Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 251 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#13162 - 09/14/05 04:01 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Anonymous
Unregistered


"Randomness" as understood by Computers is often without patterns of randomness!!
Random events have inbuilt patterns.
Naturally occuring random numbers are known to follow certain statiscal laws.
Excpect 5 consecutive heads when you do head/tails.If it is not there then the event is not random.
Width of a river is a random number but there is very small chance that the number will start with 9 and it is more likely that it will start with 1.
Fractality of landscape is again a result of random events but there is a definite pattern which can be expressed mathematically(with some error).

You can say that in order to obtain a certain pattern of intelligence(which removes chaos) one has to perform a perfect random experiment.

There are experiments which are not truly random and experiments can not claim to simulate any natural process. No observation is critical for such an experiment to take place otherwise the the result set gets distorted. Therefore any 'TRUE' simulation can only be conduted using Qunatum laws and quantum computers.
Another intersting non-linear event is related to the monster sea storms.Where the base nature of such event is probabilistic.
Wish you all the best.

Top
.
#13163 - 09/15/05 06:08 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Edisonian Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/12/05
Posts: 6
Loc: Washington, DC
God can only be proven by faith.
_________________________
Cover-ups , Dating , Theories , Lawsuits , Trends , Gadgets

Top
#13164 - 09/15/05 09:31 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Quote:
What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
God should come to Earth and should let an entire Galaxy at few billion lightyears away from Earth vanish before the eyes of scientists observing it with the most powerful telescopes.

Top
#13165 - 09/16/05 05:09 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Anonymous
Unregistered


God should come to Earth and cure all the people who suffer from CFIDS, ME and FM. Then I might believe.

Top
#13166 - 09/16/05 07:03 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
No need to cure them. God should come to earth. Surrender to the World Court in the Hague. And stand trial for the crimes of genocide, murder, torture, rape, and destruction of property.

Let the louse prove its worth by defending itself.

If we were created in its image, as the text states, then it should have no fear in allow us to judge it.

Lets see what crimes we can lay clearly at its door.

1. Invention of AIDS, polio, childhood leukemia, malaria, syphilis, etc.
2. Designing women such that they often die in childbirth depriving innocent newborns of their mothers.
3. Killing every first born male in an entire country.
4. Drowning everyone on the planet with the sole exception of the members of a single family.
5. Adam and Eve had two sons and no daughters. Given that the rest of us are here there is no doubt that Eve had sexual relations with at least one of her sons.

No doubt others can add to this list of crimes against humanity. But if the hateful malicious little troll can adequately defend itself and justify the invention of the Smallpox then I will agree to its existence. Seems like a fair bargain.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13167 - 09/16/05 08:05 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Garry Denke Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/20/05
Posts: 119
Loc: Plano, Texas, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Adam and Eve had two sons and no daughters.
Adam and Eve had three sons:

Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:2
And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Genesis 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Cain, Abel, and Seth
_________________________
I like rocks.

Top
#13168 - 09/16/05 10:11 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I stand corrected. The ho was probably sleeping with all of them.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13169 - 09/17/05 03:52 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 127
Loc: does it really matter?
TheFallibleFiend, just for fun,

I affirm that if you told most people that you "saw a UFO" (not only literally meaning 'unidentified flying object' but also to be something, from your observation, to be 'otherworldly', they would scream, "nuts!". Point is, if you believed in what you saw (to be something not from this world or in the purview of our known technology), others would not necessarily believe your observation. 1. Yes, you "see something". 2. No one believes you. 3. Just because no one believes you does not necessarily mean that you did not "see something". 4. Uncle Al's test of faith.
Observing a UFO (again not a literal interpretation but a crystal clear sense that what you saw is in fact alien {created by intelligent life not of this world}) and conveying your observation to those who did not experience your observation requires reliance on their part. You can have pictures of UFOs or even video, and no matter how pertinacious your conviction most people will renege you. Why is this the case?
If DA "sees an invisible purple rhinoceros" and nobody else witnesses this event then does that mean that he did not see it or that it does not exist? I do not know.

A. Stancliff,
I lean toward your first consideration of what terms I define "God" in, "all-powerful, all-knowing, conscious being who created the universe". Further to clarify (or confuse) is that out of possibly an infinite number of universes, our known universe is designed by this "God".

