A wealth of scientific evidence proves the existence of God, but not even a shred of evidence suggests the non-existence of God (JP)
janp...@gmail.com
entirely based on proofs for the non-existence of various phenomena,
objects, and physical quantities. In fact, scientists compete with
each other in indicating items of evidence which suggest that
something supposedly does NOT exist in the universe. Let us provide
here several illustrative examples. In the official human science
theories of Albert Einstein are indicated as the proof for the non-
existence of speeds in excess of the speed of light. Findings of Lord
Kelvin are considered to be a proof that the temperature below
"absolute zero" does NOT exist. The experiment of Michelson-Morley of
1887 is acknowledged as the proof that the substance in past called
the "ether" (now it is called the "counter-matter") does NOT exist.
Laws of thermodynamics supposedly prove that principles and phenomena
on the basis of which we could build so-called "perpetual motion"
devices, are also non-existent. The so-called "red shift" in light
from stars is supposedly a proof that at some stage the entire
universe was non-existent. The definition and descriptions of the idea
of "time" used by present official science are supposedly a proof that
the possibility to shift time back does NOT exist as well. Etc., etc.
These scientific claims about the non-existence of various fundamental
ideas and physical quantities are so domineering, while their
influence so omnipresent, that the statement becomes true that
"present official human science is practically the science based on
proofs of non-existence".
In spite of this abundance of scientific evidence for the non-
existence of whatsoever, present human science is still UNABLE to
indicate even a smallest shred of evidence in support of the claim it
makes about matter of the highest importance for the humanity. Namely,
the official human science is NOT able to indicate even a smallest
example of evidence which would confirm the claimed non-existence of
God (see the totaliztic web page named "god.htm"). In other words, in
spite that the science is saturated with atheists who compete with
each other in inventing theories that would deny the truth about the
existence of God, these atheistic scientists are still NOT able to
invent or to detect even a smallest shred of evidence that would
confirm that they base their claims on some sort of factual findings
or factual scientific data. Simultaneously - as the reader probably
noticed this already from items #F1 and #F2 of the totaliztic web page
named "bible.htm", there is an abundance of scientific evidence
(unfortunately unspoken and kept hidden by most of scientists) which
certifies for the existence of God. Thus, the confrontation of these
two facts, namely the "non-existence of even a shred of evidence for
the non-existence of God, and the existence of abundance of scientific
evidence for the existence of God, leads to the obvious and very
meaningful conclusion - namely that in spite of the noisy propaganda
of promoters of "atheism", God in fact definitely does exist. "
The above final conclusion is additionally reinforced by findings of
the philosophy of totalizm (see the web page named "totalizm.htm")
which results from the so-called "ULT language" - means from the
"Universal Language of Thoughts". (This language is described in item
#B4 of a separate web page named "telepathy.htm" - about the
phenomenon of telepathy and telepathic devices, and also in item I5.4
of monograph [1/5] - see the web page named "text_1_5.htm"). According
to these findings, the fact of the existence of a language in the
universe, which God uses for thought communication with all creatures
that populate the entire universe, causes that everything that does
NOT exist, has no, as yet, its own word in the ULT language. Thus,
"whatever does NOT exist, cannot appear in our thoughts". If we
express this in other words, then according to totalizm "the universe
was intentionally constructed in such a manner that already exists in
it and (or) can be created every object and every idea which can
appear in our thoughts and which through the way it is formulated does
NOT impose the requirement that the universe must work in an unique
and a different manner". This in turn means, that because the idea
stating that "God does exist" can appear in our thoughts, while this
idea of the "existence of God" does NOT impose onto the universe a
requirement to work in a way that is different from the way in which
the universe already does work, in the light of totalizm it suffices
just by itself as the proof that God in fact does exist.
If for someone the above is still not satisfying his or her thirst for
learning further proofs that confirm the existence of God, then he or
she should additionally review the beginning of item #A1 from the web
page "bible.htm". In that item #A1 listed are four formal scientific
proofs developed with the use of methods of mathematical logic. These
proofs also prove that: (1) God does exist, (2) counter-world does
exist (the name "counter-world" is a scientific name for a separate
world in which live: God, souls, time programs, etc.), (3) people have
immortal souls, and (4) it was God, not the "natural evolution", who
created the first pair of people, namely the first man and the first
woman. The formal scientific proofs indicated above are additionally
complemented with the formal proof from item #B1 of the web page
"bible.htm", which proves that the Bible was authorised by God
himself.
It is very unfortunately for the humanity that without any
reservations people adopted in their thinking this erroneous principle
of the official science which states that "everything that was not
proven still does not exist". This principle leads people to assuming
"a priori" that almost everything that others claim is untrue, that
everything needs to be continually verified, and that the truth cannot
be spoken out until we are able to present evidence for it. This in
turn leads the humanity to all these errors, deviations, and suffering
which we can see now around us. Fortunately for us, the relatively new
"theory of everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity" (see
the web page named "dipolar_gravity.htm"), and the philosophy called
the "moral totalizm" (see the web page named "totalizm.htm") which
stems from this theory, started to disseminate on the Earth an
alternative principle of "recognising the existence of everything that
can appear in our thoughts - if only the formulation of these thoughts
does NOT impose the requirement that principles on which the universe
work must be changed". Let us hope, that increasingly wider acceptance
of this alternative principle will lead to a gradual healing of the
errors, deviations, and suffering that are imposed on the humanity by
doctrines of the science to-date.
Adoption of the totaliztic principle in our thinking, that "everything
which can appear in our thoughts, and which does NOT require the
change in principles on which the universe work, exists already now,
or existed in past, or will exist in the future" introduces quite a
meaningful side effect. Namely, this side effect is that: the majority
of quantities and phenomena which by the official science to-date were
considered to be non-existent, in fact do exist, existed, or will
exist. It is just because of this, that the "theory of everything"
called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see the web page named
"dipolar_gravity.htm") created the philosophical foundations for the
introduction to science a completely different period, namely when
"science and ordinary people are going to rely on evidence of the
existence, on the assumption that every statement of others is true,
and on the premise that everything that is claimed in fact does
exist". From the philosophical point of view this new period will be
an exact opposite of the previous period described at the beginning of
this item, when "the official human science, and also common people in
their mutual interactions, relied mainly on the evidence for non-
existence, on the assumption that every claim of others is untrue, and
on the premise that the majority of what is claimed and what is
thought in fact does NOT exist and thus everything requires continuous
confirmation of the existence". For ordinary people this new period of
"relying on the existence and on the assumption of truth" is going to
manifest itself, amongst others, by accepting that "every claim of
others is going to be taken as the truth without forcing others to
prove it." As an example of differences which this new period
introduces to science, let us illustrate now how the "theory of
everything" proves the existence of quantities and phenomena described
at the beginning of this item, which so-far the official human science
considered to be non-existent. And so:
- The theoretical "proof" of Albert Einstein, that the speed of light
is an unsurpassable barrier, was abolished by the Concept of Dipolar
Gravity (see the web page named "dipolar_gravity.htm"). This
abolishing was accomplished through the introduction of the instant
telekinetic motion described, amongst others, on web pages
"telekinesis.htm" - about the phenomenon of telekinesis, and
"propulsion.htm" - about telekinetic vehicles.
- In subsection H2 from volume 4 of monograph [1/5] (see the web page
"tekst_1_5.htm") it is proven that the "theory of everything" called
the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see "dipolar_gravity.htm") invalidates
the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 for the non-existence of
"ether", because the "counter-matter" (in past called with the name
"ether") is contained in a separate world than the world in which this
experiment was carried out. Thus the counter-matter cannot be detected
remotely from our physical world.
- According to the "theory of everything" called the Concept of
Dipolar Gravity (see the web page "dipolar_gravity.htm"), telekinetic
generators of free energy, which are a modern implementation of the
old idea of "perpetual motion", do exist and can be build, while the
working prototypes of these generators are described on the web page
"free_energy.htm" - about telekinetic generators of free energy.
- The significance of the "red shift" as an evidence for the initial
non-existence of the universe, was abolished in item #D2.1 of the
totaliztic web page "dipolar_gravity.htm" - about the Concept of
Dipolar Gravity, where it was documented that the "red shift" is a
consequence of the beaming of light against the current of "flows of
gravity programs" - similarly as a "blue sky" is a consequence of the
beaming of light along the current of such programs.
- The existence of ability to shift time back and to build time
vehicles is described on the totaliztic web page "timevehicle.htm" -
about the work of time, time travel, and time vehicles.
At this point it is worth to mention, that in addition to numerous
ideas for the non-existence of which scientists managed to present
some sort of "stretched" evidence, by inertia and by habit scientists
claim also the non-existence of a large number of further quantities
and phenomena in support of the non-existence of which these
scientists have no even a shred of evidence. The key position on the
list of these ideas, objects, quantities, and phenomena that are
announced by scientists as non-existing without presenting even a
slightest evidence, takes (of course) God. Examples most known amongst
further such ideas that are officially denounced and authoritatively
condemned by the official science without presenting any evidence,
include: telekinesis, telepathy, ESP, radiesthesia, UFOs, life after
death, souls, spirits, other world, walking on fire, healing,
capability of humans to decrease the entropy of the universe, and many
other. Numerous scientists deny even that there is still left anything
in the universe that would NOT be discovered and researched so-far. As
this illustrates, many professional scientists instead of doing what
they originally were employed for, means "explaining ALL mysteries of
the universe and learning how to control the nature so that it works
for the benefit of mankind", they specialise in denying that such
mysteries of the universe and nature still exist at all.
The embarrassing for scientists disclose of the lack of even a shred
of evidence for the NON-existence of God, as described above,
originally is presented in item #F3 from the web page named
"bible.htm", update of 30 March 2008, or later. The web page
"bible.htm" should be available from following addresses ?if it was
not sabotaged there by evil powers that recently rampage in the
internet.
http://bible.webng.com/bible.htm
http://energy.atspace.org/bible.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/bible.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/bible.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/bible.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/bible.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/bible.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/bible.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/bible.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/bible.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/bible.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/bible.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/bible.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/bible.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/bible.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/bible.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/bible.htm
It is also worth to know that under each address indicated above ALL
the web pages of totalizm should be available (unless some of these
web pages were sabotaged in the meantime). Thus, if someone wishes to
view descriptions from any other web page of totalizm, e.g. from a web
page listed in this message, or listed in other totaliztic messages,
then in the above addresses the name "bible.htm" is just enough to
exchange for a name of the web page that he or she wishes to view,
e.g. for the name of web page "boiler.htm", "free_energy.htm",
"wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm", "newzealand.htm", "free_energy.htm",
"fe_cell.htm", "malbork_uk.htm", "evolution.htm", "god.htm",
"bible.htm", "text_1_5.htm", "dipolar_gravity.htm", "nirvana.htm",
"evil.htm", "memorial.htm", etc., etc.
Let totalizm prevail,
Jan Pajak
P.S. The subject of the "evidence for the existence of God" described
here, as well as other subjects related to it, is already being
discussed on various Google discussion groups. For example:
(1) The discussion of the physical evidence for the existence of God
(in the English language) is carried out at the internet addresses:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/0b85905d2dc9f083#c374dc041f3c5fdf
(2) The discussion of the biological evidence for the existence of God
(in English), is carried out at addresses:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8040cef26d37261f#de22942cb8fe3aee
(3) The discussion of the evidence for non-existence of God (in the
Polish language) is carried out at the internet addresses:
http://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.fizyka/browse_thread/thread/23b46a156e7ef6a8#
raven1
I've fixed your post so that it makes more sense. No charge this time.
Seriously, you do realize that you're barking mad, right?
>Sbhaqngvbaf bs gur cerfrag bssvpvny (begubqbk) uhzna fpvrapr ner
>ragveryl onfrq ba cebbsf sbe gur aba-rkvfgrapr bs inevbhf curabzran,
>bowrpgf, naq culfvpny dhnagvgvrf. Va snpg, fpvragvfgf pbzcrgr jvgu
>rnpu bgure va vaqvpngvat vgrzf bs rivqrapr juvpu fhttrfg gung
>fbzrguvat fhccbfrqyl qbrf ABG rkvfg va gur havirefr. Yrg hf cebivqr
>urer frireny vyyhfgengvir rknzcyrf. Va gur bssvpvny uhzna fpvrapr
>gurbevrf bs Nyoreg Rvafgrva ner vaqvpngrq nf gur cebbs sbe gur aba-
>rkvfgrapr bs fcrrqf va rkprff bs gur fcrrq bs yvtug. Svaqvatf bs Ybeq
>Xryiva ner pbafvqrerq gb or n cebbs gung gur grzcrengher orybj
>"nofbyhgr mreb" qbrf ABG rkvfg. Gur rkcrevzrag bs Zvpuryfba-Zbeyrl bs
>1887 vf npxabjyrqtrq nf gur cebbs gung gur fhofgnapr va cnfg pnyyrq
>gur "rgure" (abj vg vf pnyyrq gur "pbhagre-znggre") qbrf ABG rkvfg.
>Ynjf bs gurezbqlanzvpf fhccbfrqyl cebir gung cevapvcyrf naq curabzran
>ba gur onfvf bs juvpu jr pbhyq ohvyq fb-pnyyrq "crecrghny zbgvba"
>qrivprf, ner nyfb aba-rkvfgrag. Gur fb-pnyyrq "erq fuvsg" va yvtug
>sebz fgnef vf fhccbfrqyl n cebbs gung ng fbzr fgntr gur ragver
>havirefr jnf aba-rkvfgrag. Gur qrsvavgvba naq qrfpevcgvbaf bs gur vqrn
>bs "gvzr" hfrq ol cerfrag bssvpvny fpvrapr ner fhccbfrqyl n cebbs gung
>gur cbffvovyvgl gb fuvsg gvzr onpx qbrf ABG rkvfg nf jryy. Rgp., rgp.
>Gurfr fpvragvsvp pynvzf nobhg gur aba-rkvfgrapr bs inevbhf shaqnzragny
>vqrnf naq culfvpny dhnagvgvrf ner fb qbzvarrevat, juvyr gurve
>vasyhrapr fb bzavcerfrag, gung gur fgngrzrag orpbzrf gehr gung
>"cerfrag bssvpvny uhzna fpvrapr vf cenpgvpnyyl gur fpvrapr onfrq ba
>cebbsf bs aba-rkvfgrapr".
