[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

The electron is at agreement with mostly everyone in the world.

Almost everyone agrees that the Earth isn't flat, too, but we True Christians know that it is, in fact, flat. We're not saying electrons don't exist, just that there is better evidence for the existence of God than there is for the electron.

We don't see countries fighting over who has a better theory of the electron.

Try reading some papers on string theory. You'd be surprised by how bitter the fight in physics is over exactly that question.

[Dr. Santiago Solo]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

I'm sorry of my retorts are so predictable, but let me give you more reason why I choose not to believe in God.

The electron is at agreement with mostly everyone in the world. If someone says, "Hey, do you know that electron thing?" one would respond as, "Yeah, it's that negatively charged particle that goes around the nucleus of an atom." People all over the world, if taught what an electron is, agree what it is and that it exists. We don't see countries fighting over who has a better theory of the electron.

However, we do see that with religion. Why am I supposed to embrace the God of King James Bible and not the God of another Bible. Or a different God. In fact, there are more than millions of different types of religions that have ever existed. Why choose your unique one?

The "electron" won't get you Saved®, pal, only the sweet Blood of Jesus can do that...

[LyingDingDong]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

Oh you CRETIN! I knew you’d come back with something as asinine as that. I regret not posting your answer for you before I favored you with a little wisdom.

Can you not get it through your thick skull that there are parallels here? This is the first step – I am trying to tell you that there are things that the human mind cannot grasp and that the general human never will.

You quite happily believe R Feynman when he says the electron cannot be understood and then you say “Yes but there is no God because I can’t understand him!” You then conjure up a God that you can understand and say you don’t believe that either.

Well LBDD, you and I are at one with not being able to understand your crap god. My God, the God of Landover, cannot be comprehended – much like His creation, the electron.

As far as natural selection is concerned, your mere existence has proved that the theory is rubbish; your DNA would have been feeding some pond life 6000 years ago if there were truth in evilution.

Second bit – we know that there are things that the human mind cannot comprehend; there are some things (e.g. 11 dimensions) that it never will. Quantum Electro-Dynamics is hard to understand. The only way to do it is through deep study coupled with exceptional intelligence. God is impossible to understand, the only way to attempt to do it is with the Bible. You read of electrons and “feel” you are getting to grips with them… you read a little further and you’ve lost it – but the equations still work! Praise!

OK, read the Bible, begin to “feel” you understand God – then suddenly, you’ve lost it – but still His Word and Commands hold true! Praise.

LBDD – I am saddened but not surprised that your logic runs only one way – it runs the way you think you should believe not what is there to be believed. Whilst we here at Landover do our best to allow you a greater width of thought and more things to consider – you sit there like a 4 year-old stamping your feet in a hissy fit and screaming, “La-de-Da I’m not listening.”

There are none as blind as them that will not see.

I'm sorry of my retorts are so predictable, but let me give you more reason why I choose not to believe in God.

The electron is at agreement with mostly everyone in the world. If someone says, "Hey, do you know that electron thing?" one would respond as, "Yeah, it's that negatively charged particle that goes around the nucleus of an atom." People all over the world, if taught what an electron is, agree what it is and that it exists. We don't see countries fighting over who has a better theory of the electron.

However, we do see that with religion. Why am I supposed to embrace the God of King James Bible and not the God of another Bible. Or a different God. In fact, there are more than millions of different types of religions that have ever existed. Why choose your unique one?

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

We know that the electron exists and it's ineffable, but we should still try to understand it anyway. We don't know that God exists, so I don't think it's necessary for us to understand His ways. I guess that's where we disagree because I hold no credibility to the Bible.

[…] then natural selection would prefer human soceities […] faith in God. […]
We examine the electron not for our survival but for our own personal gain of understanding the universe.

Oh you CRETIN! I knew you’d come back with something as asinine as that. I regret not posting your answer for you before I favored you with a little wisdom.

Can you not get it through your thick skull that there are parallels here? This is the first step – I am trying to tell you that there are things that the human mind cannot grasp and that the general human never will.

You quite happily believe R Feynman when he says the electron cannot be understood and then you say “Yes but there is no God because I can’t understand him!” You then conjure up a God that you can understand and say you don’t believe that either.

Well LBDD, you and I are at one with not being able to understand your crap god. My God, the God of Landover, cannot be comprehended – much like His creation, the electron.

As far as natural selection is concerned, your mere existence has proved that the theory is rubbish; your DNA would have been feeding some pond life 6000 years ago if there were truth in evilution.

