Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[SavedByTheLord]

You did no such thing .. and the third claim is especially giglish and demonstrably false. .. 1) Should we kill the Adulterous whore ? and 2) what about the parts taken out .. were they true also .. the Epistle of Barnabus for example .. or 3) the edits intentionally removing parts mentioning other Gods .. a relic of the Israelites Pagan Religious Beliefs ... and 4) don't forget to tell us whether or not we should kill the child for the sins of the Father .. along with the Adulterous whore .. Tell us the Truth from the Bible .. and your free pass through judgement ideology and how we are Saved by Lord Martin - the false idol worshiped by many .. known them by their Fruits sayeth the Lord Jesus .. Marty for his most famous treatise .. "On the Jews and Their Lies" Do feel free to find the title way over the top Ironic .. but more important - demonstrable Prophecy on the part of Our Lord Jesus .. a blast from the Past from Jesus and Brother James .. calling out some fanatical Christian Groups of his day for their "Faith Alone" doctrine.. calling such doctrine "Foolish" .. the quotations marks as that term is the harshest of Harsh.

but nevermind the Truth of Jesus and James .. which don't think much of Brother Marty .. its time for SBTLM to join the party .. and answer the 4 simple questions put to you time to prove something for a change !


Think he does actually .. the problem being doing it anyway .. Intentional subversion is the way of the Decepticon .. .. my question being .. if Sataniel is Lord of the Earth .. as told us on the first page of NT .. and messed with the Bible .. are the parts that Satan put in there "The Truth" .. 100% inspired by the Spirit of the Lord .. as Fundamentalists like to claim "God Breathed" .. Which at one point may well have been the case .. but later .. after Ha Satan made changes - edits - deletion and the sin of omission - interpolation and addition .. and of course with Pious Fraud and Artistic License.

The OT law is not valid anymore. And extra heretical books of course are Not part of the Bible.
Remember an unsaved person cannot understand the word of God nor the gospel of Christ.
Your post proves that and fulfills prophecies from the Bible which also prove the Bible true.

 

[kadzbiz]

This thread lol

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have proved that God exists and created all things. I also proved the Bible is the true word of God.

I've already explained to you that you have proven nothing (link). Do you know what proof is (actually, the standard is demonstration beyond reasonable doubt)? Apparently not if you consider what you're doing proving anything to anybody. Have you forgotten these words? : "Your claim of proving without changing any minds is equivalent to a comedian thinking he's funny without making anybody laugh."

Let me share again: "Proof" is that which convinces. And how does one know that he has "proved" something? He's changed a mind. Nobody now believes anything because of your so-called "proofs." People that would agree with you already did before they see them, and skeptics scoff at them.

Evolution is false science.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It here to stay. And even were it falsified, the god of Abraham would not replace it as an explanation for how the world came to be as we find it. What would replace it would be a hypothesis about an alien visitation leading to the perpetuation of a massive fraud that was somehow discovered when whatever falsifying find was uncovered. That would be unreasonable to believe as long as the theory hasn't been falsified.

The stories in Genesis have been ruled out empirically. The god that allegedly made the world in a week and created the first two humans de novo didn't create the universe we live in, which has been evolving continuously for billions of years and never had a first human being. There is no human being alive now or at any time that didn't have human parents.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I've already explained to you that you have proven nothing (link). Do you know what proof is (actually, the standard is demonstration beyond reasonable doubt)? Apparently not if you consider what you're doing proving anything to anybody. Have you forgotten these words? : "Your claim of proving without changing any minds is equivalent to a comedian thinking he's funny without making anybody laugh."

Let me share again: "Proof" is that which convinces. And how does one know that he has "proved" something? He's changed a mind. Nobody now believes anything because of your so-called "proofs." People that would agree with you already did before they see them, and skeptics scoff at them.


The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It here to stay. And even were it falsified, the god of Abraham would not replace it as an explanation for how the world came to be as we find it. What would replace it would be a hypothesis about an alien visitation leading to the perpetuation of a massive fraud that was somehow discovered when whatever falsifying find was uncovered. That would be unreasonable to believe as long as the theory hasn't been falsified.