Again I have no take either way.
Sincerely,
_________________________
"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010

Top
#13170 - 09/17/05 04:38 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Rusty Rockets Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/04/05
Posts: 175
I've been tipped off that Satan is living in the village of Behle. If you rearrange the letters of Cain, Abel and Seth you get "Satanic Behle "

Top
#13171 - 09/17/05 05:19 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Mung:
If I claim to see an invisible purple rhinoceros that is nothing more than a statement from one person. If the entire audience for a football game also sees the invisible purple rhinoceros that is either mass hysteria or perhaps the rhinoceros isn't actually invisible.

Same thing goes here. If you see a UFO you saw something you can not explain. If you photograph the UFO you have a photograph of something you can not explain. If you ascribe that unidentified object to creation by sentient beings from another planet then it is your obligation to provide evidence that:
1. There are other sentient beings.
2. Those specific sentient beings had something to do with this specific object.
Absent that you are just engaging in wild speculation without substance or foundation.

Rusty: What happens when you do it in Aramaic? Or have you forgotten the language in which the names were first written and spoken was not the King's English. Rusty indeed.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13172 - 09/17/05 07:30 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Rusty Rockets Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/04/05
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:


Rusty: What happens when you do it in Aramaic? Or have you forgotten the language in which the names were first written and spoken was not the King's English. Rusty indeed. [/QB]
Hehe...

I bring that point up myself when people start quoting English versions of the Bible.

Top
#13173 - 09/17/05 02:15 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 127
Loc: does it really matter?
DA,
Thank you for your consideration. To quote you, "If I claim to see an invisible purple rhinoceros that is nothing more than a statement from one person." But why is it not more than just a statement from one person. There is a difference between "claiming to see an invisble purple rhinoceros and positing that you have "truly seen one". Your claim, although limited to one person, ought to have some weight for consideration by others. You have seen something that can not rationally be explained, but you have still seen/experienced it none-the-less. Regardless of whether or not anyone else believes you. I think I see your position that essentially if you make outlandish claims then in order for you to be taken seriously then you must provide clear evidence (whatever that means lol).
**************************************************
Further, to quote TheFallibleFiend, "UFOs and intelligent alien life - to the extent they are not mystical or supernatural phenomena - are susceptible to the scientific method, at least putatively.

UFOs exist. You see something in the sky. You don't know what it is, therefore it is a UFO."

Ok.

1. Let us refine the definition of UFO (object not from any [known] Earthbound technology) and refine that either you alone, or a large audience have experienced this event.
2. I do not know the general take of the scientific communities position regarding UFO's. But again I do sense that most people, scientists or not, would say, "nuts".
3. Take the "lights over Phoenix" in www.cnn.com/US/9706/19/ufo.lights Hotly debated as to whether or not the "lights" were from a massive UFO or eminated from flares dropped from government planes. This event was witnessed by tens of thousands of people and well documented via video and pictures.
4. A colleague of mine was driving in Phoenix, during the event, and was awestruck by "a colossal object hovering over the city with no sound coming from it". He relayed that cars by the dozens had pulled over onto the side of the road to watch this event.
5. This is an example, akin to DA's "football stadium audience".
6. Did thousands of people optically compute the same experience. Did each person have their own interpretation of what transpired?
7. Were the lights flares or a massive UFO?
8. How can the scientific method be applied to understand an event such as this when there are extremely differing perspectives on the same occurance?
9. I contend that if 1,000 different scientists applied the scientific method to understand the nature of this event, then there would probably be dozens (or more) arrays of equally sound scientific conclusions. How can this be? There is bountiful "evidence" and yet there will be vastly differing approaches (and resulting conclusions) as to how to tackle the issue scientifically.
10. Lets, for fun, further posit that the scientific method was applied by scientists (of varying backgrounds), and still the conclusions ranged from: government flares, mass hysteria, UFO.. even God, and finally inconclusive (not able to determine what the occurance actually was). How can this be? The facts are the same.
11. I do not think the method can be applied because this is extremely likely to be a non-reproducable event.
12. What I am wondering, I spoke with finchbeak about this earlier, is how do scientists (using the same raw data) differ vastly on conclusions resulting from using the same scientific method?
Sincerely,
_________________________
"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010

Top
#13174 - 09/17/05 04:23 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Mung:

Q1:
"refine the definition of UFO (object not from any [known] Earthbound technology"

And precisely which moron is the arbiter of "known."
The National Enquirer? The New York Times? The NSA? And lets cut this to ribbons while we are at it. How do you look at something miles away and determine the technology? It moved "funny"? Good test. 1 down 11 to go.

