If you had gone through what I have, you would 'know' differently. And think differently. 

Magzimus Leviticus

the godtard has delusions of grandeur...   

to 'think differently' like you, one only need to get hit on the head with a shovel... 


and thank you to all the godtards... for ANOTHER tacit admission that you have neither a single shred of extant evidence nor a logical proof for the existence of your imaginary godfairy savior/creator friend.