Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Probality of God  (Read 609461 times)

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Existance of Tards pretty much proven
« Reply #1245 on: November 07, 2012, 03:44:58 PM »
Again the Tards miss the point-


The owner posted a request not to do  a thing, that is post religious topics.
And yet there seem to be many reasons to overlook the forum owners rules.
(Primarily religious zealotry)


Until Stefan posts otherwise you really should stick to appropriate topics or take your zealotry elsewhere-


I think you are unclear on how Internet forums work in practice.

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Probality of Tards
« Reply #1246 on: November 07, 2012, 04:12:40 PM »
I said this,

No, the definition of faith is believing in something you can't see.  There is no difference in believing in something you can see, or believing in something you can't see.  Belief is how we perceive things to be.  How we perceive things to be, doesn't necessarily reflect the true nature of what we see or what were not able to see.  The adversary (TPTB, satan, the devil, lucifer, and all other things which opposes the truth) has inverted every truth imaginable to mankind, and this includes both what we can see and what we can't see.  There is as much extant material evidence or logical proof for the things which we do not see as to the things which we do see.  Saying there is no extant material evidence nor logical proof for the existence of God is a lie from the adversary.  There is not one shred of material evidence or logical proof which proves gravity is a real force, but yet we perceive gravity to be a real force and to curve space-time.  Our perception of gravity doesn't necessarily reflect it's true nature.  Our perception of light doesn't necessarily reflect it's true nature.  Our perception of God, doesn't necessarily reflect the true nature of God.

In my next post, I'm going to show the true nature of gravity and of light by asking the right questions.  If we don't ask the right questions, then we're not going to get the right answers.  Why would I do this.  To show you non-believers what you think you see is a lie, and what you think you don't see is the truth.

Gravock

and you then posted the following in reply to the above,


This is idiotic.  We cannot see air, but we know it exists, and not on faith.  We cannot see atoms, but we know they exist, and not on faith.  We cannot see black holes, but we know they exist, and again, nothing to do with faith.


Faith is not a perception.  It is an irrational belief without evidence.

but, you conveniently overlooked the statement I said in my original post, "There is as much extant material evidence or logical proof for the things which we do not see as to the things which we do see".  This includes air, atoms, black holes, etc.

I never said faith is a perception.  I said belief is a perception. You believing air exists does require faith based on adequate evidence.  Your belief does not make something true.  Our belief is only how we perceive things to be, and I have shown how we perceive things to be isn't always the true reality of things.  A magician also proves how we perceive things doesn't necessarily reflect the true reality of what we believe we see.  Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition.  Without adequate evidence for the existence of air, then it would be a mere superstition.

Gravock

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Probality of Tards
« Reply #1247 on: November 07, 2012, 05:29:30 PM »
what hebrews 11:1 states doesn't mean jack squat... jesus fucking christ you're ignorant. ::)

faith has no evidence you lunatic. that's why it's called faith. ::)

There's a difference in having faith in God (a Creator) over your flying spaghetti monster.  There's adequate evidence in having faith in a Creator.  Beholding all that is before you is the adequate evidence.  There's no evidence for your flying spaghetti monster.  The flying spaghetti monster is a superstition and a figment of your imagination with no evidence to support it, thus there can be no faith in the flying spaghetti monster, and to assert otherwise is lunacy.

Gravock

Offline PS123

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Probality of God
« Reply #1248 on: November 07, 2012, 06:56:47 PM »
 Ok. So 'we' as believers in God(that you dont believe exists) will never find OU because of our belief system?
 
 But you. You have OU because you are not one sided. Please share your bounty!! You are pure genius free of the chains of a God. Wow, you must have hundreds of ways to produce OU as a non believer. You are soo great.                     Please show us your light so that we may believe in what you say.   
 
 Do you know what you are saying when you are saying it???   Think on it a bit.
 
 Fool and hypocrite.
 
