Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
janp...@gmail.com
whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what
awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I
managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also
identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer
is this correct one.
Probably I am the only researcher on the Earth who have found a key to
the scientific understanding of God (see the web page named "god.htm")
and to a rational getting to know this superior being with the use of
modern scientific methods. This key turned out to be the "theory of
everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see the web page
named "dipolar_gravity.htm"). It is because of this "theory of
everything", that I managed to determine where, when, and how the self-
evolution of God took place. Outcomes of this determination are
described in item #B1 of the web page "evolution.htm" - about problems
of natural evolution. It is also because of this "theory of
everything", that I managed to formulate several formal scientific
proofs for the existence of God, immortal soul, other world, etc.
These formal proofs are described: in item #B3 of the web page
"god.htm" - about secular and scientific understanding of God (see in
there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of God"), in item
#C1.1 of the web page "nirvana.htm" - about the totaliztic nirvana
(see in there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of
eternal human soul"), in item #D3 of the web page
"dipolar_gravity.htm" - about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see in
there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of the counter-
world"), and in several further totaliztic web pages (see the web page
named "totalizm.htm"). Only because of findings of this "theory of
everything" I was also able to indicate to other people an entire
wealth of empirical evidence for the existence of God, which (the
scientific evidence) so-far was either overlooked, or intentionally
ignored by the official human science. (Descriptions of this empirical
evidence are provided in items #F1 to #F3 of the totaliztic web page
"bible.htm" - about the Bible authorised by God Himself.)
When formulating these formal scientific proofs for the existence of
God, and while researching God with scientific methods, I had numerous
opportunities to have a close look at what would happen if all people
unanimously recognised my proofs and rapidly started to believe (as
strongly as I do) that God in fact does exist. A positive consequence
of such a rapid converting of all atheists into the belief in God
would be, of course, that almost instantly all people would begin to
act morally. Means, that would disappear: crime, lies, cheating,
killing, exploitation, wars, etc., etc. However, in the present
situation of our civilisation, when people still just only "worship
God" instead of researching Him and instead of obeying laws that He
established, various undesirable consequences of such unanimous belief
in God would also appear. Namely, almost completely would then
diminish the accumulation of knowledge and the human motivation to
investigate the universe. After all, in present circumstances, for so-
called "typical bread eaters" the consequence of being sure that God
does exist is to loose the motivations for investigating and for
analysing the world around us. For every question about anything, for
these ones who strongly believe in God is just a single reply, namely
"because God created it so and He controls it in just such a manner".
Believers in God notoriously keep ignoring the well-known principle
that "God helps only those people who help themselves", and that by
failing to act even saints get nowhere. In order to summarise the
above, "typical consequences of increasing the faith in God in present
circumstances are: an increase in morality of people, which is
accompanied by the simultaneous decrease in knowledge, disappearance
of scientific research, and the lack of motivation for creative
searches".
Of course, if these are us who put ourselves in the position of God,
we would NOT like the situation when all people believe in Us and all
people worship Us, when all people act morally, but simultaneously the
progress of knowledge and technology rapidly falls down. After all, in
such a situation the human civilisation would never advance to a
higher level of development. So in our interest as God, would lie
finding a way to inspire in people somehow the creative searches and
the increase in their knowledge. As it turns out, this way depends on
persuading some people into the so-called "atheism". Atheists from the
very definition are forced to find out which mechanisms hide behind
events around them. After all, they negate God as the source of these
mechanisms. As such, the "atheism" is the propelling force for the
progress of knowledge and for the technical development of our
civilisation. Unfortunately, the "atheism" has this drawback, that it
causes also a moral decadency. This is because without believing in
the existence of God and without believing in the existence of eternal
soul, atheists try to gain from the life as much as they only can for
as little as they manage to get away with. But since the morality
stands on their way, then to hell with the morality. In order to
summarise the above, "typical consequence of "atheism" is the increase
of knowledge and the fast technical progress, which, however, is
accompanied by the simultaneous drop in the level of morality amongst
people".
