Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

davewhite04 said:
I do have it, yes. I think about God a lot, it's hard because it distracts you from day to day living, you may come across as being aloof.

I think life was easier and more fun when I was an agnostic.
Click to expand...
Do you thank people wit the God gene will be rewarded for having to deal wit the extra burden that the God gene causes.???
 
Last edited:
James R said:
I can't wait to find out the reason! Do tell.

After all, you tell us that this God of yours gave us all His Holy Word in a special book, from which it is reasonable to deduce that he wants us to know he exists. But on the other hand, he hasn't given us any good evidence to show that the holy book was divinely inspired or, in fact, that this God did anything at all, any time. That suggests that God doesn't want us to know he exists.

Which is it? Does God want us to know about him, or not? And if he does, why hasn't he done a better job of unequivocally communicating his existence to us? Is He just not very good at that sort of thing?

I'm sure you'll explain.
Click to expand...

If you prove God, you prove the devil.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
And that leads to the "War in Heaven"? Who won, Satan or God? Well, the winner writes the history. Believers still alive would not know.
Click to expand...

Satan is the rebel, and he over ran Lucifer, and he has his fall, before the creation of man. After the fall of Persephone (Hades), the renegade approaches Heaven, but St Michael is triumphant over the devil, and life goes on. That leads to descent and Michael becomes Adam, but He is tempted into knowledge of good and evil, at the tree of life.
 
kx000 said:
Satan is the rebel, and he over ran Lucifer, and he has his fall, before the creation of man. After the fall of Persephone (Hades), the renegade approaches Heaven, but St Michael is triumphant over the devil, and life goes on. That leads to descent and Michael becomes Adam, but He is tempted into knowledge of good and evil, at the tree of life.
Click to expand...
Whoever lost was the loser. The loser was Satan, ipso facto. You don't know otherwise.
 
There are basically three types of religion that have evolved since ancient times:

  • Animism : where inanimate and animate objects are imbued with special powers. Into this group of religions fall voodism, African beliefs etc.,
  • Naturism: where the forces of nature are worshipped such as the sky, the seas, thunder, lightning etc., Into such religions fall the majority of major civilizations such as Graeco roman and Indo-aryan.
  • Lastly there are the religions that question the basis of existence, in this group are the Judaic, Islamic and Egyptian beliefs.
Where does science stand as compared to these religions? Till the time of Newton and even possibly up to James Clerk Maxwell, it was logic and reason that prevailed, where nothing that could not be proved by empirical experiment was taken to be true. While certain reasoned beliefs were held to be true, these beliefs were based on logic and verifiable observations, such as the rotation of the earth or the movement of the earth around the sun and so on. However, post Max Planck the scenario undergoes a complete change from being a rational, logic based science to one that was largely replaced by supposition in the form of probability or even worse to a science that was based on the uneasy foundation where no other explanation was available. Relativity both special and general relativity falls squarely into the latter group.

What is the basis of these statements. Take quantum mechanics it is based on the belief that “at the level of the very, very, small thing behave differently from the behaviour of macroscopic objects”! The 2024 Nobel prize awarded to Anne Huillier, Pierre Agostini and Ferenc Kraus have proved the falseness of this statement by showing that it is possible to accurately track both the position and the momentum of an electron. This effectively cuts the ground under quantum mechanics as does the invention of optical atomic clocks which demonstrate in an unquestionable manner that atoms emit and absorb photons at the rate of hundreds of trillions of Hertz. The arthritic, illogical and baseless QM explanation of this process cannot explain such phenomena. True QM claims that it offers a PERFECT explanation for atomic spectra, but this is just not true: other better explanations exist.