 Magzimus Leviticus[/font][/size]
 
 
 [/font][/size]
“God (that you dont believe exists)” : I only said he is not alone to decide.(cfr. Lilith) [/font][/size]
“ pure genius free of the chains of a God” : that God put you in chains, that is obvious.[/font][/size]
“You are soo great”: 1m86[/font][/size]
“Fool and hypocrite”: thanks for your kind words Minimus Leviticus.[/font][/size]
 [/font][/size]
Peter

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Probality of God
« Reply #1249 on: November 07, 2012, 09:26:03 PM »
A wave must posses Acceleration in order to exist. When a rope, see image below, is moved across a table top in order to create a wave, if the rope is not Accelerated, the wave will not exist. A rope that only moves at a velocity does not create a wave, it simply moves the rope across the table top.  Light, which moves at a constant velocity in a vacuum of 299,792,458 m/s can not possibly create or be a wave.  Science erroneously claims light has an instantaneous velocity of 299,792,458 m/s without first having to undergo a period of acceleration.  We'll see how this is a partial truth which inverts the true reality of things.  So, if light doesn't have Acceleration to be a wave, then what does (this is the right question which needs to be asked)?  Gravity has an acceleration of 9.82 m/s2 in order to create a wave.  Accelerating at 9.82 m/s2 for 30,585,600 seconds (exact lunar year) = the Velocity of Gravity and the measured speed for Light in a vacuum of 299,792,458 m/s.  Orbit and expansion acceleration are One!  In other words, light has no velocity and acceleration.  Science was right about light not having acceleration, but it was wrong and inverted the truth about light's true velocity.  We only perceive light to have an instantaneous velocity of 299,792,458 m/s without first having to undergo a period of acceleration because we are already moving at that speed via expansion acceleration of mass.  Thus, we are moving past stationary light via expansion acceleration!  There are other proofs than this, such as there is only one proper angel which light reflects off a curved surface.  If light moved, then we would never be able to see the complete circumference of the moon because there is only one proper angle which the light from the sun would reflect off the curved surface of the moon back into our eyes.  We would only see a dot and not the entire circumference of the moon if light moved!  Like I said, what you think you see (light moving) is false, and what you think you don't see (expansion acceleration) is true.  How we perceive things to be is the inverse of the true reality of things!

Gravock
30,585,600 s x 9.82 m/s2 = 300,350,592 s
300,350,592 =/= 299,792,458

Lunar year = 354.37 days (wikipedia) = 30,617,568 seconds using 24 hour days
30,617,568 x 9.82 =300,664,518 =/= 299,792,458

Lunar year = 12 lunar months = 12 x 29.531 days (Free Online Dictionary)  = 354.372 days = 30,617,740.8 seconds
30,617,740.8 x 9.82 = 300,666,215 =/= 299,792,458

Rounding error?
Interesting numerical coincidence, though. But why did you choose the Moon's time of orbiting? Why not choose a geostationary satellite, which orbits the same Earth in the same gravitational field of acceleration of 9.82 m/s2 but does it in close to 24 hours?


I do agree though, that the true one-way velocity of light is zero.

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Probality of God
« Reply #1250 on: November 07, 2012, 10:11:37 PM »
30,585,600 s x 9.82 m/s2 = 300,350,592 s
300,350,592 =/= 299,792,458

Lunar year = 354.37 days (wikipedia) = 30,617,568 seconds using 24 hour days
30,617,568 x 9.82 =300,664,518 =/= 299,792,458

Lunar year = 12 lunar months = 12 x 29.531 days (Free Online Dictionary)  = 354.372 days = 30,617,740.8 seconds
30,617,740.8 x 9.82 = 300,666,215 =/= 299,792,458

Rounding error?
Interesting numerical coincidence, though. But why did you choose the Moon's time of orbiting? Why not choose a geostationary satellite, which orbits the same Earth in the same gravitational field of acceleration of 9.82 m/s2 but does it in close to 24 hours?


I do agree though, that the true one-way velocity of light is zero.

