Thread: God is not mocked!

Originally posted by R.Carter

Genuinely disappointed Rev.
You completely avoided the question concearning a wise man being able to accept
the possibility of something without believing in it.
Try again, please; if only for your own credibility. Here,it's easy,I'll show you.

As an atheist I don't believe in God , but I accept the possibility that I may be wrong.
Nothing has come close to giving me faith in who you say is our creater , yet I
do not know everything. I just have faith in my belief as do you.

So ,Rev, how wise are you ? Will you swallow your pride and concede the possibility
that you too may be wrong ? Or will you fall just as your good book teaches is the consequence of such pride ?

All things are possible with God

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


All things are possible with God

You're still avoiding the question,sir. A man with your obvious faith ( it's well documented
in this forum) should be able to respond without fear .
I'm asking you to speak for yourself, not for God. If all thing are possible with God then
why won't you respond ? Or am I not getting it ? Is this your way of saying " Yes,other
beliefs may be valid. " ? Please clarify , the platitudes you hide behind look like unease.

Originally posted by R.Carter


You're still avoiding the question,sir. I man with your obvious faith ( it's well documented
in this forum) should be able to respond without fear .
I'm asking you to speak for yourself, not for God. If all thing are possible with God then
why won't you respond ? Or am I not getting it ? Is this your way of saying \" Yes,other
beliefs may be valid. \" ? Please clarify , the platitudes you hide behind look like unease.

Get used to it RC...like I've stated in your \"Post Your Path\" thread, I've been getting the same sort of dodgy responses for over 20 years.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

No one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care!

Good Post! I would be a 'fool' that some may know Christ [/b]

True as that may be in your estimation, (Jesus is the Greek name of the Son of Zeus,) So in your understands I do believe in Him, and His Son... [/b]

[/b][/quote]
Statements such as these only re-affirm my NONbelief in Christianity.

Hey Rev,
Out of curiousity I checked out your profile . That's quite a resume you've got there.
I mentioned before that I was disappointed in your inability to answer my direct
questions ; that goes double now . Flaunting your accomplishments is just more
evidence of your pride . I also believe that the destruction of your credibility in this
forum is your proverbial fall . You should be embarassed by your vague responses,
although I feel confident that you are not . The creation of this forum should have been
an oppurtunity for you to use your considerable knowledge as a tool . Instead ,you have aligned yourself wholly with the denizens who before you have eroded the faith of many.
You are a detriment to your own cause , sadly. It's a shame to see any man fail.

Originally posted by R.Carter
Hey Rev,
Out of curiousity I checked out your profile . That's quite a resume you've got there.
I mentioned before that I was disappointed in your inability to answer my direct
questions ; that goes double now . Flaunting your accomplishments is just more
evidence of your pride . I also believe that the destruction of your credibility in this
forum is your proverbial fall . You should be embarassed by your vague responses,
although I feel confident that you are not . The creation of this forum should have been
an oppurtunity for you to use your considerable knowledge as a tool . Instead ,you have aligned yourself wholly with the denizens who before you have eroded the faith of many.
You are a detriment to your own cause , sadly. It's a shame to see any man fail.

Amen! And AMEN!!!

Oh that was beautiful. See Awaken? That's how life increases its beauty. By tellin' it like it is.

And you're damned ugly.

Originally posted by R.Carter


You're still avoiding the question,sir. I man with your obvious faith ( it's well documented
in this forum) should be able to respond without fear .
I'm asking you to speak for yourself, not for God. If all thing are possible with God then
why won't you respond ? Or am I not getting it ? Is this your way of saying \" Yes,other
beliefs may be valid. \" ? Please clarify , the platitudes you hide behind look like unease.

Exactly, all other faiths are truly valid in those who believe them, and they have the freedom to believe as they will. But, there is only one 'truth' but many paths to that one truth.

