A Chemist has more power than God, Fact!

[alexb123]

God/Religion cannot and does not create anything that cannot be created by the word of a 'normal' man. God's only power is in his word and how us as humans take that word in to our minds and the affect this has.

However, a Chemist can create all kind of experiances that go far beyond anything that the word of God can create in man. Therefore, the Chemist is more powerful than God.

Hail the 'Chemist' for he has mixed for us

[John99]

yeah like LSD.

[Nikelodeon]

Crazy.

http://www.sciforums.com/avatars/avatar19906_7.gif

[shichimenshyo]

yeah like LSD.




http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/7/79/Trippy.jpg


<3

[Nikelodeon]

Please tell me thats an animated gif.

[John99]

Please tell me thats an animated gif.

thats what i was thinking:D

[shichimenshyo]

No it isnt =)

[John99]

oh man, now your messing with us:D

[shichimenshyo]

:p :D

[Baron Max]

God/Religion cannot and does not create anything that cannot be created by the word of a 'normal' man.

Can you prove that assertion?

If not, then isn't it just your belief ....in much the same way as another person might believe in god?

Baron Max

[Orleander]

yeah, some might say, god created the chemist, created the chemist's intellect, and created the compounds the chemist works with. The chemist can't create a dang thing without god.

[alexb123]

Can you prove that assertion?

If not, then isn't it just your belief ....in much the same way as another person might believe in god?

Baron Max

The only thing that the bible offers is the word of God and it is how this word of god is used that forms religion. As I am sure you know there is a religion centred around a tea pot that proves this point. Therefore, religion cannot create anything that is not created under diff conditions by 'man'. If I am wrong here what would you say religion creates that man cannot?

However, a chemist can create experiances and states of mind that the word of man/god cannot create. Therefore, the chemist is more powerful than God.

[VitalOne]

God/Religion cannot and does not create anything that cannot be created by the word of a 'normal' man. God's only power is in his word and how us as humans take that word in to our minds and the affect this has.

However, a Chemist can create all kind of experiances that go far beyond anything that the word of God can create in man. Therefore, the Chemist is more powerful than God.

Hail the 'Chemist' for he has mixed for us
No, God can/does create "real" experiences...

[alexb123]

No, God can/does create "real" experiences...

Can I have the proof?

[VitalOne]

Can I have the proof?

Can you give me an example of what can be considered proof? Exactly..ROFL another great atheistic tactic "you don't have proof but nothing can be considered proof"

[Exhumed]

Did that picture really move for you guys? It didn't for me, but this does ;o

http://thinksmart.typepad.com/good_morning_thinkers/images/moving_illusion.bmp

[superluminal]

Can you give me an example of what can be considered proof? Exactly..ROFL another great atheistic tactic "you don't have proof but nothing can be considered proof"
God's head appears in place of the moon and he begins a Rodney Dangerfield monologue, making himself heard, worldwide (throught the vacuum of space) in the native language of the listener, and - here's the kicker - he makes it funny!

Don't tell me nothing could be proof of god (typical fringe theistic tactics...)

[superluminal]

Did that picture really move for you guys? It didn't for me, but this does ;o


Pretty wild.

[VitalOne]

God's head appears in place of the moon and he begins a Rodney Dangerfield monologue, making himself heard, worldwide (throught the vacuum of space) in the native language of the listener, and - here's the kicker - he makes it funny!

Don't tell me nothing could be proof of god (typical fringe theistic tactics...)

ROFL...another great atheistic tactic, instead of providing evidence someone can hypothetically gather, provide evidence that no one can ever gather but just has to "happen", you can't gather God's head appearing in the moon, that just "happens", its like saying well if that comet really exists then I'll believe if it hits the Earth oneday all of a sudden, no other evidence would work, another great atheistic tactic used in order to preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system...

These foolish atheists, their entire faith-based belief system is based off irrationality, yet they believe themselves to be superior to everyone else

[superluminal]

ROFL...another great atheistic tactic, instead of providing evidence someone can hypothetically gather, provide evidence that no one can ever gather but just has to "happen", you can't gather God's head appearing in the moon, that just "happens", its like saying well if that comet really exists then I'll believe if it hits the Earth oneday all of a sudden, no other evidence would work, another great atheistic tactic used in order to preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system...