The stories in Genesis have been ruled out empirically. The god that allegedly made the world in a week and created the first two humans de novo didn't create the universe we live in, which has been evolving continuously for billions of years and never had a first human being. There is no human being alive now or at any time that didn't have human parents.

The proofs I gave were beyond all doubt. But that is not enough to convince those who are deceived by Satan.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And when you think you can refute any of my claims, just post it.

Fallacies don't require refutation. They only require pointing out. And they certainly have been pointed out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have peer reviewed and fact checked all papers that claim evolution and billions of years are true and they have been dismissed.

How many life times did it take you to "review and fact check" literally hundreds of thousands of technical papers in various technical fields put out in the past 150 years?




Also, you "fact checking" anything is laughable at best.

And last but not least, I love how you just demonstrated to not even have a clue what "peer review" in science actually is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One small fact can refute all of evolution and billions of years.
And there are very many facts which do so.

Provide one such fact.
Make it the one you think is most convincing.

I'ld love to have a laugh.

But you obviously are not being scientific in this area of knowledge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The OT law is not valid anymore.

Cool. So the 10 commandments (along with the other 603, because there are 613 in total, all from the OT) don't apply any more then, I guess.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I've already explained to you that you have proven nothing (link). Do you know what proof is (actually, the standard is demonstration beyond reasonable doubt)? Apparently not if you consider what you're doing proving anything to anybody. Have you forgotten these words? : "Your claim of proving without changing any minds is equivalent to a comedian thinking he's funny without making anybody laugh."

Let me share again: "Proof" is that which convinces. And how does one know that he has "proved" something? He's changed a mind. Nobody now believes anything because of your so-called "proofs." People that would agree with you already did before they see them, and skeptics scoff at them.


The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It here to stay. And even were it falsified, the god of Abraham would not replace it as an explanation for how the world came to be as we find it. What would replace it would be a hypothesis about an alien visitation leading to the perpetuation of a massive fraud that was somehow discovered when whatever falsifying find was uncovered. That would be unreasonable to believe as long as the theory hasn't been falsified.

The stories in Genesis have been ruled out empirically. The god that allegedly made the world in a week and created the first two humans de novo didn't create the universe we live in, which has been evolving continuously for billions of years and never had a first human being. There is no human being alive now or at any time that didn't have human parents.

Hi It Ain't Necessarily So,
I may not agree with you on a lot, but your first paragraph above definitely made me laugh.

God is real. And at some point in the future (when he returns) you will believe also. Unfortunately there may be more proof at that point than people want to have. I'm not saying this OP proved it, but the creation itself does show his existence, even if you don't see it.

Re: Your very last sentence above. How can you always have had human beings alive who had parents, but not have had a creation of the man and woman to begin with? You are essentially saying man has always been here. YOU are putting man in the position you are claiming others can't prove about God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is real. And at some point in the future (when he returns) you will believe also. Unfortunately there may be more proof at that point than people want to have.

Why does that sound like a threat?

but the creation itself does show his existence

How, exactly?

How can you always have had human beings alive who had parents, but not have had a creation of the man and woman to begin with?

That's the nature of gradualism (evolution).
In the same way, no Latin speaking mother ever raised a Spanish speaking child.
Every child ever raised, spoke the same language as its parents and peers.

Yet, the distant ancestors of Spanish speaking people, spoke Latin.

You are essentially saying man has always been here. YOU are putting man in the position you are claiming others can't prove about God.

He's not.

 

[F1fan]

The OT law is not valid anymore.

Right, a literalist reading tells us Yahweh is a total screw up and needs to keep fixing his creation due to mistakes. And the fixes never work.

But that doesn't stop evangelicals from using the OT to back up their anti-gay bogotry. Of course that judgment is a mistake by Jesus in not adequately teaching how not to judge others.

And extra heretical books of course are Not part of the Bible.

Yeah, the Bible gets changed quite a bit by humans over time. And then add in the various interpretations that add material that isn't in the Bible, and you have a set of religions that agree on very little. What a catastrophe.

Remember an unsaved person cannot understand the word of God nor the gospel of Christ.

So sayeth the "saved". No doubt this is a self-serving statement that isn't in the Bible. See how believers think they can add things to the Bible that aren't in it, as if God themselves?

