Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 45420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dgj2301

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #174 on: March 18, 2012, 01:34:17 PM »
Dgj2301

Think about two things. Integrity and grace. Because those are the two things you'll wish you had at this time in your life when you get to be my age.

I have though about those things, especially after being kicked down in life. I picked myself back up with out religion and currently seeking more knowledge. I am also reading the Torah and the Qur'an.

I know becoming a Christian for a woman while having doubts of a god is hypocritical but as you say, being a semen carrier, I am doing what I can for my offspring and I want to give them a life that was better than mine.

I'm only 29, I feel that I am more mature than people my age. I seek answers and knowledge rather than looking for quick fixes  by drinking and partying. I am still lost and have much more to learn about life. That's why I am in this forum to get opinions.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6519
  • Darwins +850/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #175 on: March 18, 2012, 01:52:03 PM »
You are searching and at thispoint in your life, you will find something. I liked this Christian boy in college and tried to dump my atheism for him. It did not work because I had to lie to myself. 

If you lived in Saudi Arabia at this point in your life,  you would meet a lot of muslims and Islam would start to make sense to you. You would meet a cute muslim girl with issues and you would marry her. Many people who convert to Islam say they like the feeling of community.

Same thing if you lived in Thailand. You would find yourself being drawn to Buddhism and the cute Thai Buddhist girl with issues who would stick by you.

If you lived in ancient Egypt, it would be the sun god Ra and the hot Nefertiti with issues who would stick by you.....
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1283
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #176 on: March 18, 2012, 03:14:30 PM »
Jesus teaches about integrity and high self-esteem pretty much every where.

Not that I am saying it works 100% of the time, but what is the best way that you can think of to teach morals and values to a high populated and rebellious civilization.

Know what?  My karate school teaches the same thing.  Plus, I get the bonuses of no gods, physical fitness, and the ability to defend myself, with the cameraderie that comes along with training partners/friends with the same "beliefs" if you will.

there are hot chicks there, too.   ;D  Not that *I* care, I'm happily married--but there may be some in a karate dojo near you.

So, you don't need religion.  Maybe you need SOMEthing, adn that's perfectly repsectable.  But you DON'T need religion.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #177 on: March 19, 2012, 11:38:35 AM »
I have a masters degree in physics. I have  been an athiest for all my life. I have recently turned to christianity. I turned to it because I needed answers to aspect of my life.
ah, feeling that old mortality creeping up on you?  A lot of people who were raised Christian find it again when they realize that they don’t like the idea of dying. 

Quote
I needed a better life. I have always respected religion even as an athiest. I have always believed that people have the right to believe in what they want. a friend invited me to his church. These people were the kindest people ever. The preacher was good at making the bible revelant to the world of today, very inspirational.
Sounds just like any cult.  And why did you respect religion as an atheist?   

Quote
These christians take their faith seriously. They live good lives and are not hypocrites. Seems like they teach love, integrity, strength.
  All Christians take their faith seruiosly or they wouldn’t be Christians.  And you’ve not met many Christians if you don’t think they’re hypocrites and that they only teach love integrity and strength.  We have plenty of Christians here who are liars, who hate those who are not like them, who have no strength at all but will do anything to for external validation. 

Quote
They help each other our. Many people lack those qualities, even religious people but not the congregation I witnessed. The world is cruel. I decided to join them. The whole notion of god and prayer in still odd to me but the idea of living like jesus seems like the way to be happy. Prayer feels refreshing, a way to clear the mind. The christians I know have very high succesful marriage rates. People here have hit rock bottom and came to the top because of religion. Personally I think its the love, strength and convidence  that they learned that caused them to rise. I have turned to religion for a better life and so far it is working. Is it god? I may never know but the bible has touched me.
  Again, sounds like any cult. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6367
  • Darwins +750/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #178 on: March 19, 2012, 11:55:49 AM »
I'm only 29, I feel that I am more mature than people my age.

Don't take this the wrong way. This is advice, not a criticism. At your age, I'm sure I said exactly the same thing to myself. In fact I know I did. I was wrong.

Maturity is not something that you can self-diagnose. Not at your age. I would suggest you ask for others for input before basing your decisions on your own opinion of how good they will be. And I'm talking friends and such. We anonymous internet folks don't know you well enough to offer reliable or useful life-altering input. (This advise is universal, rather than being aimed directly at you. So it's fine to heed it. In fact, it's mandatory.)

By the time you're 85 or so, you can probably do it. Decide for yourself if you are mature, that is. Prior to that, there will always be cooler heads willing to dispute your claim. Listen to them.

I'm 60, and I know better than to declare myself mature. In matters more important than which kind of soup to buy, I am willing to ask for feedback. And criticism. And accept both.

I didn't know this at your age. But now you do. Use this info wisely.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #179 on: March 20, 2012, 02:17:38 PM »
but the lifestyle jesus wants to people to live, in my opinion seems like a good way.

You should try Buddha for morals. I'd say he was better than jesus H.  Buddha did not demand belief in gods.  In fact, he said trying to figure out whether gods existed or not was a futile waste of time. Buddha's morals were simpler: end suffering.  And no one needed to be slaughtered as a sacrifice to a god to do it.