>
>Va fcvgr bs guvf nohaqnapr bs fpvragvsvp rivqrapr sbe gur aba-
>rkvfgrapr bs jungfbrire, cerfrag uhzna fpvrapr vf fgvyy HANOYR gb
>vaqvpngr rira n fznyyrfg fuerq bs rivqrapr va fhccbeg bs gur pynvz vg
>znxrf nobhg znggre bs gur uvturfg vzcbegnapr sbe gur uhznavgl. Anzryl,
>gur bssvpvny uhzna fpvrapr vf ABG noyr gb vaqvpngr rira n fznyyrfg
>rknzcyr bs rivqrapr juvpu jbhyq pbasvez gur pynvzrq aba-rkvfgrapr bs
>Tbq (frr gur gbgnyvmgvp jro cntr anzrq "tbq.ugz"). Va bgure jbeqf, va
>fcvgr gung gur fpvrapr vf fnghengrq jvgu ngurvfgf jub pbzcrgr jvgu
>rnpu bgure va vairagvat gurbevrf gung jbhyq qral gur gehgu nobhg gur
>rkvfgrapr bs Tbq, gurfr ngurvfgvp fpvragvfgf ner fgvyy ABG noyr gb
>vairag be gb qrgrpg rira n fznyyrfg fuerq bs rivqrapr gung jbhyq
>pbasvez gung gurl onfr gurve pynvzf ba fbzr fbeg bs snpghny svaqvatf
>be snpghny fpvragvsvp qngn. Fvzhygnarbhfyl - nf gur ernqre cebonoyl
>abgvprq guvf nyernql sebz vgrzf #S1 naq #S2 bs gur gbgnyvmgvp jro cntr
>anzrq "ovoyr.ugz", gurer vf na nohaqnapr bs fpvragvsvp rivqrapr
>(hasbeghangryl hafcbxra naq xrcg uvqqra ol zbfg bs fpvragvfgf) juvpu
>pregvsvrf sbe gur rkvfgrapr bs Tbq. Guhf, gur pbasebagngvba bs gurfr
>gjb snpgf, anzryl gur "aba-rkvfgrapr bs rira n fuerq bs rivqrapr sbe
>gur aba-rkvfgrapr bs Tbq, naq gur rkvfgrapr bs nohaqnapr bs fpvragvsvp
>rivqrapr sbe gur rkvfgrapr bs Tbq, yrnqf gb gur boivbhf naq irel
>zrnavatshy pbapyhfvba - anzryl gung va fcvgr bs gur abvfl cebcntnaqn
>bs cebzbgref bs "ngurvfz", Tbq va snpg qrsvavgryl qbrf rkvfg. "
>
>Gur nobir svany pbapyhfvba vf nqqvgvbanyyl ervasbeprq ol svaqvatf bs
>gur cuvybfbcul bs gbgnyvmz (frr gur jro cntr anzrq "gbgnyvmz.ugz")
>juvpu erfhygf sebz gur fb-pnyyrq "HYG ynathntr" - zrnaf sebz gur
>"Havirefny Ynathntr bs Gubhtugf". (Guvf ynathntr vf qrfpevorq va vgrz
>#O4 bs n frcnengr jro cntr anzrq "gryrcngul.ugz" - nobhg gur
>curabzraba bs gryrcngul naq gryrcnguvp qrivprf, naq nyfb va vgrz V5.4
>bs zbabtencu [1/5] - frr gur jro cntr anzrq "grkg_1_5.ugz"). Nppbeqvat
>gb gurfr svaqvatf, gur snpg bs gur rkvfgrapr bs n ynathntr va gur
>havirefr, juvpu Tbq hfrf sbe gubhtug pbzzhavpngvba jvgu nyy perngherf
>gung cbchyngr gur ragver havirefr, pnhfrf gung rirelguvat gung qbrf
>ABG rkvfg, unf ab, nf lrg, vgf bja jbeq va gur HYG ynathntr. Guhf,
>"jungrire qbrf ABG rkvfg, pnaabg nccrne va bhe gubhtugf". Vs jr
>rkcerff guvf va bgure jbeqf, gura nppbeqvat gb gbgnyvmz "gur havirefr
>jnf vagragvbanyyl pbafgehpgrq va fhpu n znaare gung nyernql rkvfgf va
>vg naq (be) pna or perngrq rirel bowrpg naq rirel vqrn juvpu pna
>nccrne va bhe gubhtugf naq juvpu guebhtu gur jnl vg vf sbezhyngrq qbrf
>ABG vzcbfr gur erdhverzrag gung gur havirefr zhfg jbex va na havdhr
>naq n qvssrerag znaare". Guvf va ghea zrnaf, gung orpnhfr gur vqrn
>fgngvat gung "Tbq qbrf rkvfg" pna nccrne va bhe gubhtugf, juvyr guvf
>vqrn bs gur "rkvfgrapr bs Tbq" qbrf ABG vzcbfr bagb gur havirefr n
>erdhverzrag gb jbex va n jnl gung vf qvssrerag sebz gur jnl va juvpu
>gur havirefr nyernql qbrf jbex, va gur yvtug bs gbgnyvmz vg fhssvprf
>whfg ol vgfrys nf gur cebbs gung Tbq va snpg qbrf rkvfg.
>
>Vs sbe fbzrbar gur nobir vf fgvyy abg fngvfslvat uvf be ure guvefg sbe
>yrneavat shegure cebbsf gung pbasvez gur rkvfgrapr bs Tbq, gura ur be
>fur fubhyq nqqvgvbanyyl erivrj gur ortvaavat bs vgrz #N1 sebz gur jro
>cntr "ovoyr.ugz". Va gung vgrz #N1 yvfgrq ner sbhe sbezny fpvragvsvp
>cebbsf qrirybcrq jvgu gur hfr bs zrgubqf bs zngurzngvpny ybtvp. Gurfr
>cebbsf nyfb cebir gung: (1) Tbq qbrf rkvfg, (2) pbhagre-jbeyq qbrf
>rkvfg (gur anzr "pbhagre-jbeyq" vf n fpvragvsvp anzr sbe n frcnengr
>jbeyq va juvpu yvir: Tbq, fbhyf, gvzr cebtenzf, rgp.), (3) crbcyr unir
>vzzbegny fbhyf, naq (4) vg jnf Tbq, abg gur "angheny ribyhgvba", jub
>perngrq gur svefg cnve bs crbcyr, anzryl gur svefg zna naq gur svefg
>jbzna. Gur sbezny fpvragvsvp cebbsf vaqvpngrq nobir ner nqqvgvbanyyl
>pbzcyrzragrq jvgu gur sbezny cebbs sebz vgrz #O1 bs gur jro cntr
>"ovoyr.ugz", juvpu cebirf gung gur Ovoyr jnf nhgubevfrq ol Tbq
>uvzfrys.
>
>Vg vf irel hasbeghangryl sbe gur uhznavgl gung jvgubhg nal
>erfreingvbaf crbcyr nqbcgrq va gurve guvaxvat guvf reebarbhf cevapvcyr
>bs gur bssvpvny fpvrapr juvpu fgngrf gung "rirelguvat gung jnf abg
>cebira fgvyy qbrf abg rkvfg". Guvf cevapvcyr yrnqf crbcyr gb nffhzvat
>"n cevbev" gung nyzbfg rirelguvat gung bguref pynvz vf hagehr, gung
>rirelguvat arrqf gb or pbagvahnyyl irevsvrq, naq gung gur gehgu pnaabg
>or fcbxra bhg hagvy jr ner noyr gb cerfrag rivqrapr sbe vg. Guvf va
>ghea yrnqf gur uhznavgl gb nyy gurfr reebef, qrivngvbaf, naq fhssrevat
>juvpu jr pna frr abj nebhaq hf. Sbeghangryl sbe hf, gur eryngviryl arj
>"gurbel bs rirelguvat" pnyyrq gur "Pbaprcg bs Qvcbyne Tenivgl" (frr
>gur jro cntr anzrq "qvcbyne_tenivgl.ugz"), naq gur cuvybfbcul pnyyrq
>gur "zbeny gbgnyvmz" (frr gur jro cntr anzrq "gbgnyvmz.ugz") juvpu
>fgrzf sebz guvf gurbel, fgnegrq gb qvffrzvangr ba gur Rnegu na
>nygreangvir cevapvcyr bs "erpbtavfvat gur rkvfgrapr bs rirelguvat gung
>pna nccrne va bhe gubhtugf - vs bayl gur sbezhyngvba bs gurfr gubhtugf
>qbrf ABG vzcbfr gur erdhverzrag gung cevapvcyrf ba juvpu gur havirefr
>jbex zhfg or punatrq". Yrg hf ubcr, gung vapernfvatyl jvqre npprcgnapr
>bs guvf nygreangvir cevapvcyr jvyy yrnq gb n tenqhny urnyvat bs gur
>reebef, qrivngvbaf, naq fhssrevat gung ner vzcbfrq ba gur uhznavgl ol
>qbpgevarf bs gur fpvrapr gb-qngr.
>
>Nqbcgvba bs gur gbgnyvmgvp cevapvcyr va bhe guvaxvat, gung "rirelguvat
>juvpu pna nccrne va bhe gubhtugf, naq juvpu qbrf ABG erdhver gur
>punatr va cevapvcyrf ba juvpu gur havirefr jbex, rkvfgf nyernql abj,
>be rkvfgrq va cnfg, be jvyy rkvfg va gur shgher" vagebqhprf dhvgr n
>zrnavatshy fvqr rssrpg. Anzryl, guvf fvqr rssrpg vf gung: gur znwbevgl
>bs dhnagvgvrf naq curabzran juvpu ol gur bssvpvny fpvrapr gb-qngr jrer
>pbafvqrerq gb or aba-rkvfgrag, va snpg qb rkvfg, rkvfgrq, be jvyy
>rkvfg. Vg vf whfg orpnhfr bs guvf, gung gur "gurbel bs rirelguvat"
>pnyyrq gur Pbaprcg bs Qvcbyne Tenivgl (frr gur jro cntr anzrq
>"qvcbyne_tenivgl.ugz") perngrq gur cuvybfbcuvpny sbhaqngvbaf sbe gur
>vagebqhpgvba gb fpvrapr n pbzcyrgryl qvssrerag crevbq, anzryl jura
>"fpvrapr naq beqvanel crbcyr ner tbvat gb eryl ba rivqrapr bs gur
>rkvfgrapr, ba gur nffhzcgvba gung rirel fgngrzrag bs bguref vf gehr,
>naq ba gur cerzvfr gung rirelguvat gung vf pynvzrq va snpg qbrf
>rkvfg". Sebz gur cuvybfbcuvpny cbvag bs ivrj guvf arj crevbq jvyy or
>na rknpg bccbfvgr bs gur cerivbhf crevbq qrfpevorq ng gur ortvaavat bs
>guvf vgrz, jura "gur bssvpvny uhzna fpvrapr, naq nyfb pbzzba crbcyr va
>gurve zhghny vagrenpgvbaf, eryvrq znvayl ba gur rivqrapr sbe aba-
>rkvfgrapr, ba gur nffhzcgvba gung rirel pynvz bs bguref vf hagehr, naq
>ba gur cerzvfr gung gur znwbevgl bs jung vf pynvzrq naq jung vf
>gubhtug va snpg qbrf ABG rkvfg naq guhf rirelguvat erdhverf pbagvahbhf
>pbasvezngvba bs gur rkvfgrapr". Sbe beqvanel crbcyr guvf arj crevbq bs
>"erylvat ba gur rkvfgrapr naq ba gur nffhzcgvba bs gehgu" vf tbvat gb
>znavsrfg vgfrys, nzbatfg bguref, ol npprcgvat gung "rirel pynvz bs
>bguref vf tbvat gb or gnxra nf gur gehgu jvgubhg sbepvat bguref gb
>cebir vg." Nf na rknzcyr bs qvssreraprf juvpu guvf arj crevbq
>vagebqhprf gb fpvrapr, yrg hf vyyhfgengr abj ubj gur "gurbel bs
>rirelguvat" cebirf gur rkvfgrapr bs dhnagvgvrf naq curabzran qrfpevorq
>ng gur ortvaavat bs guvf vgrz, juvpu fb-sne gur bssvpvny uhzna fpvrapr
>pbafvqrerq gb or aba-rkvfgrag. Naq fb:
>- Gur gurbergvpny "cebbs" bs Nyoreg Rvafgrva, gung gur fcrrq bs yvtug
>vf na hafhecnffnoyr oneevre, jnf nobyvfurq ol gur Pbaprcg bs Qvcbyne
>Tenivgl (frr gur jro cntr anzrq "qvcbyne_tenivgl.ugz"). Guvf
>nobyvfuvat jnf nppbzcyvfurq guebhtu gur vagebqhpgvba bs gur vafgnag
>gryrxvargvp zbgvba qrfpevorq, nzbatfg bguref, ba jro cntrf
>"gryrxvarfvf.ugz" - nobhg gur curabzraba bs gryrxvarfvf, naq
>"cebchyfvba.ugz" - nobhg gryrxvargvp iruvpyrf.
>- Va fhofrpgvba U2 sebz ibyhzr 4 bs zbabtencu [1/5] (frr gur jro cntr
>"grxfg_1_5.ugz") vg vf cebira gung gur "gurbel bs rirelguvat" pnyyrq
>gur Pbaprcg bs Qvcbyne Tenivgl (frr "qvcbyne_tenivgl.ugz") vainyvqngrf
>gur Zvpuryfba-Zbeyrl rkcrevzrag bs 1887 sbe gur aba-rkvfgrapr bs
>"rgure", orpnhfr gur "pbhagre-znggre" (va cnfg pnyyrq jvgu gur anzr
>"rgure") vf pbagnvarq va n frcnengr jbeyq guna gur jbeyq va juvpu guvf
>rkcrevzrag jnf pneevrq bhg. Guhf gur pbhagre-znggre pnaabg or qrgrpgrq
>erzbgryl sebz bhe culfvpny jbeyq.
>- Nppbeqvat gb gur "gurbel bs rirelguvat" pnyyrq gur Pbaprcg bs
>Qvcbyne Tenivgl (frr gur jro cntr "qvcbyne_tenivgl.ugz"), gryrxvargvp
>trarengbef bs serr raretl, juvpu ner n zbqrea vzcyrzragngvba bs gur
>byq vqrn bs "crecrghny zbgvba", qb rkvfg naq pna or ohvyq, juvyr gur
>jbexvat cebgbglcrf bs gurfr trarengbef ner qrfpevorq ba gur jro cntr
>"serr_raretl.ugz" - nobhg gryrxvargvp trarengbef bs serr raretl.
>- Gur fvtavsvpnapr bs gur "erq fuvsg" nf na rivqrapr sbe gur vavgvny
>aba-rkvfgrapr bs gur havirefr, jnf nobyvfurq va vgrz #Q2.1 bs gur
>gbgnyvmgvp jro cntr "qvcbyne_tenivgl.ugz" - nobhg gur Pbaprcg bs
>Qvcbyne Tenivgl, jurer vg jnf qbphzragrq gung gur "erq fuvsg" vf n
>pbafrdhrapr bs gur ornzvat bs yvtug ntnvafg gur pheerag bs "sybjf bs
>tenivgl cebtenzf" - fvzvyneyl nf n "oyhr fxl" vf n pbafrdhrapr bs gur
>ornzvat bs yvtug nybat gur pheerag bs fhpu cebtenzf.
