Show me the evidence.

[Jenyar]

Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.

Here's a nicely researched article on the subject: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Here's a nicely researched article on the subject: ...

A "nicely researched artcle"? No, THIS is a "nicely researched artcle".

 

[Raithere]

Re: Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.

Originally posted by Jenyar

What extra-biblical witness to Jesus? All I see is a rather weak argument regarding an eclipse that is supposedly not an eclipse but a miraculous event. I see no direct historical references to Jesus.

Throughout all his machinations to attempt to place this “darkness” at the moment of Jesus’ supposed crucifixion the simplest answer eludes him. That the author of the Biblical passage has fabricated the account from several actual events… Since there is no independent record of Jesus’ crucifixion how can the events be independently reconciled? The page is simply a whitewash.

~Raithere

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Xelios
Wrong again whatsup. Just because we have thus far been unsuccessful in creating life in the labratory doesn't mean it's a supernatural event. I fear you are twisting definitions to suit your needs, so I will post the definition of supernatural here:

su·per·nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with science. Life certainly is not above the laws of nature, but that's what you're claiming.

I am twisting definitions to suit my needs?

First of all I have never changed the definition of supernatural, it also refers to what is beyond the laws of nature...

Monkey is pointing out to me that if something defies every laws of nature, and every biological law, then that would be called "Supernatural"....

So now I asked, "what are these laws of nature? Laws of physics?" List them all down..........

Laws of Nature and physics....

1.?
2.?
3.?
4.?

Write them all down, and now tell me which one is responsible for the existence of life forms SINCE YOU CLAIM TO KNOW ALL OF THE LAWS.........

IT IS BETTER FOR YOU TO SAY "I DONT KNOW ALL OF THE LAWS OF NATURE AND PHYSICS" (SINCE THIS IS WHAT SCIENCE TEACH ANYWAYS), THAN TO SAY "I KNOW ALL OF THE LAWS OF NATURE AND PHYSICS" BUT NOT BEING ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE AND APPLY THAT KNOWLEDGE IN REALITY, NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM, FOR IN THIS WAY, YOU ARE PROVING THAT LIFE FORMS HAVE A SOUL, AN ENERGY WE CANNOT DETECT THAT GIVES US LIFE, BEYOND THE AMINO ACIDS AND BEYOND WHAT WE CAN DETECT AS "PHYSICAL"..........


"I believe any reputable scientist will tell you we still know only a fraction of how the universe works."- Jaxom......

You are right Jaxom, you are smart, unlike Xelios and Monkey, you recognize reality, keep it up, you may one day learn that God exist before its too late.....

Xelios, I know many adults would tell me "Why are you putting up with this blockhead kids?" I am doing this because I hope one day you wll realizze that atheists are just ignorant about many things in life, and you should be able to see that in you.....


So where does this all comes down to again? it comes down to the fact that YOU CANNOT SAY GOD IS SUPERNATURAL FOR IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CLAIM, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO KNOW EVERY LAWS OF NATURE AND PHYSICS IN LIFE, SCIENCE HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFULL ON THIS RESEARCH....


SIMPLE WORDS, SIMPLE FACT, SIMPLE TRUTH, SOMETHING THIS BASIC SOME ATHEISTS DONT UNDERSTAND, HOW POOR IS THEIR JUDGMENT, HOW POOR IT IS.......

 

[*stRgrL*]

I am doing this because I hope one day you wll realizze that atheists are just ignorant about many things in life, and you should be able to see that in you.....

Oh that gives me goosebumps. I think Ill convert to Christianity now Didya ever think that maybe your the one that is ignorant about many things in life? Like for instance - NOT HAVING ANY PROOF!

TaTa!

 

[Jaxom]

You are right Jaxom, you are smart, unlike Xelios and Monkey, you recognize reality, keep it up, you may one day learn that God exist before its too late.....

I'm glad you agree with my assessment of your mistaken argument. And yes, I am still waiting for the evidence you have yet to provide. Maybe you can teach us something...

 

[Xelios]

First of all I have never changed the definition of supernatural, it also refers to what is beyond the laws of nature...

Then why are you calling the creation of life supernatural, when you have NO evidence to suggest that it was? Just because we can't create it in the lab has nothing to do with whether or not it's supernatural. 200 years ago we couldn't venture into space, does that mean doing so was supernatural at that time? No. It simply meant we couldn't do it, it has nothing to do with supernaturalism.

Write them all down, and now tell me which one is responsible for the existence of life forms SINCE YOU CLAIM TO KNOW ALL OF THE LAWS.........

You have a point here, but not the one you think. The point you are making is that we cannot define anything as supernatural until we know absolutely every natural law. I agree with this completely, so again I ask, why are you calling the creation of life supernatural?

You are right Jaxom, you are smart, unlike Xelios and Monkey, you recognize reality, keep it up, you may one day learn that God exist before its too late.....

Do you selectively ignore things I say to suit your needs whatsup? That is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along. We don't know everything, we don't pretend to, science is still progressing and it has by no means reached the height of discovery. Honestly whatsup, you're really beginning to frustrate me. Get your facts straight before you spout your mouth about other people.

YOU CANNOT SAY GOD IS SUPERNATURAL FOR IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CLAIM, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO KNOW EVERY LAWS OF NATURE AND PHYSICS IN LIFE, SCIENCE HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFULL ON THIS RESEARCH....

Yes I can, because by Christian definition God exists outside this universe. The laws of nature apply only to this universe, so God is therefor above the laws of nature, or supernatural. You are trying to have the best of both worlds here, saying God cannot be subject to logic or any other thing from our universe, and then turning around and saying he is not above our laws of nature. Pick one and stick with it.

SIMPLE WORDS, SIMPLE FACT, SIMPLE TRUTH

Hah! Hardly.

 

[whatsupyall]

THIS SHOULD ANSWER ALL OF ATHEISTS QUESTIONS.....

Originally posted by Xelios
Then why are you calling the creation of life supernatural, when you have NO evidence to suggest that it was? Just because we can't create it in the lab has nothing to do with whether or not it's supernatural. 200 years ago we couldn't venture into space, does that mean doing so was supernatural at that time? No. It simply meant we couldn't do it, it has nothing to do with supernaturalism.

I first said that in order for one to claim that something is supernatural and beyond the laws of nature, one must be able to know every detail of the laws of nature, but since science have already stated that we are not even close to discovering the laws of nature, then one must not claim that somethig is supernatural and outside the laws of nature, unless of course you claim to be smarter than scientists and claim to know all the laws of nature like Monkey above....

When I said that in order for things to be supernatural, it must not be understood and be outside the realm of what we discovered as laws of nature, not that it is outside of it, considering the fact that we dont know all of it (laws of nature). In summary the word "supernatural" is just another way of saying "I dont know", so God cannot be supernatural in the sense of being outside of all the laws of nature, considering the fact that we have not been able to detect all the laws of nature.

