Valid argument for Gods Existence.

1 2 3 4 »
  • GOD: the 'system as a whole'/the 'universal quantum computer'. (This includes every universe within The Conglomerate of non-parallel-universes/multiverse.)

    The world's leading computer scientists (i.e. Dr. Seth Lloyd of MIT author of 'Programming the Universe') have known for 12+ years that this universe behaves as a quantum computer where particles not only collide, they compute. Information can be created, but not destroyed, although it can be transferred. Where there is a computer, there are programs. Where there are programs, there are programmers. Where there are programmers, there is an original and number 1 programmer...

    God-incarnate (in the Guardin' of Eden, Jesus son of Joseph, 2nd Coming of the Christ): the original and number 1 programmer/the Creator of all true Earth-like plan-its. Jesus taught reincarnation and science has now proven it (google that).

    There is a BIG difference between GOD & God although they are very closely connected.

    The algorithm of GOD=7_4 is another proof of GOD's existence. G is the 7th letter, the circle O is either the 15th letter or zerO, and D is 4. This plan-it has 7 continents & 4 seasons, ('7 Seas') & 4 oceans. ~74% of Earth's surface is water. 74% of the human brain, heart, muscles, newborns, chicken eggs and trees are water. Human pregnancies are 40 weeks: 7x40 days. There are 4 lunar phases of 7 days (~7.4 days) each. The lunar year (354 days) + 7 day week + 4 days = 365 day solar year. The ancients observed (with the naked eye) that there are 7 moving objects in the heavens & 4 do not cast shadows on Earth (Venus does).

    ~74% of the elemental mass of this universe is hydrogen. ~74% of the Sun's mass is hydrogen. ~74% of Jupiter's atmosphere is hydrogen.

    M-theory/supergravity theory: 7 higher dimensions (hyperspace) + 4 common dimensions. Unified strings (u21 s19) theory adds the symmetry of 7 aspects of regular time + 4 aspects of hypertime.

    The #7 is the 4th prime number and 4 is in the middle of/it's the majority of 7.

    "As above, so below." - ancient precept of sacred geometry/gematria

    "On Earth as it is in the heavens." Jesus' 'The Lord's Prayer'

    "Anytime an idea(19) is connect(74)ed to nature, it's not only logical - it was inevitable."

    Our language is based on this GOD=7_4 principle. 'Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74)' using 'the key'(74) of A=1, B=2...Z=26.

    simple=74=S19+I9+M13+P16+L12+E5

    English=74=E5+N14+G7+L12+I9+S19+H8

    gematria=74=G7+E5+M13+A1+T20+R18+I9+A1

    Reason, logic, science and simple math has thus proven GOD/God.



    Like this post to subscribe to the topic.
  • Why would you make two different threads for this?

    This proves nothing. You've just done some pattern seeking and attempted to fit it around a God. I would say "nice try", but it's really not.

  • I just wonder who likes BS like that!

    The trolls getting desperate!

  • Is this an attempt to dodge??? Then troll it is.

  • Reynaldo,

    Fail...

  • Playing with numbers is NOT proof of God...

    I have two hands and two feet and twenty digits between them... SO WHAT! Do I dare claim that there is a male and female god and goddess and that ideally 'godly' humans should have twenty children? That would be bullshit, right?

    Geezameezie... All that is 'proven' is that the creature known as Earthling Man... which is the same creature that concocted every 'god' known to any civilization on Earth... also likes to 'run numbers' with a false claim of 'evidence'! LOL

  • I am confused as to what those quotes are supposed to prove?

  • “Using those who speak a different language and using the lips of foreigners, I will speak to these people.

    But even then, they will not listen to Me.” 1 Corinthians 14:21

    ...

    “Come on, all of you, try again! For I cannot find a wise man among you." Job 17:10

    right ear: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A47-50&version=NIV

    left ear: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/story_n_3865320.html

    ...

    “Whoever has ears to hear, let them listen.” Mark 4:9

    http://grooveshark.com/s/Vincent/4BMwcq?src=5

  • "live long and prosper."

    Mr. Spock

    See, I can quote things too, what's tour point?

  • Parable of the sower

    “Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”

    Then Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them listen.”

    Mark 4:3-9

  • why do you think quoting the bible to atheists will mean anything?

  • Talitha //Come on, all of you, try again! For I cannot find a wise man among you." Job 17:10//

    Dare to try this?

  • Talitha,

    The bible is just a fictional book written by human beings, why do you think it holds an relevance in this conversation?

  • Talitha,

    As Zack said, please first prove the bible is the word of God before you try using it as an authority on anything.

  • "You turn things upside down, as if the potter were to be esteemed as clay. Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'You did not make me'? Can the pot say to the potter, 'You know nothing'?

    Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’?"

    Isaiah 29:16, 45:9

  • Talitha,

    This is considered preaching and is against the rules, please refrain from doing it anymore.

    Answer our questions please.

  • Jason Rebelato : "I am confused as to what those quotes are supposed to prove?"

    TK: Question is incomplete since it isolates the quotes, as if they were offered by themselves. If it is the connection between the quotes and the links that raises a question, then the answer is that the connections should be self-evident.

    ...

