Mathematical Proof of God?

[KWED]

Well first of all, I do not attend church...and I am against any church for profit...and all money given to the church should be for the upkeep of the facility, and nothing else.
So tax breaks shouldn't even be an issue.
Second, even with that being said, there is a big difference between a tax break, and me paying taxes to a public school for a religion (evolution is the atheistic religion) that I don't agree with to be taught.
That would be like you paying for Christianity to be taught in schools...would like that? Probably not.
Well then.

All irrelevant.
You said "the pretending of the Church is not at tax payers expense".
The taxpayer loses vast sums due to the church not paying any tax on its vast wealth.
You were wrong.

My prize/reward is in Heaven.

But why wouldn't you want to disprove evolution? It would be a massive boost for god and religionists. And if you don't want the money, you could donate it to charity. I hear that the church is always looking for more money.
It's almost as if you are unable to disprove it.

 

[KWED]

If you believe that a reptile evolve into a bird, then contradicts a dog producing a dog.

Oh, I forgot, a bird is a reptile, right?

That is all part of the con, the scheme, the deception.

I'm guessing you're from one of the Southern states?

 

[KWED]

If atheists are so sure that God doesn't exist, why do they bother creating arguments against God's existence?

"If teachers are so sure they are right, why do they bother developing means of teaching their students?"

 

[syo]

A much easier and far more widespread proof is E=MC2. Einsteins good old mass/energy equivalence proof.

It shows that no omni potent god can exist at the same time as any other mass.

Of course! Gods are pantheistic, panentheistic deists.

 

[ChristineM]

Of course! Gods are pantheistic, panentheistic deists.

Are they?

 

[syo]

Are they?

Yup. The river is the river. The river God is ''absent''. The river God lets the river be. No intervention.

 

[shunyadragon]

How specifically?

Read the reference. No other apologetic was cited in the articles to support the proof of the existence of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Heh... maybe if you tell @shunyadragon, he'll listen this time.

Again, again and again . . . simple Reader's Digest condensed descriptions do not reflect the volumes written by Theistic apologists on KCA used as stand-alone proof of the existence of God without referring to other apologetic arguments for the existence of God as in the writings by Craig as cited.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, not even them.

People like William Lane Craig use the KCA as an element of their arguments for God.

He did use KCA as a stand-alone argument as cited. Yes, he also wrote extensively on all the apologetic arguments also in combination

 

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense.

The Planck Epoch occurred after the universe began to exist...which says nothing about why/how it began to exist in the first place.

According to, you know, actual science...it (the universe) began to exist.

According to actual science?!?!?! ALL cosmologists and Physicists believe that our universe and all possible universes formed from preexisting matter and energy in the Quantum state, or our universe and all possible universes are cyclic in nature without a beginning nor end.

You need to cite references to support the bold above.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you believe that a reptile evolve into a bird, then contradicts a dog producing a dog.

Oh, I forgot, a bird is a reptile, right?

That is all part of the con, the scheme, the deception.

Your intentional ignorance of the sciences of evolution based on a religious agenda is glaringly apparent. 95%+ of all scientists in the fields related to evolution support the evolution of all life including humans

Dogs evolved from wolves and yes possibly will continue to evolve. Yes, there is objectively verifiable evidence for the fossils and genetic evidence that there exist many intermediates between Avian reptiles and birds,

 

[ChristineM]

Yup. The river is the river. The river God is ''absent''. The river God lets the river be. No intervention.

That is your belief.

 

[ChristineM]

ALL cosmologists and Physicists believe that our universe and all possible universes formed from preexisting matter and energy in the Quantum state, or our universe and all possible universes are cyclic in nature without a beginning nor end.

I would say that if you replaced the leading ALL with any of the following... most, many or some, you would be far more accurate.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that if you replaced the leading ALL with any of the following... most, many or some, you would be far more accurate.

disagree, but splitting frog hairs: is virtually the majority with few exceptions. I have not found any that do not accept that our universe originated or is cyclic in a Quantum existence based on Quantum Mechanics. Beyond this, there are many options, disagreements, and unknowns.

 

[Aupmanyav]

According to actual science?!?!?! ALL cosmologists and Physicists believe that our universe and all possible universes formed from preexisting matter and energy in the Quantum state, or our universe and all possible universes are cyclic in nature without a beginning nor end.

The standard Cosmological model does not say that in all scenarios. That is for Big Crunch or Big Bounce. Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia
Or in theist Hinduism, once in 317 trillion years.

 

[ChristineM]

disagree, but splitting frog hairs: is virtually the majority with few exceptions. I have not found any that do not accept that our universe originated or is cyclic in a Quantum existence based on Quantum Mechanics. Beyond this, there are many options, disagreements, and unknowns.

There are the cosmologist who believe a universe from nothing. I have shown you one paper and you poopood it. It doesn't need your agreement.

There are those who believe our universe spawned from other universes in the classical state. Or was formed from the collision of universes.

I would estimate more than a few exceptions.

What is probably the hypothesis wth most evidence to back it up, and accepted as a possibility by many cosmologists is that of Laura Mersini-Houghton and colliding universes.

You cannot dictate ALL when there are exceptions

 

[Kharisym]

There are the cosmologist who believe a universe from nothing. I have shown you one paper and you poopood it. It doesn't need your agreement.

There are those who believe our universe spawned from other universes in the classical state. Or was formed from the collision of universes.

I would estimate more than a few exceptions.

What is probably the hypothesis wth most evidence to back it up, and accepted as a possibility by many cosmologists is that of Laura Mersini-Houghton and colliding universes.

You cannot dictate ALL when there are exceptions

There are also *still* papers being published about a white hole cosmology.

 

[ChristineM]

There are also *still* papers being published about a white hole cosmology.

White holes are a mathematical idea that ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Kharisym]

White holes are a mathematical idea that ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Right?! I thought it had been decades since the last paper was published about that concept.

Here's the zombie paper: Trouble with geodesics in black-to-white hole bouncing scenarios

 

[ChristineM]

Right?! I thought it had been decades since the last paper was published about that concept.

Here's the zombie paper: Trouble with geodesics in black-to-white hole bouncing scenarios

Interesting, i thought people hade given up on white holes decades ago.

Edit, here ya go.

Trouble with geodesics in black-to-white hole bouncing scenarios