Monkey stated that it would be supernatural for a house to fly all the way to the moon, and people able to breathe without oxygen provided, for that will defy every laws of nature and biological laws.......Does this comment make sense? We'll see.....

Ill make another analogy...

"It would be supernatural for a rock and tree to become monitor, keyboard, stereo, and computers without intelligent cause, for that will defy principle of causality (where u cant get more from the cause than you have from the effect; law of Newton)."....Does this comment make sense either???


"To humans this is impossible, but for God nothing is impossible"- Jesus...In other words "With pure knowledge, nothing is impossible" For God is knowledge.....The light of the world...

When you take morphine (as I mentioned above), such drug goes up your brain, then it will cause stiffness of your muscles, so strong will you be that a skinny 130 lbs guy can break a handcuff that requires a pressure of 500 lbs..This is scientifically proven, the power of the mind (mind over matter)...
But the sideffects that goes along with it would be the bones will be broken against the handcuff, his metabolism will be so high that he will be hungry....

But what is considered as "Supernatural" or "Miracluous" once again lies on the observer.....

What if a certain chemical like morphin can give the human brain strong bones (while morphin gives strong muscles) thus the bones wont break...
What if a certain chemical like morphin can cause the human body to be able to digest oxygen and other chemicals that composes air as food, as the metal and iron relies on such as food of its existence......


THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SUPERNATURAL" MEANING "OUTSIDE OF THE LAWS OF NATURE", THERE IS NO SUCH THING, FOR WE DONOT KNOW ALL OF THE LAWS OF NATURE THAT GUIDES US, SO WHO ARE YOU TO CLAIM SUCH AND SUCH IS OUTSIDE OF THE LAWS WHEN YOU DONT EVEN KNOW THE LAWS TO BEGIN WITH????

God is natural and supernatural, understood by some, not to others...God is natural and supernatural...He is not natural, as a human with a carrier of computer engineer is not confined to his architectural engineering..He is not bound to be inside the vehicle in which he designed, he is not confined to be inside a computer intelligence machine...he can have an access and control however, he can be inside it as he wills, or be outside of it as he wills, BUT HE IS NOT BOUND OR CONFINED INTO IT...ONCE AGAIN GOD IS LIVING, HE IS NATURAL OR SUPERNATURAL AS HE WILLS IT...

Albert Einstein acknowledges God as the inner laws of nature, the design and order of the universe...Einstein didnt see God as supernatural (as many does) but God to him is of nature...He may not have a complete answers in the thoughts of God, but he does acknowlegde the order of earth and nature (not some dumb kids thinking nature is chaos, how stupid..)..."I want to know Gods thought, the rest are details.."- Albert Einstein....
-----------------------------------------------------------

So let us go back to the house being flown to the moon and people inside it being able to survive without air provided, is this supernatural? Again is it supernatural for a rock and trees become computer without intelligent cause??

What do you define the house to be made out of? Metals or wood? I can assure you, it is possible for us to be able to gather a super-lightweight titanium, design it to appear like a wood, give it an odor of a wood, a feel of wood (being soft)..Maybe we can give it an engine that is completely quite, so silent that we cant hear it...
While they provide gas and fire to lift the spaceshuttle above to moon, we will provide this house air to move up, and the motion while on earth must be so fast so that when it makes it into space, the force provided will give it enough power to be able to land on moon....

And the persons inside the house, maybe we can gather the sub-atomic particles and compress it (air) as we do to atomic bombs, and place them on a little tank as small as a pencil behind you, and that compressed oxygen maybe uncompressed with a new technology, that way it will be enough to support human life for 80 yrs......

YOU THINK THIS IS FUNNY? THEN TRY EXPLAINING HOW COMPUTERS AND INTERNET EXIST IN DETAIL TO THE NATIVES IN SOUTH AMERICA. COMPUTERS EXIST, NOW EXPLAIN THAT TO THOSE WHO DONT KNOW IT EXIST...THEY WILL FIND YOUR WORDS FUNNY TOO, THEY WOULD THINK YOU'RE RETARDED........

The viewers on the other hand who is unaware how this came to be may find that a house being lifted up into moon is supernatural, meanwhile maybe one day we can demonstrate its possibility......

ONCE AGAIN WITH PURE KNOWLEDGE NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE...WITH GOD NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE....IM SURE WE CAN FIND WAYS TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE....To me Jesus being risen to the sky is HIGHLY possible in the field of science.....

SKEPTICISM IS HELPFULL, RESEARCHING FACTS STRAIGHT, BUT BEING SKEPTIC (STUPIDITY) IS ILLOGIC, HOLDING BACK THE SCIENTIFIC POSSIBILITIES THERE IS OUT THERE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS IMPOSSIBLE AS LONG AS OUR INTELLIGENCE PROGRESS (If given enough time).........
----------------------------------------------------------------


I have heard alot of atheists claiming that christians or believers of God are usinng their imagination too much..What would be the problem of that??

Imagination is helpfull in science and religion...Even through inventions, thats how things that were impossible days back, becomes possible now, through human imaginations......

Even atheists have a lot of imaginations and wishfull thinking, take the theories they come about, about quantum mechanics, abiogenesis, none of this are proven, but theories are brought about beginning with our imagination, from there it progresses and with little evidence, the hypothesis is good enough to be called "theory". We use the same method with human souls in religion, and even in biblicall perspective, we also use enough evidence to make such hypothesis believable (but for me they are FACTS as to atheists quantum mechanics are facts.)

Atheists are trying to destroy and take imagination out of human race or the children, how stupid..Imagination can build up, it is helpfull that your kids have alot of imagination and wishfull thinking, for one day that will progress into higher level of thinking, possibly resulting in discovery of new medical science or other fields...

Imaginations can only be harmfull if the intent is evil, such as taking over the world and killing all who disobeys you, there are good and evil imagination....

------------------------------------------------------------

I also heard alot of atheists say "Atheists based their belief in science and philosophy, meanwhile theists based their beliefs in emotions and feelings.."

A VERY STUPID COMMENT...

I hear alot of "toothfairy" and "giant purple squid monkey" being thrown around here and there in an attempt to disprove the existence of God...But why do atheists even use the word "giant purple squid-monkey" and claim to base their belief in scientific research? IF THATS NOT A LIAR THEN WHAT IS???

Check this...Let us observe why atheists use "giant purple squid monkey" or "toothfairy" so many times in order to disprove God..

1.) Toothfairy contains no scientifical evidence, no historical location eevidence, no testimonial evidence...

2.) As a result, it gives them that "FEELING" that since it is illogic to believe in toothfairies which to them contains no evidence, then why should they believe in God? How is God any different??

There is alot of errors concerning this claims...FIRST AND FOREMOST AN EXISTENCE OF TOOTHFAIRY CLAIM AND GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY CANNOT BE USED AS AN ANALOGY TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD...

IF YOU MAKE TOOTHFAIRY AS ANALOGY ABOUT GOD, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM PROVIDING THE SAME VALID BELIEVERS OF TOOTHFAIRY AS OF GOD...

