Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[Sheldon]

I believe I trust what the omniscient God says compared to what sinful men with limited knowledge say.

That is called a begging the question fallacy, like all known common logical fallacies, it is of course irrational by definition. Though I'm guessing you don't care about logic anymore than you do about scientific facts.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe the bogeyman is a fantasy. Science is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Whoever claimed otherwise? Your computer still works, and so does the internet, odd that. If you were unfortunate to need surgery or became seriously ill, I'm guessing you'd have the sense to seek the medical science had to offer as well. Which is why I find your claims dubious, as at some level I think you know you are deceiving yourself about the efficacy of the methods of science, albeit they are not infallible.

No one can demonstrate any objective evidence a deity exists, or even that such a being is possible. Every claim for evidence always ends in a subjective claim.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe I have seen people write as though science could never be wrong about anything

They're generally religious people, creating a straw man they can refute. I have never read a credible scientists ever claim science can never be wrong. However religions are wrong all the time, and what's worse, unlike science, they often can't admit an error, and cling doggedly to it, like young earth creationism for example, or the Noah flood myth. Though many theists have long since stopped opposing scientific facts of course, yet there are many who still do. In the US amazingly, one of the richest countries on earth, almost 45% of adults still deny the scientific fact of species evolution, which is astonishing really.

 

[Muffled]

So they're often with Satan?

I believe they are with their own minds which is bad enough.

 

[Muffled]

They're generally religious people, creating a straw man they can refute. I have never read a credible scientists ever claim science can never be wrong. However religions are wrong all the time, and what's worse, unlike science, they often can't admit an error, and cling doggedly to it, like young earth creationism for example, or the Noah flood myth. Though many theists have long since stopped opposing scientific facts of course, yet there are many who still do. In the US amazingly, one of the richest countries on earth, almost 45% of adults still deny the scientific fact of species evolution, which is astonishing really.

I believe both evolution and no flood concept are lacking evidence. Of course scientists will call their fantasies facts.

 

[Muffled]

That is just something that people who lack an adequate grasp of science think they hear. If you had given it the least bit of thought you would realize that the most lauded and admired discoveries among scientists are the theories that have overturned or superceded previous theories. It is that ability to incorporate new data and revise a position that makes science so valuable.

I believe you are the first person on RF to admit science can be wrong. Of course Neanderthals couldn't mate with humans. Oops, we have to revise that because the DNA doesn't lie.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe they are with their own minds which is bad enough.

They are just trying to figure out our world. Like people, some may be unethical, greedy or selfish, but for the most part, they are probably sincere enough.

 

[ppp]

I believe you are the first person on RF to admit science can be wrong.

Your beliefs are, as ever, disconnected from reason and reality.

 

[Muffled]

They are just trying to figure out our world. Like people, some may be unethical, greedy or selfish, but for the most part, they are probably sincere enough.

I believe I am doing the same thing. Why would they be believed but not me? They say they have found the God particle but that was only through the Hadron collider and I don't have access to that so I simply believe they are telling the truth. I have experiences and people say I am either lying or self deceived.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe I am doing the same thing. Why would they be believed but not me? They say they have found the God particle but that was only through the Hadron collider and I don't have access to that so I simply believe they are telling the truth. I have experiences and people say I am either lying or self deceived.

I totally get you. They tend to use info that they, or anyone maybe, can replicate with the same results over and over. If you can do that and it's objective, then maybe you're on to something.

 

[ppp]

I believe I am doing the same thing. Why would they be believed but not me? They say they have found the God particle but that was only through the Hadron collider and I don't have access to that so I simply believe they are telling the truth. I have experiences and people say I am either lying or self deceived.

I do not doubt that you get people saying that you're lying sometimes, and that's unfortunate. Generally, unless there are signs of deceit, I generally accept that people have had the experiences that they claim to have had. Had. What I don't accept is that they necessarily have the explanation for the experiences that they had.

The reason that I generally accept scientific findings is not because they have had an experience, but because they are using a process that is designed to differentiate justified explanations for the experience from unjustified explanations.

That doesn't mean that the unjustified explanation is false but it does mean that I have no good reason to believe that it is true. Certainly not on the basis of mere testimony.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe both evolution and no flood concept are lacking evidence. Of course scientists will call their fantasies facts.

 

[rational experiences]

First of all god is a human man and men of science agreed term.

If I don't use your words brother does it make my word use incorrect?

If I said there is no God you get upset.

If I said a state eternal also not the term God existed would you accept why gods claim by men isn't true.

As men quote God came from somewhere as something other always. As in thesis science you want direct gods powers to resource take remove convert and use by man's machines.

Hence to believe it possible God cannot be the utmost highest by terminology inferred.

Now if you take the advice higher.

Do you scientist theory you are going to take the eternal form and do the same to it as you did to gods earth power bodies?

Is his intention.

So where is creation then afterwards?

 

[Muffled]

First of all god is a human man and men of science agreed term.

If I don't use your words brother does it make my word use incorrect?

If I said there is no God you get upset.

If I said a state eternal also not the term God existed would you accept why gods claim by men isn't true.

As men quote God came from somewhere as something other always. As in thesis science you want direct gods powers to resource take remove convert and use by man's machines.