These foolish atheists, their entire faith-based belief system is based off irrationality, yet they believe themselves to be superior to everyone else
You're pretty funny! Do you wear bells on your pointed hat and shoes? And does your nose "beep" when you squeeze it? What a joke.

[VitalOne]

You're pretty funny! Do you wear bells on your pointed hat and shoes? And does your nose "beep" when you squeeze it? What a joke.

ROFL...another way of saying "I have no argument, I guess I'll use ad hominems and avoid to whole thing, this way it'll appear as if I'm right, even though I have no argument"

[superluminal]

ROFL...another way of saying "I have no argument, I guess I'll use ad hominems and avoid to whole thing, this way it'll appear as if I'm right, even though I have no argument"
Not really! I'ts more like an adult patronizing a child who keeps bringing up the same simple-minded thing, even though he's been corrected dozens of times...

Poor VO. Be a good boy and go back to your crayons.

[VitalOne]

Not really! I'ts more like an adult patronizing a child who keeps bringing up the same simple-minded thing, even though he's been corrected dozens of times...

Poor VO. Be a good boy and go back to your crayons.

Thanks for the reconfirmation, you have no argument and you continue with only ad hominems, great job, now just "admit that you're in error" as Gautama Buddha's disciple once told an atheist...

[superluminal]

Thanks for the reconfirmation, you have no argument and you continue with only ad hominems, great job, now just "admit that you're in error" as Gautama Buddha's disciple once told an atheist...
OK. I am in error. There is a god. VO has proof of god. He will share it momentarily. But even if he dosen't, it's still obvious that god exists because... um... I forgot. Wait. Because VO said so.

Feel better?

Good boy.

[VitalOne]

OK. I am in error. There is a god. VO has proof of god. He will share it momentarily. But even if he dosen't, it's still obvious that god exists because... um... I forgot. Wait. Because VO said so.

Feel better?

Good boy.

Still avoiding the argument, but I'm not saying God exists because there is no proof, I'm saying if you can't tell me what be considered proof then God's existence is unverifiable and unknown, and also it completely defeats the purpose of asking for proof if nothing can even be considered as proof, only a "god of the gaps"

[superluminal]

Still avoiding the argument, but I'm not saying God exists because there is no proof, I'm saying if you can't tell me what be considered proof then God's existence is unverifiable and unknown, and also it completely defeats the purpose of asking for proof if nothing can even be considered as proof, only a "god of the gaps"
"Oh look honey! VO's trying to sound reasonable! Isn't it just the cutest thing!" :D

[VitalOne]

"Oh look honey! VO's trying to sound reasonable! Isn't it just the cutest thing!" :D

[DELETED]

[superluminal]

I've said this millions of times idiot in innumerable different posts...but go ahead and continue the atheistic tactic
Somebody's tired :bawl: Time for beddy-bye VitalWital. You'll feel better in the morning.

[alexb123]

Still avoiding the argument, but I'm not saying God exists because there is no proof, I'm saying if you can't tell me what be considered proof then God's existence is unverifiable and unknown, and also it completely defeats the purpose of asking for proof if nothing can even be considered as proof, only a "god of the gaps"

Proof = a tangerable link between anything at all that is consider to be real and a higher power.

So maybe a fitting example here would be that people who are religious can tap into another area of the brain that cannot be reached by any other method.

[Enterprise-D]

ROFL...another great atheistic tactic, instead of providing evidence someone can hypothetically gather, provide evidence that no one can ever gather but just has to "happen", you can't gather God's head appearing in the moon, that just "happens",...

But VO...the whole theist argument is based on happenstance. God himself just happened into existence...and he cause life to "happen". No theist organization can provide evidence or explanation beyond this.

So why can't we postulate a circumstance that has to "happen" in order to accept the existence of any god?

[VitalOne]

Proof = a tangerable link between anything at all that is consider to be real and a higher power.

So maybe a fitting example here would be that people who are religious can tap into another area of the brain that cannot be reached by any other method.
Area of the brain? This has nothing to do with the existence of God and atheists like yourself will most certainly call it a "god of the gaps", atheists will say it doesn't prove or show anything

Any evidence is automatically a "god of the gaps" by default because science is naturalism or a "nature of the gaps"

But VO...the whole theist argument is based on happenstance. God himself just happened into existence...and he cause life to "happen". No theist organization can provide evidence or explanation beyond this.