    Chad Hall: "Talitha //Come on, all of you, try again! For I cannot find a wise man among you." Job 17:10//Dare to try this?"

    TK: Unintelligible question.

    ...

    Jason Rebelato: "why do you think quoting the bible to atheists will mean anything?"

    Zach Schofield: "The bible is just a fictional book written by human beings, why do you think it holds an relevance in this conversation?"

    TK: Already answered, but again here:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+2%3A1-11&version=NIV

  • Talitha,

    This is getting silly, you have not answered anything and you are still preaching.

    Please explain how you know the bible is inspired by god, if you dodge this question and keep preaching I will ask an admin to remove you.

  • Of course I disagree with the second part of your first sentence, Zack, but at least you followed up with a specific, straightforward, non-rhetorical question.

    Answer:

    It is only through faith that I believe scripture is inspired by God. Not, as you may suppose, a blind faith that I generate on my own, however, but a revelation-based faith, granted like a gift, which I receive thanks only to God's abundant mercy. Apparently, one does have to be called by God to be granted this gift of faith through mercy, but the only prerequisite is to honestly seek God first.

    That is why I would contend that to offer a cash reward for proof of God is to misunderstand or ignore the proposition God makes to each one of us in the first place. Scripture does not say to first seek proof of God; it says to first seek God. If you are just trying to disprove something then of course you should not expect to find that which you are not really seeking. Conversely, though, you can expect to receive the same gift that I claim to have received if you do honestly seek God.

    Otherwise, atheists are like people who think they should be able to make a profit without offering so much as a letter of intent, let alone an actual investment. Or like borrowers who think they should know the lender's credit rating before accepting a loan. Beggars who think they should be choosers, etc...

  • @Talitha

    Revelation is an experience; it is not evidence for your explanation of that experience. As I can show many cases of those who have epilepsy experience something similar. For those who have seizers such feelings are evidence of epileptic fits not god. So you have to establish something more then your revelation for evidence.

    http://eugrafal.free.fr/Dewhurst-Beard-2003.pdf

  • @Kate

    Not necessarily expecting to covert anyone, I offered some scientific evidence in my first post, which no one has has addressed so far. But in my last post, which refers to revelation-based faith, I do not offer evidence but describe how to find evidence of God for yourself.

  • @Talitha

    I do not see how placing videos explaining behaviour of superconductors and small quantum effects constitute evidence for god. Your argument has enormous holes, there is nothing which says the science you posted is connected even remotely to the idea of god at all. It would be equal to me dropping a ball showing gravity and then claiming that this is evidence for "unicorns." If you understand why that argument is absurd you should be able to see what you have done is equally empty.

  • Only your first sentence is supported by the facts. The rest only supports your first sentence.

    Since you cannot see how unequal your gravity = unicorns analogy is to the Josephson effect = Christ effect, I do not expect you to see my point or the emptiness of your rebuttal to it.

    Nevertheless, I will add that I believe the Josephson effect provides a demonstration in the known physical world of how the power of God is ideally intended to work (according to Matthew 18:20) in the mostly unknown spiritual world. A microcosm of the macrocosm.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrocosm_and_microcosm

  • So then in order to confirm that the bible is from God, you first must believe in God? Nice circular logic.

  • @Talitha

    "Nevertheless, I will add that I believe the Josephson effect provides a demonstration in the known physical world of how the power of God is ideally intended to work (according to Matthew 18:20) in the mostly unknown spiritual world. A microcosm of the macrocosm."

    But it does not establish the existence of god. You say it demonstrates god, what I am saying is there is nothing in the Josephson effect which says there is a god or not; you assumed god exists then you make a further inference that the Josepson effect is evidence of that assumption. There is nothing in the effect that says anything about your original assumption that god exists. Before you can attach anything to God, you must first prove a god exists. And the science does not do that, so your evidence and assumption are not really connected.



    Updated 37 months ago by the author.
  • @Jason

    Not any more circular than making any investment before expecting to realize a profit.

  • @Kate

    I said the Josephson effect demonstrates not God existence itself but how the power of God is ideally intended to work as described 2000 years before the Josephson effect was discovered. The microcosm/macrocosm demonstration of God's existence is found in the subsequent link originally given. Here it is again:

    "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?" John 14:9,10

    http://education.jlab.org/qa/plasma_02.html

  • @Talitha

    You are being very inconsistent. You say the Josephson effect is not evidence for gods existence itself. Yet you bring it up as an example to show gods power? Just because you couch it in difference language does not change the fact. What you are doing is trying to do is use the Josephson effect to show gods existence when the effect itself has nothing to say regarding god at all. Interestingly enough you even go back on yourself here by saying this.

    "The microcosm/macrocosm demonstration of God's existence is found in the subsequent link originally given. Here it is again:"

    This says plainly enough that you believe the science links you have given demonstrate gods existence. I challenge that, as the science you are quoting have nothing to say regarding god, and they do not have the idea of a god as necessary in their construction. So I ask where in your links does it show god, where in your links does it establish the idea of god, where in your evidence does the idea of god come into play at all. To me it seems only an assumption you have made then placed next to the science, there is an enormous gap between your evidence and your assumption.

1 2 3 4 »