Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[osgart]

I believe first and foremost God is real because He abides in me.

My testimony to that affect should be enough but people need to know there are discernable affects that indicate god is present.

1. God speaks to me.
2. God gives me dreams and visons.
3. God heals my diseases.
4. God keeps me from sin.
5. God helps me to understand scripture
6. God speaks through me.

The strongest argument for God is the concept of moral truth and perfection. Moral truth and perfection is entirely understandable and conceivable. Reality is extremely challenging to understand. If God exists then this universe is a hellish purgatory and we all deserve to be here outside God's justice. I've known a few innocent people in my life and they have made it through life humanely. So if God exists then maybe God's truth has a very hidden way of protecting such people, but I don't really think that is the case.

 

[rational experiences]

Any machine as complicated as the human body is obviously designed. To deny this you might as well claim that the computer you are using made itself.

When a human as biology compares self to a computer he designed is the day you realise he wants us all destroyed.

 

[rational experiences]

The theme life's terminator tells a theists story.

There are biological humans. His theme a robot metal nuclear covered by an outside unnatural human form that peels off.

So you look at his thesis.

He says humans are aliens inside metal machines. Humans came from cloud mass that he studied as burnt cloud mass that falls.

Clouds cooling disperse.

So you tally his thesis then write a movie for everyone to see the scientist theist life destroyer.

A story told by humans as humans for humans.

If the eternal is real. Then after you begin to gas burn a human and they are still living then they are sacrificed. Then their story is real.

Didn't come from beginning heavens gas burning.

Science just a choice of liars fake.

It's your own choice if you want to believe the destroyer or our holy human father.

 

[Wildswanderer]

In the natural universe the end he wants for conversion as a machine inside reaction is first the particles and gases.

Instantly told it is not design.

His machine he designed.

He thinks. He says what type of design can I put together as components that can be used to destroy what type of conversion I want.

To destroy change again.

Is not design. It is his design to destroy by machine.

Notice no machine exists anywhere.

Not design. Theists always lie first.

Reason. When he wanted machines he invented a thesis named it science.

The vision owned by the sun bursting was attacking pre cooled mass.

How vision became a state in transmitters in pre stated gases. Cold. Not anything to do with humans.

Idea component machines to act like a sun. Yet not be the sun. Cooled mass that hit earth burning gases forcing hit.

Component thesis out of colder mass is first metals. As the machine only.

Machine components acting like a sun had.

Not design.

He gained ideas from a destroying cold metal sun mass.

When his brother realised his lies he named science lifes destroyer as he was correct always.

I have no idea what you said.

 

[rational experiences]

I have no idea what you said.

Natural.

All states present.

Natural consciousness. Cooled living presence.

Natural universe cooled presence. Cooled gases. Particles. Present.

Theist. Didn't invent nor create the status.

Earths heavens hot but cooled thesis.

Status theist machine cool then hot.

Reversal.

Reversal of status cosmic.
Reversal of status our life supporting heavens ...cooled. Evolution thesis all things exist now had evolved.

Reason I want.

I want to destroy cold gas owned by earths body which was first hot. Cold only in atmosphere. As earth is just a rock.

I want to react particles. Hot. Change them.

Earth particles cold.
Earths gases cold.
Earths heavens cooled.

Machine as mass UFO gets cooled leaves. Theist. I want my machine to leave earth as stars were never earth.

Time shifting lying.

Wants total opposition by machine.

Machine idea.. a cold metallic stone mass set on gas fire came first. I will join the two ideas together. Machine then machine reaction.

God mass star sun hit put back into a hole it caused. Instant mass. Was first on earth.

Machine metal cold body as if it represents the suns star mass. First.

Yet it's colder. As earth wasn't radiating like a sun.

Hotter reaction than the machine he wants inside his machine. Machine nearly blows up.

Nuclear model uses water cooling. New collider used ice. As it wasn't using water.

Coldest conscious life support cooling ice.

Pretty basic advice. The particles you want destroyed back to a thesis in the beginning only radiating space existed.

Is worse than a sink hole. As Nothing.

You want earth to become the black hole to suck out of space cold gases and particles into earth.

So you said I have to burn out earths cold gases to achieve it. Seeing their gas history is hot first with gods body Rock owner cold particles.

Earth without a heavens in other words.

The channel he says must form a cooled irradiating hole.

By invention. To copy exact advice in the position where it's theoried first.

As any type of information was pre history. Prehistoric he says.

What our human brother knew about cosmic theists. Wanting life biology cooled gas heavens destroyed. As biology not particles is after nature gardens life living breath AH oxygenation.

Is not any particle.

Particles the machine star thesis leaves earth into a colder sucking cosmos where cold gas with particles held are.

 

[ppp]

You owe me a mouthful of Shiraz....

My pleasure!

 

[rational experiences]

Father said know your sick minded brother.

Lines etched into the ground on earth his claim is time undone. O time by man's count.

Very hot radiation gas burning by mass fell then cut out the stone.

God O earth mass cold the line is the ditch cooled by gas water ice melt.

No line above the ground.

He argues as he makes lines in the upper heavens. Claiming I copy UFO history.

By experiments.

Yet unless cloud gas burns it doesn't come to equals his scientists earth mass line studies. God first in science earth mass he changed to get energy.

Yet he wants beginnings first. Hot gases mass that burnt the lines. Claims at the ground background was radiation. Yet it is either up above our head. Or a human bodily laying on the ground radiating background earth.