Your post proves that and fulfills prophecies from the Bible which also prove the Bible true.

What you think the Bible proves only proves that you have a vivid imagination, and don't have adequate reasoning skill.

God is real.

And what are the facts that any rational mind can see and understand without making assumptions?

Or are you bluffing?

Or are you God yourself?

And at some point in the future (when he returns) you will believe also.

If Jesus returns we won;t hve to believe, it will be a fact we acknowledge. As it is there are no facts that allow rational minds to believe any God exists, nor that the story about Jesus being executed so that salvation works is true. The Jesus story is quite absurd, and frankly doesn't work according to what we observe of many who think themselves "saved". Got to say I'm not impressed by many of the "saved".

Unfortunately there may be more proof at that point than people want to have. I'm not saying this OP proved it, but the creation itself does show his existence, even if you don't see it.

If rational minds don't see it, how did you come to "see" it? Explain the facts that rational minds can't see, but you "saved" somehow can.

Is it possible you adopted a dogma that isn't factually true, but you think it is because you haven't reasoned through the ideas?

Re: Your very last sentence above. How can you always have had human beings alive who had parents, but not have had a creation of the man and woman to begin with?

Evolution of species. There is a massive amount of knowledge available for free on the internet. Why haven't you sought this knowledge? If you want to convince rational minds that your beliefs are correct shouldn't you be well educated on the matters that damage your religious dogma?

You are essentially saying man has always been here. YOU are putting man in the position you are claiming others can't prove about God.

False. Humans evolved about 200,000 years ago from more primitive hominids. The only reason God became an ideas was when humans started organizing in permanent settlements and needed to form culture and rules for social organization. "God" became a proxy for human authority. Again, these explanations are available for free on the internet.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Why does that sound like a threat?



How, exactly?



That's the nature of gradualism (evolution).
In the same way, no Latin speaking mother ever raised a Spanish speaking child.
Every child ever raised, spoke the same language as its parents and peers.

Yet, the distant ancestors of Spanish speaking people, spoke Latin.


He's not.

I guess the attacks have begun.

It's not intended to be a threat. It's just a fact. I just mean that by the time some have sufficient proof it will be too late to change anything.

Yes he was. If you have man always existing as he was saying - then you can't prove that to me anymore than I can prove to you God exists.

You can see a much higher being was involved by the creation. Life can't just come from an explosion. Eyesight and hearing don't just develop because it would come in handy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right, a literalist reading tells us Yahweh is a total screw up and needs to keep fixing his creation due to mistakes. And the fixes never work.

But that doesn't stop evangelicals from using the OT to back up their anti-gay bogotry. Of course that judgment is a mistake by Jesus in not adequately teaching how not to judge others.

I always chuckle when fundie christians try to argue that the OT law isn't relevant anymore. They seem completely unaware that the 10 commandments are part of that OT law, which consists of 613 commandments ("the 10" are part of those 613).

I guess the OT law is always "irrelevant" when laws are brought up that don't suite them (like slavery) while in the next breath they apply again when they can use them to bash gay people or wave with the "10 commandments" (4 of which don't even deal with anything concerning morality and are instead just about god's pettyness, jealousy and narcissism).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess the attacks have begun.

????

Attacks? What attacks?
Is asking questions and pointing out a misunderstanding an "attack" now?

I get so tired of this. Why do so many religious people confuse disagreement / questioning with insults?

It's not intended to be a threat. It's just a fact.

No, it's not a fact. It's a religious belief that you hold. Facts are demonstrable.

I just mean that by the time some have sufficient proof it will be too late to change anything.

What would need changing and why?

Yes he was.

He wasn't and I explained to you how he wasn't.
Although I will grant you that the way he expressed it might have been confusing for someone who isn't familiar with evolutionary biology.
In any case, I clarified it for you and even gave you an analoguous example of the evolution of language, which follows pretty much the same pattern in terms of gradual change over time.

I guess the clarification wasn't clear? Can you point out what confuses you?
I'm more then willing to help out and clarify further.