>- Gur rkvfgrapr bs novyvgl gb fuvsg gvzr onpx naq gb ohvyq gvzr
>iruvpyrf vf qrfpevorq ba gur gbgnyvmgvp jro cntr "gvzriruvpyr.ugz" -
>nobhg gur jbex bs gvzr, gvzr geniry, naq gvzr iruvpyrf.
>
>Ng guvf cbvag vg vf jbegu gb zragvba, gung va nqqvgvba gb ahzrebhf
>vqrnf sbe gur aba-rkvfgrapr bs juvpu fpvragvfgf znantrq gb cerfrag
>fbzr fbeg bs "fgergpurq" rivqrapr, ol varegvn naq ol unovg fpvragvfgf
>pynvz nyfb gur aba-rkvfgrapr bs n ynetr ahzore bs shegure dhnagvgvrf
>naq curabzran va fhccbeg bs gur aba-rkvfgrapr bs juvpu gurfr
>fpvragvfgf unir ab rira n fuerq bs rivqrapr. Gur xrl cbfvgvba ba gur
>yvfg bs gurfr vqrnf, bowrpgf, dhnagvgvrf, naq curabzran gung ner
>naabhaprq ol fpvragvfgf nf aba-rkvfgvat jvgubhg cerfragvat rira n
>fyvtugrfg rivqrapr, gnxrf (bs pbhefr) Tbq. Rknzcyrf zbfg xabja nzbatfg
>shegure fhpu vqrnf gung ner bssvpvnyyl qrabhaprq naq nhgubevgngviryl
>pbaqrzarq ol gur bssvpvny fpvrapr jvgubhg cerfragvat nal rivqrapr,
>vapyhqr: gryrxvarfvf, gryrcngul, RFC, enqvrfgurfvn, HSBf, yvsr nsgre
>qrngu, fbhyf, fcvevgf, bgure jbeyq, jnyxvat ba sver, urnyvat,
>pncnovyvgl bs uhznaf gb qrpernfr gur ragebcl bs gur havirefr, naq znal
>bgure. Ahzrebhf fpvragvfgf qral rira gung gurer vf fgvyy yrsg nalguvat
>va gur havirefr gung jbhyq ABG or qvfpbirerq naq erfrnepurq fb-sne. Nf
>guvf vyyhfgengrf, znal cebsrffvbany fpvragvfgf vafgrnq bs qbvat jung
>gurl bevtvanyyl jrer rzcyblrq sbe, zrnaf "rkcynvavat NYY zlfgrevrf bs
>gur havirefr naq yrneavat ubj gb pbageby gur angher fb gung vg jbexf
>sbe gur orarsvg bs znaxvaq", gurl fcrpvnyvfr va qralvat gung fhpu
>zlfgrevrf bs gur havirefr naq angher fgvyy rkvfg ng nyy.
>
>Gur rzoneenffvat sbe fpvragvfgf qvfpybfr bs gur ynpx bs rira n fuerq
>bs rivqrapr sbe gur ABA-rkvfgrapr bs Tbq, nf qrfpevorq nobir,
>bevtvanyyl vf cerfragrq va vgrz #S3 sebz gur jro cntr anzrq
>"ovoyr.ugz", hcqngr bs 30 Znepu 2008, be yngre. Gur jro cntr
>"ovoyr.ugz" fubhyq or ninvynoyr sebz sbyybjvat nqqerffrf ?vs vg jnf
>abg fnobgntrq gurer ol rivy cbjref gung erpragyl enzcntr va gur
>vagrearg.
>
>uggc://ovoyr.jroat.pbz/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://raretl.ngfcnpr.bet/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://rivqrapr.hrhb.pbz/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://rivy.gurserrubfg.ovm/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://sehvg.fvgrfyrq.pbz/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://sehvg.kcubfg.bet/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://tbq.rm-fvgrf.jf/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://xnezn.serrjrocntrf.bet/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://zrzbevny.njneqfcnpr.vasb/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://arjmrnynaq.zlserrjrof.arg/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://aveinan.fpvraprbagurjro.arg/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://cvtf.serrulcrefcnpr.pbz/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://cnenfvgvfz.nobhg.gp/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://cnenfvgvfz.kcubfg.bet/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://ehovx.uvgf.vb/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://gbeanqb.99x.bet/ovoyr.ugz
>uggc://jfmrjvyxv.terngabj.pbz/ovoyr.ugz
>
>Vg vf nyfb jbegu gb xabj gung haqre rnpu nqqerff vaqvpngrq nobir NYY
>gur jro cntrf bs gbgnyvmz fubhyq or ninvynoyr (hayrff fbzr bs gurfr
>jro cntrf jrer fnobgntrq va gur zrnagvzr). Guhf, vs fbzrbar jvfurf gb
>ivrj qrfpevcgvbaf sebz nal bgure jro cntr bs gbgnyvmz, r.t. sebz n jro
>cntr yvfgrq va guvf zrffntr, be yvfgrq va bgure gbgnyvmgvp zrffntrf,
>gura va gur nobir nqqerffrf gur anzr "ovoyr.ugz" vf whfg rabhtu gb
>rkpunatr sbe n anzr bs gur jro cntr gung ur be fur jvfurf gb ivrj,
>r.t. sbe gur anzr bs jro cntr "obvyre.ugz", "serr_raretl.ugz",
>"jfmrjvyxv_whgen_hx.ugz", "arjmrnynaq.ugz", "serr_raretl.ugz",
>"sr_pryy.ugz", "znyobex_hx.ugz", "ribyhgvba.ugz", "tbq.ugz",
>"ovoyr.ugz", "grkg_1_5.ugz", "qvcbyne_tenivgl.ugz", "aveinan.ugz",
>"rivy.ugz", "zrzbevny.ugz", rgp., rgp.
>
>Yrg gbgnyvmz cerinvy,
>Wna Cnwnx
>
>C.F. Gur fhowrpg bs gur "rivqrapr sbe gur rkvfgrapr bs Tbq" qrfpevorq
>urer, nf jryy nf bgure fhowrpgf eryngrq gb vg, vf nyernql orvat
>qvfphffrq ba inevbhf Tbbtyr qvfphffvba tebhcf. Sbe rknzcyr:
>
>(1) Gur qvfphffvba bs gur culfvpny rivqrapr sbe gur rkvfgrapr bs Tbq
>(va gur Ratyvfu ynathntr) vf pneevrq bhg ng gur vagrearg nqqerffrf:
>uggc://tebhcf.tbbtyr.pbz/tebhc/fpv.culfvpf/oebjfr_guernq/guernq/0o85905q2qp9s083#p374qp041s3p5sqs
>
>(2) Gur qvfphffvba bs gur ovbybtvpny rivqrapr sbe gur rkvfgrapr bs Tbq
>(va Ratyvfu), vf pneevrq bhg ng nqqerffrf:
>uggc://tebhcf.tbbtyr.pbz/tebhc/gnyx.bevtvaf/oebjfr_guernq/guernq/8040prs26q37261s#qr22942po8sr3nrr
>
>(3) Gur qvfphffvba bs gur rivqrapr sbe aba-rkvfgrapr bs Tbq (va gur
>Cbyvfu ynathntr) vf pneevrq bhg ng gur vagrearg nqqerffrf:
>uggc://tebhcf.tbbtyr.pbz/tebhc/cy.fpv.svmlxn/oebjfr_guernq/guernq/23o46n156r7rs6n8#
Richo
> Foundations of the present official (orthodox) human science are
> entirely based on proofs for the non-existence of various phenomena,
> objects, and physical quantities.
No, actually.
First comes observation of some phenomenon - some regularity in
nature.The proposal of hypothesis and the testing of those hypothesis
comes next.
If the hypothesis is falsified this can constitute the proof of non
existence of the proposed mechanism or process of the hypothesis - but
the observational facts don't "go away".
> In fact, scientists compete with
> each other in indicating items of evidence which suggest that
> something supposedly does NOT exist in the universe.
They compete with each other to show that a proposed mechanism fails -
this sometimes results in the disproof of the existence of some
substance (eg phlostigen aether) - but not usually.
Let us provide
> here several illustrative examples. In the official human science
> theories of Albert Einstein are indicated as the proof for the non-
> existence of speeds in excess of the speed of light.
Incorrect. Einsteins theory assumes that the speed of light in vacuum
is fixed and then derives various consequences from this assumption.
The fact that relativity leads to valid predictions lends support to
the truth of the original assumption - tends to validate the truth of
it.
Also "speed" isn't an object or being that has existence - its an
attribute of things that have existence.
>Findings of Lord
> Kelvin are considered to be a proof that the temperature below
> "absolute zero" does NOT exist.
Again temperature is not a being that has existence it is an attribute
of beings that have existence.
> The experiment of Michelson-Morley of
> 1887 is acknowledged as the proof that the substance in past called
> the "ether" (now it is called the "counter-matter") does NOT exist.
That is your first correct example.
<snip more confusion about the meaning of "existence">
> These scientific claims about the non-existence of various fundamental
> ideas and physical quantities are so domineering, while their
> influence so omnipresent, that the statement becomes true that
> "present official human science is practically the science based on
> proofs of non-existence".
>
Most of your examples fail, but even if you had 10 correct examples it
wouldn't make your general statement true.
> In spite of this abundance of scientific evidence for the non-
> existence of whatsoever, present human science is still UNABLE to
> indicate even a smallest shred of evidence in support of the claim it
> makes about matter of the highest importance for the humanity. Namely,
> the official human science is NOT able to indicate even a smallest
> example of evidence which would confirm the claimed non-existence of
> God (see the totaliztic web page named "god.htm").
God is not a substance that lends itself to disproof.
It is deliberately formulated to be "ineffable" - mysterious and
vague.
That it is true that science cannot disprove God is not a failing of
science but an indication of what sort of concept "God" is.
> In other words, in
> spite that the science is saturated with atheists who compete with
> each other in inventing theories that would deny the truth about the
> existence of God,
This is a paranoid persecution fantasy - not an accurate statement of
how scientists actually behave.
> Simultaneously - as the reader probably
> noticed this already from items #F1 and #F2 of the totaliztic web page
> named "bible.htm", there is an abundance of scientific evidence
> (unfortunately unspoken and kept hidden by most of scientists) which
> certifies for the existence of God.
I don't believe there is any such evidence.
I have never encountered any after a lifetime of asking.
Cheers, Mark.
Richo
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:14:26 -0700 (PDT), janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I've fixed your post so that it makes more sense.
It *is* much prettier now.
> No charge this time.
>
> Seriously, you do realize that you're barking mad, right?
>
The thing about being barking mad is it makes it rather difficult for
the afflicted to judge.
Megalomania and delusions of adequacy are common in the Truly Barking
Insane.
Tis a phenomenon I have observed.
8-)
Cheers, Mark.
--------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson. m.richardson61 AT gmail.com
Member of SMASH
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheist with a Sense of Humor)
--------------------------------------------------
Immortalist
> On Apr 10, 12:14 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Foundations of the present official (orthodox) human science are
> > entirely based on proofs for the non-existence of various phenomena,
> > objects, and physical quantities.
>
> No, actually.
> First comes observation of some phenomenon - some regularity in
> nature.The proposal of hypothesis and the testing of those hypothesis
> comes next.
> If the hypothesis is falsified this can constitute the proof of non
> existence of the proposed mechanism or process of the hypothesis - but
> the observational facts don't "go away".
>
Doesn't science still function pretty much as Mill's methods have and
do? If so you are correct but there are some more options available;
Mill's Methods
Mill's methods are some methods used to formulate hypotheses of
certain phenomena. It is clearly a species of inductive arguments as
we shall see. More precisely the methods, first proposed by British
philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill, are used to find causes of
the phenomena to be explained. All of Mill's methods share the same
characteristics in that they separate the phenomena into two parts,
namely the parts to be explained, or the effects, and the antecedent
phenomena which include the likely causes of the effects. The method
is conducted by observing the effects and then reason to the likely
causes by observing common features, different features, features that
vary with each other, and so on. According to Mill, there are five of
his methods:
1. Method of Agreement
2. Method of Difference
3. Method of Agreement and Difference (Joint Method)
4. Method of Residue
5. Method of Concomittant Variation
----------------------------------------
1. Method of Agreement
----------------------------------------
Here is what the first method, Method of Agreement, does. First you
have a phenomenon you would like explained, for example a group of
students in a certain school all having diarrhea and vomiting. You
want to know what caused the symptom. You know that the symptom could
only be caused by food. So you list all the food eated by the affected
student up to the time when they were attacked, and suppose this is
the result:
A B C D ==> j h l k
E F A G ==> k o m n
H I J A ==> q r s k
The capital letters on the left hand side represent the antecedent
conditions, and the small letters on the right show the phenomena on
the effects side. Thus, in case of the students having diarrhea, the
left hand side represents the food eated by the students, and the
right hand side show the symptoms that they have. Suppose that each
capital letter represents a kind of food, and the small letters on the
right hand side represent a symptom. Then we can see that the
phenomena on the left hand side have one thing in common, A. And
similarly for the phenomena on the right hand side, the symptom k.
Thus we can conclude, using the First Method, that A is the likely
cause of k.
---------------------------------------
2. Method of Difference
---------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the second method:
A B C D ==> j k l m
B C D ==> m l j
Suppose we have only two events which are alike in all aspects but
one. Then it is likely that the part that is the difference on the
left had side is the cause of the part that is missing on the right
hand side.
------------------------------------------------
3. Method of Agreement & Difference
- - (Joint Method)
------------------------------------------------
The third method has nothing but a joint consideration of the first
two methods in finding likely causes. Let's look at this diagram
A B C D ==> k l m o
A E F G ==> l p n r
A H I J ==> q u r l
H I M N ==> q r z y
O P Q R ==> x w n r
---------------------------------------------
4. Method of Residue
---------------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the fourth method:
A B C D ==> o p q r
We know already that
A ==> p
B ==> q
C ==> r
Thus, we can conclude that D is the likely cause of o, because the
pair is the only one left from the matching of causes and effects
which we know already. That is why this method is called the Method of
Residue.
----------------------------------------------
5. Method of Concomittant Variation
----------------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the last method:
A B C D1 ==> w x y z1
A B C D2 ==> w x y z2
A B C D3 ==> w x y z3
A B C D4 ==> w x y z4
A B C D5 ==> w x y z5
The phenomena are alike except only that there is a variation in the
degree of D on the left hand (causes) side, and the same for z on the
right hand side. Since everything else is equal we conclude that here
D is the likely cause of z.
http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~hsoraj/PhilandLogic/WeekFive.html#Mill
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sci/mill.php
http://www.thelogician.net/4_logic_of_causation/4_mills_methods.htm
SeppoP
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:14:26 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I've fixed your post so that it makes more sense. No charge this time.
>
> Seriously, you do realize that you're barking mad, right?
