I challenge the world , bring it on!

[JoshuaTree]

Thank you for your nice post. Do you agree God requires 100% honesty?

My God requires complete objective honesty , my God does not accept belief when my God is 100% objective honesty.

The world can unite because I have brought the real God to you all.

We all conform to God's will, we have no choice. Whether we realize we all conform to God's will is a question of Faith not intellect.

 

[james blunt]

If God wants to unite the whole world, he can without you being involved.

Consider God thinks the monkeys in the forest can think better than most people. I am needed to speak Gods wise words.

 

[james blunt]

So you do not even understand the concept of evidence.

I can help you with that problem of yours.

By the way, name calling is one thing that can get you banned here. When I point out that you are ignorant of the sciences I can support my claim. You, since you have no knowledge of logic or evidence, cannot support your false claims. That makes them name calling and not allowed.

Now do you want to learn what is and what is not evidence so that you do not repeat your latest rather embarrassing error?

First , stating an opinion and stating you are a being a wally is not name calling and not a noun.

It is not name calling.

Secondly, evidently space cannot be created or destroyed.

Please try to destroy God , God will laugh at you.

 

[james blunt]

We all conform to God's will, we have no choice. Whether we realize we all conform to God's will is a question of Faith not intellect.

Gods will is willing me to unite humanity, who am I to argue.

 

[FearGod]

Consider God thinks the monkeys in the forest can think better than most people. I am needed to speak Gods wise words.

People can choose what they want, God can guide all of humans if he wanted to.

 

[james blunt]

People can choose what they want, God can guide all of humans if he wanted to.

People have to be honest in Gods eyes, in simple terms , you either accept my version of God to be objectively real and fact, or you are being dishonest in God's eyes.

 

[FearGod]

Gods will is willing me to unite humanity, who am I to argue.

We have the UN.

 

[FearGod]

People have to be honest in Gods eyes, in simple terms , you either accept my version of God to be objectively real and fact, or you are being dishonest in God's eyes.

There's no versions for God.

 

[james blunt]

We have the UN.

Ahahah , does giving them a name of the UN make them any smarter?

The only way to unite the world is to unite science and religion to having a unified God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First , stating an opinion and stating you are a being a wally is not name calling and not a noun.

It is not name calling.
Secondly, evidently space cannot be created or destroyed.

Please try to destroy God , God will laugh at you.

Wrong again, as you used it it is name calling. Now by your standards I could rightfully say "You are being an idiot", but I will not do that here.

The fact is that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence when you make such an ignorant claim as "there is no evidence for that space is created".

When you make such a claim, as you just did here again, you put the burden of proof upon you. When I demand that you support that claim and cannot then you only tell the world of your ignorance of science and logic.


Let's go over the concept of scientific evidence since it is very easy to understand. Scientific evidence are simply observations, usually of an empirical nature, that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. The observed red shift of distant galaxies supports the Big Bang Theory. Therefore by definition it is evidence for the theory. Your ignorance of science, logic, and evidence will not change that fact.

 

[james blunt]

There's no versions for God.

There was no version, there is now, spread the word , my version of God, is as real as I and you.

 

[james blunt]

Wrong again, as you used it it is name calling. Now by your standards I could rightfully say "You are being an idiot", but I will not do that here.

The fact is that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence when you make such an ignorant claim as "there is no evidence for that space is created".

When you make such a claim, as you just did here again, you put the burden of proof upon you. When I demand that you support that claim and cannot then you only tell the world of your ignorance of science and logic.


Let's go over the concept of scientific evidence since it is very easy to understand. Scientific evidence are simply observations, usually of an empirical nature, that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. The observed red shift of distant galaxies supports the Big Bang Theory. Therefore by definition it is evidence for the theory. Your ignorance of science, logic, and evidence will not change that fact.

You can call me an idiot that is fine and acceptable. It would be an opinion.

You can observe my version of God, you can measure God, it is scientific.

 

[james blunt]

The observed red shift of distant galaxies supports the Big Bang Theory. Therefore by definition it is evidence for the theory. Your ignorance of science, logic, and evidence will not change that fact.

No, the big bang model is useless and subjective dishonesty. I can prove it wrong so try again?

 

[FearGod]

Ahahah , does giving them a name of the UN make them any smarter?

The only way to unite the world is to unite science and religion to having a unified God.

The problem of this world isn't religion, you'll see bad humans all times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can call me an idiot that is fine and acceptable. It would be an opinion.

You can observe my version of God, you can measure God, it is scientific.

No, I didn't. I said by using your reasoning I could. I was careful to state that. If I did that it would be an opinion and it would be name calling. As you did with me. I would not be able to justify it here.

And no, your version of God is nonsensical. There are no "measurements" of it. You make a worthless definition of God that can be measured and then make the equivocation fallacy of assuming that is the God of the universe.

 

[james blunt]

The problem of this world isn't religion, you'll see bad humans all times.

The majority is not the minority, good and bad are thoughts, good and bad thoughts transgress from thinking, science and religion is a way of thinking. Unification is thoughts united as one to become one.
The answer to the question I am not sure we should give, although God wants us to answer as one. When we answer it may be the end or it may be a new question. I need to tell God there will be new questions, we are wise so it would be foolish to end it. We have to have faith in our ability to be smart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the big bang model is useless and subjective dishonesty. I can prove it wrong so try again?

You can prove it wrong? If you could really do so you would earn a Nobel Prize. Where is your proof? Remember, you do not understand the concepts of evidence and logic so you will almost certainly fail.

 

[james blunt]

No, I didn't. I said by using your reasoning I could. I was careful to state that. If I did that it would be an opinion and it would be name calling. As you did with me. I would not be able to justify it here.

And no, your version of God is nonsensical. There are no "measurements" of it. You make a worthless definition of God that can be measured and then make the equivocation fallacy of assuming that is the God of the universe.

How strange you think you could have an opinion without justifying it. I could justify you are being a wally if you think space can be destroyed.
A wally is not insulting unless you make it offensive , it is not like I am calling you fat . which would be insulting because I cannot see you so would be lying.

 

[FearGod]

You can prove it wrong? If you could really do so you would earn a Nobel Prize. Where is your proof? Remember, you do not understand the concepts of evidence and logic so you will almost certainly fail.

He talks with God.

 

[james blunt]

You can prove it wrong? If you could really do so you would earn a Nobel Prize. Where is your proof? Remember, you do not understand the concepts of evidence and logic so you will almost certainly fail.

The big bang states in the beginning nothing existed, no time, no space, 0 dimensions.

In an unknown volume of empty space, there is 0 dimensions totally contracting the big bang thought.

Secondly space cannot be created or destroyed, obvious and axiom regardless of their subjective false claim. There is no evidence that supports their claim that space is created. It is easy to falsify the big bang.