GOD EXISTS

cthia wrote:If God does not Exist
Then "What is the meaning of life" —>

The same as it is if God did exist. Whatever the hell you decide it is. It's your life either way. You decide it's meaning.

cthia wrote:Regarding the Origin of Existence

There are two and only two inherent possibilities.

1 God is responsible.
2 God is not.

God is inherently dealt into the ultimate question.

Only God (as a living entity) has a 50/50 chance.

Since God is the only living being in the running then probability jumps to 100 %.

Is this the kind of brilliant application of statistics and probability you employ in your very advanced scientific research too? Because boy would I love to be a fly on the wall of someone doing peer review on any paper you submit if so...


Come on, be honest... are you just trolling us all?

It is obvious that Satan exists too. And alive and well.

cthia wrote:It is obvious that Satan exists too. And alive and well.

Well sure, someone had to plant all those fossils... and I've been informed multiple times that's who it was...

gcomeau wrote:

cthia wrote:Regarding the Origin of Existence

There are two and only two inherent possibilities.

1 God is responsible.
2 God is not.

God is inherently dealt into the ultimate question.

Only God (as a living entity) has a 50/50 chance.

Since God is the only living being in the running then probability jumps to 100 %.

Is this the kind of brilliant application of statistics and probability you employ in your very advanced scientific research too? Because boy would I love to be a fly on the wall of someone doing peer review on any paper you submit if so...


Come on, be honest... are you just trolling us all?

I don't know how old you are. But you come across as a child. If you are an adult, then your rudeness is magnified. If you cannot discern the difference between inspiration and formal theory, should we suffer for it?

The God that I believe in believes in free will. If there is a God, you have free will. If there isn't, you still have free will. You are free to believe in God or not. You are free to turn on your computer or not. To log onto the forum or not. You are even free to steer clear of a thread discussing a subject that offends you. One in which you disagree to the point that you are embarrassing yourself with rudeness and uncouth exchanges. There are many other threads. You don't think God exists and you're coming very close to calling a poster a liar. I resent that, although you have shown that you're not capable of more. You do not know me at all. If this thread brings that out of you, why do you not just ignore it? Are you bored? Nothing else to do?

If I am a "crank" as it were, then CERN will discern it for themselves, lest you think they're crackpots as well. They don't particularly give me a vibe that they're inept. And before they accept a paper for publishing, qualifying physics in a formal fashion must be submitted. Besides, I visited CERN as a guest of my young niece who herself was invited to visit. During our three day stay, I was approached because I taught my niece from the day that I snipped her cord. Actually, I was too busy to accept. My sister and niece prodded me. My pet project takes much of my time. An unprecedented CAS.

So you see, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me, so stop embarrassing yourself. An intelligent and decent conversation is obviously something you're not capable of. Visit a church, that which you abhor. Your prescription isn't working.

You've made your point.

You do not believe that God Exists.

Okay, we get it. Stop showing us that Satan does.

Don't worry, all of my physics will be presented for my peers to review. And even you. (If you can follow the physics) And you'll be free to shoot as many holes in it as you can. I welcome it. That is one reason papers are submitted. And even if the physics is incorrect, perhaps others will draw inspiration. You do know that that is how it works don't you? Am I expecting too much of you?

Now. I am busy. Please annoy someone else.

You will be ignored.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:The E

I believe cthia was commenting on my exchange and the assumptions made to address the fault in gcomeau's logic.

Gcomeau's use of the term is inconsistent with Huxley's reasons for coining the term. Asserting the truth of God is indemonstrable requires faith since that has not been proven. Cthia merely commented on why gcomeau's attempt failed.

cthia made a silly unsubstantied declaration, you can believe it was a comment on what you think it was if you like.

In the meantime, I showed you quite clearly why the existence of God can never be proven or disproven and you continue to dance around the issue to avoid dealing with it.

Did God create the universe and the laws of physics? Yes or no?

If yes, then you cannot argue God is bound by the laws of physics since God would have had to precede and supersede them.

If no, we're going to have to have a talk about exactly what this thing you believe in is and why you're calling it "God" because it's *really* different from what most people are talking about when they use that word.


Which is it?

Sorry but no. The absence of proof means that His existence is possible. In that circumstance the universe is God's creation and the fundamental laws are a product of God's mind. Your proof doesn't work in that circumstance and as so is not a proof.

I know that I'm wasting my keyboard time here, as I've asked this question before and not received a direct reply.

Accepting for a moment your proposal that a supreme being exists, then how are you all so sure that it is male, singular/trilogy, and best described by your christian mythology?
Could it be asexual and/or multiple or something else altogether? To my mind it seems extremely provincial to say that out of all the possible beings on quadrillions of solar systems their creator appears to be best depicted as a WASP alpha male human.