>
<snip>
>> (3) Gur qvfphffvba bs gur rivqrapr sbe aba-rkvfgrapr bs Tbq (va gur
>> Cbyvfu ynathntr) vf pneevrq bhg ng gur vagrearg nqqerffrf:
>> uggc://tebhcf.tbbtyr.pbz/tebhc/cy.fpv.svmlxn/oebjfr_guernq/guernq/23o46n156r7rs6n8#
I think your translation still left one or two points to be clarified
further. Hopefully my translation will help:
Croak croak croak croak croak (croak) croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-croak croak croak croak,
croak, croak croak croak. Croak croak, croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak CROAK croak croak croak croak. Croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak. Croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak Croak Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak. Croak croak
Croak
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
"croak croak" croak CROAK croak. Croak croak croak Croak-Croak croak
1887 croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak "croak" (croak croak croak croak croak "croak-croak") croak CROAK
croak.
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-croak "croak croak"
croak, croak croak croak-croak. Croak croak-croak "croak croak" croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak-croak. Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak "croak" croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak CROAK croak croak croak.
Croak., croak.
Croak croak croak croak croak croak-croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak
croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak
"croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak-croak".
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-
croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak CROAK croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak. Croak,
croak croak croak croak croak CROAK croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-croak croak
Croak (croak croak croak croak croak croak "croak.croak"). Croak croak
croak, croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak Croak, croak croak croak croak croak CROAK croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak. Croak - croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak #CROAK croak #CROAK croak croak croak
croak croak
croak "croak.croak", croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
(croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak) croak
croak croak croak croak croak Croak. Croak, croak croak croak croak
croak croak, croak croak "croak-croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak
croak croak-croak croak Croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak Croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak - croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak "croak", Croak croak croak croak croak croak. "
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak (croak croak croak croak croak "croak.croak")
croak croak croak croak croak-croak "CROAK croak" - croak croak croak
"Croak Croak croak Croak". (Croak croak croak croak croak croak
#CROAK croak croak croak croak croak croak "croak.croak" - croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak CROAK.4
croak croak [1/5] - croak croak croak croak croak "croak.croak"). Croak
croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak
croak, croak Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak
CROAK croak, croak croak, croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak
CROAK croak. Croak,
"croak croak CROAK croak, croak croak croak croak croak". Croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak "croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak (croak) croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak
CROAK croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak". Croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak
croak croak "Croak croak croak" croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak
croak croak croak "croak croak Croak" croak CROAK croak croak croak
croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak Croak croak croak croak croak.
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak Croak, croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak #CROAK croak croak croak
croak "croak.croak". Croak croak croak #CROAK croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak. Croak
croak croak croak croak: (1) Croak croak croak, (2) croak-croak croak
croak (croak croak "croak-croak" croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak: Croak, croak, croak croak, croak.), (3) croak croak
croak croak, croak (4) croak croak Croak, croak croak "croak croak", croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak
croak. Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak #CROAK croak croak croak croak
"croak.croak", croak croak croak croak Croak croak croak croak Croak
croak.
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak "croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak". Croak croak croak croak croak croak
"croak croak" croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak.
Croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak, croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak. Croak croak croak, croak
croak croak
"croak croak croak" croak croak "Croak croak Croak Croak" (croak
croak croak croak croak "croak.croak"), croak croak croak croak
croak "croak croak" (croak croak croak croak croak "croak.croak") croak
croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak Croak croak
croak croak croak "croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak - croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak CROAK croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak". Croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak, croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak-croak.
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak "croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak CROAK croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak,
croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak" croak
croak croak
croak croak croak. Croak, croak croak croak croak croak: croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-croak croak
croak croak croak croak-croak, croak croak croak croak, croak, croak croak
croak. Croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak "croak croak croak"
croak croak Croak croak Croak Croak (croak croak croak croak croak
"croak.croak") croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak
"croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak,
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak". Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak, croak "croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-
croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak
croak croak croak croak CROAK croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak". Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
"croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak" croak
croak croak
croak croak, croak croak, croak croak croak "croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak
croak croak." Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak "croak croak
croak" croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak-croak croak croak croak
croak
croak croak croak croak-croak. Croak croak:
- Croak croak "croak" croak Croak Croak, croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak Croak croak Croak
Croak (croak croak croak croak croak "croak.croak"). Croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak, croak croak, croak croak croak
"croak.croak" - croak croak croak croak croak, croak
"croak.croak" - croak croak croak.
- Croak croak CROAK croak croak 4 croak croak [1/5] (croak croak croak croak
"croak.croak") croak croak croak croak croak "croak croak croak" croak
croak Croak croak Croak Croak (croak "croak.croak") croak
croak Croak-Croak croak croak 1887 croak croak croak-croak croak
"croak", croak croak "croak-croak" (croak croak croak croak croak croak
"croak") croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak
croak croak croak croak. Croak croak croak-croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak.
- Croak croak croak "croak croak croak" croak croak Croak croak
Croak Croak (croak croak croak croak "croak.croak"), croak
croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak "croak croak", croak croak croak croak croak croak,
croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
"croak.croak" - croak croak croak croak croak croak.
- Croak croak croak croak "croak croak" croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak-croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak #CROAK.1 croak croak
croak croak croak "croak.croak" - croak croak Croak croak
Croak Croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak "croak croak" croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak "croak croak
croak croak" - croak croak croak "croak croak" croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak.
- Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak "croak.croak" -
croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak, croak croak croak.
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak
croak
croak croak croak croak-croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak "croak" croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak-croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak. Croak croak croak croak
croak
croak croak croak croak, croak, croak, croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak-croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak, croak (croak croak) Croak. Croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak,
croak: croak, croak, CROAK, croak, Croak, croak croak
croak, croak, croak, croak croak, croak croak croak, croak,
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak
croak. Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak CROAK croak croak croak croak croak-croak.
CROAK
croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak, croak "croak CROAK croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak
croak croak croak croak croak", croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak.
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak CROAK-croak croak Croak, croak croak croak,
croak croak croak croak croak #CROAK croak croak croak croak croak
"croak.croak", croak croak 30 Croak 2008, croak croak. Croak croak croak
"croak.croak" croak croak croak croak croak croak ?croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak.
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak-croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.99croak.croak/croak.croak
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak.croak
Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
CROAK
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak (croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak). Croak, croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak.croak.
croak croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak,
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak "croak.croak" croak croak
croak croak
croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak
croak croak croak,
croak.croak. croak croak croak croak croak croak "croak.croak",
"croak.croak",
"croak.croak", "croak.croak", "croak.croak",
"croak.croak", "croak.croak", "croak.croak", "croak.croak",
"croak.croak", "croak.croak", "croak.croak", "croak.croak",
"croak.croak", "croak.croak", croak., croak.
Croak croak croak,
Croak Croak
CROAK.CROAK. Croak croak croak croak "croak croak croak croak croak
Croak" croak
croak, croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak, croak croak croak
croak croak croak Croak croak croak. Croak croak:
(1) Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak Croak
(croak croak Croak croak) croak croak croak croak croak croak croak:
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak/croak.croak/croak/croak/0croak#croak
(2) Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak croak Croak
(croak Croak), croak croak croak croak croak:
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak/croak.croak/croak/croak/8040croak#croak
(3) Croak croak croak croak croak croak croak-croak croak Croak (croak croak
Croak croak) croak croak croak croak croak croak croak:
croak://croak.croak.croak/croak/croak.croak.croak/croak/croak/23croak#
Andrew W
news:5939bce6-77d5-45ab...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
So if I visualize something then because I was able to hold it in my
thoughts then it must exist somewhere?
Ok, I'm holding the concept of a flying spagetti monster in my mind.
So now there really is a flying spagetti monster somewhere?
I was able to visualize the concept so it must exist.
--
Andrew W.
God used to live in the clouds. Now he exists outside the universe.
Christians keep pushing God further and further away.
You must unlearn what you have learned. ~ Yoda
Channelled lessons about ET's, ascended masters like Jesus Christ, spirit
guides, earth changes.
http://www.spiritnexus.com/audio/channeling/index.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
atheists!!!1!!!".
Just as idiotic and can be read in one second. Well, at least by a person
with some decent education... don't know about you.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
brian fletcher
levels of reality, previously undiscovered.
To connect such findings to a human concept of God has no validity, any more
than when the ancients used to worship the sun because of its life giving
energy.
BOfL
Don Stockbauer
"Grandpa, can you make a sound like a frog?"
"Why, of course I can, Little Felicity, but why would you want me to
do that?"
"Because Mommy says that just as soon as you croak we can go to
Hawaii!!!!!"
God and the Universe are identical.
Sir Frederick
no "science" needed.
What about the science of practicing "God" stories?
Understand that and enhance your leadership.
Errol
wrote:
> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> So if I visualize something then because I was able to hold it in my
> thoughts then it must exist somewhere?
> Ok, I'm holding the concept of a flying spagetti monster in my mind.
> So now there really is a flying spagetti monster somewhere?
> I was able to visualize the concept so it must exist.
Oh crap now we have a flying spaghetti monster and a flying spagetti
monster.
it's getting crowded with monsters out there
>Religion Exposed!
Poor monster spelling exposed
Tom
All one needs to remember is some of the brightest minds were believers.
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5939bce6-77d5-45ab...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee
>Science shy's away from things that can't be explained.
No, moron, those are the very avenues it investigates.
> Perhaps it should.
Why, moron?
>All one needs to remember is some of the brightest minds were believers.
But not your kind, who are unable to step aside from their beliefs
when reality intrudes on them.
SeppoP
> On Apr 9, 11:52 pm, SeppoP <seppo_pietikai...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
>> raven1 wrote:
<snip croaking>
>> croak://croak.croak.croak/croak/croak.croak.croak/croak/croak/23croak#
>
>
> "Grandpa, can you make a sound like a frog?"
>
> "Why, of course I can, Little Felicity, but why would you want me to
> do that?"
>
> "Because Mommy says that just as soon as you croak we can go to
> Hawaii!!!!!"
>
ROTFLMAO (and croaking)! :) :) :)
ZerkonX
> God in fact definitely does exist
OK but now what?
You now insist that all people everywhere recognize the same? Why does
this matter to you?
Also, you have not really defined this god of yours. This needs to be
done since there has always been so many around.
John Locke
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:14:26 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>I've fixed your post so that it makes more sense. No charge this time.
>
Thanks Raven1. Now it makes some sense.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Hatter
Funny that he fails to mention the overwhelming majority of the giants
in the feild of cosmology and physics of the 20th and 21rst century
were deists at most, but mostly Atheists. Einstein, Hawking and so
forth.
Hatter
Robibnikoff
"Tom" <Nos...@eatme.com> wrote in message
news:47fe0759$0$12583$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Science shy's away from things that can't be explained. Perhaps it should.
> All one needs to remember is some of the brightest minds were believers.
Baloney
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Those who were theist didn't let their theism interfere with their
work.
And revised their beliefs to fit with what they found. Newton was an
early example: as the result of his work in motion, celestial
mechanics and optics he became a form of deist. HE called it a
mechanist, believing that God set things in motion, laid down the
rules he'd discovered and then didn't intervene.
Those scientists who are theist, understand that they cannot invoke
their deity in an arena where all claims have to be backed up.
Including God.
Where they investigate how things happen(ed) regardless of their
religious beliefs.
Although the dishonest ones get introduced to religious audiences as a
science and then talk religion, misleading the listener who thinks
they are talking science. Polkinghorne comes to mind.
The proportion of atheists gets higher, they higher level they are.
There are (I think) 18% believers in the National Academy of Sciences
- and as Neil deGrasse Tyson says, that is 18% too many. But then he
is an astrophysicist, which is one of the fields with least theist
representation.
>Hatter
Ken
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:14:26 -0700 (PDT), janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I've fixed your post so that it makes more sense. No charge this time.
>
> Seriously, you do realize that you're barking mad, right?
Nope
Doesn't have a clue about the delusions
janp...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
> Ok, I'm holding the concept of a flying spagetti monster in my mind.
> So now there really is a flying spagetti monster somewhere?
> I was able to visualize the concept so it must exist.
According to the philosophy of totalizm, your idea of a "spaghetti
monster" probably is NOT going to exist, because it imposes to the
universe a manner in which this universe supposed to work - in your
case it imposes that there must be such a place in the universe where
"spaghetti creatures" are able to exist and operate. In turn totalizm
indicates that only these ideas do exist in the universe which allow
this universe to operate in the way it is designed to operate, means
which actually do NOT change the way the universe is already
operating. (I use the work "probably" because our present level of
knowledge is relatively low and we do NOT know whether are somewhere
in the universe areas where spaghetti creatures may operate.) So sorry
but your example is wrong. In order to provide a correct example that
for sure is going to exist, you need to invent something that does NOT
change the operation of the universe by the way it is defined or
named. Then such something for sure is somewhere in the existence.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
P.S. I have no enough time at the moment to reply to all objections
expressed here. But I will reply to some of them in my next sessions.
However, to these readers who can still think objectively and for whom
the "atheism" did NOT spoil their objectivity, it is probably obvious
that some comments are self-explanatory. Meaning the kind of
objections that they raise illustrates that they are at wrong and that
they actually prove (instead of disproving) the main thesis of this
discussion thread.
mitc...@hotmail.com
Before. God is timeless. What does he do but create a universe?
Mitch Raemsch
Christopher A. Lee
Did you have any reason to post this to an atheist newsgroup, other
than to tell us what an in-your-face moron you are?
mitc...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:05:15 -0700 (PDT), mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >There is a beginning of time caused by a Beginner. But there is no
> >Before. God is timeless. What does he do but create a universe?
>
> >Mitch Raemsch
>
> Did you have any reason to post this to an atheist newsgroup, other
> than to tell us what an in-your-face moron you are?
I didn't notice the other groups. Did a lump create the universe?
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
Christopher A. Lee
What a fucking moron.
Get an education.
Mike Painter
> In order to provide a correct example that
> for sure is going to exist, you need to invent something that does NOT
> change the operation of the universe by the way it is defined or
> named. Then such something for sure is somewhere in the existence.
>
in an orbit between Jupiter and Saturn.
Andrew W
news:9202260a-a02f-4a12...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 10, 5:21 pm, "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
wrote:
...
> Ok, I'm holding the concept of a flying spagetti monster in my mind.
> So now there really is a flying spagetti monster somewhere?
> I was able to visualize the concept so it must exist.
***last quoted text***
***end of quoted text***
Obviously I was playing with you bit. :)
Do you listen to Bashar tapes by any chance?
He also talks about the fact that if the human mind can conceive of
something then it exists somewhere.
Errol
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:05:15 -0700 (PDT), mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >There is a beginning of time caused by a Beginner. But there is no
> >Before. God is timeless. What does he do but create a universe?