Bodhisattva's are buddhists who pledge to not enter nirvana until everyone is enlightened.  They promise to be reincarnated to help everyone achieve enlightenment.  Do you know any xians who are willing to wait to get into heaven until everyone can go?  I don't.  I have heard them delight in looking forward to my burning in hell.  To me, bodhisattvas are much more kind and selfless than even jesus H.  And this is from ordinary people, not avatars of god.

he may have not been a god but he has made an impact.

Not as much as Paul.  Most of xianity is based on Paul's malarkey, not jesus'.

he was probably just a genius,

Actually, he was probably mentally ill, like most prophets. 

Since you are in a science field, I recommend you read this link:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gv/outside_the_laboratory/

Then, check this one out:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1e/raising_the_sanity_waterline/

Then, dump your girlfriend.  She's a rube.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Dgj2301

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #180 on: March 20, 2012, 05:05:40 PM »
So many to reply to but, I decided to stop my Bible Study. There are a lot of things that I just can not do and I refuse to give up my dignity. They want you to free your mind and use your heart. From my experience, emotions make you irrational. My girlfriend is critisizing my decisions. She was baptized two days ago and ever since, she has been putting distance between us. I do want to continue to read the Bible, the torah, and the qur'an, but for fun. All these replies made me realize I was losing myself because I was vulnerable.

And about prophets being crazing, i remember watching the history channel and I forgot which civilization it was but the homes or bedrooms of the prophets were exposed with monoethylamine coming out of the ground. At the moment I work at a pharmaceutical company and monoethylamine is really dangerous.

And, really buddist believe in no god? I will look into this.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2024
  • Darwins +203/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #181 on: March 20, 2012, 10:44:52 PM »
From my experience, emotions make you irrational.

Pardon my profanity, but AMEN to that. 

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Dgj2301

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #182 on: March 20, 2012, 11:06:49 PM »
From my experience, emotions make you irrational.

Pardon my profanity, but AMEN to that.

I met with one of them today and he kept contradicting himself. He was telling me that maybe I should take my time, then he was saying I should get it done asap in case I die soon. I told him that I was going to read the whole bible, he said I should only read part of it. Then I asked what was the point of the bible if I should only read part of it. He said to help us out and understand the pain before jesus so I told him that maybe it would be a good idea to read it to under stand god more and he changed the subject. There were just so many more contradictions to mention

If there is no god then there must be a devil because my girlfriend stop talking to me today but another, younger, not religious girl was on my jock today. My girlfriend told me to follow my heart and let my brain rest. I told her that every time I do that, I make the wrong decisions. They say when you are in love, you don't use the right side of your brain. I had a talk with my cousin and she mentioned how religion caused so much pain in the world. I think I am finally gaining my sanity back.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1798
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #183 on: March 20, 2012, 11:39:56 PM »
Welcome to the forum, Dgj.



I met with one of them today and he kept contradicting himself. He was telling me that maybe I should take my time, then he was saying I should get it done asap in case I die soon. I told him that I was going to read the whole bible, he said I should only read part of it. Then I asked what was the point of the bible if I should only read part of it. He said to help us out and understand the pain before jesus so I told him that maybe it would be a good idea to read it to under stand god more and he changed the subject. There were just so many more contradictions to mention

There's a pretty big red flag, right there. I mean, if he didn't even want to argue about context, he probably realizes how riddled with contradiction and appalling "morality" his holy book is. Poor guy is probably struggling with his faith already; I can sympathize with that.

Quote
My girlfriend told me to follow my heart and let my brain rest. I told her that every time I do that, I make the wrong decisions... I think I am finally gaining my sanity back.

Sounds like it, dude. Well done, in my opinion. Not an easy thing when your glands are telling you one thing and your reason another.

Best of luck.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Dgj2301

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #184 on: March 21, 2012, 12:56:21 AM »
Welcome to the forum, Dgj.



I met with one of them today and he kept contradicting himself. He was telling me that maybe I should take my time, then he was saying I should get it done asap in case I die soon. I told him that I was going to read the whole bible, he said I should only read part of it. Then I asked what was the point of the bible if I should only read part of it. He said to help us out and understand the pain before jesus so I told him that maybe it would be a good idea to read it to under stand god more and he changed the subject. There were just so many more contradictions to mention

There's a pretty big red flag, right there. I mean, if he didn't even want to argue about context, he probably realizes how riddled with contradiction and appalling "morality" his holy book is. Poor guy is probably struggling with his faith already; I can sympathize with that.

Quote
My girlfriend told me to follow my heart and let my brain rest. I told her that every time I do that, I make the wrong decisions... I think I am finally gaining my sanity back.

Sounds like it, dude. Well done, in my opinion. Not an easy thing when your glands are telling you one thing and your reason another.

Best of luck.

Another thing is that they keep talking about how they are not "helping" me out to get numbers yet they teach you how to become a "disciple " which is to recruit more Christians.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #185 on: March 21, 2012, 07:30:21 AM »
And, really buddist believe in no god? I will look into this.

They are split.  Some do, some do not.  But it is not an explicit requirement to believe in a god.  And unlike jesus H, whether the Buddha existed or not is irrelevant.  His teachings/ practices are useful.  They do not require faith or mysticism, just practice.  It is more of a philosophy or approach to life than a religion.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2024
  • Darwins +203/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #186 on: March 21, 2012, 10:58:19 AM »
If there is no god then there must be a devil because my girlfriend stop talking to me today but another, younger, not religious girl was on my jock today.