It's good to see you agree with the true one-way velocity of light being zero.  Why didn't I choose a geostationary satellite which orbits the same earth in the same gravitational field of acceleration of 9.82 m/s2?  Because a geostationary satellite doesn't orbit the earth at 9.82 m/s2, and this is only representative of the rate of acceleration at or near the surface of the earth.  Also, 9.82 m/s2 has been rounded up.  Why did I choose the moons time of orbiting?  Because the earth doesn't orbit the sun in 365 days or a solar year according to terrestrial science (it actually takes much, much longer).  Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a precession of 1,223 seconds. It is an effect that can be explained when one knows more about it. The Earth, in common with the whole of the solar system, takes a spiral course through space. This is a retrograde spiral movement, with the Sun at its centre. The Earth revolving in one direction makes a spiral in the opposite direction. I'm attaching an illustration of this.  Now this whole retrograde spiral itself moves in a circle through space, and at the end of every year it cuts across the circumference of this circle slightly earlier than in the preceding year, to be exact 1,223 seconds prior to the completion of the sidereal year.  A sidereal year is the time taken by the Earth to orbit the Sun once with respect to the fixed stars. 
 
 As the Equator of the Earth lies at an angle of 23 degrees to the Sun, the retrograde movement of the Earth will cause the light of the Sun to reach the Equator 1,223 seconds before the Earth itself crosses this circumference. The annual rate of precession is 50.2619o on this spiral, means it takes the Earth 25,784.93 years to complete a whole cycle  (this is the true solar year and the amount of time it takes the earth to make one complete orbit around the sun).   According to wiki, the axial precession of earth goes through one such complete precessional cycle in a period of approximately 26,000 years or 1° every 72 years, during which the positions of stars will slowly change in both equatorial coordinates and ecliptic longitude.  The 26,000 years is close to the 25,784.93 years (the number used by wiki has been rounded up).  The lunar year is representative of this complete cycle in terms of the earth's true solar year on this retrograde spiral.  The imaginary line that the spiral movement describes in space lies at right angles to the inclination. Since it contains the greater land mass, the North Pole is thrown slightly off balance by the resultant centrifugal force and moves to the outside of the spiral track, whereas the South Pole, with the lesser land mass, moves to the inside of the track.
 
 So the annual precession is not strictly speaking a displacement, but rather the direction the spiral follows, or a tendency of the poles to move under the unbalanced action of the differing centrifugal force at the two poles. This tendency throws one pole to the outside of the spiral track and pulls the other to the inside of it, this in turn causes the Equator to alter its position in relation to the Sun, without any alteration in the angle of the axial inclination itself.

2 Peter 3:8–9 reads:  ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’ 

Gravock
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 11:45:02 PM by gravityblock »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Probality of God
« Reply #1251 on: November 07, 2012, 11:25:55 PM »
Ah, I see. Yes, you've unlocked the secret of the esoteric Grand Year, the complete precessional cycle that defines the Ages of Man on Earth. And you've explained it very well too. Seen from a Being far away and with temporal Vision, the trail of the Earth's orbit around the sun would trace out your helical path (not spiral) as you say and would not actually "close" for the full 27 thousand years, about.
But from an even greater Being's viewpoint even further out.... the Sun itself is moving, bobbing up and down thru the Galactic plane on its orbit around the Galactic center.... it's now halfway through its 19th orbit, passing through the local Arm on its way to one of the interarm Gaps, rushing almost directly away from the star Sirius at over 300 km/sec. From that perspective it will take something like one eighteenth of 4.7 billion "standard" years, or a bit over a quarter of a billion years, for the Even Grandest Year to conclude.
This is all covered in the Vedanta, by the way, as you probably  know.

Offline Gwandau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
Re: Probality of God
« Reply #1252 on: November 08, 2012, 12:04:45 AM »
"wattsup,
 
I soo agree"

Well of course you do, you kind honorable, caring person that enjoys Wilberts demeaning childish(devil child) comedy. 

Im glad you find it funny. And when it happens to you or your children or family members or even a little old lady across the street, you will just laugh and giggle your way to your happy place. Because that is your character that I will remember. Not that you dont believe in God. That comes easily as a reminder with the other. ;)

Fools and hypocrites

Magzimus Leviticus

 

Oh my, are you taking yourself serious?  You are a very serious and self important man aren't you? ;)
 
Why so serious? Laugh at the clowninsh wilby and his hilarious attacks upon your self importance. He is quite funny when he gets angry and frustrated.  ;D ;D
Why do you take yourself so seriously? Big ego? Self pity? Feeling you give more than you take? Feeling that your duty to defend your belief system is taxing?
 