>
> >Mitch Raemsch
>
> Did you have any reason to post this to an atheist newsgroup, other
> than to tell us what an in-your-face moron you are?
Did you notice the news groups that were posted to from the beginning
of this thread?
sci.physics, alt.religion, alt.philosophy, alt.atheism,
alt.talk.creationism
or are you just trying to show what an in-your-face moron you are?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
I'm not the loonie who posted his religious delusions in an atheist
newsgroup, moron.
What part of "it was off-topic and inappropriate in three of the five
newsgroups it was cross-posted to" were you pretending you were too
stupid to understand?
veritas
Wow! This forum is so stupid, there is nothing to say except, lets
argue how round, round really is. I bet we can find an answer there
as well. Ken Hogan
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Did you have any reason to post this to an atheist newsgroup, other
YES there is a reason to disseminate the balanced knowledge about God
provided on this thread. This reason is to provide a "balanced
information" to people, so that individuals could take an "informed
decision" in matters regarding to God. I myself was an "atheist" up
until 39 years old. But NOT because of my own choice, but because my
lecturers of physics and other sciences told me wrongly that "there is
NO even a shred of evidence that God does exist". It took me 39 years
of my life to discover, that actually there IS a wealth of evidence
for the existence of God, while there is NO even a shred of evidence
for the NON-existence of God. I do NOT wish other people are misled by
the official human science in the same way as I was. This is why I am
making available to everytone all evidence that I am aware of. And
there is a lot of it. I do hope that other people will NOT make the
same mistake of submerging into "atheism" only because they are misled
by the official science.
Of course, I recognise that it is a personal matter of everyone to
believe or to not-believe in God. But it is our common duty to supply
a well balanced information about evidence which is "pro" and "contra"
God. So that people can make an "informed decision", not just a blind
"jump" into the atheism caused only by scientists hiding from people
the truth about the abundance of evidence concerning God. So I am
fulfilling my duty as a scientist and trying to restore the balance in
the previously "atheistic-only" science.
The scientific foundations which provide evidence for the actual
existence of God are formulated by the "theory of everything" called
the Concept of Dipolar Gravity. This "theory of everything" can be
found on the totaliztic web page "dipolar_gravity.htm", which should
be available from the following addresses:
http://bible.webng.com/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://energy.atspace.org/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://evolution.docspages.com/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://god.pandela.com/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://one.fsphost.com/parasitism/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/dipolar_gravity.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/dipolar_gravity.htm
janp...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
> God used to live in the clouds. Now he exists outside the universe.
> Christians keep pushing God further and further away.
Perhaps Christians keep pushing God further and further away, but the
"theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity
bringing God closer and closer to us. Actually this concept states
that we live "submerged in God". The reason for this our "submerging"
is that God is a kind of liquid natural computer, called the "counter-
matter", which can be formed into any shape by appropriate natural
programs. Thus this "liquid computer" that constitutes God is shaped
initially into elementary particles, then into atoms, then into
minerals and tissues, then into entire planets, solar systems, and
gallaxies. Thus we are literally surrounded with God everywhere where
we are. And we live in God and on God. Even the bread which we eat is
formed from such "natural tissue" of God.
For more details about the nature and operation of God explained by
the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Geravity, I
recommend to have a look at the totaliztic web page named "god.htm".
This web page should be available at any amongst following addresses:
http://bible.webng.com/god.htm
http://energy.atspace.org/god.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/god.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/god.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/god.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/god.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/god.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/god.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/god.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/god.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/god.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/god.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/god.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/god.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/god.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/god.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/god.htm
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 11, 4:11 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Did you have any reason to post this to an atheist newsgroup, other
> > than to tell us ...
>
> YES there is a reason to disseminate the balanced knowledge about God
> provided on this thread. This reason is to provide a "balanced
> information" to people, so that individuals could take an "informed
> decision" in matters regarding to God.
You have neglected to explain why whether or not gods exist is worthy
of discussion.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Christopher A. Lee
>On Apr 11, 4:11 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>...
>> Did you have any reason to post this to an atheist newsgroup, other
>> than to tell us ...
>
>YES there is a reason to disseminate the balanced knowledge about God
>provided on this thread.
In your dreams, moron.
What is there to have "balanced knowledge about" in the real world
beyond your religion?
Until you demonstrate otherwise it remains merely somebody else's
religious belief.
And you are a pig-ignorant, question-beggingly stupid sociopath for
posting your garbage to an atheist newsgroup.
Was that clear enough even for you?
Why, oh why, can't you morons think outside your religion, in terms of
the rest of the world beyond it?
veritas
But don't any of you understand that no matter what reasoning you use,
it is just that, REASONING. There is no physical facts that anyone
can make any sense of, only opinions. That is all both groups do is
give an opinion, as there is no physical evidence to consider,
certainly the Universe is here, by why is opinion. And as we all know
opinions are just like..........mouths, we all have one. Regards, Ken
Hogan
raven1
<khog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In response to:
>> Why, oh why, can't you morons think outside your religion, in terms of
>> the rest of the world beyond it?
<begin nominated portion>
>But don't any of you understand that no matter what reasoning you use,
>it is just that, REASONING. There is no physical facts that anyone
>can make any sense of, only opinions. That is all both groups do is
>give an opinion, as there is no physical evidence to consider,
>certainly the Universe is here, by why is opinion.
I like the combination of incoherence and sheer lunacy. Seconds?
Richo
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:42:55 -0700 (PDT), veritas
>
Seconded.
Poor grammar too!
"There is no physical facts"
He should write out 500 times "There are no physical facts"
Which is insane but at least grammatically correct insanity.
Cheers, Mark.
--------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson. m.richardson61 AT gmail.com
Member of SMASH
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheist with a Sense of Humor)
--------------------------------------------------
janp...@gmail.com
...
> You have neglected to explain why whether or not gods exist is worthy
> of discussion.
I believe the existence of God is worthy of scientific discussion.
After all, God is this superior being which created the entire
universe, including us people. God also is a "huge natural program" -
working the same strictly as our computer programs do. In addition,
this extremely strict God is judging our lives and is going to decide
about our future. Finally, as indicates this the "theory of
everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see the totaliztic
web page "dipolar_gravity.htm" for details), God actually DOES NOT
APPLY FORGIVENESS for people who disobey Him and is serving to
everyone exactly what a given person deserves. (The notion of "God's
forginess" seems to be introduced by religions for political reasons,
namely to be able to sell forgiveness in the name of God.) Thus, if
God does exists, and someone fails to acknowledge this powerful,
unforgiving, superior being, for sure is going to experience
consequences of his or her short-sightedness. And I am quite sure
these consequences are going to be severe. For this reason I
personally am very thankfull that God let me develop the Concept of
Dipolar Gravity which in turn allowed me to cease to be an "atheist".
I am scared to even think what would happen if I would persevere in
being an "atheist".
Since such a powerful superior being, as God, is able to create the
entire universe, it is also able to create means of discrete punishing
these who do NOT obey His laws, as well as ways to reward discretely
these people who live according to His laws. Of course these discrete
punishments and rewards NOT necessarily must be the same as religions
are telling us. For example, instead of sending all "atheists" to
Hell, it actually suffices that God reincarnates them as animals.
Instead burning people alive, it is enough that God discretely causes
e.g. shortages of food on the Earth and allows get hungry to these
people who never experineced a hunger. (You propbably are aware that
food shortages are just starting world-wide.) There are millions of
ways in which God can make us feeling as if we live in a Hell. So
personally I am quite grateful that God allowed me to find all these
items of scientific evidence for His existence. This prevents me from
being an "atheist" only because formerly science was hiding such
evidence from people. So in order to make others also see and
understand this evidence for the existence of God, it is worth to
discuss scientifically the existence of God.
raven1
<craigc...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>On Apr 13, 10:44 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 12:33 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:42:55 -0700 (PDT), veritas
>>
>> > <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In response to:
>>
>> > >> Why, oh why, can't you morons think outside your religion, in terms of
>> > >> the rest of the world beyond it?
>>
>> > <begin nominated portion>
>>
>> > >But don't any of you understand that no matter what reasoning you use,
>> > >it is just that, REASONING. There is no physical facts that anyone
>> > >can make any sense of, only opinions. That is all both groups do is
>> > >give an opinion, as there is no physical evidence to consider,
>> > >certainly the Universe is here, by why is opinion.
>>
>> > I like the combination of incoherence and sheer lunacy. Seconds?
>>
>> Seconded.
>> Poor grammar too!
>> "There is no physical facts"
>> He should write out 500 times "There are no physical facts"
>> Which is insane but at least grammatically correct insanity.
>>
>
>LOL!
>
>Whatever "TQOTM" means (and I think I can guess),
"Theist Quote Of The Month".
> I assume it's some
>sort of fuckwit award,
Usually, but not always. While mostly given out for idiocy, thoughtful
quotes by intelligent, honest, and tolerant theists have also won in
the category. (Voting in both this contest, and its corollary, the
AQOTM competition, is conducted monthly on a.a, with Nemo in charge as
the collector of nominations, and vote-counting. One does not have to
have an aa# to participate, but voting in the contest is limited to
atheists and agnostics; as per the contest rules, voting constitutes a
public declaration that you belong to one of those categories).
> and in that case the one put forth by raven
>certainly qualifies, but even the very subject of this thread, "A
>wealth of scientific evidence proves the existence of God, but not
>even a shred of evidence suggests the non-existence of God" is itself
>alone deserving of a fuckwit award. :-)
janp...@gmail.com
...
> But don't any of you understand that no matter what reasoning you use,
> it is just that, REASONING. There is no physical facts that anyone
> can make any sense of, only opinions. That is all both groups do is
> give an opinion, as there is no physical evidence to consider,
> certainly the Universe is here, by why is opinion. And as we all know
> opinions are just like..........mouths, we all have one. Regards, Ken
I can argue with the above your belief (that evidence for the
existence of God is just reasoning, not evidence). For example take
such thing as the different attributes of substances or objects that
are called "holy", from attributes of things that are NOT included
into the category "holy". To provide some examples, coconuts used to
be "holy" for people from small Pacific islands. And if you look at
attributes of coconuts, they are totally different from e.g.
attributes of fruits of "durian" - which is very tasty and similar
size, but NOT considered "holy". Let's take such obvious thing as the
way both these fruits fall down. Durtian falls down "at random" means
also on heads of people. Thus, in durian countries, e.g. in Malaysia,
dozens of people are harmed every year because they were hit in heads
by heavy durian fruits. But the "holy" coconut never harms any person.
In tropics people are saying that "the coconut trees have eyes,
because they never drop their fruit at human heads". I was once
researching this matter and it turned out that really there is no even
a slightest evidence that a coconut ever hit a person by falling on
his or her head. In a similar manner behave everything that in old
times was considered to be "holy". For example different properties
than ordinary bread (or just other dishes made from flour) have the
old-time "daily bread" which was considered to be holly (i.e. the body
of Christ). (This "daily bread" used to be the wholemeal rye bread
baked from fermented flour.) Also different properties than white
wines have the "red wine" considered to be holy - e.g. it promotes
health. Similarly different properties have holy "fresh water". For
example the Indian river Ganges is one amongst the most polluted
rivers of the world. But many Hindu drink water from this river, and
never get sick. Etc., etc. To summarise, everything that is considered
to be "holy" displays a number of different, and always beneficial for
people, properties. These properties always differ from similar
properties of similar things which are NOT holy - as an example
compare the holy "red wine" and the non-holy white wine, or the holy
"daily bread" (i.e. black wholemeal rye bread) and the non-holy white
bread or buns. If this is NOT an evidence for the existence of God
then what in your opinion consitutes such an evidence?
Now please try to prove here that the described above differences
between attributes of "holy" substances and attributes of similar
substances that are NOT holy, can be explained in an "atheistic"
manner.
John Smith
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a17d0c3f-61cf-46b2...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
**
First of all, there is NO indication that ANY of your claims are valid.
Really ....... that coconuts NEVER fell and hurt someone?
What kind of bull shit is that!?!?!?!?
That types of breads or types of nuts are different is no big surprise.
Show that this is ANY evidence FOR your god/religion!
Your CLAIMS mean SHIT!
raven1
>Similarly different properties have holy "fresh water". For
>example the Indian river Ganges is one amongst the most polluted
>rivers of the world. But many Hindu drink water from this river, and
>never get sick.
Or so it is claimed. Do you have statistics to back it up?
(I'm also reminded that millions of Mexicans drink their local water
daily without contracting "Montezuma's Revenge", while tourists who
aren't careful about avoiding it almost inevitably do. What do you
think the reason might be?)
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Or so it is claimed. Do you have statistics to back it up?
I do NOT have statistics to back it up. But you do NOT have either any
statistics that would indicate otherwise (that this is untrue). The
holiness, similarly like superstitions, in some cases work only for
these ones who believe in it. So if you do NOT believe in the holiness
of the Ganges river, probably when you drink water from it you would
fall ill.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> First of all, there is NO indication that ANY of your claims are valid.
> Really ....... that coconuts NEVER fell and hurt someone?
> What kind of bull shit is that!?!?!?!?
Well, you see, even in youself are serious doubts that it is possible
for coconuts to NOT fall accidentally onto anyone's head. So this
alone indicates that it is NOT just an ordinary physical attribute of
a tree, but a very special attribute of a holy tree. And actually this
strange course of events really takes place. If you go to tropical
countries and verify it yourself, you will confirm, that coconuts
really do NOT fall on peoples heads, and that coconut palms behave as
if they have eyes. This is why debunkers and skeptics like youself try
to deny this fact, bacause it has NO rational explanation. Also this
is why this fact is one amongst many similar subtle items of
scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Why God chooses such strange way of letting us know that She does
exist? (I use the word She, as it appears that this program-like part
of God is She.) Well in my opinion on small tropical islands there is
no much God can do to prove Her existence. So She decided to grant to
people this coconut evidence. Probably also important is the "canon of
ambiguity" which states that everything that God does must be
ambiguous enough for people to be able to explain it on many different
ways.
raven1
>On Apr 15, 4:54 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>...
>> Or so it is claimed. Do you have statistics to back it up?
>...
>I do NOT have statistics to back it up.
Burden of proof's on you, Einstein, it's your claim.
>But you do NOT have either any
>statistics that would indicate otherwise (that this is untrue). The
>holiness, similarly like superstitions, in some cases work only for
>these ones who believe in it. So if you do NOT believe in the holiness
>of the Ganges river, probably when you drink water from it you would
>fall ill.
>
>With the totaliztic salute,
>Jan Pajak
You're a fucking loon.
<plonk>
Robibnikoff
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c11d250-907e-4b32...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 15, 4:54 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
...
> Or so it is claimed. Do you have statistics to back it up?
...
>I do NOT have statistics to back it up. But you do NOT have either any
>statistics that would indicate otherwise (that this is untrue).
What a load of bullshit.