Each one amongst two situations on the Earth described before has its
drawbacks. Namely, if all people are believers in God, then the
science, progress, and motivations of people to improve their
situation would diminish on the Earth, while the average level of
morality would increase. In turn, if all people on the Earth were
atheists, then the science and technology would bloom, while the
morality would fell down. The main reason is, that when something
undesirable affects believers in God, these typically state that this
is the "God's will" and do NOTHING to improve their situation. In turn
when something undesirable affects atheists, then they try to
determine what are reasons for this and then they fight with it. So
what God should do in order to make the humanity to stay on the path
of morality, but simultaneously people keep motivations to continue
research, progress, and improvement of their situations. Well, on the
present level of human awareness, the only choice is that "a correct
balance between the number of people who believe in God, and the
number of atheists, must be maintained on the Earth". Expressing this
in other words, if someone puts himself into the position of God
(means speaking scientifically - if someone would "simulate the
situation of God") then he would discover easily that God to the same
degree is interested in a correctly balanced propagation amongst
present people both the "atheism" as well as the "belief in God". In
turn the best evidence for this interest of God in a balanced
propagation of both, atheism and the belief in God, is the so-called
"free will" of people, and also the so-called "canon of ambiguity"
which God displays in everything that He does. The "free will" which
God gave to all people causes that each one of us has the right to
interpret everything on any way that he or she wishes. In turn the
"canon of ambiguity", which is embedded into every action of God,
depends on such doing everything God decides to do, that every person
can interpret later this God's action according to his or her own view
of the world and according to his or her personal philosophy - means
in any way that a given person wishes to interpret it. (Please notice
that descriptions of the "canon of ambiguity" are provided in
subsection JB7.4 from volume 7 of monograph [1/4] ?available free of
charge from the totaliztic web page named "xext_1_4.htm".)
Unfortunately, the maintenance of the correct balance on the Earth
between the number of atheists and the number of believers in God, is
immensely difficult. After all, people display so-called "sheep
mentality". Furthermore, on the Earth works inertia, fashion,
tradition, etc. Therefore, every now and again this healthy balance
becomes disturbed. So what God does in such cases. Well, he must take
various corrective measures. What these measures are we already saw in
the period of medieval times, and we also are starting to see it in
the present time. After all, similarly like previously this happened
already once near the end of antiquity, just recently again the
disturbance of this healthy balance took place. In the result of this
disturbed balance, the number of atheists grew to the level that it
endangers the moral progress of humanity. So God again must intervene,
and in fact He already intervenes. But He cannot appear openly in the
sky and start to electrocute atheists with lightnings. After all this
would destroy the "free will" of people - and thus would force every
atheists to become a believer in God. In the result another fall down
of progress in lifting knowledge and technology would take place in
the future of the Earth. Therefore God have chosen another method for
restoration of the balance. It is based on an old finding which is
excellently expressed by the proverb which states that "there are no
atheists amongst frightened". This method represents only a slight
modification of the method that God already used once on the humanity
during medieval times. In a short run it is going to turn very painful
for individual people. But on a long run it is going to turn very
beneficial for the entire human civilisation. The totaliztic web page
named "will.htm" (addresses of which are provided below) is trying to
describe systematically and scientifically what this method is all
about. Furthermore, the web page "will.htm" shares with the reader my
answers to questions that are stated at the beginning of this item.