Remember not to take your life too seriously. There is nothing serious with life itself.  Life just is.  :)

The rest is in your head, its our mind that is our greatest enemy. Open up for the childish extacy of being alive. Don't take yourself too serious. ;)
 
You got nothing to lose but your head. ;)
 

Gwandau

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Probality of Tards
« Reply #1253 on: November 08, 2012, 01:37:07 AM »
I said this,

and you then posted the following in reply to the above,

but, you conveniently overlooked the statement I said in my original post, "There is as much extant material evidence or logical proof for the things which we do not see as to the things which we do see".  This includes air, atoms, black holes, etc.

I never said faith is a perception.  I said belief is a perception. You believing air exists does require faith based on adequate evidence.  Your belief does not make something true.  Our belief is only how we perceive things to be, and I have shown how we perceive things to be isn't always the true reality of things.  A magician also proves how we perceive things doesn't necessarily reflect the true reality of what we believe we see.  Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition.  Without adequate evidence for the existence of air, then it would be a mere superstition.

Gravock


Well OK.  You trotted out the example of gravity, that we do not fully understand its source.  Whether or not we can perfectly explain space-time and gravity and why mass creates gravity is not the issue.  The analogous question would be - does gravity exist?  Well, since we can set up repeated experiments that demonstrate the effect of gravity, we can safely say that the force of gravity exists.


What experiments can you set up to prove the existence of God?  First, define God, please.

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Probality of Tards
« Reply #1254 on: November 08, 2012, 02:55:17 AM »

Well OK.  You trotted out the example of gravity, that we do not fully understand its source.  Whether or not we can perfectly explain space-time and gravity and why mass creates gravity is not the issue.  The analogous question would be - does gravity exist?  Well, since we can set up repeated experiments that demonstrate the effect of gravity, we can safely say that the force of gravity exists.


What experiments can you set up to prove the existence of God?  First, define God, please.

We can also set up repeated experiments that demonstrate the effects of centrifugal force,  but the effects are only apparent (fictitious) in the sense that it is not part of an interaction but is a result of rotation, with no reaction-force counterpart.  Fictitious is referring to the force not being present in the stationary inertial frame.  Likewise, experiments demonstrating the effects of gravity is apparent (fictitious) in the sense that it is not part of an interaction but is a result of expansion acceleration, with no reaction-force counterpart.  Fictitious is referring to the force not being present if one were outside of the expansion acceleration.  By being outside of the expansion acceleration, then there is no effect of gravity because it doesn't exist.  Gravity isn't anymore a real force than the so-called centrifugal force.

God is an oscillating charge superimposed on an infinite point, constantly causing a deformation of space, continually exerting its influence on the un-manifest, and automatically creating energy, and in consequence, matter. If God did not exist, nothing whatsoever would exist. This continual creation of energy in the Universe gives rise to an internal pressure in the nebulae which can be seen in the phenomenon known as "the flight of the nebulae."  As a result of this internal pressure they move away from one another.  You may raise the objection that this pressure is also applied in the direction of flight so that the internal pressure coupled with the external one would make them stable and they would not move apart, which would cause their mass to condense. My answer to this would be that energy created outside a galaxy tends to be drawn into the galaxy, condensing itself into material form. Thus we have an internal pressure coupled with an external decompression.

The flight of the nebulae prevents condensation taking place for three reasons: 1) This movement causes the interior pressure to disappear. However, nebulae appear to maintain an acceleration caused by an internal pressure within the Universe.  (2) As the nebulae move apart, that space which had been transformed into matter endeavors to return to its former state of primordial space in accordance with the law of rotation of masses in a magnetic field. This reconstitutes the energy that had been used for condensation of the matter, turning it into light, whose wave energy goes on decreasing until the moment of entropy is reached. This is what takes place on the Sun. Leaving aside the reaction that they bring about on the planets, the Sun's discharges into space are, in a sense, matter returning to its original state of primordial space.

