Well of course not.
As the universe appears to function now regardless of what scientists think, we don't need another God just to satisfy them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Disproving atheists in 82 seconds
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Well of course not.
As the universe appears to function now regardless of what scientists think, we don't need another God just to satisfy them.
Faking stupidity for the cause? Scientists repeatedly state that there is no need for a god and that there is no evidence of one, period. Not merely going forward.Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Well of course not.
As the universe appears to function now regardless of what scientists think, we don't need another God to just satisfy them.
Back under the rock for you.
Perhaps you should hold a symposium for the world's leading scientists in the field and set them straight. With teleconferencing, you won't even have to get out from under your rock and expose yourself to all that annoying sunlight.Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Just one big happy accident eh?
first of all your statement about lack of evidence is complete atheist head in the ground b.s.
They already had the symposiums on this subject through symposiums about the anthropic priniciple.
It took a decade or two but now almost all the leading scientists agree our universe appears designed.
This information became more public, when science found a new theory to match up with (explain) the appearance of design.
Chaos theory supplied the conjecture through Polchinski's and Susskind's work. Polichinsky found there could be 10 to the 500 solutions (near infinite) So Susskind made the conjecture.... all possible string theory solutions could be real universes.
Quote from Brass:
Perhaps you should hold a symposium for the world's leading scientists in the field and set them straight. With teleconferencing, you won't even have to get out from under your rock and expose yourself to all that annoying sunlight.
They already had the symposiums on this subject through symposiums about the anthropic priniciple.
It took a decade or two but now almost all the leading scientists agree our universe appears designed.
This information became more public, when science found a new theory to match up with (explain) the appearance of design.
Chaos theory supplied the conjecture through Polchinski's and Susskind's work. Polichinsky found there could be 10 to the 500 solutions (near infinite) So Susskind made the conjecture.... all possible string theory solutions could be real universes.
Quote from jem:
...scientists agree our universe appears designed...
Further, the noted scientists whom you periodically quote put their remarks into context, which you conveniently leave out to further your Bronze Age narrative.Quote from Brass:
The appearance of design is not evidence of design. "Thought experiments" don't qualify as evidence. Neither do circular arguments.
it wouldnt be rational. would it be rational to be angry at santa clause if you didnt believe santa clause exists? would it be rational to be angry at the tooth fairy?Quote from Publicus:
Atheists are angry all the time.
I haven't seen one who isn't.
how about other gods. would it be rational for a christian to be angry at zues?
"Iâm a polyatheist â there are many gods I donât believe in."
-Dan Fouts
Quote from Brass:
Further, the noted scientists whom you periodically quote put their remarks into context, which you conveniently leave out to further your Bronze Age narrative.
Hey asswipe cut the bullshit... I have been very careful to put their comments in context... unlike you I have no problem with the truth and facts and science. They could find infinite other universes tomorrow and it would not bother me. Although I would wonder what happens if I meet some of my wife's alternates.
when Hawking or Susskind or any of the other guys promote the mulitiverse theory, I almost always put that part of the explanation in.
You can see proof by just looking at my previous posts on this thread.