1.) Show me how many are martyred in the name of tooothfairy....

2.) Show many how many churches built in the name of toothfairy...

3.) How many believers of the existence of toothfairy? MILLIONS? ARE THEY PROFESSORS? UNIVERSITY GRADS? PRESIDENTS? JUST TO CLARIFY IT, DONT USE INSANE, RETARDED, DRUG ADDICTS AS A REFFERENCE, OR 6 YRS OLD KIDS, THAT DOESNT GIVE THE SAME ANALOGICAL FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD....

Using toothfairy and Giant purple squidmonkey as analogy to God is like saying "WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE A CAR CAN RUN AS FAST AS 60 MPH? MIGHT AS WELL BELIEVE A TOOTHPICK RUNS JUST AS FAST AS WELL..."

ITS PRETTY STUPID, TOOTHPICK DOESNT HAVE AN ENGINE, DOESNT HAVE A WHEEL, ETC. THEREFORE YOU CANNOT USE THE TOOTHPICK AS ANALOGY TO A CAR....IN THE SAME WAY YOU CANNOT USE GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY OR TOOTHFAIRY AS ANALOGY CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.....EVEN IF YOU CAN FIND WAYS TO USE SCIENCE TO PROVE TOOTHFAIRIES EXISTENCE, YOU STILL CANNOT USE IT AS ANALOGY TO GOD UNLESS OF COURSE YOU CAN PROVIDE THE SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE......

MAYBE TO CREATE A TOOTHFAIRY YOU CAN USE A SELF INDEPENDENT COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE, THEN IT WILL PROJECT A IMAGE ON THE AIR, IT CAN TALK, THINK, AND APPEARS LIKE A WOMAN WITH A SITCK...USING TECHNOLOGIES THIS MAY ONE DAY BE POSSIBLE.......
------------------------------------------------------------------

SO WHAT IS THE LESSON HERE?? THAT ATHEISTS BASED THEIR BELIEFS ON FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS AS WELL.......THERE IS NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT TOOTHFAIRIES AT ALL....THATS A LIE WHEN ATHEISTS CLAIM TO BASE THEIR BELIEF IN SCIENCE..........

I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT MANY PEEPS WHO ARE ATHEISTS REJECT AND DENY MIRACLES, EFFECTS OF PRAYERS, TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, ETC...WHEN THEY DENY EVIDENCE, THE DENIAL WILL TAKE EFFECT IN THEIR PSYCHOLOGY...IN A WAY THEY ARE BRAINWASHING THEMSELVES...SO IT IS SO EASY FOR THEM TO USE THE TOOTHFAIRY AND GIANT PURPLE QUID MONKEY AS ANALOGY TO GOD, BECAUSE THEY SEE NO EVIDENCE OF GOD, THE SAME WAY AS THEY SEE NO EVIDENCE OF TOOTHFAIRY, NOT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GOD, THERE IS, BUT THEY ARE IN COMPLETE DENIAL, THUS BRAINWASHING THEMSELVES, TAKING EFFECT IN THEIR MENTAL PSYCHOLOGY...........


ANYMORE QUESTIONS ATHEISTS??? FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS YOUR THOUGHTS.......

 

[Jaxom]

Whatsup,

I agree pretty much with your reasoning of the definition "supernatural", since there's still much to learn about the universe. But we then just agree on a term for the unknown is all...

I agree with you that technology beyond us can look like a miracle, just as Clarke stated long ago. But this downplays your god into something similar to what the Raelians believe. Even a "god" who can move suns, but is trapped within the realm of the laws of nature, is not the god you think you know. He's just a more advanced being.

Now, as for the "facts" of religion, that's really where the arguments begin, because your criteria for accepting something as factual data is a lot looser than ours. If something is mentioned in an ancient text that seems to point to Jesus, you claim it as fact. If the same "fact" is documented in other places as well, then we may agree. But the one mention is not enough to claim it absolute truth.

The same argument is often used by creationists against evolutionary theory, that one fact was found, and so thus the theory states it must all be true. However, that's not how science, including evolution, works, but if religion was done the same way as science is, where theories of god have to defend themselves through testable, observational data, it would undermine itself.

Just look at the link a few posts above, on trying to tie in a mention of an eclipse, or lack of one, as proof of Jesus. A mention from someone of someone else's obscure observation, and it's taken as a solid fact....that it MUST be true.

The topic at hand is Jesus and evidence. There's not a lot to go with that's not dependant on his existance being true. Any theory in science that has little to back it up would get tossed for one that does.

 

[Xelios]

In summary the word "supernatural" is just another way of saying "I dont know",

"Supernatural" is not a the same as "unknown". Again, simply because we don't understand how something works doesn't mean it's above the laws of nature.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SUPERNATURAL" MEANING "OUTSIDE OF THE LAWS OF NATURE"

I disagree. God is supernatural (if he exists) because by definition he exists outside this universe. The laws of nature apply only to THIS universe, not anything beyond it (which is where God resides). For THIS REASON God is considered to be SUPERNATURAL, above nature. Do you disagree with this?

SO WHO ARE YOU TO CLAIM SUCH AND SUCH IS OUTSIDE OF THE LAWS WHEN YOU DONT EVEN KNOW THE LAWS TO BEGIN WITH????

I am not the one claiming God exists outside of nature, theists are. Why don't you ask them?

God is natural and supernatural, understood by some, not to others...God is natural and supernatural

He cannot be both, either he is above the laws of nature or he is subject to them. Make a choice, because the two are mutually exclusive.

He may not have a complete answers in the thoughts of God, but he does acknowlegde the order of earth and nature (not some dumb kids thinking nature is chaos, how stupid..)..."I want to know Gods thought, the rest are details.."- Albert Einstein

Your point being...? Would you like me to point out a Christian turned atheist who said something about how God doesn't exist and then call you stupid for not conforming to his beliefs?

So let us go back to the house being flown to the moon and people inside it being able to survive without air provided, is this supernatural?

No.

To me Jesus being risen to the sky is HIGHLY possible in the field of science.....

Yup, which is why I don't consider it to be a miracle. Likewise for curing people of illness or curing the blind, all possible (or almost possible) through science.

I hear alot of "toothfairy" and "giant purple squid monkey" being thrown around here and there in an attempt to disprove the existence of God...But why do atheists even use the word "giant purple squid-monkey" and claim to base their belief in scientific research?

Why? Let me tell you why. Because YOU brought that up in the first place, now we're simply using it as an analogy that is familier to you in an attempt to get through your thick skull. We could say "little pink elephant mice" and it would serve the same purpose. You cannot disprove the existance of a purple squid monkey or a pink elephant mouse any more than you can prove the existance of God. The same goes for me as well, and indeed for everyone.

1.) Toothfairy contains no scientifical evidence, no historical location eevidence, no testimonial evidence...

