Challenge to ALL to prove belief.

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by lilblam

And that's the problem isn't it? Why does evidence have to convince you of truth?

??? Are you saying that having evidence doesn't mean it's true???

Just see stuff for what it is, EVIDENCE. And POSSIBILITIES. But why assume it's true!

How much evidence did it take to convince someone that God exists? Imagine how much evidence it could take to convince them afterwards that God, infact, does NOT exist. That's almost impossible for some people after their belief is strong enough. Belief tends to ignore evidence to the contrary!

What if science does find out that God does exists?

I have already scientifically (logically, no actual PHYSICAL evidence) proven that God does NOT exist. It is not an assumption, it is a proof. The ONLY WAY for God to exist, is to make the premises the following author claims to be true, FALSE. Can you be in your right mind and claim that his premise is false? Thom's law is false? Here read this proof for yourself... see if you're not convinced.

www.jovialatheist.com...

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by lilblam]

liblam, when you eat a ham sandwich, you believe that it will taste like ham. You don't do the math in your head and decide odds are good that it will (If you claim that you do, your are bull#ting). You have faith that it will taste like ham.

So we are only dealing with the Christian concept of a creator God.

By God I mean a separate, eternal, all-powerful entity. Not an Alien. And not God who is one with everything, and not really separate in any way and has no conscience of his own. That's just the Universe, not God. I specifically mean the religious God to be false!

Do you have any proof that the god you just described does not exsists? Other than "that's just the universe"?

Originally posted by Esoterica
liblam, when you eat a ham sandwich, you believe that it will taste like ham. You don't do the math in your head and decide odds are good that it will (If you claim that you do, your are bull#ting). You have faith that it will taste like ham.

Lol I don't do either. Why should I BELIEVE it tastes like ham. Oh and there's no need to do any math. It looks like ham sandwich, and smells like a ham sandwich, and the environment that I receive it in is a plausible setting (not a bunch of drunk friends giving me something with a blindfold on). So I give it a high probability for potentially tasting like one too. BUT. Why should I believe? Or do math? I simply smell it, and HOPE it is and just bite into it. I don't believe it is. What if I BELIEVE THAT IT IS and it turns out to be a turkey sandwich with a ham-smelling spray on it. See where belief can lead you?

Oh and to answer someone else's question... yes evidence for something doesn't MEAN that something is true. If something walks like a duck, looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it can still be me in a duck costume and dark-perfume screaming "QUACK!". Evidence does not EQUAL truth. It only means one thing. Evidence. Yes, nothing more. It can give you an idea as to what a POSSIBLE TRUTH can be, but you still dunno the actual truth. Knowing something 100% isn't easy!

To say that before anything existed, a God existed, is an oxymoron. Such a statement can neither be understood nor conceived by our minds. It can not possibly be true and here is why. If a God existed, then that God is something. And something is not nothing. So the universe could not have possibly come from nothing. It must have come from something. Thom's law explains that.

That's semantics arguing at it's worst.

BTW, google pulls up no reference to Thom's Law besides this website and the one it was copied from.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Do you have any proof that the god you just described does not exsists? Other than "that's just the universe"?

Because what I just described WAS the universe. Why would you want to call it God? Call it whatever you like, it's still the same thing. It's EVERYTHING. So if you wanna say God is that omnipresent, omnipotent, kind of thing that exists in absolutely everything at all times, why not just call it "everything". Unless EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS does have its own separate consciousness, but why would it be separate from us, are we not part of the everything?

Originally posted by lilblam

Lol I don't do either. Why should I BELIEVE it tastes like ham. Oh and there's no need to do any math. It looks like ham sandwich, and smells like a ham sandwich, and the environment that I receive it in is a plausible setting (not a bunch of drunk friends giving me something with a blindfold on). So I give it a high probability for potentially tasting like one too. BUT. Why should I believe? Or do math? I simply smell it, and HOPE it is and just bite into it. I don't believe it is. What if I BELIEVE THAT IT IS and it turns out to be a turkey sandwich with a ham-smelling spray on it. See where belief can lead you?

Belief can lead you to be wrong. Doesn't mean you don't do it.
Probability=math
And no, you do not entertain in your conscious mind for even a second that it won't taste like ham.

Originally posted by Esoterica

To say that before anything existed, a God existed, is an oxymoron. Such a statement can neither be understood nor conceived by our minds. It can not possibly be true and here is why. If a God existed, then that God is something. And something is not nothing. So the universe could not have possibly come from nothing. It must have come from something. Thom's law explains that.