Second bit – we know that there are things that the human mind cannot comprehend; there are some things (e.g. 11 dimensions) that it never will. Quantum Electro-Dynamics is hard to understand. The only way to do it is through deep study coupled with exceptional intelligence. God is impossible to understand, the only way to attempt to do it is with the Bible. You read of electrons and “feel” you are getting to grips with them… you read a little further and you’ve lost it – but the equations still work! Praise!

OK, read the Bible, begin to “feel” you understand God – then suddenly, you’ve lost it – but still His Word and Commands hold true! Praise.

LBDD – I am saddened but not surprised that your logic runs only one way – it runs the way you think you should believe not what is there to be believed. Whilst we here at Landover do our best to allow you a greater width of thought and more things to consider – you sit there like a 4 year-old stamping your feet in a hissy fit and screaming, “La-de-Da I’m not listening.”

There are none as blind as them that will not see.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

what the hell why can't i think for myself?

Because you were indoctrinated in public schools, apparently.

You want to read Richard Feynman's 1964 lecture on the nature of fundamental particles and quantum behaviours. I have a copy. I look at it from time to time. In it Feynman states that the human mind is not equipped to even consider the nature of the electron. And he's right!

A rare example of scientific honesty.

If you have a copy and can manage to send it to me, I would be happy to read it.

It's been published as a book, QED. You can also see video of the lectures here. Feinman describes photons, electrons, etc. as if they were arrows on wheels moving all over the place in space and time. As you're watching the video, I suggest that you keep in mind the following question: who is turning the cranks on all of those wheels?

We know that the electron exists and it's ineffable

How do you know that the electron exists? Has anyone ever seen a picture of one? It's just a scientific theory, not an established fact. It's a pretty good theory, which explains a lot of things. So, for that matter, is our theory that there is a God. You find us a picture of an electron, and then we'll go find a picture of God for you. Quid pro quo, Cherise, quid pro quo.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

What I take from this is that you believe that even if something is ineffable, we should try to understand its ways. Or, to keep to your theory, you believe that even if God is ineffable, we should try to understand His ways. I feel that knowing the Bible is sufficient for my purposes.

We know that the electron exists and it's ineffable, but we should still try to understand it anyway. We don't know that God exists, so I don't think it's necessary for us to understand His ways. I guess that's where we disagree because I hold no credibility to the Bible.

Let's examine the differences between the faith in God and the faith in the electron. First, let's imagine a hypothetical situation where mankind is alone in the Universe, where either God doesn't exist or He doesn't interfere with man. If this is true, then natural selection would prefer human soceities that would conjeure up a supernatural lawgiver, God. So there is necessity for having faith in God. However, natural selection would not favor in those that had faith in the electron. In fact, humans have lived long with out the knowledge of the electron.

We examine the electron not for our survival but for our own personal gain of understanding the universe.

[Nobar King]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

That is a brilliant quote, Brother Bathfire. True Christians are constantly challenged about this conundrum: the un-understandability of God, the universe, Creation, etc., as if there was a real answer with physical tangible evidience.

If they can't listen to Richard P. Feynman, I don't think the Atheists will listen to anyone. They certainly don't listen to me.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

If you have a copy and can manage to send it to me, I would be happy to read it. I know that the complexity of the electron is beyond comprehension grasp of most scientists and surely me, but that doesn't mean that we should accept its great complexity as means of not trying to comprehend it.

I don't believe that experiences alone can test theories. Experiences are what someone witnesses through his or her actions around the world. And when someone can't find an answer to a certain experience, that person just makes one up. For example, using God to explain life's complexity.

I know that the complexity of the electron is beyond comprehension grasp of most scientists and surely me, but that doesn't mean that we should accept its great complexity as means of not trying to comprehend it.

What I take from this is that you believe that even if something is ineffable, we should try to understand its ways. Or, to keep to your theory, you believe that even if God is ineffable, we should try to understand His ways. I feel that knowing the Bible is sufficient for my purposes.

Nevertheless, rather than send something to you and then have you comment, I include the part of the lecture that covers my earlier post: BUT before you rush into print – consider the similarity between Faith in God and the Faith in the unknowable electron and the nature of both. Do NOT come back with silly quibbles or I will slaughter you with further lengthy quotes. Thank you

