- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2012,17:27) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,15:46)
No god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for the existence or supposed effects of his god.Stuart
Hi Stu,I have, but you now say you are not interested in seeing it?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Are you saying that what you post is “proof”, and now you call it “evidence”. Which is it, and do you actually know what the difference is?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2012,19:33) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,18:46) 1. No god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for the existence or supposed effects of his god.
What a joke.I open again a challenge to you in the form of a debate between you and me.
I will lay my cards on the table and you to.
I will argue for the existence of God and you will argue against that.
If you chicken out, then you are obviously a chicken.
Is that an okay or another cluck?
I've asked you to define the moot of the debate. You didn't do that last time when I asked, so I consider that actually it was you who ran away, and I predict you will either do that again, or you will invent some semantic joke of a moot that cannot be sensibly debated (something like the nonsense Ed usually produces) and then you will claim some other fatuous victory.Be careful, or be judged.
Not saying when the latter might happen…
Stuart
Stu, I have asked you to set it up just to get you to the table.
This way I hope I can avoid you stalling.The topic is “Does God exist”. Let's here how you want this to be structured or if you want the question to change. If it is reasonable, we can start debating.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2012,20:38) Stu, I have asked you to set it up just to get you to the table.
This way I hope I can avoid you stalling.The topic is “Does God exist”. Let's here how you want this to be structured or if you want the question to change. If it is reasonable, we can start debating.
No stalling here.Mate in how many moves?
Actually, be careful calling me mate, that might be interpreted as “brother”, in which case under the terms of Matthew 5:22 you might have some explaining to do, and not to me.
Of course my good news to you is that none of that fantasy story is real.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,20:09) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2012,17:27) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,15:46)
No god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for the existence or supposed effects of his god.Stuart
Hi Stu,I have, but you now say you are not interested in seeing it?
God bless
Ed J
Are you saying that what you post is “proof”, and now you call it “evidence”. Which is it, and do you actually know what the difference is?Stuart
Hi Stuart, yes.I call it “Proof of God”(117); but “Proof” is in the eye of the beholder.
Meaning something is only “Proved” if someone believes it is proved.
So at the very least it is evidence that “LORD of Hosts”(151) exists!God's Signature
Proof of God=117
GOD(26) → The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74) → The LORD JEHOVAH(151)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)……………………(Psalm 68:4)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)………………….(Exodus 6:3)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)………………..(Isaiah 12:2)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)……………..(Isaiah 26:4)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)…………….(Psalm 83:18)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
(LINK to the thread THAT PROVES GOD’s EXISTENCE)Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,18:47) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 13 2012,21:40) God is infinite.
Infinity isn't a rational number.Stuart
If infinity is not real, then everything came from nothing because you are saying that the oldest thing is finite. So before that first thing, there was nothing is the only conclusion.However, if there was nothing there would be nothing now.
Fail.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 11 2013,18:39) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,18:47) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 13 2012,21:40) God is infinite.
Infinity isn't a rational number.Stuart
If infinity is not real, then everything came from nothing because you are saying that the oldest thing is finite. So before that first thing, there was nothing is the only conclusion.
Hence the name of the physicist Lawrence Krauss's book “A Universe from Nothing”.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,20:09) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2012,17:27) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,15:46)
No god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for the existence or supposed effects of his god.Stuart
Hi Stu,I have, but you now say you are not interested in seeing it?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Are you saying that what you post is “proof”, and now you call it “evidence”. Which is it, and do you actually know what the difference is?Stuart
Evidential proofQuote (Stu @ Jan. 11 2013,22:57) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 11 2013,18:39) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,18:47) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 13 2012,21:40) God is infinite.
Infinity isn't a rational number.Stuart
If infinity is not real, then everything came from nothing because you are saying that the oldest thing is finite. So before that first thing, there was nothing is the only conclusion.
Hence the name of the physicist Lawrence Krauss's book “A Universe from Nothing”.Stuart
Yes I am aware of that man and his stance. It made me laugh when he said that there is no need for God because the universe has zero energy. Is he not aware that a penulum that is sitting still needs a push to get it into positive or negative territory, (so to speak).Scripture says it best. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
He seems to be unaware that a zero result is possible within the realm of infinity. Or he hasn't thought of that yet.
But something from nothing with nothing preceding that, is just plain foolishness. Are you in that camp now that you have a shepherd to follow who believes this?
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 12 2013,13:08) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 11 2013,22:57) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 11 2013,18:39) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,18:47) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 13 2012,21:40) God is infinite.
Infinity isn't a rational number.Stuart
If infinity is not real, then everything came from nothing because you are saying that the oldest thing is finite. So before that first thing, there was nothing is the only conclusion.
Hence the name of the physicist Lawrence Krauss's book “A Universe from Nothing”.Stuart
Yes I am aware of that man and his stance. It made me laugh when he said that there is no need for God because the universe has zero energy. Is he not aware that a penulum that is sitting still needs a push to get it into positive or negative territory, (so to speak).Scripture says it best. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
He seems to be unaware that a zero result is possible within the realm of infinity. Or he hasn't thought of that yet.
But something from nothing with nothing preceding that, is just plain foolishness. Are you in that camp now that you have a shepherd to follow who believes this?
You don't actually know what you are talking about do you.Especially regarding the physics of a pendulum and its relationship with space-time.
It's a shame really, because it is an interesting example to think about in relation to the work of “that man” (don't forget it's also Hawking and just about any other physicist who does actually know what he is talking about).
But I'll lay money you can't make the link between pendulums and space-time.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,23:09) Are you saying that what you post is “proof”, and now you call it “evidence”. Which is it, and do you actually know what the difference is? Stuart
Ke?I googled it and had the answer in less than 1 minute.
Did you not know we live in the Information Age?A Universe from nothing is a joke.
Nothing is nothing. It does nothing. Causes nothing. Creates nothing.
Yet we don't see nothing. We are conscious, we see planets, suns, galaxies, clusters, atoms, electrons, etc.
Nothing contradicts the evidence? What evidence? The opposite of nothing. It is everywhere.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