So why can't we postulate a circumstance that has to "happen" in order to accept the existence of any god?
God didn't happen himself into existence, nor can it be said that God "always existed", such concepts as beginning and end do not touch God, he is without origin

Also, atheists have no problem with the unvierse just spontaneously "happening" into existence, causing all life to "happen", as long as something doesn't have anything to do with God or religion who cares if its causeless, thats the atheists' logic. "Who cares if energy is causeless and always existed, energy doesn't need no f***ing cause, but God...wtf? How can God be causeless and ever-existing, it just can't be, it can't be, it just can't, it just can't be...but the universe or energy thats allowed to be causeless, as long as its not affiliated with religion, who cares"

Another great atheistic tactic

[Enterprise-D]

God didn't happen himself into existence, nor can it be said that God "always existed", such concepts as beginning and end do not touch God, he is without origin

Ok
-He didn't happen into existence.
-nor can it be said that God "always existed",
-God has no beginning
-God has no end
-God has no origin

That leaves non-existence.



Also, atheists have no problem with the unvierse just spontaneously "happening" into existence, causing all life to "happen", as long as something doesn't have anything to do with God or religion who cares if its causeless, thats the atheists' logic. "Who cares if energy is causeless and always existed, energy doesn't need no f***ing cause, but God...wtf? How can God be causeless and ever-existing, it just can't be, it can't be, it just can't, it just can't be...but the universe or energy thats allowed to be causeless, as long as its not affiliated with religion, who cares"

Another great atheistic tactic


Therefore my question stands...why do YOU have a problem with requiring a happenstance event as evidentiary sway for a belief?

[VitalOne]

Ok
-He didn't happen into existence.
-
-God has no beginning
-God has no end
-God has no origin

That leaves non-existence.

No it leaves existing without origin, the origin of all things


Therefore my question stands...why do YOU have a problem with requiring a happenstance event as evidentiary sway for a belief?
The problem I have is that its only works in situations where something is measurable, its like a foolish person asking "Well what, why can you say the Earth revolved around the Sun is true before there was evidence?"

Its one of the most foolish notions imaginable to say that something is ONLY true if there's a "happenstance event" convincing people that its true, I mean I would have to wonder if you were retarded if you believed that, but then again atheists are trapped in this delusional world of thinking "evidence causes something to become true" even without knowing it, such fools, I wonder when they'll wake up from this fantasy land they live in....

If you really believe something is ONLY true if there's a "happenstance event" convincing people that it's true, then you clearly live in a fantasy world, I mean look at all the things that are true/were true before there was any evidence and before there was any "happenstance" events convincing anyone it was true...

[superluminal]

...atheists are trapped in this delusional world of thinking "evidence causes something to become true" even without knowing it, such fools,

What kind of brain damage causes you to keep trotting out the same old stupid statement?

No one, theist or atheist, thinks such a blatantly idiotic thing. You seem incapable of making the philosophical distinction between a marked lack of evidence causing an intelligent person to question the claims of people who (stupidly) insist the unsupported idea is true (like you), and those who assert that the idea is 100% false based simply on a lack of evidence (equally stupid).

Atheists claim that there's no reason the take the claims of theists seriously without some serious evidence. Just as you don't take my claims of an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage seriously. No difference.

Only an idiot claims certainty for any viewpoint that is so poorly supported. Theist or atheist.

I hope this clears things up for you, despite your left-hemisphere lesions.

[draqon]

God/Religion

Religion is not God.

God is not known to exist or not exist...therefore further claim of the properties of God are irrelevant.

[VitalOne]

What kind of brain damage causes you to keep trotting out the same old stupid statement?

No one, theist or atheist, thinks such a blatantly idiotic thing. You seem incapable of making the philosophical distinction between a marked lack of evidence causing an intelligent person to question the claims of people who (stupidly) insist the unsupported idea is true (like you), and those who assert that the idea is 100% false based simply on a lack of evidence (equally stupid).

Atheists claim that there's no reason the take the claims of theists seriously without some serious evidence. Just as you don't take my claims of an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage seriously. No difference.

Only an idiot claims certainty for any viewpoint that is so poorly supported. Theist or atheist.