Suits me I suppose, as I am a large bearded senior human male who does tend to be bossy, so a good example to emulate.


"The absence of proof means that His existence is possible. In that circumstance the universe is God's creation and the fundamental laws are a product of God's mind."

cthia wrote:

Annachie wrote:[quote]
If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.

You do know that that is not what happens don't you.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Politically?[/quote]
Yes. It was most interesting reading. Down here a candidate for the lower house did actually die on election day. They declared it null and void and had a by election later.

(Other elections could be different of course)

cthia wrote:

Annachie wrote:[quote]
If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.

You do know that that is not what happens don't you.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Politically?[/quote]
Yes. It was most interesting reading. Down here a candidate for the lower house did

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

1st) "HOLY SYNTAX BATMAN" 7 pages - lost track... anyway

cthia wrote:The various periods of GESTATION (pregnancy) also are commonly a multiple of SEVEN...

⦁ The mouse is 21 (3 x 7) days.
⦁ The hare and rat, 28 (4 x 7) days.
⦁ The cat, 56 (8 x 7) days.
⦁ The dog, 63 (9 x 7) days.
⦁ The lion, 98 (14 x 7) days.
⦁ The sheep, 147 (21 x 7) days...

To be fair, I do not doubt cthia got the figures from some source & think the reason for this whole "7"s in the list is because of the first point; the 7 day week, didn't bother to look them up but don't doubt them being listed somewhere, A) (assuming so) these were likely estimated average days and rounded to nearest weeks (1wk 2wks etc...). then listed by this estimate of days (call it sig-fig) which accounts for the multiple of 7s & does not warrant the outburst

The E wrote:See, this is why I find creationism to be intellectually and morally corrupt...Creationism doesn't question. Creationists cannot be relied upon to be honest in their findings. That is why its proponents are idiots, frauds, snake-oil salesmen and charlatans.

[/quote] who basically called cthia a "lair" because his source disagreed. & B) as for the validity of the source, that just goes back to my point of being willing to take every "science" book as "fact" on faith even though many have been PROVEN wrong by later "updates", but not being willing to extend the same courtesy to other text because they are labeled as "religious"? That seems extremely narrow minded. "The E" did you go out and test each of these figures

The E wrote:The gestation period in mice is, on average, 20 days. In norwegian rats, it is actually 21 days (why does your source claim it's 28?)
For cats, the gestation period is actually between 64 and 67 days.
Dogs, 58 to 68 days.
Lions, 110 days.
Sheep, ~150 days...

yourself with multiple test subjects for each statistic? Or did you just look them up from your own source & take it on faith that YOUR source was the correct one? If so then I think you owe "cthia" an apology (unless already done & buried in the other 5 pages ) for effectively calling them a liar without testing for yourself & personally verifying the data. If you can't let others take text on "faith" then you have no right taking any on faith yourself.

cthia wrote:

cthia wrote:You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

You must follow the chains of logic.

Spacekiwi wrote:You had said that there were two candidates: god and science, and that science was the dead candidate. I based my reply off that. sorry for any confusion regarding ym posts. However, I would quibble that science is the idea with life behind it, as the scientific methods is surrently the most likely cause of the universe, and the probability of a god is low.

Let us agree on something: cthia did not say that there are two candidates. Science does. Cthia simply agrees. Stephen Hawking and all proponents against theism argues against whether a Deity is the author or science. With a Deity Being an inherent possibility. And the probability of God is not low. By nature of the postulate -- and proponents against theism -- HE is 50/50.

Do forgive my late edit of the previous post (you were concurrently posting. It mimics the problem of concurrency in computer programming. lol

But refer back to:

You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

One being found dead is outside the function of the postulate... f(x). x = postulate. One being found dead is simply a data point.

You must follow the chains of logic.

No. You are the one assuming that there are only two candidates. God and science. You cannot prove the first exists scientifically and the lack of proof does not mean there is a god either. You've said it is more or less impossible to scientifically prove god exists, yet you also say that you can prove that god -must- exist. So far though I have not seen any proof, just a claim made by you with the assumption that god -must- be one of the candidates and this assumption:
There are two and only two inherent possibilities.

1 God is responsible.
2 God is not.

God is inherently dealt into the ultimate question.

Only God (as a living entity) has a 50/50 chance.

Since God is the only living being in the running then probability jumps to 100 %.
.. is just that. An assumption by -you-. There is no proof that what you said above is real other than your faith. And faith isn't scientific. Science is the other half of the equation in your above assumption. it is provable, yet you cast it aside by claiming that god must be a 100% probability with nothing to back it up. Again I ask, where is the proof?