The explanations presented above, which illustrate that in order to
reassure a simultaneous increase of morality and the growth of
knowledge and technology on the Earth God is forced to maintain a
dynamic balance between the number of believers and atheists, are
adopted from item #A2 on the totaliztic web page named "will.htm",
update of 25 April 2008, or later. The latest update of the web page
"will.htm" should be available from following addresses (if it was not
sabotaged there by evil powers that recently rampage in the internet
and all over the Earth):
http://bible.webng.com/will.htm
http://energy.atspace.org/will.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/will.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/will.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/will.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/will.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/will.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/will.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/will.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/will.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/will.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/will.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/will.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/will.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/will.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/will.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/will.htm
It is also worth to know that under each address indicated above ALL
totaliztic web pages should be available (unless some of these web
pages were sabotaged in the meantime). Thus, if someone wishes to view
descriptions from any other totaliztic web page, e.g. from a web page
listed in this message, or listed in other totaliztic messages, then
in the above addresses the name "will.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 god.htm? "bible.htm", "dipolar_gravity.htm",
"nirvana.htm", otalizm.htm? "evil.htm", "evolution.htm",
"wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm", "malbork_uk.htm", "memorial.htm",
"newzealand.htm", "free_energy.htm", "fe_cell.htm", "boiler.htm",
"partia_totalizmu_uk.htm", fruit.htm", "text_1_5.htm", etc., etc.
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
P.S. This thread belongs to a longer series of discussion threads that
I authorise and that concentrate on providing and discussing
scientifically verifiable evidence, proofs, and explanations for the
existence of God, eternal soul, another world, etc. The aim of all
these threads is to restore the healthy balance between the
dissemination of "atheistic views" based on scientific findings, and
the dissemination of views which facilitate the rational research on
God and which also are based on newest scientific findings and on the
existing evidence. It is my hope, that by attempts to restore this
healthy balance I manage to reverse the trend to-date that rationally
thinking people were "tricked" into atheism because the
representatives of scientific fraternity either were scared to present
evidence and proofs regarding God, or ignored the evidence that was
known to them. In turn by restoring this balance, I hope to enable
people to take an "informed decision" in all matters relating to God
(instead, as presently, being just "tricked" into atheism).
Christopher A. Lee
>Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
Speak for yourself, pig-ignorant liar who pretends he is too stupid to
understand that it's merely somebody else's religious belief.
[220 lines of in-your-face, mindless bullshit deleted]
Richo
> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
> whether we have eternal soul,
I am not interested in those.
what is the goal of our existence, what
> awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
> etc., etc.
Those are the impotant questions.
> I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
> questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
> others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I
> managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also
> identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer
> is this correct one.
>
You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
> Probably I am the only researcher on the Earth who have found a key to
> the scientific understanding of God (see the web page named "god.htm")
The scientific understanding of God is "That isnt a question that can
be meaningfully asked or tested".
Cheers, Mark.
John Baker
<PLONK!>
J
"John 'IBen' Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:6bia14t1digq6lo4c...@4ax.com...
You're so full of shit, IBen. When you say you'll <PLONK> someone, that
usually means you'll become obsessed with him
Uncle Vic
> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
I'm one of those who doesn't bother, given the lack of evidence available.
Why did you cross post this into alt.atheism? Trolling?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is
it from the time when your personal definition of what science should
do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific
fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and
also do answer, these type of questions. What even more important, my
answers to these questions are based on scientifically verifiable
evidence and on logical deductions. If you do not believe, then have a
look at other threads that I am authorising, e.g. at the threads:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120c588e0a16/6c4ba1babcee49b5#6c4ba1babcee49b5
- which contains the formal scientific proof that "God does exist"
completed with methods of mathematical logic,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/9d7e62b9be872ac3/2d70a1621314beb6#2d70a1621314beb6
- which contains the formal scientific proof that "another world (in
which God lives) does exist" completed with methods of mathematical
logic,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/0b85905d2dc9f083#c374dc041f3c5fdf
- which provides scientifically verifable "evidence for the existence
of God" from the area of physical sciences,
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8040cef26d37261f#de22942cb8fe3aee
- which provides scientifically verifable "evidence for the existence
of God" from the area of biological sciences,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/20892864b7f7690e/bbdc5b3dc1aed298#bbdc5b3dc1aed298
- which proves that there is NO evidence for the NON-excistence of
God, while simultaneously there is an abundance of evidence for the
existence of God,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.misc/browse_thread/thread/08f2092eec0476ad#
- which provides folklore-based evidence for the existence of God.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
>...
>Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is
Where did you demonstrate there was anything to have questions about,
in the real world outside your religion, moron?