Girlfriends come and go.  Compromising your own logical faculties in order to maintain a belief in something just so you can get the fringe benefits would be something you'd have to live with the rest of your life. 

My girlfriend told me to follow my heart and let my brain rest.

Not to be judgmental, but maybe she needs to put her brain back to work. 

I think I am finally gaining my sanity back.

That's good because it's something you don't want to lose. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Dgj2301

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #187 on: March 21, 2012, 05:51:54 PM »
Yeah So I started reading the bible and looked at scriptures that i was told included rape and murder. Yeah, very Godly. So i was being brainwashed to think that the bible was some sort of love story. I was only fed pieces. And it seemed like my Christian friend got nervous and tried to convince me of read the entire bible.

I downloaded a buddah book from amazon and i liked the the first page. it straight out read my mind. i hope I don't get brainwashed by this book.

Offline OtiumDies

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Darwins +0/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #188 on: March 23, 2012, 11:10:05 PM »
This initial part is a bit off topic but I'd like to say it anyway. I'm fond of some texts called Hermetic Scriptures. There it is said that even though the soul is immortal, mind is not. And if you don't seek, and of course attain eternal life, your soul will still be, but your mind, or the "you" part, will be no more. It's said that if you attain this eternal life for your soul AND mind, you can travel the stars, and all the cosmos, and appreciate God's creation. I associate this very quickly with the current religions' idea of heaven and hell. Be good (ha! find how...), and go (you, your mind) to... heaven, the stars! Or not and go to hell, down, to rot in the earth.

Anyway, digressing to much here...

While I do believe in God, I don't believe in men, and when I hear words like "bible" "koran" etc my ear starts to itch. Specially when is well know to us how the religions we have today came into being and what role they played in the last 2k years. That said, that punitive god many mentioned here, is not my God. My God won't come to me, he'll wait me to go to him.

Today with this "Ancient Aliens" frenzy people are more and more questioning the existence of God. But I liked what Mr. Daniken said at some point, he said "Those are aliens. My God doesn't need a spaceship to come here."  Neither do mine Mr Daniken, dang we must have the same God for God!

I think a such complex and in it's own way organized thing (there is a lot of order in what seems to be caos) such as the universe, simply cannot come into being without creation. It seems a bit obvious, to me, that something must have done something, move something, created something, in other words, acted in some way to create what we call universe. And only because we don't know (and even if we did we still had to understand it) doesn't mean it is not possible.
 
Sounds more reasonable that the universe was created, than it simply came to be after some big explosion. Maybe if Georges Lemaitre had explained what was BEFORE the explosion, maybe... this self created big bang would have sounded more reasonable than a God theory to me. In a few words, if something exists, something created that.

You don't see that ANYWHERE in the universe. Something being created out of nothing. Atoms of iron simply don't materialize. Nickel decays into them. And nickel in turn are made from silicon, which is made from oxygen and so on. And Hydrogen is created out of a soup, that... came into be own it's own. :o  Sounds like mad man theory to me. Something not from the cosmos must have created the cosmos, and not necessarily this something lives inside the cosmos. The cosmos could well be part of this something. 

Humans have the bad habit of requiring proof for everything, and on the absence of it, truth is always "molded" to fit our knowledge.
 
And to close, I believe people should try disconnect God from religions and religious scriptures that served as tools of control. They are by no means honest and enlightening. These religions are deceptively close to what their true purpose is, and very very far away from what God teachings should lead you to.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 11:22:24 PM by OtiumDies »

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2024
  • Darwins +203/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #189 on: March 24, 2012, 12:03:35 AM »
Today with this "Ancient Aliens" frenzy people are more and more questioning the existence of God. But I liked what Mr. Daniken said at some point, he said "Those are aliens. My God doesn't need a spaceship to come here."  Neither do mine Mr Daniken, dang we must have the same God for God!

It's not a frenzy; it's just gullible and naive people watching the History Channel and giving them some ratings so they can occasionally put on worthwhile programming for the rest of us. 

I think a such complex and in it's own way organized thing (there is a lot of order in what seems to be caos) such as the universe, simply cannot come into being without creation. It seems a bit obvious, to me, that something must have done something, move something, created something, in other words, acted in some way to create what we call universe. And only because we don't know (and even if we did we still had to understand it) doesn't mean it is not possible.

Do you think that your inability to comprehend how the universe could have come into being without a supernatural creation has anything to do with whether or not it actually did?  Why do you think that the universe could not have been born out of an unknown, yet altogether natural process (such as 2 larger universes colliding, or out the other side of a black hole for instance)? 

Very few people say that the god theory of universal creation is impossible.  Without evidence to back it up, however, to act as if it is the ONLY possibility is intellectual suicide. 


Sounds more reasonable that the universe was created, than it simply came to be after some big explosion.

Perhaps that's because you don't have all the facts available to you.  All you are doing here is applying your logic to a question for which you haven't gathered enough facts.  The people who study this stuff for a living tend to think that the universe was created after some big explosion (expansion really).  Unless you have evidence to refute them, why do you think it is reasonable to question their theories?  Have you actually listened to their reasoning?  Until you have, don't you think that the conclusions they make are going to be more reliable than yours? 

Maybe if Georges Lemaitre had explained what was BEFORE the explosion, maybe... this self created big bang would have sounded more reasonable than a God theory to me. In a few words, if something exists, something created that.

