Topic: Why God exists in all people mind? - page 23. (Read 37809 times)

There never was a burden of proof on me. However, the proof is shown in the links above. Now, rebut with rebuttal, and explain how the rebuttal is a rebuttal, point by point. If you don't, it will be known that the things you say are hogwash.

Your credibility is getting smaller all the time. Do you even have any left. Keep it up. We like it.

And you fail to understand that the burden of proof is on you to show the proof of your god's existence.

You claim it to be true, so prove it.

The rest of your writings are just "hogwash".

If evidence can disprove something is not proof, but a statement. Religious people never provide evidence for the existence of God because they are not. Atheists don't provide evidence because you cannot prove nonexistence.

That's good that my words aren't proof. Of course, my words that express the proof don't stop it from being proof.

Come on! Be strong. You can rebut the proof that God exists. Don't simply say that it has been rebutted. Don't simply show some websites that you say have rebutted the proof. Get into the thing yourself. Show how the proof has been rebutted step by step. Are you so lazy? Is it really too much work? You realize, don't you, that all your talk is a lot of work over the days and weeks. If you can't get into it and state the way the points of proof are rebutted point by point, step by step, how can you or anyone really even know that you have found a rebuttal?

Until you can clearly show the rebuttal by getting right into the explanation of it, all your talk about a rebuttal is hogwash. All you are doing is strengthening the fact that God exists in the minds of all who watch the things you do and say. Your atheism religion was stupid to begin with. But it is an utter lie since it has been rebutted by the proof that God exists.

However, even if God didn't exist, atheism is really stupid, Why? Because nobody has near enough knowledge of the universe to state with any certainty that God does not exist.

Atheism is a religious cult. Even the dictionary definition of "religion" shows that atheism is a religion, indirectly.

Your words are not proof.

Find real proof or give up.

You haven't noticed, have you , that proof has been given. You just choose not to accept it. Many people have supplied you with proof, however, you disregard and then post your own words as proof.

Since you are not into accepting proof that you don't want to accept, there is no reason to keep on giving it to you.

You haven't noticed, have you, that you haven't once offered any rebuttal to the proof that God exists.

Do you have a fascination with yourself? Are you trying to set yourself up as another David Koresh, or even a Jim Jones?

All you have shown is links to yourself. Your links are not proof so you need to provide evidence.

You have not shown any proof and you fail in your understanding of the proofs given.

BADecker principle rule number 1:
"If a point of discussion does not meet criteria of one's own belief, then ignore the context and claim it is wrong".

Therefore, your proof is wrong, so please give me proof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riCTEhezcYw  Burden of proof lies with those who claim god exists can be found here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC7Ttc9g1u8   Answer to the first cause argument can be found here.

Well, all you showed was a website. So, even if there were papers that upheld your points, the websites that show yours is wrong are rebuttals to your website.

An electric range in a kitchen is science. But it doesn't have any peer reviewed papers. The scientific laws expressed in the below websites prove that God exists. They don't come close to suggesting that you have to accept or believe.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380

However, because they are scientific laws, until you can show the rebuttal you have expressed that there is, you don't have the rebuttal. Sorry, chucklehead. God exists. But, even if He didn't, the simple fact that you state that you are an atheist shows that you are deceptive or ignorant. Why? Because you don't have anywhere near enough knowledge to know and prove that God does NOT exist.

I respect someone else's opinion, a different view of reality. Belief in God is also a gift from God. Not everyone has it, and this, too, is not without the Providence of God. Personally, I am a Christian to the core. Although not all the commandments I carry out.

Nope not rebutted, that is just your opinion. Show me the proof that "ALL" peer reviews are false. Because you can't, your attempt at rebuttal has failed.

Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and so on and so on and so on.

This can be called peer reviewed of religion and they all have a different opinion.... so none can be real.

Thank you for showing that your god does not exist.

This is part of the reason few people really hear God. God is protecting them from being sent to the asylum by a bunch of neurotic, unbelieving, psychotic, psychiatrists.

This doesn't keep God from talking to people. All it does is to make the words He says, to have to work their way into the lives of people from the subconscious up, so that they obey without really realizing why.

This happens even to the psychiatrists.

The rebuttal is in the many websites that show other explanations.

Before you can get peer reviewed scientific journals, you have to have some that show that there is proof. However, did you notice the word "peer." What this means is that if you get a thief to state a lie, all his buddy thieves will state it because they are... his buddies.

Peer review has just been rebutted.

There is such a good saying:
If you talk to God it is prayer!
If God speaks to you, it's schizophrenia!

Thankfully I am not American!

Where is your evidence to show that these have all been rebutted?

You have raised a point so now you get to show the evidence.

I'd like scientific journals which are peer reviewed please.

Hey, stats. Thanks for the neat sci-fi link. All these ideas have been rebutted so many times that the whole scientific community is revising their stance on evolution. How do we know? The latest descriptions of what evolution entails brings the whole idea of evolution into simple change. And that is all that evolution is. Simple change. Mother changing a baby's diaper is evolution by the most modern understanding of the word evolution.

Sorry to disrupt your religion. But that is what science is doing, disrupting your religion. Oh, sure. There are some die-hard scientists that stubbornly hang onto the things that they have been taught in the past. But shouldn't you come into the present like many other scientists have? Your choice, however. After all, we have freedom of religion in America.

The whole world and the whole universe is one common organism in which all particles and all mechanisms act synchronously. It is like one cell of a living organism, with all its composition, could not be created by itself. Someone started this mechanism and put it into operation. And I also believe that this is something from above.

Here you go BADecker......

Educate yourself:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558

There is no evolution. Why? Because...

First, count all the molecules and atoms in a living cell. Then figure out how all these atoms could accidentally fall into the correct places to imitate a living cell. It's impossible that these atoms and molecules could accidentally line up into cell form perfectly. Probability math says it's impossible.

Second, even if these molecules and atoms all existed and lined up properly, then they would have to start moving in just the right ways to make the potential cell alive. The probability math against this being able to happen makes this impossible, as well.

Third, before the cell comes to life, some of the molecules will automatically work chemical actions on some of the other molecules, which will change the potential cell so it can't come to life.

Fourth, the surrounding chemicals that lent some of their atoms and molecules to the potential cell would destroy it before it lasted 1 second.

Fifth, even if all these impossible things happened, and a living cell formed by random activity, before the cell had enough time to gain the additional molecules and atoms that it would need so that it could divide and propagate, the surrounding chemicals would have destroyed it, or it would die of old age.

Further, cause and effect works in everything. So, the cell would not have started through any random activity. Why? There is no random activity. It is all cause and effect... programming. So, life was programmed by some Power great enough to overcome all the probability math odds.

None of our current realistic models show how to overcome any of this so that life could happen by evolution. Evolution is out of the picture. There was no evolution. Find something else.

I read somewhere that There is a reason for everything in this universe. The discovered are known as science and the unknown are called religion. I'm a strong supporter of the belief that during evolution, the rapidly developing mind of humans, which was filled with curiosity regarding every undiscovered thing caused restlessness. Although this curiosity helped in further development of culture and new discoveries, some of the complex stuff that couldn't have been explained lead to the formation of an entity known as GOD! I agree that there is some superior power that controls all that is living and dead, but I'd rather believe in an atom nucleus than an unseen entity.

Perhaps you can feel yourself a god only after using some kind of drug. With the current standard of living and all life difficulties, it is very difficult to experience the fact that you are omnipotent. But if a person believes in God, then even such thoughts are inadmissible for him to want to feel like a god.