Hence to believe it possible God cannot be the utmost highest by terminology inferred.

Now if you take the advice higher.

Do you scientist theory you are going to take the eternal form and do the same to it as you did to gods earth power bodies?

Is his intention.

So where is creation then afterwards?

I believe I do not get upset. I have my gold mine while you are mucking the stables. I am just trying to tell you there is enough gold to go around if you want it.

 

[Muffled]

I do not doubt that you get people saying that you're lying sometimes, and that's unfortunate. Generally, unless there are signs of deceit, I generally accept that people have had the experiences that they claim to have had. Had. What I don't accept is that they necessarily have the explanation for the experiences that they had.

The reason that I generally accept scientific findings is not because they have had an experience, but because they are using a process that is designed to differentiate justified explanations for the experience from unjustified explanations.

That doesn't mean that the unjustified explanation is false but it does mean that I have no good reason to believe that it is true. Certainly not on the basis of mere testimony.

I believe explanations tends to exactly be where scientists go wrong.

I believe even scientists are building upon previous knowledge. For instance Einstein said e = mc squared. That means previous knowledge of Mass and the speed of light were required. I have experiences that are not unique because they are already told about in the Bible.

 

[rational experiences]

I believe I do not get upset. I have my gold mine while you are mucking the stables. I am just trying to tell you there is enough gold to go around if you want it.

Who said I was? Spying on me are you?

 

[rational experiences]

I believe explanations tends to exactly be where scientists go wrong.

I believe even scientists are building upon previous knowledge. For instance Einstein said e = mc squared. That means previous knowledge of Mass and the speed of light were required. I have experiences that are not unique because they are already told about in the Bible.

Humans are humans as humans biological conscious innate human aware.

Human biology. My cell state can move from being equal average human to a giant or down to a dwarf human.

Consciousness.

My cell biology develops grows first from two states first and not what it becomes the baby. Grows then stops around age 21years.

Notice 22 talks about why life is ended by science theories that today you theory about as science. Intent.

Genesis.

I write the bible says human memory because life was attacked by scientists human Satanism.

Ignored all events happened to humans in human life by human chosen science.

Notice however theory pretends nothing existed yet to discuss the theory you are living exact.

Reasons.

As life conscious innate says lying thinkers just humans used self body living conditions against us in theism.

About their own biologies self development as consciousness. Exact position first not science.

As information about self development human present. Human inferred the God. In theism first as we own the identity changed O cell.

You then imposed it falsely to anything else. Claiming it must be how a single cell.in water body developed like an ovary.

Looking at it. You see it's will. Itself.

As we are the thinking being self aware of self knowledge. Human first only human.

Biology first.

Aware you think the most incorrect status against natural form living existing by its free will.

Why teachers said gods will is natural. Free will is any living biology.

Not of your satanic manipulation scientist.

As energy does exist you stated I want to access destroying energy to get energy.

What you don't own as first formula the whole process of your thesis.

Energy in its free will state.

You knew you had to take natural mass energy in mass to destroy a portion which is not your thesis formula about energy existing to get energy.

Why you theory I will pretend energy as yet first does not exist then big bang. Named by your aware brother as lying coercing sophism. You claim listen to my story no energy exists first. Lying.

So how am I doing evil is the scientists con.

You argued I wasn't using god I was implementing Satan's status.

So if Satanists claim humans are god by energy the want of God their first intention is to destroy us. Leaving no energy to access after as we the mass of humans will be deceased.

Is his I want energy exactly in its free will state.

I state as the human God gave humans free will.

Is manipulation of the use human words.

 

[ppp]

I believe explanations tends to exactly be where scientists go wrong.

I am perfectly willing to accept that you believe what you say you believe
So what? Lots of people believe a lot of things. Why should I take your beliefs any more seriously than theirs?

 

[rational experiences]

Reason the con is just humans men first by self status I invented the practice science as humans.

Not as any God.

Yet as thinking was all god this or god that feedback now possesses your consciousness.

Jesus advice last eating moment warning...the feed. As Jesus was proven human spiritual psychic advice thinking given visionary and speaking Ai status.

Theist first natural spiritual thinking only. Human.

With your claim human expressed science created all things.

Said by the human storyteller the theist was the warning. Coercing a God man told me. Talking to self artificially first.

Which is fake as science is practiced as artificial only.

Between two types of human activity theorising first then practice. Theists claim my scientific advice correct.

Thinking is different to practice.

The practice changes what they preached.

Practice what you preach said hence you aren't God you are a man applying artificial science only.

As you didn't create creation.

Theorising is after all artificial thinking.

You claim it is direct natural is lying.

Natural is whole forms first.

 

[Muffled]

Dan from Smithville said: 5. Presumably God does this for lots of people, but there are still millions of different personal interpretations of the Bible that can be grouped into some of 43,000 Christian denominations and sects. In response to: 5. God helps me to understand scripture

I believe if God did that for lots of people there would not be 43,000 denominations. I have a person on RF who is a well educated Christian in Christian theology but he never mentions hearing from God about what he says. So I suppose the concept is that if it is taught in seminary it must be true but I do not agree. Seminary teachers can also not be hearing from God.