It sounds like you are saying that natural processes could not possibly be responsible for the creation of anything.  Is that really what you're saying here? 

You don't see that ANYWHERE in our universe.  Something being created out of nothing.

Beg to differ, but yes we do. 



Atoms of iron simply don't materialize. Nickel decays into them. And nickel in turn are made from silicon, which is made from oxygen and so on.

Umm.  All of that stuff is made when a star becomes a red giant and then explodes in a supernova.  I don't know where you're getting your information.  It's a very interesting process.  Some elements do decay into others, but that's not the primary way we got those you mentioned. 

Perhaps if you cite some of your sources for this information, we could look them over for you.  Here are a few that go into the process in some detail.. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
http://www.universetoday.com/46644/supernova/

And Hydrogen is created out of a soup, that... came into be own it's own.

No.  Hydrogen formed after the big bang in a process called fusion when the environment reached a temperature cooled enough to allow for the formation of nuclei and atoms from the ambient protons and neutrons that were speeding all around and crashing into each other.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

Sounds like mad man theory to me.

I think you need to do more studying.  Your grasp on this stuff is a bit lacking I think.  I'm no expert myself, but I've done a little reading. 

Humans have the bad habit of requiring proof for everything, and on the absence of it, truth is always "molded" to fit our knowledge.

Bad habit of requiring proof?  You think it's bad to require proof?  Can you explain the drawbacks of requiring proof in order to determine truth? 

In the absence of proof, science doesn't claim to know.  Only religion does that. 

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6367
  • Darwins +750/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #190 on: March 24, 2012, 12:32:39 AM »
You don't see that ANYWHERE in the universe. Something being created out of nothing. Atoms of iron simply don't materialize. Nickel decays into them. And nickel in turn are made from silicon, which is made from oxygen and so on. And Hydrogen is created out of a soup, that... came into be own it's own. :o  Sounds like mad man theory to me. Something not from the cosmos must have created the cosmos, and not necessarily this something lives inside the cosmos. The cosmos could well be part of this something.

Welcome OtiumDies. I trust you understand that not many of us will agree with you. Most of us will respect your views as long as you state them as well as you did here. But again, most of us won't agree.

The world of science has an explanation for the formation of iron and nickel and such. It makes sense to the astronomers, the math works well with what we observe, and the time required for those things to happen exists. So weren't not perplexed by such things. Instruments can detect the formation of such materials in stars, and we're pretty sure we've got that part right.

We could be wrong, but not as wrong as you want us to be. Further discovery will build upon the knowledge we have now, and of course we might find something that might turn some of the theories upside down, or sideways, or make them drift a little to the left of right, but I doubt they are totally off base.

Quote
Humans have the bad habit of requiring proof for everything, and on the absence of it, truth is always "molded" to fit our knowledge.

We don't require proof. We seek it. And in lieu of absolute certainty we use hypothesis and theory after making observations and measurement. We watch our world and our universe and work backwards from what we have now to what we think must have been in the past. While most creationists, for instance, insist that all dinosaurs died in the flood, they make no attempt to explain why different species are found in different levels of rock. Why the primitive reptiles of the Permian Period are never found buried with the dinosaurs alive in the Jurassic and Cretaceous Period. Or why humans are never found with dinosaurs, something one would expect if dinosaurs and all but a few humans all died at the same time. Science can provide an explanation for what is observed. Religion cannot.

Something from "nothing" is a problem for those who want it to be. But energy and matter pop back and forth all the time, and it does not confuse the physicists nearly as much as you want it to.

And we don't go back further than the big bang. Not theory wise. There is of course speculation about what may have happened or what may be out past our universe, but we have absolutely no evidence to tell us what happened prior to that event. So guess what. We say we don't know. If the world of science was full of sinister and dastardly people, they would make something up, tell us it is true, and we mindless followers of mindless scientists would have something to say on the matter in terms every bit as specific as we do about evolution or star formation. But at the point where the information stops, the world of science stops too. It knows better than to make stuff up. That is a useless endeavor.

We on this side of the issue are always amused by how christians (and I assume, many other religions) can be totally perplexed about "something" coming from "nothing" and then say it had to be a god who always was and always will be. None of you ever question where he came from. How he came to exist in the first place when you all insist that something can't come from nothing. You say he isn't of this dimension and he is not of time and conjure up other excuses, but the bottom line is that christians in general aren't the least bit bewildered by the most bewildering of prospects: An infinite deity far more complex than the universe we inhabit. The one that christians say couldn't exist because there is no mechanism for such things. Dismissing that question with a quick flip of the wrist is not the sort of thing you want to do if you are also trying to convert non-believers.

We get christians of all stripes here on the forum. And occasionally we get those of you who think the churches of the world are part of the problem. I also have personal friends who feel exactly the same way. At least generally. But the most common thing we find in christians is that they all have their own version of what they think is true. We often bandy around the number 38,000, as the number of different christian groups. And that of course does not include truly individual christians such as yourself who put your own spin on the perfect word of god. Nobody has yet explained why one book can spin off so many versions of your religion. Personally I would think the resulting inconsistencies would count as a great clue as to the accuracy of the book. Or lack thereof. But then again, I am one of those that require proof. Or at least plausibility. And christianity strikes out every time in that department.

