Probality of God

[eatenbyagrue]

Again the Tards miss the point-


The owner posted a request not to do  a thing, that is post religious topics.
And yet there seem to be many reasons to overlook the forum owners rules.
(Primarily religious zealotry)


Until Stefan posts otherwise you really should stick to appropriate topics or take your zealotry elsewhere-

I think you are unclear on how Internet forums work in practice.

[gravityblock]

I said this,

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

and you then posted the following in reply to the above,

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.

but, you conveniently overlooked the statement I said in my original post, "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".  This includes air, atoms, black holes, etc.

I never said faith is a perception.  I said belief is a perception. You believing air exists does require faith based on adequate evidence.  Your belief does not make something true.  Our belief is only how we perceive things to be, and I have shown how we perceive things to be isn't always the true reality of things.  A magician also proves how we perceive things doesn't necessarily reflect the true reality of what we believe we see.  Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition.  Without adequate evidence for the existence of air, then it would be a mere superstition.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

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.

There's a difference in having faith in God (a Creator) over your flying spaghetti monster.  There's adequate evidence in having faith in a Creator.  Beholding all that is before you is the adequate evidence.  There's no evidence for your flying spaghetti monster.  The flying spaghetti monster is a superstition and a figment of your imagination with no evidence to support it, thus there can be no faith in the flying spaghetti monster, and to assert otherwise is lunacy.

Gravock

[PS123]

 Ok. So 'we' as believers in God(that you dont believe exists) will never find OU because of our belief system?

But you. You have OU because you are not one sided. Please share your bounty!! You are pure genius free of the chains of a God. Wow, you must have hundreds of ways to produce OU as a non believer. You are soo great.                     Please show us your light so that we may believe in what you say.   

Do you know what you are saying when you are saying it???   Think on it a bit.

Fool and hypocrite.

Magzimus Leviticus[/font][/size]


[/font][/size]
"God (that you dont believe exists)" : I only said he is not alone to decide.(cfr. Lilith) [/font][/size]
" pure genius free of the chains of a God" : that God put you in chains, that is obvious.[/font][/size]
"You are soo great": 1m86[/font][/size]
"Fool and hypocrite": thanks for your kind words Minimus Leviticus.[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
Peter

[TinselKoala]

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

30,585,600 s x 9.82 m/s² = 300,350,592 s
300,350,592 =/= 299,792,458

Lunar year = 354.37 days (wikipedia) = 30,617,568 seconds using 24 hour days
30,617,568 x 9.82 =300,664,518 =/= 299,792,458

Lunar year = 12 lunar months = 12 x 29.531 days (Free Online Dictionary)  = 354.372 days = 30,617,740.8 seconds
30,617,740.8 x 9.82 = 300,666,215 =/= 299,792,458

Rounding error?
Interesting numerical coincidence, though. But why did you choose the Moon's time of orbiting? Why not choose a geostationary satellite, which orbits the same Earth in the same gravitational field of acceleration of 9.82 m/s² but does it in close to 24 hours?


I do agree though, that the true one-way velocity of light is zero.