As well you know timing is everything, and when it comes to response, given the questioner or provocateur ‘such as the case may be,’ has a chance to stew in their own assumptions as to the character of the respondent, because of any perceived delay in response, then being demanded to answer only under the questioners conditions, It should be a consideration that the restrains upon the question by nature places a restraint upon the response itself, and it is not an intended avoidance.

The Rev.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


Exactly, all other faiths are truly valid in those who believe them, and they have the freedom to believe as they will. But, there is only one 'truth' but many paths to that one truth.

The Rev.

Well, I guess that's the closest thing to a straight answer that we're going to get,
thanks for trying.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


Prove to me god does't exist

You can't prove something like that "wrong." That's like saying "prove to me humans can't fly." Is it physically impossible? Yes. Is it against the laws of physics? Yes. But you can apply that same argument to religion. Is it physically impossible? Yes. Is it against the laws of physics? Yes. Well, the physics apply to the whole universe. So therefore, god does not exist.

But you might say "but god can do anything, he doesn't follow the laws of physics." That is why it is "impossible" to prove god doesn't exist. Becuase the only reason the concept of religion survived so long is that it is so ambiguous, it cannot necessarily be proved wrong by logic, because god is not "logical." Bradybaker applies all logic you will ever need to religion, but the counter, "thiest", argument is "god can do anything" (attached to much more "fancy" words).

Secondly, you might say "how do you know the laws of physics apply to the whole universe? Have you been everywhere?" That is silly to say, but it is impossible to truly KNOW that they apply to the whole universe, because since we know virtually relatively nothing about it, there could be some place that defied all logic and physics. But according to universal truth, the physics do, indeed, apply to everything.

It is kind of silly to ask someone to prove religion "wrong." I can make up a new train of thought that humans can fly and that I can fly. Nobody can prove me wrong, because I can say its by magic. "oh, but magic doesn't exist." I can say "prove it." They can't really "prove" something DOESN'T exist, but you can, rather, prove something DOES exist. I can start flying. There, done.

Now think, where do people's inital reasons for adopting a religion occur from? Parental influences and ones from the society and media? Most often (because due to the modern-day rebelliousness religion is fading from the most important thing). Some might see a beautiful landscape and dwell on how complex our minds and the minds of animals in general are, and think that some god MUST have designed such beauty. Lastly, we need to think there is something better. Ultimately the only reason your belief holds is through "faith." It's kind of silly considering the only real "confirmation" about religion is through ancient texts that whoever wrote. I bet if you went back and tested some people who "saw" god, they would be certified with a mental health issue or schizofrenia, etc.

Did I just ramble?

Eric Estrada"

You can't prove something like that \"wrong.\" That's like saying \"prove to me humans can't fly.\" Is it physically impossible? Yes. Is it against the laws of physics? Yes. But you can apply that same argument to religion. Is it physically impossible? Yes. Is it against the laws of physics? Yes. Well, the physics apply to the whole universe. So therefore, god does not exist. [/b]

How can a Bumble Bee fly?

According to science that to is impossible.

'O' by the way man to can fly, in his dreams, O' try and prove that he is not really flying when he dreams'

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
How can a Bubble Bee fly?

According to science that to is impossible.'

A swing and a miss.

Is it aerodynamically impossible for bumblebees to fly?

04-May-1990

Dear Cecil:

When I was in college, not so many eons ago, it was pretty much an article of faith among us intellectual iconoclasts that, though we could put a man on the moon, we still had no idea how a bumblebee could fly. Do we? --Keith Hanson, Silver Spring, Maryland

Dear Keith:

Of course. You think this is on a par with quantum mechanics? The basic principles of bumblebee flight, and insect flight generally, have been pretty well understood for many years. Somehow, though, the idea that bees "violate aerodynamic theory" got embedded in folklore.

