Topic: Hoax is a hoax - page 5. (Read 2105 times)

Where did I ever insist God is male? But Jesus is male. God is Creator, and Creator is in the direction of male. So, God is God.

God always was love. People have been given love as they were originally made in God's image. So, it is people learning love from God. When people have love, because their love is imperfect love, such love is a human emotion. Nobody knows what the great love of God is really like.

Since you want to twist God into something that He is not, you simply show that you are trying to hide your own guilt. But you can't. You might be able to cover it somewhat. But it will always poke its way through into your consciousness. As you get older, you will not be able to keep it down so easily. As it comes through more and more, you will become bitter, like Voltaire in his later years. Why was he bitter? Because he was unwilling to accept God's Jesus-forgiveness, so that the bitterness could actually dissipate. But hey. Maybe you enjoy being bitter.

Take a look at your posts. Your bitterness is showing. Even though you are reasonably young, it's poking its way through already.

First of all, you are confused, you insisted that God is a male.  Now it is love. WTF.

More like, God was never created because it never existed until someone called love a God. LOL.

So it is a human emotion, that is what I expected.

If God is love, then it did not exist before human life.  It makes sense.

BTW, why do you guys using a new word for love?

If love is love, why do you need to call it a God?  To scam poor and uneducated people?

PS. Maybe that is why chimpanzees don't organize themselves into religious groups.

God is love.

As notbatman said, God was never created, but always exists.

Created Gods are false.

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." -- Revelation 22:13, KJV

What is God and how was 'He' created?

We don't have to go there. I showed it to you right here - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53112081.

Since your memory is so short, stop reading anti-God literature, and start reading the Bible. Soon you will believe in God, because you will have forgotten all about atheism.

You are saying I brought up engineers, and your evidence is a post in which you bring up engineers and I respond to it?
Evidence is proof that something does happen (like evolution), not proof that it doesn't (like creationsim).


I'll admit I've not read the whole thing. Please could you show me the bit where there is scientific proof that God exists?

No. You brought up engineers - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53078198. But even if I brought it up in a previous post, you continued with it. But now it seems that you are trying to play ignorant. Perhaps you are.

So you read all 500+ pages of that thread. So you see that the scientific proof for God exists... or you don't, and really aren't a scientists at all.

The '^^' suggests that you're responding to my post, but I can't see any link at all between what I've put and what you've put.
Not too sure about these clowns taking shots at each other, either - wouldn't they just use custard pies?

^^ Space carnival physics, the science of the mad tilted ride spinning in your mind. Monkey machine mechanics, fueled by coincidence and chance. See with your eyes not with your mind.

An argument founded in assumption [evolution] is a clowns gambit. We have two clowns who agree on a theoretical framework i.e. the Copernican system, who then takes shots at one another. One clown says "reeeee evolution!", while the other who has agreed to rig the system, says he's a fool. One clown feeds the rope while the other one takes it and ties it into a bow.

These two are engaged in sodomy of the mind with one or both actively rigging the system.

I didn't, you brought up engineers.

Yes, I have a science background, thanks, I know how it works.
That link talks about mitochondrial Eve. What does that have to do with religion? It's just the most recent common female ancestor. It's not a fixed person, it can change over time. Have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Popular_reception_and_misconceptions
The only link to religion is the name 'Eve'. A bit of an unfortunate choice, like the Higgs Boson being dubbed the God particle.

MRCA is used in reference to the ancestry of haplotypes rather than organisms. The people who wrote your proof #65 completely ignored the fact that humans share 4% of Neanderthal DNA.  MRCA for Homo Sapiens lineage is estimated to be around 200,000 years old.  LUCA is estimated to have lived 3.5 to 3.8 billions years ago.

The person who wrote this 'proof' knew diddly squat about human evolution.

Learn a bit more about speciation so that you can read such 'proofs' and understand what you are reading.

Everybody uses physics. Engineers aren't some special class of people who use physics while the rest of the people don't. So, why pick on them or physicists?

There is no proof that science advances with scientific explanations. Why? Because some of the explanations are wrong. And because they are wrong, they get in the way of continued exploration and advancing that would have been done by scientists who believe the wrong explanations, and quit exploration because of it. So, scientific advancements are often more like religion than science.

Search here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scientific-proof-that-god-exists-737322 and you will find the proof that God exists... if you happen to be enough of a scientist that you know how to apply scientific proof.

There is no evidence for God!!!

True. But a benefit of having the scientific explanation is that science advances. If we just relied on the stuff that we can physically witness, without trying to understand what it is and how it works, we'd still be living in caves.

Not sure what you're suggesting. Engineers use physics (and the laws of physics), yes.

I can't confirm or deny any of this, nor am I sure if this even qualifies as a hoax but:



5G LED WEAPON SYSTEM DEPLOYED ON THE STREETS OF THE UK -- https://youtu.be/qWzIh1OOa8Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tytOwMLqufg

If you don't understand that gravity is a work of God, you don't really understand about gravity. However, gravity does what it does without having any gravity theory involved. People who are affected by gravity, and want to call the affect "gravity," don't need to understand gravity theory to know that it's gravity.

Engineers using physics doesn't have anything to do with engineering. We all use physics all the time for everything that we do. Or do you think that if we aren't engineers, or that engineers themselves, suddenly stop using the physics of the universe? Maybe at death. Is that what you are talking about?

Yes, gravity is a thing that happens. We didn't know what it was until we had a theory to describe it. Crazy as it might seem, some people actually thought it was a work of "God". But now we know what it is and why it happens, we can apply it to explain many other things, such as the motion of the planets.


No, you're thinking of wizards. Engineers use physics. Wizards use made-up magic stuff.

 

Engineer theories aren't necessarily scientific theories. Engineers aren't necessarily engineers in the way science describes engineers. A person inventing a better wheel 5,000 years ago might be an engineer.

Gravity isn't a scientific theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory. Gravity is a word given to the gravity experience that happens to all people all around the world all the time.

An engineer can make a scientific theory. But that doesn't stop him from engineering without using a scientific theory. He might use a non-scientific theory. Or, if it's simple enough, he might barely use a theory at all.

An engineer can tweak his engineering to be different than the theory says, not because the theory is proven wrong, but because he can't make the object of his engineering to work according to the theory. This doesn't prove that the theory is wrong. It simply shows that there is a glitch somewhere in this particular scientific theory application to this particular feat of engineering. Might be the theory, but could be something in the engineering.

If you search for it, you can find that scientists have generally agreed that something is a law when there are less than 10 to the 40th power odds in favor of the thing, with only one or less against. Of course, the scientists could be wrong about this.

I have to say. I enjoy reading them.

To spice things up. If scientists, or should I say, theoreticians didn't come up with theories, do you think engineers would even engineer something(?) or rather, would engineering even exist in the 1st place? You would probably argue and say that those are just regular theories and not scientific theories--for instance, gravity is a scientific theory tho we can say its just a regular theory just because we experience/see it every day, but no one really figures it out, until Newton had scientifically proven it. The same goes for everything in engineering. True, every theory that is associated with what they're engineering doesn't have to be exactly as what the theories said, but they use it anyway. Why? They tweak their works most of the time because they can, or should I say, these theories let them do so, not because the theories are proven to be wrong, BUT those theories provide these so-called "formulae"--that depending on the given situation will provide different results OR the answers that they needed. In fact, what we use right now are just temporary laws/facts, it is subject to change and depending on the circumstances, other theories might actually finally be proven and other laws might be completely abolished.