Q2:
"Do we consider UFO's nuts?"

No. We consider people that ascribe specific wholly fanciful/speculative/nonsensical sources to UFOs to be nuts. Did they see something? Possibly. Do they have a clue what is was? No! End of discussion. 2 down 10 to go.

Q3: "Phoenix Incident"
Something happened. Many people saw it. Not one of them knows what it was. Therefore it was from sentient beings in another solar system? That is nuts. I think the lights were created by invisible purple rhinos with flashlights. And with just as much basis in fact as any other speculator. 3 down 9 to go.

Q4 & Q5: "Friend's story"
Is there a point here? 5 down 7 to go.

Q6: "Many people say it"
Many people saw something. No problem with that. Any one of them ascribing a cause to it is a publicity seeker or a fool. 6 down. 6 to go.

Q7: "What was it?"
Don't know. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else. So there is no point. I don't know how the first DNA molecule was created? Should I therefore ascribe it to intentional manufacturing by aliens?
7 down 5 to go.

Q8: "How apply the scientific method"
You can't. There is nothing to apply it to. 8 down.

Q9: "1000 scients = 1000 conclusions"
Not if they are truly scientists. 1000 scients would come to the same conclusion. They would conclude that insuffient information existed to conclude anything. They would likely call for a review of radar data from military and civilian sites, collect photographic evidence, ask airplane pilots to confirm the siting, and try to correlate what they found with other reported sightings. But reach a conclusion? Hardly. 9 down 3 to go.

Q10: "Lets, for fun"
Lets not. Just a waste of time. 10 down 2 to go.

Q11: "Non reproducability"
The method can always be applied. The result will, of course, be that insufficient data points exist.
11 down 1 to go.

Q12: "Different conclusions"
Scientists don't differ in their conclusions. They differ in their speculations. Just like other members of the species. Done!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13175 - 09/19/05 06:24 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Scientists don't differ in their conclusions. They differ in their speculations.
REP: You are wrong.Statistical conclusions can be different depending upon the sample.
All the observed scientific truths have their own boundary conditions defined.

one important assumption we all take for granted is that something can be isolated from whole.
A butterfly doesnt create a hurricane.
Of late some theories have started realizing that this assumption is not true.

There is no point in mixing Science and religion.

Science beigns with question.
Religion begins with answer.

Science is needs to verified and tested by many.
Religion needs no verification excpet from your own self.

Science has no goal.
Religion has a goal.

Science wants to explain everthing.
Religion wants to explain why everything.

There are many more differences and would not like discuss them in detail.

Study and practice as many religions as possible and then raise questions on it.

As far as the question regarding the fact that why world is under so pain , the answer is simple....
Your limited religious understanding gives a false perception of reality.A deer gets scared of a tiger without relaizing the role it has to play in the universe.Emotions are right only to the extent of the understanding and feelings generated by the reality.
And as you realize(in terms of awareness) your role ,the understood 'objective' truth changes to a higher level of objectivity.
Understood? I am sure not.:-))

If and when Science will become unquestionable it will become religion.Quite literally with all its ambiguity.

One thing common in both is that they both can effect this world with equal might.

Top
#13176 - 09/19/05 02:27 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 09/09/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Virginia, USA
Put yourself in the scientific mind of 100 years ago. An unknown clerk has just presented his first paper on the wave nature of light. Since the man did not come from an important school, and did not conduct his own experiments, as he had no lab, and no staff, his paper was not considered important for many years. This man revolutionized physics with nothing but his mind and his interpretation of the research of others.

Last night I was reading a rough draft concept to redo electromechanical theory. The author is knowledgeable, holds a PhD from some school called MIT, and is the head of a physics Department at a University so his ideas cannot simply be dismissed as amateurish. But he is plowing though all the math and implications of his new theory, and it may be many years before he publishes and decades past that before it has a chance of acceptance and or we find a way of using electricity that the new theory suggests that is different than the old theory.

That is the way of science. The science I see here is old and boring. Unless it is accepted fact, it cannot be right. Maybe it is the rebel in me that looks for new applications, new interpretations, looks for weaknesses in current theories, etc. Unless we open our minds more and have at least a slight distrust of current explanations, we will not make progress in science. As I have said before, some here remind me of fundamental Christians with their mindset against change.