According to an account at www.iop.org/Physics/News/0012i.1, the story was initially circulated in German technical universities in the 1930s. Supposedly during dinner a biologist asked an aerodynamics expert about insect flight. The aerodynamicist did a few calculations and found that, according to the accepted theory of the day, bumblebees didn't generate enough lift to fly. The biologist, delighted to have a chance to show up those arrogant SOBs in the hard sciences, promptly spread the story far and wide.

Once he sobered up, however, the aerodynamicist surely realized what the problem was--a faulty analogy between bees and conventional fixed-wing aircraft. Bees' wings are small relative to their bodies. If an airplane were built the same way, it'd never get off the ground. But bees aren't like airplanes, they're like helicopters. Their wings work on the same principle as helicopter blades--to be precise, "reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades," to quote one authority. A moving airfoil, whether it's a helicopter blade or a bee wing, generates a lot more lift than a stationary one.

The real challenge with bees wasn't figuring out the aerodynamics but the mechanics: specifically, how bees can move their wings so fast--roughly 200 beats per second, which is 10 or 20 times the firing rate of the nervous system. The trick apparently is that the bee's wing muscles (thorax muscles, actually) don't expand and contract so much as vibrate, like a rubber band. A nerve impulse comes along and twangs the muscle, much as you might pluck a guitar string, and it vibrates the wing up and down a few times until the next impulse comes along. Cecil is sliding over a few subtleties here, but nobody ever said science for the masses was pretty.

--CECIL ADAMS

No, I'm sorry It's out of the park, I guess you where buying peanuts at the time I sung...

The point is what logic deems impossible one minute also deems possible the next, so why is that what man believes impossible is so set in stone by those who adhere to its fluctuating revelations, and belief of science?

I think you just beaned yourself.

Originally posted by Ex Nine
I think you just beaned yourself.

Read on before you state you belly button...

First of all, there's a difference between not knowing the answer and an 'impossibility'.

It is the lack of that distinction that leads to theism.

Secondly, the 'fact' that bumble bees can't fly is a complete myth, propagated by the media and general public because they don't know any better.

http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees

Other myths:
That toilets swirl in the opposite direction below the equator.
That no two snowflaxes are alike.
That the moon is magnified by the atmosphere when it is close to the horizon.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Other myths:
That toilets swirl in the opposite direction below the equator.
That no two snowflaxes are alike.
That the moon is magnified by the atmosphere when it is close to the horizon.

is that an example of "not impossible, but infinitely improbable"?

like there 'could' be 2 that were alike if you compared like, 100 google of them

Actually identical snowflakes have been observed on a number of occasions. It turns out there are a limited number of patterns that can be formed.

Hmmm...could a finite number of possible snowflake patterns hint at a finite universe?

The point is that science states all of its beliefs as ‘fact’ with no room for deposing opinions? Such as is the conjectured fact (oxy-moron), in all of their arguments pertaining to the existents of God? When as you have stated ‘there are things which are unknown to science.’

So if there are inconsistencies between fact, and belief in these in commonly agreed upon theories, how can those of apposing views be convinced of the theoretical beliefs of science when those theories are based on beliefs and not on facts?

The Rev.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
The point is that science states all of its beliefs as ‘fact’ with no room for deposing opinions?

What? You don't understand science at all. Everything in science is open to being deposed.

Unlike your God. But then that doesn't prevent it from being deposed in the minds of responsible people either.

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
Hmmm...could a finite number of possible snowflake patterns hint at a finite universe?

I don't think that anyone said there was a finite nuber of possible snowflake patterns, only that sometimes there are more than one that are identical. I'd say that if we were to draw any conclusions about the universe from this, it's that if from an infinite number of snowflakes one can find two that are the same, then in an infinite universe one could find another planet like our own.

Just some food for thought... which reminds me... I'm hungry.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
The point is what logic deems impossible one minute also deems possible the next, so why is that what man believes impossible is so set in stone by those who adhere to its fluctuating revelations, and belief of science?

No, the point is that the aerodynamicist was a friggin' doushebag and needed to be a little more professional before spreading a story like that.