I hope this clears things up for you, despite your left-hemisphere lesions.
Woah, what an [DELETED]

You say you won't take me seriously unless there's evidence, but nothing can be considered as evidence, its just a "god of the gaps" BY DEFAULT, great atheistic tactic, if nothing can be considered evidence then LOGICALLY (I know atheists hate logic, reasoning, rationality, etc...) it means its unverifiable, meaning there's no way to know if its true or false, meaning its unknown...this is the rational conclusion, but atheists are irrational wanting to appear rational

Atheists however CANNOT say the existence of God is unknown, that leaves room for God actually existing, which atheists cannot handle...the reason they can't handle it is because of the great atheistic faith which they must keep alive and preserve

Also I don't understand what you can't get through your thick atheistic skull, I never said unsupported ideas are true, never ever, the things I believe are based upon personal experiences, I said the truth is the truth with or without evidence

ROFL with another great atheistic tactic, as an "invisible pink unicorn existing in your garage", the reason I don't believe you is simply because you're just another foolish atheist using this to prove your point, its not an actual attempt, its not even a real example, nor is it comparable to God...why? Because its non-sequitur, the existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of an invisible pink unicorn, you can't address the actual substance of the argument without using irrationality (which is what atheism is based off)

So you just reconfirmed that you really believe evidence causes something to become true, you and other atheists even say it yourself, "I won't believe in something unless there's evidence", meaning you believe that evidence causes something to become true, otherwise you wouldn't say that, for things that are immeasurable and unverifiable this thinking doesn't work, it can only work if all things are measurable, verifiable, and experimental...

[VitalOne]

Religion is not God.

God is not known to exist or not exist...therefore further claim of the properties of God are irrelevant.

Irrevelant how?

[superluminal]

Woah, what an idiot

Ha! :D

but nothing can be considered as evidence, its just a "god of the gaps" BY DEFAULT, great atheistic tactic

, if nothing can be considered evidence then LOGICALLY (I know atheists hate logic, reasoning, rationality, etc...)

ROFL with another great atheistic tactic, as an "invisible pink unicorn existing in your garage", the reason I don't believe you is simply because you're just another foolish atheist using this to prove your point, its not an actual attempt, its not even a real example, nor is it comparable to God...why? Because its non-sequitur, the existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of an invisible pink unicorn, you can't address the actual substance of the argument without using irrationality (which is what atheism is based off)

Oh well. Can't argue with any of that. Way too logical for me.

[troll alert]

[draqon]

Irrevelant how?

here is an example:

Russia had a nuclear bomb in Tunguska region in 1905...this nuclear bomb exploded...but the world knows of it as a Tunguska meteorite...but this also means that Russia had the ability of nuclear ICBMS in 1905 as well.


(*gasp...*breath in....*breath out)


I just claimed that Tunguska accident was caused by nuclear device made by Russia! And not just that I also claimed that Russia had an ability to use nukes so early when noone else had it!

Now besides creating something without proof/backup I further made another assumption that is really illogical to be made with something that has no proof/backup.

get it?

[VitalOne]

here is an example:

Russia had a nuclear bomb in Tunguska region in 1905...this nuclear bomb exploded...but the world knows of it as a Tunguska meteorite...but this also means that Russia had the ability of nuclear ICBMS in 1905 as well.


(*gasp...*breath in....*breath out)


I just claimed that Tunguska accident was caused by nuclear device made by Russia! And not just that I also claimed that Russia had an ability to use nukes so early when noone else had it!

Now besides creating something without proof/backup I further made another assumption that is really illogical to be made with something that has no proof/backup.

get it?
No, the reason I don't get it is because I don't see how its comparable to God, instead of talking about how the concept of "God" is illogical you talk about some other completely different concept with no relation to "God", so your very own style of arguing is non-sequitur and illogical

[draqon]

No, the reason I don't get it is because I don't see how its comparable to God, instead of talking about how the concept of "God" is illogical you talk about some other completely different concept with no relation to "God", so your very own style of arguing is non-sequitur and illogical

I just gave you an example...and yet it is logical...unfortunately you could not see the connection.

Stating anything about God's properties/actions/whatever is illogical because God is not known to exist or not exist...nothing is known about God.

[VitalOne]

I just gave you an example...and yet it is logical...unfortunately you could not see the connection.