About all we can hope to do (you and me and the others here) is explain our side of the argument so that in the future neither of us will be as perplexed by what those we disagree with think. So long as you present your side of the story with serious and thoughtful writing, most of us here (I can't guarantee all, of course) will treat you with the respect you deserve. Things might get a little heated every now and then if one sides wants answers and the other side ignores that request, but otherwise it may well be possible for us to have an intelligible discussion.

I hope so. And again, welcome.

Edit: Sometimes I can't quote for crap. Fixed it.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 12:34:57 AM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline OtiumDies

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Darwins +0/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #191 on: March 24, 2012, 01:32:15 AM »
Wow got a fan right away. Following me around, how silly of you.
I feel like because I do believe in what you don't, I'm automagically down range.


Quote from: JeffPT
It's not a frenzy; it's just gullible and naive people watching the History Channel and giving them some ratings so they can occasionally put on worthwhile programming for the rest of us.

I really don't think the idea of ancient visitors all impossible. And truth to be told, TV is no vehicle to gather information. Actually TV is no vehicle to nothing worthwhile in the real sense of this word.

Quote from: JeffPT
Do you think that your inability to comprehend how the universe could have come into being without a supernatural creation has anything to do with whether or not it actually did?  Why do you think that the universe could not have been born out of an unknown, yet altogether natural process (such as 2 larger universes colliding, or out the other side of a black hole for instance)? 

Do you have any proof that a second universe exists? How about what is in the other side of a blackhole? Well no one knows right?! I don't have inabilities to comprehend the science behind the current aceptable theory, in fact I do understand it very well, but to me, and this is my personal view, is more plausible the idea of a creationism. You can't prove me wrong! Period! As I can't prove you wrong. I guess we will have to wait and die to check that out.[/quote]

Quote from: JeffPT
Very few people say that the god theory of universal creation is impossible.  Without evidence to back it up, however, to act as if it is the ONLY possibility is intellectual suicide.

Agreed. But in your blindness you failed to read the following: TO ME. How many times I said "to me" and how many I said  "I think"? Everybody intelligent enough have their minds locked on something about this subject, is their views, but doesn't mean they discard other possibilities. It would be unwise. But all favor a side, and that's undisputed. I happen to favor the oposite side in which you are standing on. That's all.

Quote from: JeffPT
Perhaps that's because you don't have all the facts available to you.  All you are doing here is applying your logic to a question for which you haven't gathered enough facts.  The people who study this stuff for a living tend to think that the universe was created after some big explosion (expansion really).  Unless you have evidence to refute them, why do you think it is reasonable to question their theories?  Have you actually listened to their reasoning?  Until you have, don't you think that the conclusions they make are going to be more reliable than yours? 

Nah! Believe it when I say, I have ALL the currently available facts. Nothing BEFORE the bing bang has any logic. People that study this, for a living or not, do believe that the universe developed from that insignificant moment called big bang. Beyond that, they know nothing, and is all speculation. Since your're so trendy, how can they tell that the background noise that is believed to be leftovers from the big bang it really is if they can't "see" that far? Could that be another universe slamming ours and creating some? Well, I don't know that. And me, you, the owner of this site, and the scientists that study this for a living can only speculate wether that was or was not created by some entity. You can't refute this! This question has no scientific answer. And probably will never have one.
 
Quote from: JeffPT
It sounds like you are saying that natural processes could not possibly be responsible for the creation of anything.  Is that really what you're saying here? 

No! You are saying that. What I said is that if something exists, that something was at some point created. Either by a star, by a blackhole, by the explosion of a star, or by God. And since the big bang is as far back as super intelligent people that study for a living can do, I should say, it is not enough for me. I want to go further back, and in doing so, since the uber smart people have no idea what happened, I choose believe in some creator, just out of faith.


Quote from: JeffPT
Beg to differ, but yes we do. 
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Beg to differ back, no they DO NOT. For someone that uses the word facts so heavily you sure don't walk the talk.
I watched this video a few months back and I'll not watch it again. As you said to me, we need FACTS! This is a theory, and in fact, is in it's very early stages of existence. You should read the description or watch the entire video before posting. It says:

"Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek.""

It COULD! Possibility... and possibly is not fact. And if someone prove this theory to be right it will simply hurt fundamental laws of physics, that men that do this for a living fiercely believe in. Mass is energy, and that, is just like real state, you can't simply invent some more.

Quote from: JeffPT
Umm.  All of that stuff is made when a star becomes a red giant and then explodes in a supernova.  I don't know where you're getting your information.  It's a very interesting process.  Some elements do decay into others, but that's not the primary way we got those you mentioned. 

Perhaps if you cite some of your sources for this information, we could look them over for you.  Here are a few that go into the process in some detail.. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
http://www.universetoday.com/46644/supernova/

No they are NOT!

Sunny, I wound't rely on wikipedia for nothing. I bet if I go there now (and I did and it is), the info on this will be correct, but on many many occasions I caught brutal errors on important documents on wikipedia. Specially when dates are involved. Not reliable man. But I'm digressing.

Stars... beautiful eh?! They are, in the early stages basically hydrogen, helium and dust. As the star burns it's fuel, hydrogen and helium start to fuse to form different elements. And this product fuses again to for more heavier elements, all the way down to iron! Which on my example is where I started to work, but downwards. Iron is the heavier element a star, accordingly to very smart people that do this for a living believe, can produce with it's own gravitational force. So everything heavier than iron is necessarily created on the event of a supernovae, but iron, and lighter elements CAN and DO form inside starts.