God does not contain any scientific evidence either, so we're even on that note. The tooth fairy's locational evidence would be in the homes of childre, more specifically their bedrooms. Further evidence for a toothfairy's existance could be found in the fact that they exchange teeth for money. Testimonial evidence? Ask 1000 young children and there's your testimonial evidence. Now obviously the toothfairy doesn't exist, but see how easy it is to think she does?

SO WHAT IS THE LESSON HERE?? THAT ATHEISTS BASED THEIR BELIEFS ON FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS AS WELL.......THERE IS NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT TOOTHFAIRIES AT ALL

\

I agree completely, luckily atheists do not claim they have scientific evidence to support the existance of toothfairies.

THATS A LIE WHEN ATHEISTS CLAIM TO BASE THEIR BELIEF IN SCIENCE..........

Seeing as you you simply made up that little bit about atheists believing in toothfairies, this point is null and void.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT MANY PEEPS WHO ARE ATHEISTS REJECT AND DENY MIRACLES, EFFECTS OF PRAYERS, TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, ETC...WHEN THEY DENY EVIDENCE, THE DENIAL WILL TAKE EFFECT IN THEIR PSYCHOLOGY...IN A WAY THEY ARE BRAINWASHING THEMSELVES

And I suppose you aren't brainwashing yourself? Shutting out any ideas that don't conform to your own? Insulting others in a vain attempt to feel better about your beliefs? Refusing to question God for fear that you may become atheist? Attending church every week to hear the same, monotonous drone of a preacher embedding the church's doctrine into your skull until you practically have it memorized? Take a close look at yourself before you call me brainwashed whatsup.

FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS YOUR THOUGHTS.......

My thoughts? Another pointless waste of time. But that's just my thoughts.

 

[Raithere]

More questions

Originally posted by whatsupyall
In summary the word "supernatural" is just another way of saying "I dont know"

Wrong, supernatural means: beyond or exceeding the laws of nature. Attributing a supernatural cause to the unknown commits several logical fallacies. In short, if you cannot prove that a phenomena does not occur to natural causes it is illogical to simply assume that the cause is supernatural.

so God cannot be supernatural in the sense of being outside of all the laws of nature, considering the fact that we have not been able to detect all the laws of nature.

No, this would not follow. God is, by Christian definition, supernatural.

Monkey stated that it would be supernatural for a house to fly all the way to the moon, and people able to breathe without oxygen provided, for that will defy every laws of nature and biological laws.......Does this comment make sense?

Yes, it does. Any event that defied the laws of nature would be, by definition, supernatural.

"It would be supernatural for a rock and tree to become monitor, keyboard, stereo, and computers without intelligent cause, for that will defy principle of causality[/quote]It would depend upon what the cause actually was... you have only stated what it is not. That's not enough to go on.

(where u cant get more from the cause than you have from the effect; law of Newton)

No, Newton's second law of themodynamics states that in a closed system the amount of energy is conserved. That is, you cannot get more energy out of a system than it already contains. This states nothing as to local complexity, particularly in an open system. The Earth is an open system.

"To humans this is impossible, but for God nothing is impossible"- Jesus...In other words "With pure knowledge, nothing is impossible" For God is knowledge.....The light of the world...

Proof?

When you take morphine (as I mentioned above), such drug goes up your brain, then it will cause stiffness of your muscles, so strong will you be that a skinny 130 lbs guy can break a handcuff that requires a pressure of 500 lbs..This is scientifically proven, the power of the mind (mind over matter)...
But the sideffects that goes along with it would be the bones will be broken against the handcuff, his metabolism will be so high that he will be hungry.

Um, no. Morphine dulls one's sense of pain. This and other drugs can allow an individual to accomplish feats that would normally cause too much pain for them to do otherwise. This is why we use anesthetic agents during surgery, because otherwise the individual could not withstand the pain of the operation.

There are times when individuals may accomplish similar feats without drugs, either through meditative practices or in the rush of adrenalin in an emergency. Again, there is no indication that there is anything supernatural occurring here. In the first case the person is able to get themselves into a mental state where they can ignore the pain or actually block it out. In the second case, adrenalin acts much in the way the aforementioned drugs do, blocking the sensation of pain.

But what is considered as "Supernatural" or "Miracluous" once again lies on the observer.

Again, no.

What if a certain chemical like morphin can give the human brain strong bones (while morphin gives strong muscles) thus the bones wont break...
What if a certain chemical like morphin can cause the human body to be able to digest oxygen and other chemicals that composes air as food, as the metal and iron relies on such as food of its existence......

Your point?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SUPERNATURAL" MEANING "OUTSIDE OF THE LAWS OF NATURE"

I agree.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING, FOR WE DONOT KNOW ALL OF THE LAWS OF NATURE

No, this is not a valid argument. One cannot derive knowledge from ignorance.

God is natural and supernatural

But you just said that there is no such thing as supernatural.

He is not bound to be inside the vehicle in which he designed, he is not confined to be inside a computer intelligence machine...he can have an access and control however, he can be inside it as he wills, or be outside of it as he wills, BUT HE IS NOT BOUND OR CONFINED INTO IT...ONCE AGAIN GOD IS LIVING, HE IS NATURAL OR SUPERNATURAL AS HE WILLS IT.

Pure conjecture.

Albert Einstein acknowledges God as the inner laws of nature, the design and order of the universe.

Einstein had a great appreciation for the apparent order of the Universe. Whether he believed in God, as such, is debatable. He, himself, stated that he did not believe in a personal God and also that by Jesuit definition he was an atheist. Of course, we know quite a bit more now than Einstein did. In particular, the fact that the Universe is not quite as orderly as it appears.

people inside it being able to survive without air provided

Yes, I would say that a human being able to survive without air or some method of supplying oxygen to the blood could be a supernatural event. Either that or some extremely advanced technology.

** edited a long winded and rather bizarre example **

The viewers on the other hand who is unaware how this came to be may find that a house being lifted up into moon is supernatural

No, the viewers who ascribed this incident to supernatural causes would simply be wrong.

To me Jesus being risen to the sky is HIGHLY possible in the field of science.

Why would Jesus go to the sky?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS IMPOSSIBLE AS LONG AS OUR INTELLIGENCE PROGRESS (If given enough time)

This is wonderfully hypocritical coming from you as you continually state that man will never be able to create life. So then, which is it?

I have heard alot of atheists claiming that christians or believers of God are usinng their imagination too much..What would be the problem of that?

There is nothing wrong with using your imagination. But problems occur when you start believing in fantasies.

Imagination is helpfull in science and religion...Even through inventions, thats how things that were impossible days back, becomes possible now, through human imaginations.

Yes. Excellent!

quantum mechanics, abiogenesis, none of this are proven

Actually, the central theories of quantum mechanics are well proven and even a few abiogenesis theories as well.

We use the same method with human souls in religion, and even in biblicall perspective, we also use enough evidence to make such hypothesis believable (but for me they are FACTS as to atheists quantum mechanics are facts.)