If you have man always existing as he was saying

He didn't say that and I explained to you how he wasn't saying that.
AKA: spanish didn't always exist,yet every spanish speaking person was raised by spanish speaking parents. As in: no latin speaking mother ever raised a spanish speaking child. Yet the distant ancestors of spanish speaking people, spoke latin - not spanish.

Do you understand this language example?

In the exact same way, every human child had human parents. As in: no non-human primate has ever given birth to a human baby. Yet the distant ancestors of humans weren't humans.


It's the nature of gradualism.

You can see a much higher being was involved by the creation.

You are just repeating your claim. I asked you to explain it.

Life can't just come from an explosion.

Who says it did?

Eyesight and hearing don't just develop because it would come in handy.

It evolved through natural selection because for those populations it gave an advantage for survival and eventual reproduction.


If you have any questions just shoot. I, and many others here, will be more then happy to explain wherever possible.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

And what are the facts that any rational mind can see and understand without making assumptions?

If Jesus returns we won;t hve to believe, it will be a fact we acknowledge. As it is there are no facts that allow rational minds to believe any God exists, nor that the story about Jesus being executed so that salvation works is true. The Jesus story is quite absurd, and frankly doesn't work according to what we observe of many who think themselves "saved". Got to say I'm not impressed by many of the "saved".

If rational minds don't see it, how did you come to "see" it? Explain the facts that rational minds can't see, but you "saved" somehow can.

Is it possible you adopted a dogma that isn't factually true, but you think it is because you haven't reasoned through the ideas?

Evolution of species. There is a massive amount of knowledge available for free on the internet. Why haven't you sought this knowledge? If you want to convince rational minds that your beliefs are correct shouldn't you be well educated on the matters that damage your religious dogma?

False. Humans evolved about 200,000 years ago from more primitive hominids. The only reason God became an ideas was when humans started organizing in permanent settlements and needed to form culture and rules for social organization. "God" became a proxy for human authority. Again, these explanations are available for free on the internet.

A rational mind should be able to see that eyesight, and hearing, and taste, and all the different body systems we have, etc. don't just develop because it would come in handy. A rational mind should be able to see that life doesn't come from an explosion. How can all the different seasons, and planets, and gravity, and rainfall, and temperatures being just what we need, and plants that grow food that we can eat and even tastes good, just happen to be here? And some plants even produce material we can use for clothing.

It wasn't false. He said there is no human being alive that did not have humans for parents. That would be putting man in a position of always existing. Something that can't be proven. Just like you say we can't prove there is a God. Now you are changing it to hominids.

Maybe you shouldn't rely so heavily on the internet for your whole source of truth.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, it's not a fact. It's a religious belief that you hold. Facts are demonstrable.



What would need changing and why?



He wasn't and I explained to you how he wasn't.
Although I will grant you that the way he expressed it might have been confusing for someone who isn't familiar with evolutionary biology.
In any case, I clarified it for you and even gave you an analoguous example of the evolution of language, which follows pretty much the same pattern in terms of gradual change over time.

I guess the clarification wasn't clear? Can you point out what confuses you?
I'm more then willing to help out and clarify further.




He didn't say that and I explained to you how he wasn't saying that.
AKA: spanish didn't always exist,yet every spanish speaking person was raised by spanish speaking parents. As in: no latin speaking mother ever raised a spanish speaking child. Yet the distant ancestors of spanish speaking people, spoke latin - not spanish.

Do you understand this language example?

In the exact same way, every human child had human parents. As in: no non-human primate has ever given birth to a human baby. Yet the distant ancestors of humans weren't humans.


It's the nature of gradualism.



You are just repeating your claim. I asked you to explain it.



Who says it did?


It evolved through natural selection because for those populations it gave an advantage for survival and eventual reproduction.


If you have any questions just shoot. I, and many others here, will be more then happy to explain wherever possible.

You say facts are demonstrable. Demonstrate to me how and why eyesight and hearing exist.

 

[F1fan]

A rational mind should be able to see that eyesight, and hearing, and taste, and all the different body systems we have, etc. don't just develop because it would come in handy.

The senses that vary among all animals, insects and plants is due to how they evolved in their environments. Genes mutate as organisms reproduce and some are beneficial. This is all covered in Middle School science class. I take it you didn’t pay attention.