Actually, supernovae happens when the mass of the IRON inside the core of the star reaches a critical mass, and collapses. So... iron was there already. ;P 

Quote from: JeffPT
No.  Hydrogen formed after the big bang in a process called fusion when the environment reached a temperature cooled enough to allow for the formation of nuclei and atoms from the ambient protons and neutrons that were speeding all around and crashing into each other.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

I think you need to do more studying.  Your grasp on this stuff is a bit lacking I think.  I'm no expert myself, but I've done a little reading. 

I know that man. You missed the point entirely. Ok, by the book atoms of hydrogen and helium formed in the very early stages of the universe, from protons and neutrons. Ok, ok. Where did the protons came up from? Don't tell me from quarks or I might slam you in the head with that rotten by now irc trout.

And to the second part of your reply, yes... YESSSS ALWAYS! I always need to do more studying. Too much to learn and so little time to live! I'm lacking A LOT. I know that. You too, need to read more, but that just a wild guess.

Humans have the bad habit of requiring proof for everything, and on the absence of it, truth is always "molded" to fit our knowledge.

Quote from: JeffPT
Bad habit of requiring proof?  You think it's bad to require proof?  Can you explain the drawbacks of requiring proof in order to determine truth? 

In the absence of proof, science doesn't claim to know.  Only religion does that. 

Yes it is a bad habit when the truth is impossible to grasp. Which is our main discussion here.

And at last, but not even remotely least, in the absence of proof science ALWAYS claim to know. That's what they call theory. They always have one... for EVERYTHING.

Well, be good. Think a lot. :)
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 01:42:39 AM by OtiumDies »

Offline OtiumDies

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Darwins +0/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #192 on: March 24, 2012, 03:35:30 AM »
Quote from: ParkingPlaces
Welcome OtiumDies. I trust you understand that not many of us will agree with you. Most of us will respect your views as long as you state them as well as you did here. But again, most of us won't agree.

The world of science has an explanation for the formation of iron and nickel and such. It makes sense to the astronomers, the math works well with what we observe, and the time required for those things to happen exists. So weren't not perplexed by such things. Instruments can detect the formation of such materials in stars, and we're pretty sure we've got that part right.

We could be wrong, but not as wrong as you want us to be. Further discovery will build upon the knowledge we have now, and of course we might find something that might turn some of the theories upside down, or sideways, or make them drift a little to the left of right, but I doubt they are totally off base.

Noooooo, no no no no no, NO man! Thats why J there is so arid with me. lol No! You got me all wrong. I think is my rotten engrish... well I hate languages, including my own. I'm more like a numbers guy, but I'm digressing.

You got it all wrong! Are you two insane? I give you 10 dollars if you show me anyone in the whole wide world that refuses the current and correct idea of mass formation. Oh.. wait. I think the confusion might be because Ni is actually heavier than Fe... Is that it? Actually stars do form Ni, but is unstable and most of it decays into Fe. Dunno where we missed each other there. I believe in everything you believe, but I do believe in something you do not. That’s basically it. But I love to be proven wrong, it is the easiest way to learn. :P

Quote from: ParkingPlaces
We don't require proof. We seek it. And in lieu of absolute certainty we use hypothesis and theory after making observations and measurement. We watch our world and our universe and work backwards from what we have now to what we think must have been in the past. While most creationists, for instance, insist that all dinosaurs died in the flood, they make no attempt to explain why different species are found in different levels of rock. Why the primitive reptiles of the Permian Period are never found buried with the dinosaurs alive in the Jurassic and Cretaceous Period. Or why humans are never found with dinosaurs, something one would expect if dinosaurs and all but a few humans all died at the same time. Science can provide an explanation for what is observed. Religion cannot.

I’m gonna cut this in some parts to make it easier for me.

You guys are implying I do believe in all that stuff. I don’t. See, we don’t have to fit in those pre determined casts where you are this or that. Why would we? Because some idiot or brilliant man brainstormed last year, or some two thousand years ago? I rather not. I prefer read about all those things, and brainstorm myself. Gimme the data and I’ll crunch it.

I don’t follow creationists ideas. For the sake of our friendship let’s just say I believe God created the big bang. :] You have your idea, I have mine, we can’t prove it, all we can do is drink this Heinecken and talk about it. :P


Quote from: ParkingPlaces
Something from "nothing" is a problem for those who want it to be. But energy and matter pop back and forth all the time, and it does not confuse the physicists nearly as much as you want it to.

If you are talking about quantum physics the information indeed moves from point A to B, but is instantaneously, no energy is added or subtracted. So one banana can go from here to the other side of the universe, but it would still, be a banana, in some way... :P

Quote from: ParkingPlaces
And we don't go back further than the big bang. Not theory wise. There is of course speculation about what may have happened or what may be out past our universe, but we have absolutely no evidence to tell us what happened prior to that event. So guess what. We say we don't know. If the world of science was full of sinister and dastardly people, they would make something up, tell us it is true, and we mindless followers of mindless scientists would have something to say on the matter in terms every bit as specific as we do about evolution or star formation. But at the point where the information stops, the world of science stops too. It knows better than to make stuff up. That is a useless endeavor.