You take religion, classify all religions as the same as your limited experience, drop out philosophy, and dismiss a large part of human experience as an impediment to your faith in science. That is not only wrong, that is not what they teach as the scientific method.

For something interesting: a magnetic field can be generated in two different ways, by the flow of electricity, and by electron spin. There seems to be no difference in these fields that can be detected. I.e. one cannot examine a magnetic field and say that it originated from the flow of electrons or from electron spin: they both produce the same effect. How can this explained in present electrical theory? Hint: electrical theory is relatively old and was developed before quantum mechanics.
_________________________
Sparky

Top
#13177 - 09/19/05 08:00 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
It may have been his first paper on the wave nature of light, but it wasn't his first paper. He had already written on capillary action (1901) and several papers on thermodynamics (1902 - 1904).

In fact his paper on brownian motion "won him a PhD from the university of Zurich." (http://www.space.com/reference/brit/einstein/life.html)


Einstein was a recognized genius by the time he published his paper on the photoelectic effect.
One very weird thing about his SR paper, published a little later in the year, in Annalen der Physik is the sparcity of bibliography. There were *NO* references in his paper on SR. (At least not in the translations I've seen.) It's just right out of his head.

The site above refers to his alma mater as "the renowned Federal Polytechnic Academy in Zurich." (Of course, any goof can write an 'authoritative' looking website. Maybe this is an exaggeration. I don't know... but the site at least claims that the article is from britannica.com)


I'm not sure it's true that his paper was "not considered important for many years." It may not have been important to the general public, but I think many of the leading scientists had at leat some understanding of its significance. From the above site: "Public understanding of this new theory and acclaim for its creator were still many years off, but Einstein had won a place among Europe's most eminent physicists, who increasingly sought his counsel, as he did theirs."

Top
#13178 - 09/20/05 01:02 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dvd: Grow up. You wrote:
"Scientists don't differ in their conclusions. They differ in their speculations."

You you truly such a paradox that you can connect to the internet and use a computer ... but still can't figure out that "differ in speculation" is meaningless ... and "differ in conclusions" nonsense.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13179 - 09/21/05 10:16 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Garry Denke Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/20/05
Posts: 119
Loc: Plano, Texas, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by MrMung:
Consider: If you seek "scientific proof of God's existence and power", what would you need as that proof. And if your proof is fulfilled then would you believe it anyway? I do not mean proof of religion. I mean proof of "God" in the sense of a SINGLE entity responsible for the creation of the known universe. I am not saying "God" exists one way or another. Just posed this to "people of 'science'" (of which I consider myself to be) to see how they think about it.
The "scientific proof of God's existence and power" will be proven, however, it will not convince everyone. There will be people who will claim that God's scientific proof is nothing more than a coincidence.

As for me, I do not seek "scientific proof of God's existence and power", I need as that proof, nothing. But what about you MrMung? You have not said in this thread. What would you need as that proof?
_________________________
I like rocks.

Top
#13180 - 09/21/05 11:08 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 127
Loc: does it really matter?
Garry,

I most agree with what Nominal posted, "For me to consider God as factual I would have to run "God-facts" through the scientific method. Simply, if there are no God-facts which I can accumulate then there is no debate to be had.
If I am strolling down a dusty road and in my purview a burning bush speaks to me: a) I've had a psychotic snap, or any other inumerable explainations....
Further, perhaps God is not meant to be taken as fact..but to only exist through faith."

Not entirely sure what would constitute a "God-fact", moreover I do not think science can prove God's existence, rather I believe God can be disproven much more readily. But science said the world was flat at some point and that the Earth was the center of the solar system (and universe?). Then science corrected and shifted itself adopting a paradigm where the sun is at the center of the solar system. Science adjusts and evolves, does God? Or is God a constant with one set of messages (e.g. the bible) that does not change and adapt to modern times. A physics book written 100 years from now WILL paint a drastically different picture of our universe; whereas the bible will have the same words, yes? A television evangelist will tithe your money, in the name of God. Was it foolish to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Of course not, because our eyes see the sun traverse across the sky. But again it was science and not God which corrected our observations. Is it foolish to fork over your hard earned cash to an evangelist (acting sincerely and purely [wink wink] on God's behalf)? I think so yes. But then ask the people who do fork it over and they say a resounding, "NO". Why do some have ardent faith in God while others do not, while still others are undecided? Such a vast array of perceptions (even hostility) regarding the belief of God.
Perception. We, as individuals, are exposed to unique life-learning experiences and as a result what we are exposed to (often early in life) can dictate the rest of our destiny. I grew up in a catholic household where my parents were patently irish-catholic, church every Sunday etc.. I never enjoyed it and found it a complete waste of time and energy. But that is my unique experience. After my parents ceased forcing me to attend mass I immediately halted my presence at Sunday mass. I did not "get it". Others did "get it" and found church and religion and God most satisfying, and yet I took a different path, even though I was exposed to the same information (as my young peers). To those who believe in "God" just "get it", they "understand". Maybe they can not explain why they "get it", but they do none-the-less. Maybe they are more perceptive to something that I am not; maybe they have more skill at understanding the benefits of religion than I do. Science, as it is, is my religion. Though, at the same time, I do enjoy Christmas and the "spirit" of the season.

