So you want to use the science you like to contradict the science you don't like? It all comes from the same loom.
We don't know. It is a scientific law based on observation. When somebody violates the law, it will have to be revised or discarded.
No test proves it. Nor is proof required to believe that it might be or is probably correct - only that all observations to date have been consistent with it, that it is falsifiable, and that it has never been falsified. That is the most confirmation any scientific statement can achieve. It is the most that a correct idea can achieve.
Actually, I do know that the logically impossible is impossible.
I said that the Bible does that. If you are referring to the god of the Christian Bible, then you believe in a god that is said to have mutually exclusive characteristics. No such thing. Name something that both exists and doesn't exist in the same sense of the word at the same time. Name something that is perfect but makes errors and regrets them. Name a married bachelor. Show me a square circle.
If you know the future with certainty, you cannot change it. Omniscience precludes omnipotence.
If you change it, you were wrong about the future. In this case omnipotence precludes omniscience.
They are mutually incompatible, and assigning them to the same entity is evidence that that entity is a fictitious character crafted carelessly.
Sure He does. Look at all of the trouble He went to in order to accumulate a group of worshipers. According to Christian doctrine, He created a universe and man for just that purpose. The universe is a stage for auditioning for the part of worshiper.
And those that don't make the cut are discarded into the lake of fire. That's pretty clear description of a need to be worshiped. You can see the same qualities in the current American president, who is a black whole of endless need. He needs to exaggerate the size of the crowds worshiping him. And he had his cabinet assemble [edit: to go around the table and sing his praises, which he had filmed and released to the news].
Many Christians tell me that life is meaningless without such a belief. Their words imply that since I lack it - that since all I expect to do is live the life that unfolds between birth and death - my life is without any purpose.
Obviously, even if I believed in this god, I would choose a better afterlife for myself than that - one in which I am considered to have intrinsic value distinct from how I can stroke the ego of another. Seeing me as a means to an egocentric end rather than as a person of intrinsic value is not my definition of a meaningful existence.
I don't know about your God, but the Christian god constantly changes its mind, as when it threw out the disobedient angels or drowned the earth. First, the Jews were the chosen, now it includes the gentiles. The old law was updated with a new covenant.
The typical human thinks beyond himself. Inability to do that is what I was criticizing the American president for. It's a pathological state, not a typical one.
So I want to use the science I like to contradict the science I don't like? Yes, that's how it's done. What do you think the scientists use, the bible to contradict scientific theory?
It all comes from the same loom? No, it doesn't. The guys we have today, other than the ones working on string theory, are giving science a bad name. The only evidence for the big bang is the expansion of space but even that doesn't fit because the expansion is increasing speed and the big bang would have had to violate the law of gravity.
Humans don't know whether energy can be created or not? Correct, so then you don't come up with a theory that claims that energy cannot be created and if you do the rest of science is supposed to reject it because of a lack of evidence. And since they believe in the big bang, an event where massive amounts of energy were created, they should have dismissed it outright but they didn't because they think they can make laws and violate them whenever they want. It's a very human thing to do.
Also, the Conservation of Energy law is not based on observation. It's based upon the idea that everything was created in a big bang and since there was only one big bang there cannot be anymore energy being created. It's wrong and there is no evidence to support it yet science accepts it.
No test proves that energy can be created? Oh, you guys know everything now? If energy cannot be created then how did the big bang happen then?
Proof is not needed to believe that something might be or is probably correct? Fine, then never ask for proof from a believer again.
Observations to date have been consistent with the COE? Bull, name one. Are you saying that astronomers have never seen a nebula form from nothing? This area of the universe is full. They don't create new nebula's in an area that is already full. No evidence is not proof especially when you've never been anywhere except the earth.
You know that God is logically impossible? Oh, because you don't understand the universe therefor God must not exist. As if you are so important that God needed your permission. He doesn't.
You said the bible uses terms that are mutually exclusive? The bible does not represent God. It represents primitive human attempts to explain something that was beyond their ability to comprehend. They thought God caused all the natural events when He caused none of them to happen.
Show you a square circle? Where does the bible say that God is a square circle?
If God knows the future with certainty He cannot change it? God will not alter the original timeline. Can He do it? I don't know. Can any other being alter it? No. We can view it but not change anything.
Omniscience precludes omnipotence? No, it doesn't. You atheists try to use logic to disprove God. Nothing can disprove God. It's impossible.
Is God of the bible to some degree fictitious? Yes. God never interferes. Other than create the universe He did not do any of the things the bible claims He did.
God needs to be worshipped? You can have your opinion but you don't know enough to understand. Humans are sometimes taught about universal concepts that they can't do because they are not evolved enough. Praying by a human is like trying to drain the ocean with an eye dropper. Beings in heaven are able to pray effectively which is simply returning love energy to God.
According to the bible this and that? It's 1,600 to 3,000 years old, what do you expect?
Those who don't make the cut are discarded into the lake of fire? John the Baptist had a vision while he was in jail, just before he got his head chopped off. He saw universal meeting halls with beings from all over the universe. He saw gatherings of angels. He saw the trial of Lucifer. John was a primitive human and misunderstood much of what he saw. Humans don't make universal policy.
You would choose a better afterlife? You think you will get your choice, do you? Your ego is absolutely incredible.
The Christian God changes his mind? Study tribal culture, they think that natural events are signs from God.
The Jews were chosen? Talk about something mutually exclusive. The Jews wrote that they were the chosen people. They invented that idea and wrote it into their books. God never chose one people.
The typical human thinks beyond himself? Only to see what other things and other people can do for them.