Your ideas are not so different than mine. I don’t think God is behind every door, controlling every single grain of sand in the whole of the universe. Actually in my mind goes like this: I think science IS God, but God is not science, in fact he is the creator of it. To make the audience happy, I can’t prove any of this :P and that’s pretty much where I stop.

Quote from: ParkingPlaces
We on this side of the issue are always amused by how christians (and I assume, many other religions) can be totally perplexed about "something" coming from "nothing" and then say it had to be a god who always was and always will be. None of you ever question where he came from. How he came to exist in the first place when you all insist that something can't come from nothing. You say he isn't of this dimension and he is not of time and conjure up other excuses, but the bottom line is that christians in general aren't the least bit bewildered by the most bewildering of prospects: An infinite deity far more complex than the universe we inhabit. The one that christians say couldn't exist because there is no mechanism for such things. Dismissing that question with a quick flip of the wrist is not the sort of thing you want to do if you are also trying to convert non-believers.

Well, I guess I’m creating my own version then. Because that’s not what I believe in. As far as we know, inside our universe something cannot be created out of nothing. I don’t think God created itself, and we don’t know the other side to know if he exists how he was created. For all we know God can be the consciousness of this bubble we call universe, like a huge void whale and therefore the universe itself. We don’t know, and I agree with you thus far when you say people that follow let’s call mainstream religions are the blind sheep. Away with the pagans as well... :P And I also believe that God must be more complex than it’s creation, that’s the logical assumption, but to my view entirely possible. The universe is unimaginably complex, but if I, or more likely God, added one grain of sand to it, it will be more complex than it is now. So more complex things than the universe itself seem like a valid and possible scenario.

 


Quote from: ParkingPlaces
We get christians of all stripes here on the forum. And occasionally we get those of you who think the churches of the world are part of the problem. I also have personal friends who feel exactly the same way. At least generally. But the most common thing we find in christians is that they all have their own version of what they think is true. We often bandy around the number 38,000, as the number of different christian groups. And that of course does not include truly individual christians such as yourself who put your own spin on the perfect word of god. Nobody has yet explained why one book can spin off so many versions of your religion. Personally I would think the resulting inconsistencies would count as a great clue as to the accuracy of the book. Or lack thereof. But then again, I am one of those that require proof. Or at least plausibility. And christianity strikes out every time in that department.

Ok, now I’m feeling kinda unwelcome. hehe Let me break that down.

I’m not a christian.
I don’t think churches are the problem, I think they are part of the problem.
My version is not the truth, I never said that! I have my own believes, but they tend to morph as I learn. I’m young, I rather take my time, learn, read a lot, study, talk to other people that believe what I believe, and specially with those that do not. Then is crunch time! ;-]
 
Quote from: ParkingPlaces
About all we can hope to do (you and me and the others here) is explain our side of the argument so that in the future neither of us will be as perplexed by what those we disagree with think. So long as you present your side of the story with serious and thoughtful writing, most of us here (I can't guarantee all, of course) will treat you with the respect you deserve. Things might get a little heated every now and then if one sides wants answers and the other side ignores that request, but otherwise it may well be possible for us to have an intelligible discussion.

I hope so. And again, welcome.

Thanks man! I tough I was being banned, taken to the pillory or had my hand cut off or something. lol

Quote from: ParkingPlaces
Edit: Sometimes I can't quote for crap. Fixed it.
And you lost me here. What did you mean?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 03:48:11 AM by OtiumDies »

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #193 on: March 24, 2012, 03:53:19 AM »
 
OtiumDies

Quote
I don’t follow creationists ideas. For the sake of our friendship let’s just say I believe God created the big bang.

who created god? around and around we go.
The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Offline OtiumDies

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Darwins +0/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #194 on: March 24, 2012, 04:34:48 AM »
who created god? around and around we go.

Don't know. What was before the big bang?

I could speculate that if multiple universes exist, each one could have it's own God, who in turn could create another like Him. But that would be fail in essence, because we will go around once more.

Or, I could use the notion of infinity and eternity, the same infinity and eternity the universe will expand to, but backwards and applied to our God here. If God created the universe, and the universe is infinite and eternal, why can that be applied to God itself but backwards? I'm sleepy, does that make sense?


Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10947
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #195 on: March 24, 2012, 04:37:12 AM »
Don't know. What was before the big bang?

What you're asking makes no sense. The Big Bang was the beginning of time and space; both of which are requirements for existence and interaction. If your claim that your god created/caused the Big Bang was to be given one iota of credibility, it would require you to completely rewrite space-time equations to allow for space and time before they began. You can see where that might be a problem.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline OtiumDies

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Darwins +0/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #196 on: March 24, 2012, 05:24:52 AM »
What you're asking makes no sense. The Big Bang was the beginning of time and space; both of which are requirements for existence and interaction. If your claim that your god created/caused the Big Bang was to be given one iota of credibility, it would require you to completely rewrite space-time equations to allow for space and time before they began. You can see where that might be a problem.

And that's where we go back to the word theory. As in God theory, or the big bang theory, or that girl is virgem theory, and so on.

We humans are so sure of ourselves, that is so wrong! All we actually had were mere 300 years of good applied and theoretical science and we thing we can be so sure of things when history teaches us over and over and over again we are not "ready yet".

I entirely got your concept of the creation, but I don't think you are grasping mine. If God created the big bang, then he created the universe itself, he is out of these equations. He is the Father of them.

