• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reason for religious war

Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
I am sure, that one does not need Methodological Naturalism. Current Science is not interested in God. Having not interested in God, but having the desire to explain the physical world, one rejects God.
Click to expand...
One does not reject god. One ignores God.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Valjean said:
One does not reject god. One ignores God.
Click to expand...

How one can ignore God if there would be no God? If there is God, then God is surely proven.

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Then publish it here! There are competent, intelligent people who can evaluate what you write. If you think you've got something, share it!
Click to expand...

Acknowledgment of Non-linearity or How to Solve Several Conjectures, Acknowledgment of Non-linearity or How to Solve Several Conjectures, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2011.0199
Exceptions from Robin's Inequality, Exceptions from Robin's Inequality, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2011.0198
Proof of the ABC Conjecture, Proof of the ABC Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2012.0086
Toward Advances in Medicine and Interstellar Travel Toward Advances in Medicine and Interstellar Travel, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2101.0111
Simulation Hypothesis and Dark Matter Simulation Hypothesis and Dark Matter, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2103.0133

shunyadragon said:
Science does not tell us anything about God
Click to expand...

I repeat:

1. Science does not deal with God, this is the definition of the word Science: Scientists follow closely the methods of Science, the main and most old of which is Methodological Naturalism.
2. If God exists, then He influences nature, at least at the moment of its creation.
3. Science deals with absolutely all nature: Science is interested in all natural things in our Universe.

Items 1,2,3 give the conclusion that "there is no God" according to Science. This means that Science is not right (Science has sinned) before God. Because God knows that God exists.

Let me repeat for clarity:
1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, influences the physical world (e.g. walks on water),
3. Science is interested in the physical world.
Conclusion: Science tells, that God does not exist.

I repeat:

1. Evolution is Science.
2. Science is not interested in God.
3. Thus, theistic evolution is not science.
4. God, if exists, acts on the physical world (at least at the moment of creating the world),
5. Thus, God does not exist, according to Science.
6. But I am sure, God exists.

Actually, it has been, such as studies on whether praying for someone actually works.
Hereby Science is not interested in saying "God did it." Science looks for a more detailed explanation.

So, other than the conclusion "there was no God" is not scientific.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
questfortruth said:
Perhaps you have seen Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", there is shown the war between Creationism and Evolution.


Let me find the reason for this war.

1. Science does not deal with God, this is the definition of the word Science: Scientists follow closely the methods of Science, the main and most old of which is Methodological Naturalism.

2. If God exists, then He influences nature, at least at the moment of its creation.

3. Science deals with absolutely all nature: Science is interested in all natural things in our Universe.

Items 1,2,3 give the conclusion that "there is no God" according to Science. This means that Science is not right (Science has sinned) before God. Because God knows that God exists.

Let me repeat for clarity:
1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, influences the physical world (e.g. walks on water),
3. Science is interested in the physical world.
Conclusion: Science tells, that God does not exist.

I repeat:
1. Evolution is Science.
2. Science is not interested in God.
3. Thus, theistic evolution is not science.
4. God, if exists, acts on the physical world (at least at the moment of creating the world),
5. Thus, God does not exist, according to Science.
6. But I am sure, God exists.

Here is the proof of the spiritual world, and the essence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy; and by clicking on the author's name, we find other works: proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis and the ABC and Goldbach conjectures: Simulation Hypothesis and Dark Matter, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2103.0133
"For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict." Luke 21:15.

But all the top journals refused to publish any of the manuscripts without explaining journal motives and reasons. Why? Because my name is very well known on Google. I have a lot of religious articles online. Conclusion: I suffered for my faith in Jesus Christ.

What is more important than the proof of the Riemann hypothesis? Faith of the author. Only religiously passive authors are accepted for publication. Only authors who do not offend the devil or his world order are accepted: "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 17:14.

In centuries past, gender (and skin color) has determined whether the TRUE proof of the Riemann Hypothesis will be published. Now it is the religion: an atheist author or not.
The satan is the evil spirit, thus, satan is the hatred itself. The pure hatred, the absolute evil, without any sign of love: "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." John 15:25.


Science requires objective evidence, and that simply is not to be found on this?!
"neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead" Luke 16:31,"When they saw Him, they worshiped Him, but some doubted." Matthew 28:17.
Click to expand...
War doesn't need religion to happen. All it needs is disagreements.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Altfish said:
Wrong, this film is one of the most dishonest films ever produced; wall to wall lies.

There is no 'war', no guns fired, nor bodies returned in bags.
Stein doesn't understand the separation of church and state and that religion may not be taught in classroom.

Creationism is a 4000-year old idea that has been shown to be incorrect.
Click to expand...

1. What evidence do you have "creationism is 4,000 years old?
2. How has that been proven incorrect?
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Heyo said:
I think he kind'a did. He linked to his papers published on viXra.org in hope it may boost his download counts. I fell for it once. It didn't even pass the simplest formal criteria for scientific publications. Any editor of a journal would toss it in the bin without even reading the abstract (if there is one). No need to google the name.
Click to expand...

What theorems or formulas did this person use in this?
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
What theorems or formulas did this person use in this?
Click to expand...
I don't remember and I don't have the pdf any more. And I will not boost his download count once more.
But you can look for yourself, he posted some links in post #83.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Heyo said:
I don't remember and I don't have the pdf any more. And I will not boost his download count once more.
But you can look for yourself, he posted some links in post #83.
Click to expand...

Oh good God. I couldn't find the Riemann hypothesis in that list of pdf's but just the first one is enough to know this is worse than a child.

If someone is thinking his proof of a hypothesis is a few sentences and conjectures then something is seriously wrong.

Anyway, thanks for pointing them out for me. At least it was entertaining to read some satire.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Altfish said:
a) None it was a random number picked up from the incorrect age of Adam and Eve
b) Evolution
Click to expand...

So your first point doesnt have any evidence but just random. Nice.

So the second point is that evolution proved all of that wrong. How?
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Heyo said:
I don't remember and I don't have the pdf any more. And I will not boost his download count once more.
But you can look for yourself, he posted some links in post #83.
Click to expand...
firedragon said:
I couldn't find the Riemann hypothesis in that list of pdf's but just the first one is enough to know this is worse than a child.
Click to expand...

I have conducted huge research and work. So, I would like to get respect for my efforts. I am a good person because I was trying to solve the problems of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top