Quantum Mechanics
by Richard P. Feynman

Electrons, when they were first discovered, behaved exactly like particles or bullets, very simply. Further research showed, from electron diffraction experiments for example, that they behaved like waves. As time went on there was a growing confusion about how these things really behaved ---- waves or particles, particles or waves? Everything looked like both.
This growing confusion was resolved in 1925 or 1926 with the advent of the correct equations for quantum mechanics. Now we know how the electrons and light behave. But what can I call it? If I say they behave like particles I give the wrong impression; also if I say they behave like waves. They behave in their own inimitable way, which technically could be called a quantum mechanical way. They behave in a way that is like nothing that you have seen before. Your experience with things that you have seen before is incomplete. The behavior of things on a very tiny scale is simply different. An atom does not behave like a weight hanging on a spring and oscillating. Nor does it behave like a miniature representation of the solar system with little planets going around in orbits. Nor does it appear to be somewhat like a cloud or fog of some sort surrounding the nucleus. It behaves like nothing you have seen before.
There is one simplication at least. Electrons behave in this respect in exactly the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way….
The difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself, "But how can it be like that?" which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something familiar. I will not describe it in terms of an analogy with something familiar; I will simply describe it. There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possible avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.


Richard P. Feynman, The Messenger Lectures, 1964, MIT

[LyingDingDong]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

You want to read Richard Feynman's 1964 lecture on the nature of fundamental particles and quantum behaviours. I have a copy. I look at it from time to time. In it Feynman states that the human mind is not equipped to even consider the nature of the electron. And he's right!

And yet you (so obviously inferior to Feynman) manage to state that, because you can't grasp the idea of The Lord, God cannot exist. The word is "Subjective" you must think outside of narrow confines; read the Bible (KJV) accept the weight of circumstantial evidence that eventually leads to a theory. Test the theory against your and others' experiences.

If you have a copy and can manage to send it to me, I would be happy to read it. I know that the complextiy of the electron is beyond comprehension grasp of most scientists and surely me, but that doesn't mean that we should accept its great complexity as means of not trying to comprehend it.

I don't believe that experiences alone can test theories. Experiences are what someone witnesses through his or her actions around the world. And when someone can't find an answer to a certain experience, that person just makes one up. For example, using God to explain life's complexity.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

I love this one! How can something exist without a creator? Well does God exist? Yes, in your mind. Therefore He had to have a creator, leaving you with a never ending line of creators. Then if you say well God can create Himself, well then who's to say that the universe can't do that either?

You want to read Richard Feynman's 1964 lecture on the nature of fundamental particles and quantum behaviours. I have a copy. I look at it from time to time. In it Feynman states that the human mind is not equipped to even consider the nature of the electron. And he's right!

And yet you (so obviously inferior to Feynman) manage to state that, because you can't grasp the idea of The Lord, God cannot exist. The word is "Subjective" you must think outside of narrow confines; read the Bible (KJV) accept the weight of circumstantial evidence that eventually leads to a theory. Test the theory against your and others' experiences.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

what the hell why can't i think for myself? I choose to believe that the big bang started the universe because i feel that god making the universe and humanity is bullshit mate and also i have my own theories that your minds could not comprehend.

You believe all that with no understanding of the mathematics and physics behind the assumptions. You have a blind faith in science - you do not understand any of it and have studied none of it. Yet you believe it. If you got above 5th grade I'm amazed.


And you have your own theories too! Well isn't that lovely for you. It's nice to have a hobby. I'm sure if you go away and write them all down, they will be very interesting to read - well, I'm sure that's what your mom will say.


We here have studied, are studying and will study the Bible - when we say something makes sense, we are not just holding on to the coat tails of others hoping their work will make us look good. We have seen the Light! We are good, we know the Truth™ and we are True Christians™.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

The existence of the Universe is proof of God’s existence. After all how can something exist without a creator?

I wish you atheists would try to be more logical.

I love this one! How can something exist without a creator? Well does God exist? Yes, in your mind. Therefore He had to have a creator, leaving you with a never ending line of creators. Then if you say well God can create Himself, well then who's to say that the universe can't do that either?

[iLOVEgeorgebush]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

just because the bible says its true doesnt make it true, nor does it make it false either. There isnt proof that the bible is 100% true either. It could have been written by some dude. and what you were saying about how since i cant prove god doesnt exist means he does. Well by what you are saying is that Since you cant prove god exists, it means he doesnt. Which isnt true either, but its not false.

[Dr. Santiago Solo]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

what the h*ll why can't i think for myself?

Ask Jesus, man, I seriously doubt you can think, period.

I choose to believe that the big bang started the universe because i feel that god making the universe and humanity is bullsh!t mate

Please watch your language, young man, you don't speak to Christians(TM) like that, also, enjoy Hell!

and also i have my own theories that your minds could not comprehend.

I doubt anyone's mind could comprehend them (except of course, the Lord, who know it all).

[ilovegod.com]

Re: Is there any physical proof god exists?

what the hell why can't i think for myself? I choose to believe that the big bang started the universe because i feel that god making the universe and humanity is bullshit mate and also i have my own theories that your minds could not comprehend.