Go soak your head in the Ganges and pick up a nice parasite.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Robibnikoff
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2d07891-2ec4-45de...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 15, 3:09 pm, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> First of all, there is NO indication that ANY of your claims are valid.
> Really ....... that coconuts NEVER fell and hurt someone?
> What kind of bull shit is that!?!?!?!?
...
>Well, you see, even in youself are serious doubts that it is possible
>for coconuts to NOT fall accidentally onto anyone's head. So this
>alone indicates that it is NOT just an ordinary physical attribute of
>a tree, but a very special attribute of a holy tree.
What "holy tree"?
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Go soak your head in the Ganges and pick up a nice parasite.
I am NOT Hindu practitioner. So the Ganges in NOT my holy river. Thus
probably I would get sick after drinking water from that river.
By the way, further details on the Ganges river, and on several other
items of evidence concerning "holy" substances and objects, are
provided on a different thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.misc/browse_thread/thread/08f2092eec0476ad
. I suggest to have a loot at that different thread as well.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
P.S. Please notice that whatever God does She must obey the so-called
"canon of ambiguity" described in subsection JB7.4 from volume 7 of
the monograph available on the web page "text_1_4.htm". This canon of
ambiguity reassures that people who notice the God's work do have a
chance to maintain their "free will" and to explain it in any way they
can. In this way they are NOT forced to acknowledge the existence of
God. The "canon of ambiguity" causes that e.g. all God's miracles are
arranged in such way that have many different explanationhs.
Lisbeth Andersson
news:F%UMj.3145$XF3.197@trnddc04:
> **
> First of all, there is NO indication that ANY of your claims are
> valid. Really ....... that coconuts NEVER fell and hurt someone?
> What kind of bull shit is that!?!?!?!?
<....>
That's evolution in action. Anybody stupid enough to stand under a
coconut tree .... :-)
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Lisbeth Andersson
news:a17d0c3f-61cf-46b2-8e5a-5157dc00a558
@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.co
m:
Holy shit!
> Now please try to prove here that the described above differences
> between attributes of "holy" substances and attributes of similar
> substances that are NOT holy, can be explained in an "atheistic"
> manner.
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
>
janp...@gmail.com
...
> That's evolution in action. Anybody stupid enough to stand under a
> coconut tree .... :-)
Of course you realise that if God does exist then there is no such
thing as an "natural evolution" of anything in our material world. But
there was the self-evolution of God - which is explained better on the
totaliztic web page "evolution.htm" available from addresses listed
before. Thus, if you accept the God's existence, then after you send
someone to stand under a coconut tree whatever would happen to that
someone would represent just a God's decision and God's action. By the
way, bacause I know for a long time that "coconuts never fall on
people" my favourite place to rest on a tropical sea shore is under a
coconut tree. And so-far I still have no bump on my head.
Anyway, the point of this thread is NOT about coconuts, but about the
existence of holy substances and holy objects which display properties
that cannot be explained by present atheistic science. So these holy
substances and objects represent a scientific evidence for the
existence of God. And there is a lot of such substances and objects -
I mentioned only several most common amongst these. Others include:
springs and caves which heal people in an unexplained way, miracles,
crying holy figures, people who return from death, aparitions of
spirits and souls, fulfillment of superstitions, etc., etc. This is
why a noticeable proportion of people still do believe in God, in
spite of the atheistic science telling people that there is NO God.
I am sorry to notice that "atheists" can only spit and scoff at
rational arguments about God. Such behaviour is immoral of course. In
turn God does NOT like nor tolerate immoral behaviours. So do NOT be
surprised that since your reply to my constructive comments is as you
indicated above, one day your bahaviour is going to return like a
boomerang to you and your efforts will receive a similar reply.
janp...@gmail.com
>
> *What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
Is the above just an empty repetition of nice wordings, or you can
document with a rational discussion that you actually subscribe to
these noble ideas?
Jerry Kraus
Depends on what you mean by "God". There's plenty of evidence to
suggest the non-existence of an anthropomorphic God who regulates and
manages everything for good. The universe is too incomprehensible:
thus, Stendahl, "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist." If you
just mean some kind of order and purpose to things that we cannot
understand, then, by definition, we cannot understand it. So, we can
neither prove of disprove it. Most religious people believe God is
undefinable. So, questions of proof or disproof are moot. The
undefinable cannot be proven or disproven.
adman
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80435fe7-dd1b-419f...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I am happy to see someone else understands and can properly use the word
"moot"
Waqasf
SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE GOD ABSOLUTELY:
Recent Human, proves god
First human came only ten thousand years ago. Considering the
scientific development which humans
made, the simulation on computer shows, that the first human should be
about ten thousand years
ago, not much longer, not much latter. Humans are clever, they don't
take tens of thousands of
years to develop scientifically, thus it also flaws the current
perception that humanity genes
are stable for atleast past two hundred thousand years ago. Thus, this
first man may be an alien
to this earth, or God made him; as we have no proof of any of them,
but most most most most most
potent argument is that God made him, such a complex gene!
Any intelligent being always make stone buildings for themselves. We
can see not stone structures
well before ten thousand years ago, some towns in Turkey region, and
else where near Arabian
Peninsula. Cave Drawings are also of this period. Then humans got more
in number and in
experience, and then came Summerian Civilisation, and it changed into
more and more complex, and
still now getting more and more Advanced. We don't find stone
structure before the ten thousand
years back age, though Anthropologists suggest that the current
humans, i.e. homo-sapians, were
existant on earth for atleast 200 thousand years, according to their
calculations; thus, the
intelligence which humans currently possess, was with humans for
atleast 200 thousand years. But,
humanity would be colonizing other galaxies, had it been of the age of
200 thousand years. Those
scientists merely figured out the bones of dead monkeys.
Also, if we do a rough calculation, then within a hundred or two
generations, a population of
billions can easily be generated. Homo-sapians had not been on the
earth for about 200 thousand
years, but only 10 thousand years; otherwise we would have populated
atleast our solar system
with the excess human population?
a simple human intelligence can produce pottery, they should have been
well a few hundred
thousand years ago. But we do not find Pottery before ten thousand
years ago. This still not
prove Adam theory, what if previous pottery were so rare?
MESSENGERSHIP proves ABSOLUTELY.
I asserted that the sudden coming of humans in world about ten
thousand years ago, indicates the
presence of God, but what if some alien had crashed into earth which
were badly injured as they
destroyed their ship and their knowledge became useless and soon
forgotten, because for example
if some scientists knew all the knowledge but were sent to an island
without outside contact,
then that engineering knowledge is no use to them and will soon be
forgotten when he basic human
needs will come up to engage them. So, you see that I want 0% chance
of anything which can prove
my conclusions as wrong; I had already proved that, if there had been
an
intellegent creature on earth, it is only us humans, and none had been
before us, it is proved,
but still if in the three billion years, aliens came to earth only in
last ten thousand years
ago, meaning that aliens had a fair chance to come to earth at
previous billions of years also,
but none came, so the percentage of Truth of my theory is
99.999999999%, but still 0.000000001%
(billionth) is the chance of a human alien coming to earth, but still
lot lot lot less, because
Alien human may not had suited perfectly for earthly environment, may
had not been immuned to
earthly diseases, and may had totally killed in the crash, but still
there is a 'chance' that it
continued, despite that I had also proved that 'evolution' had very
very very very very small
chance of success.
QURAN PROVES GOD ABSOLUTELY:
Quran purged Bible
The very first book of the bible, and its very first verses, contains
gross scientific errors, if Muhammad would have copied from Bible to
write Quran (actually, God revealed Quran), then most potently
Muhammad or any of his companion would have repeated the same
mistakes
he would have saw frequently opening the bible book's first pages.
Genesis.1.3-5 implies that, God said that light was created on earth,
on the first day/period of the creation of universe, (Genesis.1.14-19
implies that, Sun/Stars were created on the fourth day/period of the
creation of earth). (Light on earth can only be from Sun/Stars, how
it
can be that Light was created before Sun/Stars?).
Genesis.1.9-13 implies that, God created earth on the third day/
period, (Genesis.1.14-19 implies that, Sun/Moon were created on the
fourth day/period). (Established science suggests that, Earth/Moon
came out of the Sun, i.e. formed after the formation of Sun.).
Genesis.1.11-13 implies that, green vegetation came into scene, on
earth, on the third day/period of Earth, (Genesis.1.14-19 implies
that, Sun was created on the fourth day/period). (Established science
suggests that, green vegetation on earth can only come through
photosynthesis, i.e. sunlight is must for the formation of green
plants).
Genesis.1.16 implies that, the light of the sun and moon is not
differentiated, but treated as if they are a single type of light.
(Established science suggests that, Moon has no light of its own, it
merely reflects the light of the sun).
If Muhammad was indeed the author of the Qur’ân and had copied its
contents from the Bible, how did he manage to avoid the factual
errors
that the Bible contains? The Qur’ân does not contain any statements
which are incompatible with scientific facts.
The following is the sequence of the universe formation which Quran
presents; surprisingly, where modern science was able to correct the
bible errors until only recently, Quran corrected it about 1400 years
ago. Quran.41.9-12 and Quran.79.27-33 implies for following
chronological account from the universe start till today:
If we take the age of universe till now to be 6 periods, then:
First two periods: Universe formed, expanded. Sun/Earth formed, (and
the established science says exactly that, i.e., Galaxies/Vegetation/
etc didn't occurred in the first era of the universe formation.).
Second two periods: Earth was made straight. Earth brought
vegatation.
Tectonic plates made mountains, (and the established science says
exactly that, i.e., the boiling earth cooled, and then only
vegetation
occurred on earth. Note that, vegetation occurred after the sun
formation).
Then our Galaxy was formed, (and this is probably the most important
test, while, Quran differentiates between universe formation, and
galaxy formation, Bible don't mention it algother; Quran still
excelled by saying that galaxy was formed after the Sun/Earth
creation, which can't be observed, but has be be calculated by very
powerful simulations that only currect science level possess).
Third two periods: Universe became more developed/expanded, (i.e.
more
galaxies formed, and are forming still now; Univere is expanding,
while pick any major religion on the map of the earth, they all
propagate the idea of static universe, including Bible. Why Quran
risked, to say that universe is expanding, because God the creator of
Universe revealed the Quran.).
The above steps are which current scientific knowledge reached today,
in exact sequence, can it be chance? I don't think so, especially
when
Bible contains many scientific mistakes explaning the universe
sequence, and many other religions have many unscientific myths
concerning the start of the universe.
Conclusion: Along with other Primary Proofs, my Intuition says that
God is really Interested in us, and God always communicated with us
through the Middle-Eastern Messengers, the last of whom was Muhammad.
Quran.41.1-12, "
[41.9] Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who
created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals
with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.
[41.10] And He made in it mountains above its surface, and
He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four
periods: alike for the seekers.
[41.11] Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a
vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both,
willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We
come willingly.
[41.12] So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods,
and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the
lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard;
that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.
", quran ayahs end.
Quran.79.27-33, "
[79.27] Are you the harder to create or the heaven? He made
it.
[79.28] He raised high its height, then put it into a right
good state.
[79.29] And He made dark its night and brought out its
light.
[79.30] And the earth, He expanded it after that.
[79.31] He brought forth from it its water and its
pasturage.
[79.32] And the mountains, He made them firm,
[79.33] A provision for you and for your cattle.
", hadith ends.
Quran.20.1.4, "
(God) who created the earth and heavens above.
", quran verses end.
Bible.Genesis.1.1-19, "
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
the
waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light
from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters,
and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament:
and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered
together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of
the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is
in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after
his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,
after
his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven
to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days, and years: 1:15 And let them be for lights in
the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was
so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day,
and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth, 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and
to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
", bible verses end.
Quran.41.1-12, "
[41.9] Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who
created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals
with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.
[41.10] And He made in it mountains above its surface, and
He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four
periods: alike for the seekers.
[41.11] Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a
vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both,
willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We
come willingly.
[41.12] So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods,
and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the
lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard;
that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.
", quran ayahs end.
Quran.79.27-33, "
[79.27] Are you the harder to create or the heaven? He made
it.
[79.28] He raised high its height, then put it into a right
good state.
[79.29] And He made dark its night and brought out its
light.
[79.30] And the earth, He expanded it after that.
[79.31] He brought forth from it its water and its
pasturage.
[79.32] And the mountains, He made them firm,
[79.33] A provision for you and for your cattle.
", hadith ends.
MESSENGERSHIP PROVES GOD ABSOLUTELY:
Whenever Bible prophesizes any future messenger, then in most cases
it is Muhammad. Now, if we take Bible and Quran seperately then it
don't
prove that any of them is correct but if Bible successfully predicts
Quranic messenger amidst the Jewish jealousy, then we have to
conclude that both Bible and Quran are correct, and from the same
source, and
it also proves that God is a MUST. Now, which kind of God?
messengership says that the same God which revealed Hinduisitc/
Jewish/ Christian/Muhammadan/etc teachings.
Messengership proves ALL:
What is Messengership? Well, if Hindu etc
scriptures describe Muhammad in such a detail as naming him and his
parents, and also his native place, AND not only one past scripture
but ALL major scriptures of the past say such, etc., this sounds
impossibility except ONE source God is sending there messengers.
Surely, this can't be a coincidence, given the human ego such that
even if there is the truth in front of him, human ego will not accept
it, how come all the main religions of world despite human ego
foretold the comming of Muhammad, and told their followers to follow
Muhammad, in very clear words?
Hence Muhammad is proved, so do previous mesengers, including Jesus/
Moses, so do God, so do Paradise and Hell, so do Angels, so do Bible/
Quran themselves, so do Life after Death or Fate or Day of
Resurrection, and all othe matters of the unseen, and all what
Muhammadan Islam say, in short: Belief Is No More A Blind Belief! So,
we can now say with proof, that God organized organic evolution, or
the Universe Creation, and that they were not the chance creation.
Note tha, miracles done by Jesus/Muhammad/etc can't be proved
directly, we can't know even if Jesus was real/figurative figure, BUT
Messengership. What thing, "Messengership" don't prove?
Secondary proof, as previously, proved only that God existed, but
they
couldn't prove that is that God really interested in us, and if he
is,
the how? Saying that Muhammadan Islam say that God is Absolute is no
proof, because Judaism/Orthodox-Christianity/etc also say similar,
also, what if God himself wanted to eat/die/etc. as in hinduism/etc.?
If God himself wanted it, then no-one could deny him also;
Messengership comes to rescue here also: it proves that why only
Muhammadan Islam is true, and it says that, other major religions
were
true in their own times in past.
The added advantage, of Messengership, is that: Messengership
propagate the unity/harmony of religions/humanity in practial terms,
thus, Hinduism/Jewish/etc. are nothing but sent from the same source,
only to be revived by latter Messengership, once contradictions crept
into them. Yet another advantage is that: even, Budhist, Hindu,
Jewish/
Christian, scriptures foretold their abrogation on the coming of
Muhammadan scripture, so all the complexity is reduced in one step.