Science doesn't make belief statements. Beliefs are a moronic thing to have. Science uses empirical observation to draw logical conclusions. Many scientists have ideas, some have opinions, but to start forming 'beliefs' around incompletely or inconclusive observations is generally the domain of the popular media.

In the contemplation of multiple dimensions, within this Superverse there are possibilities of dimensional shifts within parallel dimensions i.e. realms of existence through faith and the use ‘oscillating strings’ transcending in and out of this respective reality.

Such as the appearance of Moses and Elijah with Jesus on the ‘Mount of transfiguration’ as the exercise of the power of faith of the Holy Spirit in Jesus, this is also given unto His sons. This is the ‘key’ to bringing the manifestation of the God’s Kingdom to this realm through faith.

These are the abilities which are freely given to those whom are the called according to His purpose. This, by no means, excludes anyone whom may come.

Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, and James, and John his brother, and doth bring them up to a high mount by themselves,
Mat 17:2 and he was transfigured before them, and his face shone as the sun, and his garments did become white as the light,
Mat 17:3 and lo, appear to them did Moses and Elijah, talking together with him.

P.S. Please note that there are those who apply scientific theory into their applications of faith. This is so blatantly disputed by those of science.

The Rev.

Originally posted by awaken
Exactly, all other faiths are truly valid in those who believe them, and they have the freedom to believe as they will. But, there is only one 'truth' but many paths to that one truth.

If all other faiths are truly valid, does believing in christianity mean anything? Will a devout hindu, moslem, or a militant atheist get into heaven just as much as a christian? If that is the case, why be a christian? Why not just be a faith (or lack of faith) that isn't as restrictive, doesn't have as many rules, and doesn't generally get you to discard logical thinking. It's all the same afterall.

The point is that science states all of its beliefs as ‘fact’ with no room for deposing opinions? Such as is the conjectured fact (oxy-moron), in all of their arguments pertaining to the existents of God? When as you have stated ‘there are things which are unknown to science.’[/b]

Actually this is not how science works. A process of science would start off with an observation. \"Bumble bees fly\" for example. This is a fact. The theory on how bumble bees fly is a belief. Yet when the theory gets backed up by all sorts of external evidence, and makes repeatable, correct observations it does get labelled as fact. This does not make it immutable, however, as it can stop making correct observations or external evidence can start to falsify it. In that case, it will be modified (sometimes a lot, sometimes a little).

Take gravity for example, the theory of gravity comes from the fact that there is this force drawing objects together. Newton came up with a pretty good model, it was a fact for a long time. Then it was discovered it didn't hold under certain conditions, so Einstein came up with general/specialised relativity.

Repeatable, testable, observations in science are labelled as fact. We see bumble bees fly every day, this is a fact. Theories on how these observations happen can be labelled as fact, when it is highly supported by experential evidence and has been thoroughly tested. Theories can be changed, and facts can be falsified.

So if there are inconsistencies between fact, and belief in these in commonly agreed upon theories, how can those of apposing views be convinced of the theoretical beliefs of science when those theories are based on beliefs and not on facts?[/b]

You say that science states that all of its beliefs are "fact", and imply that this is a bad thing. Yet the facts of science are not blindly labelled facts, they are determined through rigourous testing and experential evidence. The facts of religion, on the other hand, are just facts because you believe. The facts of science are mutable, they change as the evidence supporting them does. The facts of religion are highly resistant to change.

You state that "there is only one 'truth'. How do you know this if, as you have said "there are inconsistencies between fact, and belief in these commonly agreed upon therories". Would it not hold if science is so unreliable that religion would be even more unreliable? How can you be convinced that your truth is the truth, why not a truth of the myriad of other religions.

It really annoys me when religious people bring up all of these reasons not to blindly accept the "facts" of science, yet fail to apply this same critical thinking to their religious "facts" (which have less backing than science).

-spoon