I do believe in God the Creator of heaven and earth. I see from nature that God manifest himself in living things and nor living things should we deny reality? That list we human being by looking at our nature should know that there is something greater than our thought, soul and body that dwell inside and outside us. God is my source therefore I believe in him.
Today there is a science with which all are faced and there is no refutation of the teaching of science. All scientific conclusions are supported by evidence. But how can God exist from a scientific point of view? Can it still be considered that God is spirit or scientific, energy or power capable of creating and creating?
All science that explains where the universe and life comes from, is science theory. Science theory is something that is not known to be factual.
Since the universe is here, along with intelligence and life, whatever could cause these things to happen is God. If Big Bang Theory is proven to be the way that the universe came about, then Big Bang is God. So far, according to science, Big Bang is not known to be factual, or even to plausibly exist.
It is not necessary to think unfoundedly
that God is an explosion. It is
necessary to think a little more broadly
and to perceive everything, both
positive and negative energy as an
entire whole. God is a great power.
God is not big bang. But if big bang ever existed, God might be it, or at least working through it.
God, Himself, is beyond energy, although He has energy, and uses energy.
And your proof of this claim is where?
The proof is right here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.
Oh, that's right. You don't understand the proof. In addition, you would claim the proof isn't proof even if you understood. But what else can an ignorant, barbarous, unthinking person do? You fit right into the pattern you have built for yourself.
Not proof puddleduck.
Its only your silly assumptions.
Can you please provide proof?
It is as I said. You wouldn't accept the proof as proof if you understood it. Yet you can't show any scienti8fic rebuttal to the scientific proof. So, the proof stands, by you own admission - your non-rebuttal admission.
Just for you.......
BADecker's evidence in a nutshell......
Link 1
Machine like nature of the universe.
Cause and effect
Nations looking for God?
BADecker believes that all machines are ultimately the result of a god.
Link 2
Cause and effect
Link 3
Cause and effect
Link 4
Cause and effect
Cause and effect rebuttal
If cause and effect is proof of a god, then who made god? Was it god's god? And who made god's god? was it god's god's god? This is a cycle of infinity. This is no proof.
BADecker simply applies an assumption that this a god.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC7Ttc9g1u8 Machines like nature of the universe rebuttal
BADecker believes that machines need a maker and that maker has to be a god. The reality of this is that evolution has caused the changes.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10724.html BADecker then claims that this is only theory. The reality is that science is disproving/proving all theories we (humans) have believed for years. That is the nature of science. For it to be tested by others. People like BADecker will continually use their same argument of assumptions to state there is no proof that god does not exist. The reality is that history has shown that early Vikings believed "lightning flashed whenever Thor threw his hammer". Science has proven this incorrect.
Nations looking for god rebuttal
BADecker claims that people are looking for how the universe was made. This is true. However, BADecker then claims that because the answers are still not found, the answer must be a god. WRONG.... this is not proof. This is an assumption again on BADecker's part. Science is unlocking secrets every day. Religion is being disproven daily and BADecker continues to hold on to his mindless views.