Now, I can say, that God intended Messengership as an Absolute proof,
not the Science, as an authenticity-badge for the Muhammadan Islam.
Quran.2.35-39 implies that, when God expelled the first man from
Paradise to Earth, God intended only messengership, as a source of
guidance, not any thing else (e.g. science/logic/etc.) as the prove
that the particular message is really from God.
Quran.2.164 implies that God will not punish, when the person has not
known his messengership, of his time, and that "nature signs" makes
meaning only after "messengership".
Quran.61.6 implies, Jesus saying of Ahmed/Muhammad.
Bible originals exist:
Bible originals exist today, they blong to the
time "before the time of Muhammad", as the Carbon Dating of them
proves.
Thus, if those original Bible didn't existed from the time "time
before Muhammad", then this "messengership" section of my Diary,
would
be mere fake, because a doubt of uncertainity is inserted in it, what
if muslims had changed the bible for their bias?
If the KJV Bible don't suffice one, then he can always cross-check
them with the original bible manuscripts.
Jew Criticism, proves:
Jews are the only nation around the world, which
have the holy scriptures, and the holy scriptures are the words sent
by God, but God is constantly criticizing the Jews for their bad
actions. Though, one may expect such a self-criticizing from one man
on himself, but the psyche of a whole nation can't condemn itself, it
is against the social psyche. This itself is the secondary proof that
Bible is the God revealed word.
please visit www.awais-nazir.biz for more information.
Richard Anacker
Waqasf schrieb:
> SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE GOD ABSOLUTELY:
>
> Recent Human, proves god
>
> First human came only ten thousand years ago.
[...]
Wrong newsgroup, troll. Try talk.bizzare
richie
--
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two
Waqasf
SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE GOD ABSOLUTELY:
Recent Human, proves god
First human came only ten thousand years ago. Considering the
Christopher A. Lee
<waqas....@gmail.com> wrote:
[562 lines of religious rubbish deleted]
Why are you such an in-your-face, rude, stupid psychopath?
Free Lunch
Waqasf <waqas....@gmail.com> wrote in
<ec406da3-e149-475c...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>I myself don't belived in God, but this research changed my mind.
I don't believe you.
>SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE GOD ABSOLUTELY:
>
>Recent Human, proves god
Not true.
>First human came only ten thousand years ago. Considering the
>scientific development which humans
Humans came well before 10,000 years ago.
>made, the simulation on computer shows, that the first human should be
>about ten thousand years
Your simulation was defective.
[further nonsense and meaningless quotes from scriptures deleted]
Religious claims have never proven that any gods exist. You are
confused.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Religious claims have never proven that any gods exist. You are
> confused.
I am a professional scientist, NOT a priest - so do NOT compare my
claims with claims of religions. What I am claiming is based on the
hard scientific evidence and the proven in action methods of
scientific logic. If you have doubts about my methods of proving, then
you firstly need to show that these methods hide an error. So have a
look e.g. at the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120c588e0a16/6c4ba1babcee49b5#6c4ba1babcee49b5
where is presented my formal scientific proof for the existence of God
completed with methods of mathematical logic, and show me in which
point this proof is wrong or harbours an error.
DanielSan
Proposition 3.
none
in any field having to do with real science.
In the referenced article, you have created a word salad of nonsense.
All of it is nonsense or wrong. Look at the first proposition
" Basis propositions:
(1) "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
beings."
Shannon said nothing of the sort. The language statement makes an
unsupported conclusion. What is intelligence and what is your
threshold?
Proposition 2 has no content so cannot be commented on as it
is useless.
Proposition 3
" (3) God does NOT exist, or does exist. The use by God of a
single and always the same coherent "language of genetic programming"
for all creatures that populate the Earth eliminates completely the
possibility that God does NOT exist."
Not even close enough to be called wrong. You assume what you want
to prove. This has no relation to science.
The proof section is garbage and, even it it were well done, means
nothing since it is preceded by nonsensical propositions.
You ask people to find an error hiding in your proof. There are
enough errors that are not hiding that no is no need to look
further.
Free Lunch
janp...@gmail.com wrote in
<b82db8b1-7c12-47fc...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
Since you claim to be a 'professional scientist' tell us what discipline
you are doing scientific research in.
Free Lunch
DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in
<GMudnU1sh4A6hJHV...@comcast.com>:
I'd start with his first mistaken claim:
"Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
beings."
That assertion is completely unsupported by the evidence, both in the
sense of 'intelligent codes' and in the attempt to apply Shanno.
Kenneth Doyle
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism
> janp...@gmail.com wrote in
> <b82db8b1-7c12-47fc...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>> On Apr 21, 3:34 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Religious claims have never proven that any gods exist. You are
>>> confused.
>> I am a professional scientist,
I don't believe you.
> NOT a priest - so do NOT compare my
>> claims with claims of religions. What I am claiming is based on the
>> hard scientific evidence and the proven in action methods of
>> scientific logic. If you have doubts about my methods of proving, then
>> you firstly need to show that these methods hide an error. So have a
>> look e.g. at the thread
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120c588e0a16/6c4ba1babcee49b5#6c4ba1babcee49b5
>> where is presented my formal scientific proof for the existence of God
>> completed with methods of mathematical logic, and show me in which
>> point this proof is wrong or harbours an error.
Error No. 1, assuming the consequent:
' Theorem:
"God does exist". '
You're assuming the truth of that which you claim to prove.
Equivocation on the use of the word 'code':
' Basis propositions:
(1) "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
beings.'
Assuming the consequent:
' (2) The creation of a single "language of genetic
programming" which would be capable to program and to express with
genetic codes all attributes for the huge number and variety of living
creatures that populate the Earth, required the work of either
superior being of a supernatural knowledge, power, and efficiency of
God, or a multitude of unanimously cooperating with each other human-
like intelligent beings of capabilities and efficiencies similar to
these of humans.'
You're just assuming that what you want to prove is immediately obvious.
Assuming the consequent (again):
' (3) God does NOT exist, or does exist. The use by God of a
single and always the same coherent "language of genetic programming"
for all creatures that populate the Earth eliminates completely the
possibility that God does NOT exist.'
You're just assuming without evidence, that God uses the genetic "code"
to programme creatures.
My comments in square brackets:
' (3) God does NOT exist, or does exist. The use by God of a
single and always the same coherent "language of genetic programming"
for all creatures that populate the Earth eliminates completely the
possibility that God does NOT exist.
Proof:
(1) The first basis proposition [the one that equivocated on
the word 'code'] is to be transformed with
the use of tautological form of the method known under the name of
"hypothetical syllogism". This form can be written as [(p =>q) && (q
=> r)] => [p => r], in which the assertion "p" says "genetic code
displays all attributes of intelligent codes", [this assertion remains
unproved] while the assertion "q"
says "according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are
versions of languages", in turn the assertion "r" states "all
languages are formed by intelligent beings". The transformation of
these propositions implies the conclusion that "the genetic code was
formed by an intelligent being". [the same equivocation on the word 'code']
(2) Accepting this previous conclusion [there is no valid
previous conclusion yet] for an assertion in
the next phase of inference, and using the method of "disjunctive
syllogism", the tautological form of which can be written as: [(p ||
q) && !p] => q, we obtain a next conclusion which states that "a
single, coherent 'language of genetic programming' which appears in a
huge number of creatures that populate the Earth must be formed by a
single superior being with a supernatural [where did 'supernatural' come
from? Why can't your proposed designer be a natural force?] knowledge,
power, and
efficiency of God".
(3) The last couple of propositions allows us to derive the
final conclusion [no they don't, they are just unproved assertions] with
method called the "disjunctive syllogism", the
tautological form of which can be written as: [(p || q) && !p] => q.
In this form the assertion "p" says "God does NOT exist", while
assertion "q" states "God does exist". Thus the final conclusion
states "God does exist"!
Conclusion:
The above inference chain unambiguously and conclusively
proves the truth of the theorem that "God does exist". [bullshit]'
' It is also worth to mention about the validity of the above
proof. Because this proof utilizes exclusively tautological forms of
subsequent methods, it remains valid for all values of variables it
uses. Thus practically it is errorproof.'
Gobbledygook! What is meant by 'tautological forms of subsequent methods'?
Even if the logic were valid, the conclusion is not necessarily sound
because the premises are just unfounded assertions based on equivocation
of terms and begging the question.
>>
>> With the totaliztic salute,
>> Jan Pajak
>
> Since you claim to be a 'professional scientist' tell us what discipline
> you are doing scientific research in.
I suspect he's lying.
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism
> > <b82db8b1-7c12-47fc-acd9-82383e4fd...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
> >> On Apr 21, 3:34 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Religious claims have never proven that any gods exist. You are
> >>> confused.
> >> I am a professional scientist,
>
> I don't believe you.
>
> > NOT a priest - so do NOT compare my
>
> >> claims with claims of religions. What I am claiming is based on the
> >> hard scientific evidence and the proven in action methods of
> >> scientific logic. If you have doubts about my methods of proving, then
> >> you firstly need to show that these methods hide an error. So have a
> >> look e.g. at the thread
There is no before creation.
Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
mitch.nico...@gmail.com wrote in
<74c402f6-36bc-41e3...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
There is no creation.
Kenneth Doyle
>
> There is no before creation.
>
My cat's breath smells like cat-food.
janp...@gmail.com
> codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
> are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
> beings."
>
> That assertion is completely unsupported by the evidence, both in the
...
Since you are so knowledgable that you known cases when a code is for
sure NOT created or invented by some sort of intelligence (means for
sure NOT by God), I would be happy to learn from you an example of
such an "stupid code" for which we all could be sure that it
originates from unanimate nature. So please provide us here with an
example of a code invented (or created) by an unanimate nature. I am
sure that you are NOT able to do this! In turn, your inability to
provide such an example of a code that originates from an unanimate
nature, additionally confirms the truth of my assertion that you try
to undermine with yopur general statement (but without the support
from any evidence).
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
P.S. I would also like to invite eneryone to have a look at the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/browse_thread/thread/48fb8fab975a7427#
which I authorise as well. All comments are welcomed.
Free Lunch
There is no evidence that any intelligent agent ever had anything to do
with chemistry, yet chemistry is consistent.
Devil's Advocaat
> On Apr 14, 12:33 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:42:55 -0700 (PDT), veritas
>
> > <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In response to:
>
> > >> Why, oh why, can't you morons think outside your religion, in terms of
> > >> the rest of the world beyond it?
>
> > <begin nominated portion>
>
> > >But don't any of you understand that no matter what reasoning you use,
> > >it is just that, REASONING. There is no physical facts that anyone
> > >can make any sense of, only opinions. That is all both groups do is
> > >give an opinion, as there is no physical evidence to consider,
> > >certainly the Universe is here, by why is opinion.
>
>
> Seconded.
> Poor grammar too!
> "There is no physical facts"
> Which is insane but at least grammatically correct insanity.
>
> Cheers, Mark.
Can I thirded it?
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Mark Richardson. m.richardson61 AT gmail.com
>
> Member of SMASH
> (Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheist with a Sense of Humor)
>
> --------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pink Freud
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:v50234hjpbkk963qv...@4ax.com...
..but..but..but.... there's no evidence anywhere that there WASN'T any
intelligent agent behind it.... COINCIDENCE???? and..and.. you go to HELL
if you're wrong so is it worth it??? and also I get this really WARM, FUZZY
feeling when I sing praises or pray therefore...
GOD EXISTS. QED!! Eat THAT logic, atheist scum.
SkyEyes
> On Apr 22, 10:48 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> ...> "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
> > codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
> > are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
> > beings."
>
> > That assertion is completely unsupported by the evidence, both in the
> > sense of 'intelligent codes' and in the attempt to apply Shanno.- Hide quoted text -
>
> ...
>
> Since you are so knowledgable that you known cases when a code is for
> sure NOT created or invented by some sort of intelligence (means for
> sure NOT by God), I would be happy to learn from you an example of
> such an "stupid code" for which we all could be sure that it
> originates from unanimate nature. So please provide us here with an
> example of a code invented (or created) by an unanimate nature. I am
> sure that you are NOT able to do this! In turn, your inability to
> provide such an example of a code that originates from an unanimate
> nature, additionally confirms the truth of my assertion that you try
> to undermine with yopur general statement (but without the support
> from any evidence).
Pick up a copy of Daniel C. Dennett's book _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_.
In it Dennet explains at exhaustive length how an unintelligent
driving force formed the genetic code. There really is no mystery to
it.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
John Smith
On May 18, 9:22 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:48 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> ...> "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
> > codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
> > are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
> > beings."
>
> > That assertion is completely unsupported by the evidence, both in the
> > sense of 'intelligent codes' and in the attempt to apply Shanno.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> ...
>
> Since you are so knowledgable that you known cases when a code is for
> sure NOT created or invented by some sort of intelligence (means for
> sure NOT by God), I would be happy to learn from you an example of
> such an "stupid code" for which we all could be sure that it
> originates from unanimate nature. So please provide us here with an
> example of a code invented (or created) by an unanimate nature. I am
> sure that you are NOT able to do this! In turn, your inability to
> provide such an example of a code that originates from an unanimate
> nature, additionally confirms the truth of my assertion that you try
> to undermine with yopur general statement (but without the support
> from any evidence).
1: That codes created by man - are created BY man - has NO bearing on codes
"created" by nature.
The use of this argument is nothing more than unssupportive and lame.
That it took an "intelligence" to create a watch - does NOT mean it took
intelligence to create a rock.
2: A "code" originated BY nature would also include natural laws of physics
and chemistry.
i.e. the laws (code) that governs a falling object (caused by gravity) were
not created by man ...... and there is NO evidence that there was any "god"
connection either.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> 2: A "code" originated BY nature would also include natural laws of physics
> and chemistry.
Do you realise that the "natural laws of physics and chemistry" were
created by God and thus also represent the code designed by the
intelligent being - see also
http://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.fizyka/browse_thread/thread/1f8fab45d59defe1#b86e3942132a81a1
. Thus the assumption which you stated (that laws of physics and
chemistry were created by nature) is just an assumption. In turn you
cannot build up your argument just on the assumption - as it this is a
sure fact.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan pajak
John Smith
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:88a26959-7499-4000...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
**"Nature" doesn't create things ...... and neither does an imaginary,
invented god.
**The laws of physics and chemistry are a PART of nature.
**I should have said "originated IN nature - or put it a different way.
**Nature is no more a "creator" than your unsupportable sky-pixie.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan pajak
**As usual, I suppose it would be useless to ask for valid evidence for your
god claims.
Free Lunch
>On May 20, 9:38 am, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...
>> 2: A "code" originated BY nature would also include natural laws of physics
>> and chemistry.
>...
>Do you realise that the "natural laws of physics and chemistry" were
>created by God
No evidence supports that claim.
Robert Weldon
Do you realize that you are a complete and total loon?
janp...@gmail.com
> invented god.
>
> **The laws of physics and chemistry are a PART of nature.