Not quite right. In science, theories are the explanation of the facts. The theory that fits the facts the closest is considered the best, and most probable, theory.

Atheists are trying to destroy and take imagination out of human race or the children

No, no, no, no, no. Believe me, we are not.

Imagination can build up, it is helpfull that your kids have alot of imagination and wishfull thinking, for one day that will progress into higher level of thinking, possibly resulting in discovery of new medical science or other fields.

I agree, entirely.

Imaginations can only be harmfull if the intent is evil, such as taking over the world and killing all who disobeys you, there are good and evil imagination.

Again, I agree.

I also heard alot of atheists say "Atheists based their belief in science and philosophy, meanwhile theists based their beliefs in emotions and feelings."

Actually, atheists tend to base their disbelief upon scientific and philosophical grounds. As to their beliefs, that is up to the individual.

IF YOU MAKE TOOTHFAIRY AS ANALOGY ABOUT GOD, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM PROVIDING THE SAME VALID BELIEVERS OF TOOTHFAIRY AS OF GOD.
1.) Show me how many are martyred in the name of tooothfairy....
2.) Show many how many churches built in the name of toothfairy...
3.) How many believers of the existence of toothfairy?

The error here is that you are basing your belief upon the belief of others. While this may be fine in a social context it is not a valid scientific or logical argument. To point out the problem we can look to any number of historical examples where people believed, built, and died for something that was not true.

SO WHAT IS THE LESSON HERE?? THAT ATHEISTS BASED THEIR BELIEFS ON FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS AS WELL.

To some extent this is true.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT MANY PEEPS WHO ARE ATHEISTS REJECT AND DENY MIRACLES, EFFECTS OF PRAYERS, TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, ETC.

All such accounts are purely anecdotal or hearsay. Science, philosophy, and atheists require something more substantial.

BECAUSE THEY SEE NO EVIDENCE OF GOD, THE SAME WAY AS THEY SEE NO EVIDENCE OF TOOTHFAIRY

Bingo!

NOT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GOD, THERE IS

Please then do provide some evidence that is not anecdotal and/or hearsay. I'd love to hear it.

BUT THEY ARE IN COMPLETE DENIAL

I do not believe anything simply because someone else does. I need a better reason that that, whatsup. You should also consider that I started out as a Christian and became an Atheist through an honest examination of the facts and arguments. I did not choose not to believe in God because I didn't like his rules, I simply could reach no other conclusion but that God was essentially a fantasy, an elaborate fairy tale that people believe because it explains away some of their fears.

~Raithere

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Xelios

Why? Let me tell you why. Because YOU brought that up in the first place, now we're simply using it as an analogy that is familier to you in an attempt to get through your thick skull. We could say "little pink elephant mice" and it would serve the same purpose. You cannot disprove the existance of a purple squid monkey or a pink elephant mouse any more than you can prove the existance of God. The same goes for me as well, and indeed for everyone.

I CAN ANNIHILATE THE REST OF YOUR POSTS AND JAXOM, BUT I AM TIRED OF TALKING TO A PARROT, YOUR SAYING I HAVE A THICK SKULL? YOUR RIGHT, I DONT ACCEPT ILLOGIC AND FALSE COMMENTS SUCH AS "TO KNOW MEANS TO CONTROL THEREFORE GOD DONT EXIST" (OMNISCIENCE/FREEWILL) OR "GOD IS GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY THEREFORE GOD DONT EXIST", I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY, I CANNOT ACCEPT THOSE PATHETIC WORDS AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST GOD, BUT I DO ACCEPT LOGIC, CAUSE AND EFFECT, REALITY, AND PURE SCIENCE...

BUT YOUR POST ABOVE SUMMARIZED MY POINT FROM THE BEGGINING...SINCE BY ADMITTANCE (FINALLY A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE CAME THROUGH YOUR TEENAGER BRAIN) YOU CANNOT PROVE ANYONE EXIST, AND WE ARE REAL.....WHY THEN DO YOU ASK ME OR ANY THEISTS TO PROVE GOD EXIST WHEN YOU CANNOT EVEN PROVE ANYONE EXIST???

SO FROM HERE, BY ADMITTANCE, YOUR JUST PLAYING STUPID AM I RIGHT? EITHER YOU ARE ACTING STUPID, OR REALLY STUPID....WHAT ARE YOU? AN ACTOR OF STUPIDITY? OR A REAL STUPID GUY? BY ADMITTANCE, YOUR EITHER ONE, AND THANK GOD I AM FAITHFULL, I AM A THEIST........

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
THANK GOD I AM FAITHFULL, I AM A THEIST........

i hope you mean you like to drink tea

theism

\The"ism\ (th[=e]"[i^]z'm), n. [NL. & E. thea tea + -ism.] (Med.) The morbid condition resulting from the excessive use of tea.

source: www.dictionary.com

 

[whatsupyall]

Re: More questions

Originally posted by Raithere

No, this would not follow. God is, by Christian definition, supernatural.

Natural as well..God can be part of nature as he wills. He is not confined to it, but Her can as He wills...

Originally posted by Raithere

Yes, it does. Any event that defied the laws of nature would be, by definition, supernatural..

Once again you dont know all of the laws of nature so if you see something isnt fitting to the law of nature (a 3 tons rock flying) it doesnt necessarily mean "beyond the laws of nature" for the other "undiscovered" laws of nature may permit this, but there is no way for you to know..

Once again, you cannot define God to be supernatural (as in defying the law of nature) because AGAIN FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CLAIM, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO KNOW ALL THE LAWS OF NATURE, AND PHYSICS, AND BY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, THIS HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESFULL, A FACT...You got it???

Originally posted by Raithere

"It would be supernatural for a rock and tree to become monitor, keyboard, stereo, and computers without intelligent cause, for that will defy principle of causality...

It would depend upon what the cause actually was... you have only stated what it is not. That's not enough to go on.

No, Newton's second law of themodynamics states that in a closed system the amount of energy is conserved. That is, you cannot get more energy out of a system than it already contains. This states nothing as to local complexity, particularly in an open system. The Earth is an open system.

It was theorized that the laws of physics were formed seconds after the big bang...So this laws of physics "LUCKILY" FORMED AND "LUCKILY" HAPPEN TO BE A PERFECT DESIGNED AND SOLE RESPONSIBLE FOR LIFE TO EXIST???

Originally posted by Raithere

Proof?...

Prove Jesus? Prove King Henry exist....

Originally posted by Raithere

Um, no. Morphine dulls one's sense of pain. This and other drugs can allow an individual to accomplish feats that would normally cause too much pain for them to do otherwise. This is why we use anesthetic agents during surgery, because otherwise the individual could not withstand the pain of the operation.

There are times when individuals may accomplish similar feats without drugs, either through meditative practices or in the rush of adrenalin in an emergency. Again, there is no indication that there is anything supernatural occurring here. In the first case the person is able to get themselves into a mental state where they can ignore the pain or actually block it out. In the second case, adrenalin acts much in the way the aforementioned drugs do, blocking the sensation of pain.?...