Stating anything about God's properties/actions/whatever is illogical because God is not known to exist or not exist...nothing is known about God.

No your example is incomparable, there should be evidence present yet there isn't, this is equivalent to evidence of absence, now in the case of God there shouldn't be evidence present and there isn't...

Nothing is known about God so stating anything about God is illogical? What? If thats the case then lots of scientific theories are illogical...

[draqon]

No your example is incomparable, there should be evidence present yet there isn't, this is equivalent to evidence of absence, now in the case of God there shouldn't be evidence present and there isn't...

Nothing is known about God so stating anything about God is illogical? What? If thats the case then lots of scientific theories are illogical...

scientific theories have a mathematical backup...God's mathemtical backup is were?

nowhere thats were.

[VitalOne]

scientific theories have a mathematical backup...God's mathemtical backup is were?

nowhere thats were.

lots in design...like the anthropic principle

Your logic is flawed

[draqon]

lots in design...like the anthropic principle

Your logic is flawed

My logic is flawed...okey lets say my logic is flamed...(my assumption are flawed...perhaps)

What is this anthropic principle and how does it mathematically prove existence of God?

[VitalOne]

My logic is flawed...okey lets say my logic is flamed...(my assumption are flawed...perhaps)

What is this anthropic principle and how does it mathematically prove existence of God?

The anthropic principle doesn't really prove that God exists...it just shows how the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life to exist, you know like if you change gravity by 0.1% intelligent life wouldn't exist

[draqon]

well than there are small tiny me's living inside my sperm...you know like you just said its anthropic principle...small tiny me's live inside my sperm and they are like really tiny so you cant see them if you looked closely. But look everything around me...the humans they look like me...so why not small me inside me?

[Enterprise-D]

No it leaves existing without origin, the origin of all things

I could grant you this point, but this does NOT invalidate the postulation that non-existence is a possibility.


The problem I have is that its only works in situations where something is measurable, its like a foolish person asking "Well what, why can you say the Earth revolved around the Sun is true before there was evidence?"

Its one of the most foolish notions imaginable to say that something is ONLY true if there's a "happenstance event" convincing people that its true, I mean I would have to wonder if you were retarded if you believed that, but then again atheists are trapped in this delusional world of thinking "evidence causes something to become true" even without knowing it, such fools, I wonder when they'll wake up from this fantasy land they live in....

If you really believe something is ONLY true if there's a "happenstance event" convincing people that it's true, then you clearly live in a fantasy world, I mean look at all the things that are true/were true before there was any evidence and before there was any "happenstance" events convincing anyone it was true...

But VO...the popular concept of god is that he just happened to be there, you haven't addressed this yet. Even if you say god didn't happen into existence, he still happened to be. And further he just willed life to happen. If you believe this, you should allow for others to want a happenstance event as evidence...

Indeed, it is arguably the most acceptable type in this case, as the being that you foist on the rest of us is highly unlikely and incredible. Thus we would wish to witness a highly unlikely and incredible event that is clearly caused by said being.

[VitalOne]

I could grant you this point, but this does NOT invalidate the postulation that non-existence is a possibility.
What? So if you say energy is without origin, being causeless and always existing it means energy doesn't exist? wtf? What type of logic this?

The postulation is existing without any origin


But VO...the popular concept of god is that he just happened to be there, you haven't addressed this yet. Even if you say god didn't happen into existence, he still happened to be. And further he just willed life to happen. If you believe this, you should allow for others to want a happenstance event as evidence...

Indeed, it is arguably the most acceptable type in this case, as the being that you foist on the rest of us is highly unlikely and incredible. Thus we would wish to witness a highly unlikely and incredible event that is clearly caused by said being.
I don't care about any "popular concepts of god" or whatever

Its not that God just happened to be there, its that God always was there, there is no reality without God, there is no such thing as God not being there, but such things like beginning, middle, and end do not touch God, God exists without origin, how can you say God has a beginning or end when God has neither? God is the origin of all the innumerable universes, the origin of all existences, all realities

It also cannot really be said that there is a beginning of the worlds because there's innumerable universes, say for instance that in this universe the universe began with something like the big bang, in another universe during that time-period when our universe was just forming the Earth had already existed, and in our universe even as we speak there are innumerable other universes just forming