That's semantics arguing at it's worst.

BTW, google pulls up no reference to Thom's Law besides this website and the one it was copied from.

Ok screw Tom and his law. Ok not his law. The law applies. Do you NOT agree that you cannot have something out of nothing? Do you think an all-powerful God could violate that? Do you really think so?

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by lilblam

Lol I don't do either. Why should I BELIEVE it tastes like ham. Oh and there's no need to do any math. It looks like ham sandwich, and smells like a ham sandwich, and the environment that I receive it in is a plausible setting (not a bunch of drunk friends giving me something with a blindfold on). So I give it a high probability for potentially tasting like one too. BUT. Why should I believe? Or do math? I simply smell it, and HOPE it is and just bite into it. I don't believe it is. What if I BELIEVE THAT IT IS and it turns out to be a turkey sandwich with a ham-smelling spray on it. See where belief can lead you?

Belief can lead you to be wrong. Doesn't mean you don't do it.
Probability=math
And no, you do not entertain in your conscious mind for even a second that it won't taste like ham.

Yes, but imagine the surprise on my face if it tastes like milk instead? That means I "believed" that it tasted like ham based on evidence and past experience. By believing it, means I simply assumed it was TRUE. But it wasn't. Now, if I did NOT assume, that means I KNEW that it doesn't have to be but I took the risk anyway. I took the risk not BECAUSE I believed it was ham, but because I was stupid enough to assume there was no bomb inside that sandwich either. Remember the recent mail bombs sent to some prime minister? He probably thought it was just a letter! But it can be anything. So with a sandwich ANYTHING is possible. So why pretend to KNOW that it's ham, isn't that FALSE? The best you can do is HOPE!

Originally posted by lilblam

Because what I just described WAS the universe. Why would you want to call it God? Call it whatever you like, it's still the same thing. It's EVERYTHING. So if you wanna say God is that omnipresent, omnipotent, kind of thing that exists in absolutely everything at all times, why not just call it "everything". Unless EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS does have its own separate consciousness, but why would it be separate from us, are we not part of the everything?

Now I will point out to you some threads and articles. Do you know where matter comes from?

Intelligence Behind the Universe

www.allanstime.com...

www.wddty.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by lilblam


Ok screw Tom and his law.

So you're admitting you amde up Thom's Law? OK, one strike to credibility.

Ok not his law. The law applies.

English, do you speak it?

Do you NOT agree that you cannot have something out of nothing?

I've seen evidence going both ways ont his issue, so to have one's mind made up is to believe. You lose.

Do you think an all-powerful God could violate that? Do you really think so?

Do you really think asking a quesiton twice makes your side more correcT? And since when does pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument make me believe in God? I may just think you're an idiot and a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by lilblam


Ok screw Tom and his law.

So you're admitting you amde up Thom's Law? OK, one strike to credibility.
*** WRONG. The law isn't mine, look it up. Look at the link. Check Google. I said SCREW IT as in forget it was made by Thom, it's the LAW that's important, not that author.

Ok not his law. The law applies.

English, do you speak it?

***Attack my English, that gives YOU tons of credibility. I said: "Fine, let's say it's NOT his law since you're so sure it doesn't exist on Google, who really cares whose law it is". The next sentence: "The law still applies to reality, no matter who says it. If Thom didn't say 1+1=2 we don't care either".

Do you NOT agree that you cannot have something out of nothing?

I've seen evidence going both ways ont his issue, so to have one's mind made up is to believe. You lose.

****WRONG. You've never seen ANY evidence of something EVER coming out of nothing. Now you're lying, you lose!

Do you think an all-powerful God could violate that? Do you really think so?

Do you really think asking a quesiton twice makes your side more correcT? And since when does pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument make me believe in God? I may just think you're an idiot and a hypocrite.

*** Get hung up on sentence structure, after being hung up on my English. Yup more points for you. I asked it twice on PURPOSE so people like you can ignore the logical argument and complain that I asked it twice, there happy?

Oh by the way, calling me an idiot and hypocrite is your judgement and opinion. It doesn't really add to your credibility nor your intelligence. Man you're really hurting yourself here, I'd advise you stop while you're ahead... oh wait you're not anymore, are you?