I am not talking about blocking the sensation of pain...I am talking about a certain drug (which I am not sure if its morphine, I think it was PCP) that raises up your adrenaline, and in my health class, it showed a skinny man running naked, and when the police handcuffed him, he broke it, and it takes about 500 lbs of pressure in order for the handcuff to break...

If this cannot be rationally explained back in the days, peeps may say that the gods helped him and that is (supernatural 100 yrs ago or more).....
You may insist that this is natural, fine you have your reasons and evidence, but for others who doesnt know the evidence take this as supernatural...

Today "Placebo" is THEORIZED to be natural, and many claim it is supernatural...POINT BEING ONCE AGAIN IS THAT NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL LIES ON THE OBSERVER.......DID YOU GET IT OR NEED MORE EXPLAINING?

Originally posted by Raithere

No, this is not a valid argument. One cannot derive knowledge from ignorance..?...

Yes you can...You can learn that if abiogenesis is impossible (for all the necessary physics are attempted and is unseccesfull) then the knowledge earned from that is "LET US TRY ANOTHER OBSERVATION"...Therefore the knowledge earned is that life to evolve from nowhere through abiogenesis is impossible, thus a different method is needed........

Originally posted by Raithere

But you just said that there is no such thing as supernatural.

Kids...I said for one to make a claim of supernatural, one must have not understood what is being observed....AGAIN IT LIES ON THE OBSERVER, I CANT SPEAK FOR YOU OR OTHERS, BUT FOR MYSELF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SUPERNATURAL.......GET IT KID?

Originally posted by Raithere

Pure conjecture..

Thats your opinion......

Originally posted by Raithere

In particular, the fact that the Universe is not quite as orderly as it appears...

How is the universe chaotic? YOUR MAKING A CLAIM THAT YOU ARE SMARTER THAN EINSTEIN, WELL FINE...NOW TELL ME WHAT IS SO CHAOTIC ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? FOR EVEN STARS ARE BEING RE-BIRTH (BLACKHOLE), ETC...EXPLAIN........

Originally posted by Raithere

Yes, I would say that a human being able to survive without air or some method of supplying oxygen to the blood could be a supernatural event. Either that or some extremely advanced technology....

I agree....

Originally posted by Raithere

No, the viewers who ascribed this incident to supernatural causes would simply be wrong.

So you could prove they are wrong??

Originally posted by Raithere

This is wonderfully hypocritical coming from you as you continually state that man will never be able to create life. So then, which is it?.

Yes I believe that no man can ever create life form, for if so, this will prove that God dont exist, AND I KNOW FOR A FACT GOD EXIST (PERSONALLY)...Maybe we will be succesfull in other fields, but not on biological existence...SO FAR THE CURRENT EVIDENCE POINT OUT TO US, AND NONE FOR THE ATHEISTS, AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR WISHFULL THINKING THAT MAYBE "ONE DAY", thats fine with me........SAD, YOU WILL REALIZE IT THE HARD WAY (personal thought).....

Originally posted by Raithere

Actually, the central theories of quantum mechanics are well proven and even a few abiogenesis theories as well.

The central theories of them are Proven? How dare you make that comment.....If so, then demonstrate and create life forms then for that is the whole point of the theory..OH YOU CANT? THEN DONT LIE AND SAY THE THEORY IS PROVEN BECAUSE IT IS NOT.....LYING ISNT HELPFULL....

Originally posted by Raithere

Not quite right. In science, theories are the explanation of the facts. The theory that fits the facts the closest is considered the best, and most probable, theory..

Considered the best and the closest to you doesnt necessarily mean it is the closest...For instance, to Cris and many atheists, it is the closest thought that the word "Knowing" means "To control" thus God cannot exist...To many atheists here that makes sense and is logic...TO ME THAT IS JUST PLAIN STUPID....DONT YOU THINK??

Whats closest understanding to one scientists doesnt necessarily mean that it is to another scientist.....

Originally posted by Raithere

The error here is that you are basing your belief upon the belief of others. While this may be fine in a social context it is not a valid scientific or logical argument. To point out the problem we can look to any number of historical examples where people believed, built, and died for something that was not true.

I agree, there is truth...A truth that need to be known....Your right....

Originally posted by Raithere


All such accounts are purely anecdotal or hearsay. Science, philosophy, and atheists require something more substantial.

Please then do provide some evidence that is not anecdotal and/or hearsay. I'd love to hear it.

Like the entire history and your words???

Originally posted by Raithere

I do not believe anything simply because someone else does. I need a better reason that that, whatsup. You should also consider that I started out as a Christian and became an Atheist through an honest examination of the facts and arguments. I did not choose not to believe in God because I didn't like his rules, I simply could reach no other conclusion but that God was essentially a fantasy, an elaborate fairy tale that people believe because it explains away some of their fears.

~Raithere

I dont also believe anything simply because someone else does, I am with you on these, the truth must be found through intensive research, study, and HOPE....

Give me your reasons why God is a fantasy to you? Explain, I WILL DEAL WITH THESE ONCE AND FOR ALL...TIME TO TERMINATE AND ANNIHILATE ATHEISM...YOUR RESPONSE I SHALL AWAIT...........

 

[Cris]

whatsup,

I read all of your words Cris...But your blinded by reality,

I think I don’t mind being blinded by reality. That seems preferable to being blinded by unreality.

First let us deal with the famous words "supernatural"......Or "Beyond the laws of nature"...

I didn’t mention ‘supernatural’ in my post, and I think others are dealing with your ideas on this.

Yes SOME people does exxagerate when they tell of things, but who are you to accuse the authors and historians of being a liar? Can you prove historians are telling the turht? Can you prove they are lying??

There is only one historian of note, Josephus, and it is pretty clear his claimed reference to a Jesus was a later addition by over zealous Christians. Please read the analysis on this deception http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appe.shtml

For instance, What about Jesus being able to cure people's cancers, blindness, sickness, etc. just by placing his hands over them...Or what about when he was aable to walk on water, or ascend into the sky before leaving the apostles, are this logic in the realm of science???

None of this happened. Those stories were written some 50 years after Jesus was allegedly alive, and when the authors would not have been alive to have witnessed such incidents. Show me one historian or eye-witness who was present when these incidents allegedly occurred. You can’t since there aren’t any such witnesses. The stories are pure fiction. The stories of miracles were created because the originators of the new religion needed some stories of miracles since most people at the time expected gods to be capable of such powers. The stories were created to satisfy popular expectations. But these stories were not then incorporated into the gospels until some 30 years later in the book of Mark.

Scientifically speaking, the human brain is so complex that it is theorized that it is capable of being able to move objects, they have a word for this (I think it was "Parapsychokinetic".) James Randi, a famous skeptic guy is being able to perfom this fact, he can bend spoons and forks with a slight touch of his fingers using the power of his mind.