DanielSan
> On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
> ...
> Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is
> it from the time when your personal definition of what science should
> do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific
> fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and
> also do answer, these type of questions.
Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
predicted, and repeated.
Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
results?
Richo
> On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
>
> ...
> Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific".
Think on this:
You have in front of you two statues.
One of them is regarded by the makers of the statue as holy - they
sincerely believe that the divine is present in it - the other is an
art work that no living person regards as holy.
What scientific principle would you employ to distinguish the divine
statue from the non divine statue.
> Is
> it from the time when your personal definition of what science should
> do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific
> fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and
> also do answer, these type of questions.
Or you could be delusional.
> What even more important, my
> answers to these questions are based on scientifically verifiable
> evidence and on logical deductions. If you do not believe, then have a
> look at other threads that I am authorising, e.g. at the threads:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/3511120...
> - which contains the formal scientific proof that "God does exist"
> completed with methods of mathematical logic,
>
I will read it and reply - but I don't think you will like my
analysis.
Mark.
C3
>
> read more �
Overall I think beleivers add more to progress. There is the Catholic
saying "In the World but not of the World." People who have spent an
incredible amount of time in prayer are actually just as erudite and
intelligent and well educated as the atheist group. Prayer itself
exists and this adds to ingenuity and progress.
C3
Richo
> - which contains the formal scientific proof that "God does exist"
> completed with methods of mathematical logic,
>
<snip irrelevance>
> So here it is, the formal proof for the existence of God
> completed with the use of methods of mathematical logic:
> Theorem:
> "God does exist".
First problem: you have not defined God.
Presumably it's the eternal mind/spirit that created the universe -
but there are many variations on the idea so it good to say up front
which version you are pushing for.
> 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.
That contains several diverse assumptions that are not obviously true.
I know something of codes and I think you may be equivocating on
"language".
Shannon was a communications Engineer who was interested in
quantifying information content in coding schemes etc and I dont think
there is much meaning behind the statement "all codes
are versions of languages" unless you are simply declaring them
equivalent for the purposes of discussion. You make it sound profound.
Also since the theory of evolution through natural selection was
published over
150 years ago we know that many apparently designed systems can arise
without the intervention of a designer.
So you are off to a very poor start.
> (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.
Why not natural selection in a soup of complex molecules doing what
comes naturally?
Anyhow you are just asserting this is true without justifying it.
I think there is little point in going on.
The logic of a proof can be perfect but the conclusion can be false -
it all depends on the truth of your assumptions.
(1) All cats are green
(2) I am a cat.
Conclusion: I am green.
Perfectly valid and wrong.
Your proof suffers the same problem "garbage in, garbage out"
Mark.
Dubh Ghall
>Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
>whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what
>awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
>etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
>questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
>others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist,
Sorry sunshine, but *creation scientists*, don't actually count as
"scientists".
I have read some bollocks, in my time, but you are setting new
standards.
adman
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WuGdnQ_t0O4dwYjV...@comcast.com...
Let me know when you can make a universe and everything in it that can be
DanielSan
How is that an answer? Are you saying that those steps cannot be
applied to God?
John Baker
>
>"John 'IBen' Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
>news:6bia14t1digq6lo4c...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT), janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> <PLONK!>
>>
>
>
>
>You're so full of shit, IBen.
In the unlikely event that I ever find myself in need of the opinion
of a complete and utter imbecile, you'll be the first person I ask,
IBen. Until then, shut the fuck up.
>When you say you'll <PLONK> someone, that
>usually means you'll become obsessed with him
Says the trolling lunatic who's so obsessed with me that he even stole
my name.
>
John Smith
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:510c60e8-6685-4ad0...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
> whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what
> awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
> etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
> questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
> others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I
> managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also
> identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer
> is this correct one.
IOW - you're no scientist - just another raving lunatic.
adman
No those steps cannot be applied to God
But there are alot of claims that science makes that is not and cannot be
tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.