In the first instance God supplied the power that brings about the deformation of space and the Sun, by an opposite process, turns it back into energy, thus re-establishing the balance. Everything comes from God and everything returns to Him. That is why neither matter nor energy exist, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what you call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.  The eternal living God is spirit. If He can create matter, can it be said that all spirits can deform space and create also? Not all of them. Only the Creator, whose nature is different. Spirits are created, and therefore in some degree manifest, but God is the Unmanifest. We are spirits but not of the nature of God. The Father is the generator of energy, and the spirits are merely a form of energy, albeit a different form to that found in matter. A spirit can create to a certain extent, just as we ourselves can, within limits, deform space, create and destroy. But there are limits to the things we can create. No spirit can create another spirit, for example. That would be beyond its power, but nothing is beyond the power of God. Not only can He create matter, energy and spirit, as He did, but He also created others who have a nature akin to His own. These are His Sons, let us give homage to them. They are of a similar nature to Him, and are sources of life and have the power to deform space. Life does not belong to us, and if we were to dissociate ourselves from God, we would die spiritually. But these other beings who are of a similar nature to the Heavenly Father constitute with Him a single unit, in themselves eternal.

Time should play the part instead of meters or distance. We should look upon Time as the result of the force that impels a body through space. The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed. Thus, if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force was infinitely small, time and space would be infinitely great. But, again the force is not everything, because in reality it does not exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome. What does exist then is the momentum that arises from the impulse of the force, and not the force itself. Again this impulse only exists as a function of a Will that gives rise to it. To sum up, time and space are the outcome of a powerful Will acting on the Universe, that is what we should measure, taking note of its intensity in any given phenomenon. In our Universe this Will (God) manifests itself as galactic time (you ask for experiments to prove the existence of God, but I assure you, no experiments are needed other than observing time and space and taking note of its intensity in any given phenomenon).

Gravock

Offline Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Probality of God
« Reply #1255 on: November 08, 2012, 04:54:06 AM »

Offline Qwert

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
Re: Probality of God
« Reply #1256 on: November 08, 2012, 05:21:47 AM »

God is an oscillating charge superimposed on an ............

I guess, this theory satisfies me, while the one of the Bible - doesn't. I can't wait for your theory of Evil.
The one of st. Augustine's (theory of evil) doesn't satisfy me.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 04:43:27 PM by Qwert »

Offline hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Probality of God
« Reply #1257 on: November 08, 2012, 07:39:48 AM »
The expanding big bang universe is much like religion, it is popularly accepted through faith alone.

Gathered data is manipulated to fit the original idea, and when it doesn't, the original idea is simply modified (not revoked), so the data does fit.

Big Bang and an expanding universe is accepted so readily, yet the proof of the entire convoluted hypothesis is reliant on one factor alone. Observed redshift.

The most interesting thing about this religion is the attribution of the idea of "redshift by expansion of space"  to Edwin Hubble.

Here's one (of many) dissenting views to popularly accepted belief.         http://www.etheric.com/Cosmology/redshift.html

Cheers

P.S.         http://users.navi.net/~rsc/physics/wallace/farce.txt                KneeDeep
           
               https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/home/edwinhubble
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 09:03:00 AM by hoptoad »

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Probality of Tards
« Reply #1258 on: November 08, 2012, 02:04:53 PM »
There's a difference in having faith in God (a Creator) over your flying spaghetti monster.  There's adequate evidence in having faith in a Creator.  Beholding all that is before you is the adequate evidence.  There's no evidence for your flying spaghetti monster.  The flying spaghetti monster is a superstition and a figment of your imagination with no evidence to support it, thus there can be no faith in the flying spaghetti monster, and to assert otherwise is lunacy.

Gravock
jesus fucking christ you're stupid... ::) "all that is before me" is evidence of the sauce of the flying spaghetti monster. ::) not your puny gawd of abraham. ::)

there is EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE FOR THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER AS THERE IS FOR YOUR IMAGINARY GODFAIRY SAVIOR/CREATOR FRIEND MORON....

NONE!

you're a delusional fucking zealot. ::)

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Probality of Tards
« Reply #1259 on: November 08, 2012, 02:07:38 PM »
but I assure you, no experiments are needed other than observing time and space and taking note of its intensity in any given phenomenon.

Gravock
your "assurances" don't mean jack squat... ::)