You seem to have misunderstood this quite seriously. James Randi is indeed a skeptic and he is currently offering $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove the existence of the paranormal. As yet no one has taken up his offer. He has also written numerous books explaining the frauds and hoaxes that are rampant in this field. Try this link that should correct your mistake. http://skepdic.com/randi.html

Thats why when a person is placed on morphine (whatever the drug is)..Even though the man is skinny, the drug that reaches his brain causes his muscles to move that it can break handcuffs with a pressure of 500 lbs, a skinny guy, this is scientifically proven. But in the other hand, how is this also scientifically proven that a skinny guy is that strong when he is so small? Is it logic to say a skinny 130 lbs guy can bench press 500 lbs??

Saying something is scientifically proven does not represent a proof. If there is such evidence then quote the scientific papers, articles, web links, or book references. Until then we can be quite sure that such claims are just more hoaxes.

That is just to show that the power of god given mind is very great, science have stated that we only use about 15% of our brain (I think), the rest of the 85% lies unused.

No afraid not. The 15% of our brain story is also a myth. http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html

If science proved that the power of the mind can also give effect outside of the human body, then who are you to say that the human brain if more potent cannot walk on water or rise from gravity??

Because science has not proved any such thing. If you think otherwise then state your scientific references and authority.

Today there are still things we cant understand, some of you may label such as supernatural, or the gods, or sorcery...

There are indeed many things that we do not understand, and none have yet to be shown as the result of an alleged supernatural. And neither have I ever attributed anything unknown to such an alleged concept.

An example is the virtual particle that comes in and out of existence...How does this make sense?? Come into existence as in the form of invisibility? Or in existence cannot be detected through all our technologies??

Quantum events are currently on the leading edge of scientific research. People didn’t believe Einstein when he first claimed that time was not a constant. It is normal in such research to not fully understand the phenomena, that’s why we have science to help find explanations.

it just points out that the universe and all its entity is great design, complex, functioning, and ordered........

Not quite, but close. It demonstrates order, functionality, and perhaps complexity. But we can’t conclude any design. The laws of physics are really quite simple and very elegant, and just a few forces (e.g. weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity) account for a massive variety of fabulous effects.

to be able t0 understand things clearly doesnt put the creator out of the picture, but it proves that our independence can be used for good purpose, and evil purpose...there are alot of intelligent peeps that are believers of god, others are just plain stupid......

When something is clearly understood then science always shows that the need for a god is unnecessary.

god is far proven already,

Proven by who and when? Can you quote a single authoritative piece of scientific research, say from a major independent university that demonstrates the existence of a god? Please quote appropriate web links, articles, books, or scientific papers.

Again, just stating that something is proven does not represent a proof. You must support your claims if you are to be seen as credible.

your all just in denial...

No it isn’t denial, it is just disbelief of claims that are not supported by credible and authoritative evidence.

many evidence present for his existence (miracles, testimonials, scriptures, history, science, etc...)

No miracles have ever been proven to have occurred. Quote an apprpriate scientific paper if you think otherwise.

but not one evidence lies that he dont exist

The fact that there is no evidence to prove that a god does not exist is a good thing since it is impossible to prove the non existence of an alleged object that does not exist. This provides overwhelming credibility to the proposal that indeed gods do not exist. Of course all you have to do is show a single piece of credible and authoritative scientific evidence that a god does in fact exist.

Again I invite you to quote any piece of credible and authoritative scientific evidence that supports your claim that a god exists.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
Now what do you propose of a biological existence which is composed of amino acids...Obviously we can succesfully create amino acids out of methane, hydrogen, and amonia, (strike of lightning) but since it became a mitochondria, ribosome, cytoplasm, cell membrane, nucleus, etc. etc..AND SINCE YOU CLAIM TO KNOW EVERY NATURAL AND BIOLOGICAL LAW...AND NONE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY CREATED SUCH, IS THIS THEN BEYOND THE LAWS OF NATURE? SO YOUR PROPOSING THAT LIFE IS SUPERNATURAL...

GOT IT MONKEY? OR NEED MORE EXPLANATION??

some researchers are working on this...

have some patient whatsup..

GOT IT...

here is one story about modifying existing life forms quite drastically:
http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg16722584.700

" In a bold undertaking, Liu and like-minded researchers have decided to alter the chemical building blocks of DNA, RNA and proteins—the molecular trinity on which biology is built. By creating nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) with an expanded genetic alphabet, and organisms with handmade amino acids in their proteins, they hope to open up a new angle of attack on some of science's most intriguing questions. How did life begin? Could evolution have chosen a different path? What alien biology might be lurking below the surface of Mars or the moons of Jupiter?"

and also there are plans to make life from scratch:
http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=6&id=mg17623711.400

"Its aim is no less than to build a new organism from scratch. Out of a selection of essential bits and pieces from existing life forms would emerge a primitive single-celled microbe, the simplest design that would still qualify as a living creature."


apparently the creation of life is not so supernatural as you might think.

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Cris
whatsup,

I think I don’t mind being blinded by reality. That seems preferable to being blinded by unreality.

Thank u for admitting....

Originally posted by Cris

I didn’t mention ‘supernatural’ in my post, and I think others are dealing with your ideas on this. .

And they failed....

Originally posted by Cris

There is only one historian of note, Josephus, and it is pretty clear his claimed reference to a Jesus was a later addition by over zealous Christians. Please read the analysis on this deception http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appe.shtml.

They are all lying, prove it to me that they are telling the truth, then Ill believe you....

Originally posted by Cris

None of this happened. Those stories were written some 50 years after Jesus was allegedly alive, and when the authors would not have been alive to have witnessed such incidents. Show me one historian or eye-witness who was present when these incidents allegedly occurred. You can’t since there aren’t any such witnesses. The stories are pure fiction. The stories of miracles were created because the originators of the new religion needed some stories of miracles since most people at the time expected gods to be capable of such powers. The stories were created to satisfy popular expectations. But these stories were not then incorporated into the gospels until some 30 years later in the book of Mark.]

None of the whole entire history is credible in this case, any of them can be flawed...You are brainwashed, Jesus is a myth, King Henry is a myth, historians are lying, and the apostles as well....

Originally posted by Cris

You seem to have misunderstood this quite seriously. James Randi is indeed a skeptic and he is currently offering $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove the existence of the paranormal. As yet no one has taken up his offer. He has also written numerous books explaining the frauds and hoaxes that are rampant in this field. Try this link that should correct your mistake. http://skepdic.com/randi.html

How can it be proven to him? He can play stupid then it wont be proven, he can deny it, he ccan even deny that you exist..

I will offer all my possesions, my car, stereos, computers, job, and I will cut off my left nut if someone can prove to me God dont exist.

Originally posted by Cris

Saying something is scientifically proven does not represent a proof. If there is such evidence then quote the scientific papers, articles, web links, or book references. Until then we can be quite sure that such claims are just more hoaxes.]