And since we are in theory land the string theory has some weird ideas, that I'm not entirely familiar with, for example about dimensional membranes with spaces in between them that generate universes when they touch. How E = mc2 would behave there? I'm asking ... lol I'll look into it tomorrow.

If not by string theory, I'll tacke your argument with something more real. A blackhole for instance. It breaks the so cherished "laws". Well does that mean we will have to rewrite all our facts about our universe? I guess not, we just have to understand more than we do now. And maybe, just maybe things behave differently in different parts of the universe (another theory that emerged recently). Does E = mc2 is respected 100% of the time even inside our own universe and the things that reside inside? No. Some one could say "yes, because inside a blackhole time stops" lol, but no.

Our own laws of physics are not respected inside this body, and these are created by the universe, which is much complex, that in turn... well you know where I'm going. And since most people that don't think are lobo-church sided, and people that do think are skeptical, I guess it will take twice the mount of time to discover the real truth about what created the universe.

Now I'm gonna count some sheep and crash. Big crunch, here and now.

See u guys hopefully tomorrow
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 05:41:01 AM by OtiumDies »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10947
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #197 on: March 24, 2012, 05:26:40 AM »
A theory is not a guess. A theory is an explanation of how the facts fit together. Theories also make predictions as to what we should find if the theory is correct and are falsifiable. The Big Bang has all three. Your guess does not.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline OtiumDies

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Darwins +0/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #198 on: March 24, 2012, 05:32:03 AM »
A theory is not a guess. A theory is an explanation of how the facts fit together. Theories also make predictions as to what we should find if the theory is correct and are falsifiable. The Big Bang has all three. Your guess does not.

Agree.  You got this point. 100% The big bang has all of them.

But that does not explain why can't God come before the big bang and thus break the very laws that celestial bodies do break.

 :o :o :o gnite
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 05:34:05 AM by OtiumDies »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10947
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #199 on: March 24, 2012, 05:34:06 AM »
You're missing a couple of steps:
First prove that a god exists. Then prove that it's the one you believe in. Then prove that it can break all the laws of physics.

Do all of these things and you will be one step closer to achieving "theory status".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline OtiumDies

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Darwins +0/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #200 on: March 24, 2012, 05:55:38 AM »
You're missing a couple of steps:
First prove that a god exists. Then prove that it's the one you believe in. Then prove that it can break all the laws of physics.

Do all of these things and you will be one step closer to achieving "theory status".

Could you boost such remark in correlation to black holes 30 years ago? I guess not, but now you can. See how your perception of the cosmos changes as you learn more, and what was not, now is.

This is where our brains part ways. God is not an equation. I don't need to do all that. And even if I wanted to, I could't do it or prove it.

But going around neither can you prove otherwise. Which reminds me Copernicus, not so popular, did not make much sense to most, but nevertheless was correct. Not saying I am, just counter arguing ahead...

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in the what Lucifer is? Or was just a way to repress poor lobotomized christians? Srly believe it? I don't think you do, but it does not hurt to ask.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 06:00:56 AM by OtiumDies »

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4363
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #201 on: March 24, 2012, 06:02:35 AM »
And that's where we go back to the word theory. As in God theory, or the big bang theory, or that girl is virgem theory, and so on.

You know, I'm a big fan of the various "Law & Order" television series (which, although dramatized for television, actually do follow real life procedure in quite a few ways).  Typically, an episode of the show works like this: the show opens with either a crime being committed or the discovery of a crime having been committed -- for example, two guys operating a garbage truck early in the morning are getting ready to empty a dumpster, and behind the dumpster, they discover a dead body.  The detectives arrive on the scene and begin their investigation.

First, the detectives will establish some preliminary facts: the victim's identity, the time of death, the method used to commit the murder, and so on.  Once they've gathered enough facts, they will formulate a theory as to who committed the murder.  For example, if the victim is a wealthy investment banker whose will leaves everything to his wife, the detectives' first theory might be that the wife killed him for the money.  The detectives then investigate further to see whether this theory is correct.  When following up on this theory, they may discover that the wife was attending a social function at the time of the murder, which is confirmed by a number of others who were also at that social function.

But.

It would be completely ridiculous for the detectives to then say, "Since our theory was wrong, maybe the victim is still alive."

I started writing this with the intention of making a comparison to fundamental Christians' views on scientific theories (especially the theory of evolution, but other theories as well).  I can't remember what my point was, though.  *cough cough*
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10947
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #202 on: March 24, 2012, 06:10:40 AM »
Could you boost such remark in correlation to black holes 30 years ago? I guess not, but now you can. See how your perception of the cosmos changes as you learn more, and what was not, now is.

Yes, you could. Black holes don't break the laws of physics, black holes have always existed and black holes are falsifiable. See how you sound just like another theist; trying to make himself feel special by claiming to have access to "special knowledge".

This is where our brains part ways. God is not an equation. I don't need to do all that.

You do if you want your claims to be taken seriously around here.

And even if I wanted to, I could't do it or prove it.

No evidence of any kind. Finally, one honest theist.

But going around neither can you prove otherwise. Which reminds me Copernicus, not so popular, did not make much sense to most, but nevertheless was correct. Not saying I am, just counter arguing ahead...

Copernicus was persecuted because his evidence contradicted the Bible.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in the what Lucifer is?

Lucifer is a Latin word which means "lightbringer" or "morning star". In the Bible, it's a title given to some of its fictional characters.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.