One thing that strikes a seeming paradox is that physics seeks a "theory of everything" and, theologically predestination (the doctrine that God has foreordained all things) is its religious counterpart.

"In fact, many physicists take the position that physics is the only fundamental science. Their argument runs as follows: all sciences--biology, chemistry, geology, etc.--are concerned with matter; all matter is composed of atoms; physics describes the dynamics and internal configurations of atoms. Extension of this physico-centric view can result in profound philosophical consequences. For example, if one accepts that the human brain controls all human behavior, and if one accepts that the brain is composed entirely of atoms whose behavior is completely described by laws of physics, then one may reasonably question whether a person has the free will to control his behavior. Nevertheless it is not the task of physics to answer philosophical questions."

"In physics a theory of everything (TOE) is a theory that unifies the four interactions of nature: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. There has been progress toward a TOE in unifying electromagentism and the weak nuclear force in an electroweak unified field theory and in unifying all of the forces except for gravity (which in the present theory of gravity general relativity is not a force) in grand unified theory. One missing piece in a theory of everything involves combining quantum mechanics and general relativity into a theory of quantum gravity."

Fine.

So if a "universal law" that explains the universe in an equation exists...then there is no "free will" because everything is pre-determined in a mathematical formula?

"It is not the task of physics to answer philosophical questions".

Why not? Is there no spontaneity in human behavior because of the existence of a fundamental universal equation? Does not physics and philosophy intersect??

Most people do not question what is force-fed to them in school or question the veracity of what they digest through the media. Critical thinking. I always asked, "why" or "why not?" This is not to say that people who believe in God or religion are misguided. Like I said, "I just don't get it".

Perhaps unknown future sciences can better address this question as presently humanity is ill-equipped and immature. We need a deeper acumen of the workings of the macro and micro physical (physics) universe(s) before we can answer questions of scientifically proving God. Whether or not one believes in God is irrelevent; as one is expected to abide by the social contract. If one wants to live in society one must play by the rules, so to say.

Good and evil occur independent of God's existence. Many things are relative, using the terms "good" and "evil" is a spectacular instance of this. Who defines that which is "good" or "evil"? God? No. Humanity defines these words, whether literally (taken from the American Heritage Dictionary), or through action (aiding the tsunami victims last December), or through inaction (not addressing social equality, in the United States until the 1960s).

My point is that whether or not God exists or whether or not people believe in a God (or higher spiritual power), it is the responsibility of humanity to BE GOD. And hopefully a, wise, fair and benevolent humanity/God at that.

I mentioned in some other forum post that technology has far outpaced our "social maturity". Another post asks if science has failed humanity? Where are the flying cars we were promised? To paraphrase (either DA or Uncle Al I do not recall which) "science flies airplanes and God demands you upon your knees" (or something to this effect).

So again, perhaps God is meant to be taken as fact through faith and faith alone.
Sincerely,
_________________________
"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010

Top
#13181 - 09/22/05 03:40 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Gary you wrote:
" "scientific proof of God's existence and power" will be proven, however, it will not convince everyone."

Please stop using drugs. Lets examine science facts. The temperature at which water melts is zero degrees Celsius. Is there disagreement? The specific gravity of gold? The size of Planck's constant? The distance to the moon? The number of protons in an iron nucleus?

Science fact is science fact. Waffling about your invisible purple rhinoceros is because you truly in your heart don't believe it either. Make no excuses for the mythological destroyer of worlds. That creature is a mythical genocidal maniac ... not a god.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.