YES, that right. Nature does NOT create intelligent things such laws
of nature. These were created by God, or more strictly by the kind of
natural programs that God inserted into the kind of "liquid
computer" (scientifically called the "counter-matter") from which allo
elementary particles, atoms, tissues, and objects of the universe were
created. These are this natural programs that are the carriers of the
laws of nature - as this is explained in details in item #B1 from the
totaliztic web page "evolution.htm".
For more details see also the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/0b85905d2dc9f083#c374dc041f3c5fdf
or the thread http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120c588e0a16/6c4ba1babcee49b5#6c4ba1babcee49b5
.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
janp...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
> Do you realize that you are a complete and total loon?
This claim sounds to me exactly like these claims of aliens that look
identicvally to people, that assume various posts in the human
society, that are hostile towards people, and that try to push down
the human awareness and knowledge. More about these hostile to humans
creatures which continually push statements like this above, is
explained on threads
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
, http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/browse_thread/thread/48fb8fab975a7427#
and also http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_thread/thread/b6e2121a5c890408#
.
Note that the ability to spit at someone does NOT means that the
spitter is actually right in his or her claims.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
Robert Weldon
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f54b4577-b758-4f7a...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Whatever, you are still a complete and utter loon.
janp...@gmail.com
<rweldon.spambl...@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote:
...
> Whatever, you are still a complete and utter loon.
Where this your "expertise" comes from? Do you have your own
experience which allows you to spot the same symptioms in others?
It is interesting why some creatures rush to spit and throw mud on
others in matters which really do NOT concern them. After all, if they
do NOT share interests regarding a given matter, they should NOT be
interested in reading everything on that matter and then spit at the
authors of whatever they read. But strangely, these creatures spit and
thrown mud, but they simultaneously read every single word in the text
that they later are going to spit at. Normally we would think that
such a behaviour is rather strange. After all, humans normally do NOT
read e.g. newspapers which do NOT interest them. So there is something
fishy about these "mud throwers". Actually they behave as if someone
PAYS them for spitting and for throwing mud. And this seems to be
always the case on threads that provide something new and important
for our civilisation. Thus, the only explanation for such a behaviour
is this one which is provided on the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
- namely that there is a highly organised group of creatures which try
to turn the internet into a gutter. In turn the only creatures which
have the valid reason to act like that, are the ones described on the
threads http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_thread/thread/b6e2121a5c890408#
and http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/browse_thread/thread/48fb8fab975a7427#
. This means that such a persistent spitting at everything that is
important, is just another proof that a secretive occupation of the
Earth in fact takes place, and that creatures which look like people
but are NOT humans, actually do operate secretly on the Earth.
Ben Kaufman
No, God was created by man to explain what he did not understand.... as in "God
did it."
Ben
janp...@gmail.com
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
...
> >Do you realise that the "natural laws of physics and chemistry" were
> >created by God and thus also represent the code designed by the
> >intelligent being - see also
> >. Thus the assumption which you stated (that laws of physics and
> >chemistry were created by nature) is just an assumption. In turn you
> >cannot build up your argument just on the assumption - as it this is a
> >sure fact.
> No, God was created by man to explain what he did not understand.... as in "God
> did it."
Even if I pretend to NOT notice the sarcasm of your statement that,
quote "God was created by man to explain what he did not
understand...." and take this statement seriously, still it does NOT
explain many facts which can only be explained by accepting the fact
that God does exist. To start with, there is NO excplanation to the
fact stated at the very beginning of this thread, namely that there is
a multitude of evidence for the existence of God, but there is no even
a single fact that would confirm the non-existence of God. Also there
is no scientific explanation to origins of the universe without the
use of the idea of God.
On the other hand, even if we assume that your statement is correct
and try to make a good use of it, then it also turns out that you just
write a joke which has no cover in events from the real life. For
example, how just by using the idea of God you explain such facts as
for example that the sea tide causes the sea to rize on the opposide
side of the planet Earth than the side which faces the Moon, or that
the sky is blue, or that the electromagnetic waves belong to the
category of transverse waves, etc., etc. The point that I am making
here is, that the introduction of the idea of God does NOT explain
anything about our universe at all, and we humans still need to find
scientific explanations for practically everything, plus additionally
to God Himself. So your sarcastic joke is untrue from the factual
point of view as well.
Anyway, although I know that you just tried to be funny, I am thankful
for raising this matter as it extremely well emphasizes the point
which I raised on a separate thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/browse_thread/thread/d2327d9477eed94b#
in which I am trying to explain to people that even believers in God
still need to find scientific explainations to practically everything.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
John Smith
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e374415-4ea7-40ee...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
??????????
You're so good at pretending, you're pretending that your ignorance of
realityy and science constitutes making claims about a non-existant god.
On the other hand, even if we assume that your statement is correct
and try to make a good use of it, then it also turns out that you just
write a joke which has no cover in events from the real life. For
example, how just by using the idea of God you explain such facts as
for example that the sea tide causes the sea to rize on the opposide
side of the planet Earth than the side which faces the Moon, or that
the sky is blue, or that the electromagnetic waves belong to the
category of transverse waves, etc., etc. The point that I am making
here is, that the introduction of the idea of God does NOT explain
anything about our universe at all, and we humans still need to find
scientific explanations for practically everything, plus additionally
to God Himself. So your sarcastic joke is untrue from the factual
point of view as well.
There is no "explanation" for god because there is NO valid evidence for ANY
god.
Your ignorance of reality is no a vaalid argumentative stance.
Anyway, although I know that you just tried to be funny, I am thankful
for raising this matter as it extremely well emphasizes the point
which I raised on a separate thread
i.e. rpeating the same, ignorant, crap!
Tokay Pino Gris
> On Jun 12, 5:02 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
> doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> Do you realise that the "natural laws of physics and chemistry" were
>>> created by God and thus also represent the code designed by the
>>> intelligent being - see also
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.fizyka/browse_thread/thread/1f8...
>>> . Thus the assumption which you stated (that laws of physics and
>>> chemistry were created by nature) is just an assumption. In turn you
>>> cannot build up your argument just on the assumption - as it this is a
>>> sure fact.
> ...
>> No, God was created by man to explain what he did not understand.... as in "God
>> did it."
> ...
>
> Even if I pretend to NOT notice the sarcasm of your statement that,
> quote "God was created by man to explain what he did not
> understand...." and take this statement seriously,
Sarcasm? Well...
still it does NOT
> explain many facts which can only be explained by accepting the fact
> that God does exist.
Ohhh, this should be interesting...
To start with, there is NO excplanation to the
> fact stated at the very beginning of this thread, namely that there is
> a multitude of evidence for the existence of God,
Well? Where is that evidence? Oh, and remember what we MEAN by evidence.
but there is no even
> a single fact that would confirm the non-existence of God.
Oh, there is. It just is never stated that way. In fact, you can add to
ANY scientific hypothesis the sentence "this might also not work if
there is a god".
Also, and once again, the principle of falsifiability. "There is a god"
cannot be falsified... (ad nauseam... I won't repeat it again, unless
you insist on it)
Also there
> is no scientific explanation to origins of the universe without the
> use of the idea of God.
Oh, and "god" is a scientific explanation? Funny. What predictions does
he allow? What observations can we make? None, that's what.
Also, and also ad nauseam: That is a "god of the gaps". Brilliant. But,
sorry, it is a fallacy and cannot seriously be used in science.
>
> On the other hand, even if we assume that your statement is correct
> and try to make a good use of it, then it also turns out that you just
> write a joke which has no cover in events from the real life.
Oh, it does.
For
> example, how just by using the idea of God you explain such facts as
> for example that the sea tide causes the sea to rize on the opposide
> side of the planet Earth than the side which faces the Moon, or that
> the sky is blue, or that the electromagnetic waves belong to the
> category of transverse waves, etc., etc.
Nice. More "god of the gaps" and in these examples, not even there
anymore. We don't need "gods" to explain these things.
The point that I am making
> here is, that the introduction of the idea of God does NOT explain
> anything about our universe at all,
Yep. Exactly.
and we humans still need to find
> scientific explanations for practically everything,
Yep. Exactly. Good.
plus additionally
> to God Himself.
Why? Ok, if you think there is a god, sure. You can do that. In fact, a
good idea.
So your sarcastic joke is untrue from the factual
> point of view as well.
Not really. There is no evidence that this idea of a "god" hinges on.
And without evidence, there is no reason to assume anything. No fairies,
no pixies, no tooth fairy, no Santa Claus. No Great Bullalonga. And so
on. So, from a factual point of view, the sentence IS correct.
>
> Anyway, although I know that you just tried to be funny, I am thankful
> for raising this matter as it extremely well emphasizes the point
> which I raised on a separate thread
I doubt that he was "JUST" trying to be funny. What exactly is funny
about his sentence? It is a factual statement.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/browse_thread/thread/d2327d9477eed94b#
> in which I am trying to explain to people that even believers in God
> still need to find scientific explainations to practically everything.
Which is ok as far as it goes.
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
Weren't you the guy that said he HAD some proof of god? Which we totally
shredded?
Or am I missing something here?
Tokay
--
When choosing between two evils I always like to take the
one I've never tried before.
MAE WEST
janp...@gmail.com
...
>> Also there
> > is no scientific explanation to origins of the universe without the
> > use of the idea of God.
>
> Oh, and "god" is a scientific explanation? Funny. What predictions does
> he allow? What observations can we make? None, that's what.
Of course that after the introduction of the idea of God, the origins
of the universe can be explained much more scientifically than these
origins are explained today by the atheistic science. Actually, such a
scientific explaination for origins of the universe via the use of the
idea of God, is provided in item #B1 on the totaliztic web page
"evolution.htm" (in order to run this web page, you just need to type
in the www.google.com the key words "Jan Pajak evolution.htm" - but
without quotes, and then run any my web page, the address of which
finishes with the name "evolution.htm").
Notice, that the scientific explanation of anything with the use of
the idea of God, is NOT just words "because God created or did so",
but the explanation which provides an exact "technology" - means
process "how actually God did this or created this". Thus scientists
who believe in God do NOT just explain "who's done it" by saying
"because God did or created it so", but they explain "how exactly God
did it" - means what was involved in creation or doing this. So the
religious explanation for everything is much BETTER than the atheistic
explanation, as it is TRUE, correct, equally detailed as the
scientific explanation, and does NOT have these "black holes" which
scientific explanations do.
John Smith
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3f7b457-e1e5-4a3b...@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 3:45 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:
...
>> Also there
> > is no scientific explanation to origins of the universe without the
> > use of the idea of God.
>
> Oh, and "god" is a scientific explanation? Funny. What predictions does
> he allow? What observations can we make? None, that's what.
...
Of course that after the introduction of the idea of God, the origins
of the universe can be explained much more scientifically than these
origins are explained today by the atheistic science.
**You're a riot!
**Insane, but a riot.
Actually, such a
scientific explaination for origins of the universe via the use of the
idea of God, is provided in item #B1 on the totaliztic web page
"evolution.htm" (in order to run this web page, you just need to type
in the www.google.com the key words "Jan Pajak evolution.htm" - but
without quotes, and then run any my web page, the address of which
finishes with the name "evolution.htm").
**Your own bull shit web page does nto reinforce your own bull shit comments
here.
**There is NO relationship between science and ANY god - asshole!
Notice, that the scientific explanation of anything with the use of
the idea of God, is NOT just words "because God created or did so",
but the explanation which provides an exact "technology" - means
process "how actually God did this or created this". Thus scientists
who believe in God do NOT just explain "who's done it" by saying
"because God did or created it so", but they explain "how exactly God
did it" - means what was involved in creation or doing this. So the
religious explanation for everything is much BETTER than the atheistic
explanation, as it is TRUE, correct, equally detailed as the
scientific explanation, and does NOT have these "black holes" which
scientific explanations do.
**Explaining how I hear does NOTHING to support ANY claim that ANY
imaginiary god is behind it.
**Dipshits, like you, will grasp at any straw to try to prove your invented
sky pixie - even the most ludicrous!
janp...@gmail.com
> **Insane, but a riot.
> **Your own bull shit web page does nto reinforce your own bull shit comments
> here.
> **There is NO relationship between science and ANY god - asshole!
Well, the above "argumentation" of someone who represents the stand of
"official atheistic science" is the most convincing evidence that
without the idea of God humans are just animals which from caves
shifted to inventions that God allowed us to have through several
selected religious inventors. It turn it is well known that animals
are unable to make progress. Animals are just able to bark and to
attack intelligent beings. Of course, the reason why aminals are like
that also lies in the idea of God - animals do NOT believe in
existence of God because their intellects are to idle to be able to
accept the idea of God.
With the totaliztic slaute,
Jan Pajak
John Smith
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:179353ed-fe61-4ca3...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 11:01 pm, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> **You're a riot!
> **Insane, but a riot.
...
> **Your own bull shit web page does nto reinforce your own bull shit
> comments
> here.
> **There is NO relationship between science and ANY god - asshole!
...
Well, the above "argumentation" of someone who represents the stand of
"official atheistic science" is the most convincing evidence that
without the idea of God humans are just animals which from caves
shifted to inventions that God allowed us to have through several
selected religious inventors.
**Typical fanatically insane zealots reply.
Science and Atheism are NOT related in ANY way.
I am the "official representative" of neither.
Can't yop open your mouth without shit spewing forth?
It turn it is well known that animals
are unable to make progress. Animals are just able to bark and to
attack intelligent beings. Of course, the reason why aminals are like
that also lies in the idea of God - animals do NOT believe in
existence of God because their intellects are to idle to be able to
accept the idea of God.
With the totaliztic slaute,
Jan Pajak
**BTW ..... where's the EVIDENCE - ass-pimple?
Tokay Pino Gris
> On Jun 14, 11:01 pm, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>> **You're a riot!
>> **Insane, but a riot.
> ...
>> **Your own bull shit web page does nto reinforce your own bull shit comments
>> here.
>> **There is NO relationship between science and ANY god - asshole!
> ...
> Well, the above "argumentation" of someone who represents the stand of
> "official atheistic science" is the most convincing evidence that
> without the idea of God humans are just animals which from caves
> shifted to inventions
This is what we are.
that God allowed us to have through several
> selected religious inventors.
Now this is silly.
It turn it is well known that animals
> are unable to make progress.
Wrong.
Animals are just able to bark and to
> attack intelligent beings.
You should open a textbook once in a while. Preferably BEFORE you post
such nonsense.
Of course, the reason why aminals are like
> that also lies in the idea of God - animals do NOT believe in
> existence of God because their intellects are to idle to be able to
> accept the idea of God.
Bullshit
Tokay
--
No wonder I feel so tired -
I'm older now than I've ever been before.
Robert Weldon
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:28eb6477-ef6c-445c...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Well, so you are not only a loon, but a kook as well, what a surprise (not).
John Smith
"Robert Weldon" <rweldon....@jrpspamblock.ca> wrote in message
news:U3E5k.12162$Jx.7202@pd7urf1no...
You've been watching "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" again - haven't
you!?!?!?!