A rational mind should be able to see that life doesn't come from an explosion.

Given this absurd mischaracterization of the Big Bang and how organic chemical can emerge naturally and how amino acids form chains that allow life, you’re right. No rational mind has your view.

How can all the different seasons, and planets, and gravity, and rainfall, and temperatures being just what we need, and plants that grow food that we can eat and even tastes good, just happen to be here? And some plants even produce material we can use for clothing.

Because life adapts to the environment. Notice no wolves and dogs evolved and live at the north pole, only a limited number of highly adapted animals can survive there. They weren’t made to survive there, they evolved. This is basic science.

It wasn't false. He said there is no human being alive that did not have humans for parents. That would be putting man in a position of always existing. Something that can't be proven. Just like you say we can't prove there is a God. Now you are changing it to hominids.

The difference is that explanations in science follow facts and observations. Your religious dogma not only lacks evidence but is also contrary to what we understand of reality.

Maybe you shouldn't rely so heavily on the internet for your whole source of truth.

I didn’t say I did. But there is a massive amount of educational material available for free if you decide to become informed instead of a believer.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God is real.

You don't know that and I don't believe it. You have simply decided to believe in a god, and if by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, science has already ruled out creation lasting a week and including a first pair of humans. If a god or gods exist, it isn't/they aren't that one. And with the ruling out of THAT god, we've ruled out that things it allegedly believed (man is a sinner in need of salvation) and created (heaven, hell, Satan) don't exist, either. Those unable to see that and who instead still worship that deity are prisoners to false claims about reality.

the creation itself does show his existence, even if you don't see it.

You're wrong again, whatever you think you see.

How can you always have had human beings alive who had parents, but not have had a creation of the man and woman to begin with? You are essentially saying man has always been here.

It's a paradox called the sorites paradox that occurs with vague predicates like human, which isn't defined precisely, or red, or daylight. There is no wavelength of red that were it slightly shorter or longer wouldn't still be red. There is no precise moment when day breaks such that one can say a second earlier is night. Or consider predicates like beard and bald. There is no precise moment when a non-beard becomes a beard, and there is no single hair falling out that makes a man go from having hair to being bald. None of these words is clearly demarcated with a sharp line that one can use to decide the instant when transitioning processes begin and end.

It's not intended to be a threat.

Sure it is. You believe in a god that will punish those that didn't believe in it at the time of death. Without the threat of hell, why would anybody be a part of that religion? Heaven isn't appealing. Have you ever asked yourself what all of those fallen angels saw that made them rebel? They were obviously looking for something different and better.

Maybe you shouldn't rely so heavily on the internet for your whole source of truth.

Empiricists rely on their senses and reasoning ability for knowledge and to discern truth. There is no other way to learn about how the world is and how it works, and that includes one's body and mind.

You say facts are demonstrable. Demonstrate to me how and why eyesight and hearing exist.

You already know the answer: natural selection applied to undirected genetic variation over geological time.

A rational mind should be able to see that eyesight, and hearing, and taste, and all the different body systems we have, etc. don't just develop because it would come in handy.

Actually, that's exactly why they exist. They promote survival.

A rational mind should be able to see that life doesn't come from an explosion.

Do you see the universe exploding around you?

How can all the different seasons, and planets, and gravity, and rainfall, and temperatures being just what we need

We evolved to conform to earth's conditions. Why do we consider blue skies beautiful but not orange ones like on Mars? Because we evolved where the sky looks blue. If earth's sky looked orange, then that would be the color that made us happy.

Have you heard about the rain puddle that wondered why the hole it formed in was the exact same shape as its lower surface? What were the odds of that happening?

 

[joelr]

I have peer reviewed and fact checked all papers that claim evolution and billions of years are true and they have been dismissed.

So "peer review" means PhDs in the related field and one fundamentalist apologist. Did not know that.

 

[joelr]

And you get a 100 score for circular reasoning.
One small fact can refute all of evolution and billions of years.
And there are very many facts which do so.
But you obviously are not being scientific in this area of knowledge.

Which fact was that? Did that fact happen to be "peer reviewed" only by you?

You do know "peer" isn't open to interpretation?