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by lilblam]

Originally posted by lilblam

So you're admitting you amde up Thom's Law? OK, one strike to credibility.
*** WRONG. The law isn't mine, look it up. Look at the link. Check Google. I said SCREW IT as in forget it was made by Thom, it's the LAW that's important, not that author.

Googled up thom's law... See for yourself:
www.google.com...|lang_nl&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&filter=0

Furthermore, they did not take into account such a thing as the Higgs field. Nothing may have meant "no matter" The Higgs field is not matter, but matter is formed from it. Other scientists have other names for it. Some call it the aether.

Again I point you to some other threads. Especially the posts I made in them.

The Higgs Field... How matter is formed.


what is nothing like?

Is our universe a living being

but Higg's field is still not NOTHING. It's some sort of particles, it's something. If there is 0, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING ever, there'd ALWAYS be absolutely NOTHING. You can never get SOMETHING out of NOTHING. And by nothing I don't mean invisible substances or energy. I mean NOTHING. If there is ANYTHING at ALL there, then yes creating other things out of it is possible. But not something out of absolutely ZERO. Does that make any sense? I mean, Higg's Field still is a FIELD, it consists of at least something. But not nothing. Why call nothing Higg's field if it already has a name, nothing lol

I hope that made sense to you guys.

Originally posted by lilblam

*** WRONG. The law isn't mine, look it up. Look at the link. Check Google. I said SCREW IT as in forget it was made by Thom, it's the LAW that's important, not that author.

Miss the part where I said googling turned up nothing? It's your responsibiltiy yourself to provide me with a link to this law, by whatever name.

***Attack my English, that gives YOU tons of credibility. I said: "Fine, let's say it's NOT his law since you're so sure it doesn't exist on Google, who really cares whose law it is". The next sentence: "The law still applies to reality, no matter who says it. If Thom didn't say 1+1=2 we don't care either".

But you have yet to provide a link that states Thom's Law IS true. You must give us infomration. You cannot make claims and then refuse to provide backing, telling us to do it. Your claim, you do the work.

****WRONG. You've never seen ANY evidence of something EVER coming out of nothing. Now you're lying, you lose!

I've never seen evidence of other planets outside our solar system. However, I DO know how to read and listen, and have never heard, in fact heard many times, that the universe may be finite or infinite, may have sprung from nothingness or something. You have absolutely NO evidence of how the unvierse was formed. You have theory, conejcture, and abckgroudn radiation. You don't know what sparked it all of. And until you do, you can get down from your #ing high horse. No one has any clue how the universe was formed, and you have the audacity to say what's right and wrong?

*** Get hung up on sentence structure, after being hung up on my English. Yup more points for you. I asked it twice on PURPOSE so people like you can ignore the logical argument and complain that I asked it twice, there happy?

Fine. By definition, yes, God could have existed before anything else may have existed, being that the definiton fo God as we are speaking is and omniscient, omniprsent, omnitemporal entity. The reality of that God may be in dispute, but the very definition of the supposed being we are speaking of makes it perfectly possible.

Oh by the way, calling me an idiot and hypocrite is your judgement and opinion. It doesn't really add to your credibility nor your intelligence. Man you're really hurting yourself here, I'd advise you stop while you're ahead... oh wait you're not anymore, are you?

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by lilblam]

It's the most logical conclusion. And you make a thread saying that anyone that beleives anything is ignorant, and now you're upset someone called you a hypocrite and ignorant?

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Esoterica]

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by TheBandit795]

Sorry, nothing to see here. That's for having ten explorer windows open at the same time...

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by TheBandit795]

Originally posted by lilblam
but Higg's field is still not NOTHING. It's some sort of particles, it's something. If there is 0, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING ever, there'd ALWAYS be absolutely NOTHING. You can never get SOMETHING out of NOTHING. And by nothing I don't mean invisible substances or energy. I mean NOTHING. If there is ANYTHING at ALL there, then yes creating other things out of it is possible. But not something out of absolutely ZERO. Does that make any sense? I mean, Higg's Field still is a FIELD, it consists of at least something. But not nothing. Why call nothing Higg's field if it already has a name, nothing

lol

I hope that made sense to you guys.

Personally, I don't that such a "nothing" exists or has ever existed. But the higgs field is not matter, not anything that is tangible. Furthermore it's everywhere and in everything that exists. That's why they have Higgs "particles" in apostrophes.

And furthermore, even the matter doesn't really exists. Merely the probability is there that something exists, according to quantum physics.