Yes and you cant prove God dont exist...

Originally posted by Cris

No afraid not. The 15% of our brain story is also a myth. http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html

Because science has not proved any such thing. If you think otherwise then state your scientific references and authority.

Yes and everything else is a myth...

Originally posted by Cris

There are indeed many things that we do not understand, and none have yet to be shown as the result of an alleged supernatural. And neither have I ever attributed anything unknown to such an alleged concept..

NONE OF THE THINGS WE DONOT UNDERSTAND HAVE BEEN A RESULT OF THE SUPERNATURAL? YOU MADE THE CLAIM, NOW PROVE IT...YOUR PROPOSING THAT YOU HAVE INVESTIGATED EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD..BECAUSE OF THIS YOU ARE A LIAR...AND LYING DOESNT HELP CRIS.. STOP BRAINWASHING YOURSELF....

Originally posted by Cris

Quantum events are currently on the leading edge of scientific research. People didn’t believe Einstein when he first claimed that time was not a constant. It is normal in such research to not fully understand the phenomena, that’s why we have science to help find explanations...

Einstein's theory then may be proven to the minds of some today, BUT THATS NOT THE TOPIC....Quantum mechanics is not proven..FACT IS NOT ONE SCIENTIST HAVE CREATED ANY LIFE FORM, THE MAIN THEORY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS (biological in which is mortal..) A FACT...ONCE AGAIN STOP BRAINWASHING YOURSELF.....

Originally posted by Cris

Not quite, but close. It demonstrates order, functionality, and perhaps complexity. But we can’t conclude any design. The laws of physics are really quite simple and very elegant, and just a few forces (e.g. weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity) account for a massive variety of fabulous effects.
...

Thats nice that you have good names for the physics..Im surprised they named it "Nuclear" instead of calling it "Sparky" after their pet dog...

Labeling SOME physics doesnt prove that it can create life forms. Furthermore, the labeled physics is not all there is to it..

If its not design, you propose it is chaos..BUT FOR THOSE WHO GOT COMMON SENSE, IT IS A DESIGN, NOT CHAOS LIKE THE BRAINWASHED KIDS...(OR ADULT WITH KID BRAIN..)

Originally posted by Cris

When something is clearly understood then science always shows that the need for a god is unnecessary.

YOU MADE THIS CLAIM, NOW PROVE IT...IF LIFE CAN EXIST WITHOUT GOD, THEN DEMONSTRATE HOW LIFE CAME INTO EXISTENCE AND CREATE ONE...OH YOU CANT? WELL THEN, STOP MAKING CLAIMS IN WHICH YOU CANT BACK UP WITH EVIDENCE..

GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU USE THE WORD "SCIENCE" ALL THE TIME, YET GIVE NO EVIDENCE BEHIND THE CLAIM...YOU ARE NOT ONLY A LIAR, BUT A REPITITOUS LIAR, IN OTHER WORDS, COMPULSIVE LIAR...THERE IS NOTHING "SCIENTIFIC" ABOUT "OPINIONS" AND NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF CLAIM...THAT IS NOT SCIENCE....THAT IS "LYING"...OR "OPINIONS", DONT CALL YOUR OPINION "SCIENCE"...OK? THOUGH YOU ARE ENTITLED TTO CALL YOUR OPINIONS "THEORY" SUCH AS THE THEORY OF "TOOTHFAIRIES"...

Originally posted by Cris

Proven by who and when? Can you quote a single authoritative piece of scientific research, say from a major independent university that demonstrates the existence of a god? Please quote appropriate web links, articles, books, or scientific papers.

Universities?? ALL I CAN SAY IS 99% OF THE UNIVERSITIES ARE FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS, AND 100% OF THE US PRESIDENTS AND SENATORS ARE BELIEVERS OF GOD...DENY IT ALL YOU WANT, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO BE DELUSIONAL AS YOU PLEASE....

ALBERT EINSTEIN IS A BELIEVER OF GOD...BUT IF THE WORDS "I BELIEVE IN GOD" MEANS "I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD" THEN EINSTEIN MUST BE ATHEISTS. Einstein though to a Jesuit Priest is an atheists considering he doesnt believe in the teachings of Christ...But he does believe in a God....

Originally posted by Cris

Again, just stating that something is proven does not represent a proof. You must support your claims if you are to be seen as credible.

Yes, stating "Science points that we dont need G0od" and not backing claim with evidence doesnt mean your OPINIONS is true, IN FACT I CAN SAY YOU ARE A LIAR FOR CALLING YOUR "OPINIONS" AS "SCIENCE"....

Originally posted by Cris

No it isn’t denial, it is just disbelief of claims that are not supported by credible and authoritative evidence..

speak for yourself.

Originally posted by Cris

No miracles have ever been proven to have occurred. Quote an apprpriate scientific paper if you think otherwise...

MIRACLES AS WELL HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVEN NOT TO OCCUR, OTHERWISE QUOTE AN APPROPRIATE SCIENTIFIC PAPER IF YOU THINK SO...

Originally posted by Cris

The fact that there is no evidence to prove that a god does not exist is a good thing since it is impossible to prove the non existence of an alleged object that does not exist. This provides overwhelming credibility to the proposal that indeed gods do not exist. Of course all you have to do is show a single piece of credible and authoritative scientific evidence that a god does in fact exist. ...

Thank you for admitting that you cannot prove God dont exist...THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING YOUR WORDS ARE LAME...AS A THEISTS, I NEVER CLAIMED GOD CANNOT BE PROVEN...

Originally posted by Cris

Again I invite you to quote any piece of credible and authoritative scientific evidence that supports your claim that a god exists.

I also invite you to quote any piece of credible and authoritative scientific evidence that supports God dont exist..........

RIGHT BACK AT YOU CHILD..........

 

[Vienna]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
Yes I believe that no man can ever create life form, for if so, this will prove that God dont exist.

So,..... you think man can't create life form. You stupid boy, Man creates life form everytime conception occurs. And according to what you have said this proves God does not exist......OK! You said it!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by whatsupyall

I also invite you to quote any piece of credible and authoritative scientific evidence that supports God dont exist..........

there is no need to quote a credible and authoritative scientific piece of evidence that supports the existence of god.

Science never claimed the existence of god. Theists claim the existence of god. It is their problem to provide proof of a god.

if you really want to hear why science thinks that there is no god then i can provide the evidence right here.

There has never been a single scientific report of a manifestation of god. Apparently god is everywhere except in the sciencelab.

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Vienna
So,..... you think man can't create life form. You stupid boy, Man creates life form everytime conception occurs. And according to what you have said this proves God does not exist......OK! You said it!

Awww...how cute... Kids always continue to amuse me...
Conception proves an intelligent cause, you are right!!

But atheists can never disprove that life came into existence without a need of an intelligent cause (the first life form)..

Although children are not to be taken seriously by their daddy sometimes, I still want to help you out Vienna...