Topic: Why God exists in all people mind? - page 23. (Read 37749 times)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.