Not our cooled water gas heavenly life at all

He lied.

By thesis time is a line.

O UFO however is a ball of fused particles held by law space vacuum cooling. Above us. O earth God stone plus metal our UFO ark by themes.

O ball leaves. Goes through burn of upper voiding gases so particles dispersed again.

Cold gas in space with particles. Where it belongs only.

The line did not arise above O the earth face. Spirit cold status entered the line to stop it.

Not any Jesus thesis nor was it ever going to be Jesus.

Not getting a sin hole theories is about the line in earths body only.

Science digs mining ditches to remove earths mass manually. For resource. Deeper than the lines. To perform machine reactions by maths.

One by one reactions then equals the mound ditch they dug.

Then eventually the amount of reactions equals by radiations greater than the mass they mined. How you get holes in earth.

Father said he can give the same answer as many different ways as it can be explained.

Human earth sciences are liars they are not creating presence they are destroying mass.

 

[rational experiences]

My pleasure!

You better not be a red wine drinker is what you claim your policy is.

 

[joelr]

I believe as I you have made your statements but I don't know you so I can't tell if you are lying or not.

What are some of the differences. 1. We don't know what Odin said so we do not know how to identify him from his words. God's words are in the Bible so He is easy to identify by His words.
2. Although Odin was powerful and may have known a great deal about medicine, there is no indication that he ever did healing spiritually but Jesus as God incarnate did and there are many stories of Him still doing it.

No there are stories written by people that claim to be Yahwehs words. It's known as fiction outside of religious circles. The older stories is known as fiction even inside most religious circles.

There are definitely not many stories of Jesus healing sick people. There is a highly mythicized account called Mark where the reader is told it's all a parable (when the main character makes a point to say he teaches in parable it's the writer letting you know the story is a parable). Matthew and Luke have sourced Mark - "Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. "

Mark is a re-write of Psalms, Kings, Jesus ben Ananias, Paul and a few other known sources. The entire gospel can be accounted for from these sources leaving almost no room for even oral tradition. It also employs several uses of triadic ring structure in a very brilliant way, something only done in fiction. So it cannot be claimed that any part of these stories is something that actually happened.

 

[KWED]

My subconscious can heal me?

There is no evidence for supernatural healing. The body is very good at healing itself.

Did you know that the rate of "miraculous cure" from cancer amongst people going to Lourdes is lower than the rate of spontaneous remission in the general population?

 

[KWED]

He maintains all life. In him we live and breathe and have our beings.

So when you fall ill or injure yourself, you merely trust god will heal you. You never see a doctor or go to the hospital. You never take any medication.

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

 

[KWED]

The body is so obviously designed, a person would have to be a imbecile not to see it.

So most doctors and medical scientists are imbeciles?
If you knew anything about human anatomy, you would know that if it was designed, it was the designer who was an imbecile.

No rational human can deny the evidence for a designed universe.

So almost all the world's top scientists are irrational? Er, ok...

 

[KWED]

Most scientists believe in a creator.

No they don't. Not at a high level. And especially not in fields like physics, biology and cosmology.
Around 95% of the members of the Royal Institution and the American Academy of Science reject creationism.
When you understand how things work, you see that there is not only no need for god, but god makes explaining things more difficult.

 

[KWED]

Any machine as complicated as the human body is obviously designed. To deny this you might as well claim that the computer you are using made itself.

The evolution of higher animals from simple organisms is well understood and supported by huge amounts of evidence. Just because you don't/won't understand it doesn't mean no one else does.

Basically what you are doing here is like a child on their first day at school claiming that adding up is impossible because they can't do it, and telling the teacher they are wrong.

 

[KWED]

The strongest argument for God is the concept of moral truth and perfection.

There is no "moral truth and perfection". The concept of morality is subjective and dependent on circumstances. So as an argument for god, it is incoherent

 

[Sheldon]

Most scientists believe in a creator.

The claim is laughably wrong, and pretty facile, since atheists are a small minority in the general population, Atheism is highest among biologists, hardly surprising really.

<LINK>

"Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively."

Among Nobel laureates, the number of atheists is 50% higher than among the general populace, with global atheism at roughly 7%, but atheism and disbelief among Nobel laureates is 10.5%.

Scientists in the field of biology have the higher percentage of atheism, so your claim that "The body is so obviously designed, a person would have to be a imbecile not to see it." Is clearly risible.

 

[Sheldon]

Any machine as complicated as the human body is obviously designed. To deny this you might as well claim that the computer you are using made itself.

That wasn't what you claimed? This was your claim:

No rational human can deny the evidence for a designed universe.

Leaving aside it is a rather obvious use of a no true Scotsman fallacy, so the claim ironically is irrational by definition. I ask again, what evidence? Evidence contains facts and information, you have offered neither.

 

[Sheldon]

There is no "moral truth and perfection". The concept of morality is subjective and dependent on circumstances. So as an argument for god, it is incoherent

I usually ask them to offer some moral absolutes as evidence for that argument, it always goes the same way. Also when they're creating an argument for a deity, that makes the unevidenced assumption that deity is perfectly moral, it is obviously a begging the question fallacy. So arguments from morality as well as being subjective, are in fact irrational.

 

[osgart]

There is no "moral truth and perfection". The concept of morality is subjective and dependent on circumstances. So as an argument for god, it is incoherent

If you say so.

 

[ppp]

Moral truth and perfection is entirely understandable and conceivable.

Please explain what you mean by moral truth and perfection.