So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that
created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted,
and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be
tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?
Lord Vetinari
"John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s9mRj.9373$E77.4445@trnddc05...
*NARF*
What're we going to do tonight, Brain?
Heh....
Wombat
> "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:rIKdncyHW_2eVYjV...@comcast.com...| adman wrote:
>
> | > "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | >news:WuGdnQ_t0O4dwYjV...@comcast.com...
WTF do you think the CMB is evidence for? Red shift anyone?
Have you worked out yet how the Colorado River cut meanders in the GC
in 10,000 years?
Have you worked out how an ice dam collapse sent water south over
rising ground for about 700 miles before it cut a canyon in solid
rock?
The words motes and beams seem aposite.
Wombat
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that
>created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted,
>and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be
>tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?
1) The BB was predicted.
2) Evidence for the BB was predicted, searched for and found.
3) Observations of the BB have been made.
4) There is no evidence for a creator, nor for the need for one.
--
Bob.
John Baker
Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.
>
Christopher A. Lee
>Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
Liar.
DanielSan
So, God is not scientific. QED.
>
> But there are alot of claims that science makes that is not and cannot be
> tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.
Like what?
>
> So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that
> created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted,
> and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be
> tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?
Ah, but the Big Bang HAS been observed. You can observe it today. It
can be tested and predicted and those tests and predictions can be
repeated by a multitude of scientists.
How do we do this for a creator?
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
> predicted, and repeated.
>
> Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
> How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
> results?
We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
observed, predicted, and repeated. If we exclude such phenomena from
the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
repeated. Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.
Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
intelligence can overcome every obstacle. We just need to use it for
researching God. I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
indicated before. However, as I am describing these methods, I intend
to discuss them simultaneously. (I do discuss them on several threads
simulataneously - e.g. see also the thread (in Polish) at the address
http://groups.google.com/group/pl.soc.religia/browse_thread/thread/8887c148f441ea3b#
.)
DanielSan
> On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
>> predicted, and repeated.
>>
>> Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
>> How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
>> results?
>
> We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
> phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
> observed, predicted, and repeated.
Like what?
janp...@gmail.com
> can be tested and predicted and those tests and predictions can be
> repeated by a multitude of scientists.
Wow, so you do see the "big bang"! No wonder that you present here
such "interesting" views.
DanielSan
> On Apr 29, 12:59 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Ah, but the Big Bang HAS been observed. You can observe it today. It
>> can be tested and predicted and those tests and predictions can be
>> repeated by a multitude of scientists.
> ...
> Wow, so you do see the "big bang"!
You can, too. Anyone can. That's the wondrous thing about science:
Anyone can back it up and anyone can invalidate it (providing they can
back up whatever they have).
John Smith
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13e9e823-7df3-4248...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
> predicted, and repeated.
>
> Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
> How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
> results?
We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
observed, predicted, and repeated.
***Then why has no one been able to do it - and provide valid, substantiated
evidence?
***By the way - which god?
If we exclude such phenomena from
the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
repeated.
***Were you there?
***Was anyone there - beside your imaginary god?
***EYEWITNESS ARE NOT all that is needed for evidence - dipshit!
Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.
***Science has tested it .... and science has repeated it.
***Shove your minibrain back up your fundy-asshole.
Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
intelligence can overcome every obstacle.
***Apparently except the ignorance and mental corruptin of fundamentalist
relgious zealots.
We just need to use it for
researching God.
***Sorry - I'm currently trying to validate Godzilla as a known fact!
I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
indicated before.
***You canot research that which has no valid evidence for existence.
Wombat
> On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
> > predicted, and repeated.
>
> > Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
> > How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
> > results?
>
> We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
> phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
> observed, predicted, and repeated. If we exclude such phenomena from
> the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
> anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
> present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
> repeated. Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
> about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.
You do realise that using your reasoning you will have to release
anyone from prison who was convicted solely by forensic means.