This means that the whole of quantum mechanics becomes redundant and supports the view that it has functioned more as an animistic religion than as an empirical science. Quantum Mechanics has ruthlessly enforced its beliefs by exacting an unflinching belief in its dogma in its followers. Any opposition is ruthlessly put down, as in the case of Bohm, who was founded from his tenured chair at Princeton and finally had to flee the country itself, although the claim is that this happened due to his early association with Marxism. The huge privilege in this kind of behaviour is that it enables the theory to enforce its views by (a) creating an impenetrable mathematical hoo-doo capable of baffling any reasoned approach and (b) by crushing all dissent through the use of formidable force. Are there alternatives? Yes there are. Read: Redefining the Electron” available on Amazon.
 
quant said:
There are basically three types of religion that have evolved since ancient times:

  • Animism : where inanimate and animate objects are imbued with special powers. Into this group of religions fall voodism, African beliefs etc.,
  • Naturism: where the forces of nature are worshipped such as the sky, the seas, thunder, lightning etc., Into such religions fall the majority of major civilizations such as Graeco roman and Indo-aryan.
  • Lastly there are the religions that question the basis of existence, in this group are the Judaic, Islamic and Egyptian beliefs.
Where does science stand as compared to these religions? Till the time of Newton and even possibly up to James Clerk Maxwell, it was logic and reason that prevailed, where nothing that could not be proved by empirical experiment was taken to be true. While certain reasoned beliefs were held to be true, these beliefs were based on logic and verifiable observations, such as the rotation of the earth or the movement of the earth around the sun and so on. However, post Max Planck the scenario undergoes a complete change from being a rational, logic based science to one that was largely replaced by supposition in the form of probability or even worse to a science that was based on the uneasy foundation where no other explanation was available. Relativity both special and general relativity falls squarely into the latter group.

What is the basis of these statements. Take quantum mechanics it is based on the belief that “at the level of the very, very, small thing behave differently from the behaviour of macroscopic objects”! The 2024 Nobel prize awarded to Anne Huillier, Pierre Agostini and Ferenc Kraus have proved the falseness of this statement by showing that it is possible to accurately track both the position and the momentum of an electron. This effectively cuts the ground under quantum mechanics as does the invention of optical atomic clocks which demonstrate in an unquestionable manner that atoms emit and absorb photons at the rate of hundreds of trillions of Hertz. The arthritic, illogical and baseless QM explanation of this process cannot explain such phenomena. True QM claims that it offers a PERFECT explanation for atomic spectra, but this is just not true: other better explanations exist.

This means that the whole of quantum mechanics becomes redundant and supports the view that it has functioned more as an animistic religion than as an empirical science. Quantum Mechanics has ruthlessly enforced its beliefs by exacting an unflinching belief in its dogma in its followers. Any opposition is ruthlessly put down, as in the case of Bohm, who was founded from his tenured chair at Princeton and finally had to flee the country itself, although the claim is that this happened due to his early association with Marxism. The huge privilege in this kind of behaviour is that it enables the theory to enforce its views by (a) creating an impenetrable mathematical hoo-doo capable of baffling any reasoned approach and (b) by crushing all dissent through the use of formidable force. Are there alternatives? Yes there are. Read: Redefining the Electron” available on Amazon.
Click to expand...
Reported as off topic and for plugging, again, a crank physics book.

I now suspect you may be Dilip D James, the author of this book, trying to drum up sales. :wink:
 
516 posts and no evidence for god. We are not asking for conclusive proof, (now at least despite the title) just some evidence, a little bit, a datum, a hint or a wisp.
 
Since no one has stuck their neck out so I will start the ball rolling.
The universe is here and a god could have either created it or just set the ball rolling at an earlier point “before” the BB we cannot detect.
By created “it” I mean the hot dense gluon plasma 13.8 billion years ago, from there it took its own course and here we are.
Playing devil’s advocate would ask, “why take such a longwinded way round things? If we, mankind were the ultimate goal?
IF we are not the ultimate goal we could just be a by-product of god messing round in the lab so to speak.
I am not being facetious here, we have no idea if a potential god is out there and does not have our interests at heart.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Since no one has stuck their neck out so I will start the ball rolling.
The universe is here and a god could have either created it or just set the ball rolling at an earlier point “before” the BB we cannot detect.
By created “it” I mean the hot dense gluon plasma 13.8 billion years ago, from there it took its own course and here we are.
Playing devil’s advocate would ask, “why take such a longwinded way round things? If we, mankind were the ultimate goal?
IF we are not the ultimate goal we could just be a by-product of god messing round in the lab so to speak.
I am not being facetious here, we have no idea if a potential god is out there and does not have our interests at heart.
Click to expand...
What makes you think 13 billion years is any length of time to God?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top