Wombat
>
> Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
> intelligence can overcome every obstacle. We just need to use it for
> researching God. I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
> researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
> indicated before. However, as I am describing these methods, I intend
> to discuss them simultaneously. (I do discuss them on several threads
> simulataneously - e.g. see also the thread (in Polish) at the addresshttp://groups.google.com/group/pl.soc.religia/browse_thread/thread/88...
John Locke
>Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
>whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what
>awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives....
>
I don't need to wonder. I'm free from that childish baloney.
Only the religious our burdened with incorporeal nonsense.
So grind away and waste some more precious time looking for
the "meaning of life".
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
JohnN
> On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
> > predicted, and repeated.
>
> > Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
> > How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
> > results?
>
> We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
> phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested,
> observed, predicted, and repeated. If we exclude such phenomena from
> the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
> anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
> present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
> repeated. Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
> about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.
>
> Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
> intelligence can overcome every obstacle. We just need to use it for
> researching God. I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
> researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
> indicated before.
Why not publish them in peer reviewed science journals?
> However, as I am describing these methods, I intend
> to discuss them simultaneously. (I do discuss them on several threads
> simulataneously - e.g. see also the thread (in Polish) at the addresshttp://groups.google.com/group/pl.soc.religia/browse_thread/thread/88...
> .)
Do your methods involve test tubes? How many grams of god do you use
for each experiment?
JohnN
Tokay Pino Gris
> <janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13e9e823-7df3-4248...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed,
>> predicted, and repeated.
>>
>> Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God?
>> How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those
>> results?
>
> We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other
> phenomena that science tries to research,
Yep.
but that cannot be tested,
> observed, predicted, and repeated.
Then you cannot do "research".
>
>
> ***Then why has no one been able to do it - and provide valid, substantiated
> evidence?
> ***By the way - which god?
>
>
> If we exclude such phenomena
What phenomena?
from
> the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say
> anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was
> present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be
> repeated.
Huh?
"Say" you can anything you want. That is free speech.
Science and the scientific method is another thing.
>
> ***Were you there?
> ***Was anyone there - beside your imaginary god?
> ***EYEWITNESS ARE NOT all that is needed for evidence - dipshit!
>
>
> Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say
> about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.
You don't understand "test".
And "repeat"? Not really necessary. Would be nice if possible, but no
break of a leg if not.
>
> ***Science has tested it .... and science has repeated it.
> ***Shove your minibrain back up your fundy-asshole.
>
> Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn
> intelligence can overcome every obstacle.
Where'd you get that from?
>
> ***Apparently except the ignorance and mental corruptin of fundamentalist
> relgious zealots.
>
>
>
> We just need to use it for
> researching God.
See above. We cannot research what cannot be "tested, observed,
predicted, and repeated".
>
> ***Sorry - I'm currently trying to validate Godzilla as a known fact!
>
> I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of
> researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm"
> indicated before.
Shit. Why'd you buggers always change your names?
>
> ***You canot research that which has no valid evidence for existence.
>
> However, as I am describing these methods, I intend
> to discuss them simultaneously. (I do discuss them on several threads
> simulataneously - e.g. see also the thread (in Polish) at the address
> http://groups.google.com/group/pl.soc.religia/browse_thread/thread/8887c148f441ea3b#
> .)
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
>
>
i looked at those. Bullshit through and through. Anyone in doubt: Take a
look.
Tokay
--
FINAGLE'S LAW: Once a job is fouled up, anything done to
improve it makes it worse.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:06:59 GMT, "Lord Vetinari"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:s9mRj.9373$E77.4445@trnddc05...
>
> >> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:510c60e8-6685-4ad0...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
> >>> whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what
> >>> awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives,
> >>> etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of
> >>> questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and
> >>> others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I
> >>> managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also
> >>> identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer
> >>> is this correct one.
>
> >> IOW - you're no scientist - just another raving lunatic.
>
> >*NARF*
>
> >What're we going to do tonight, Brain?
>
> >Heh....
>
> Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iJPFSNu_QNs
"...I think so, Brain-but what would I do with two tounges?"
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
ZORT!