First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Science proves that God exists?
1131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / earth
Offline
Posted 1/13/09
Great Thinking. You should take up philosophy
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

LemonyPanda wrote:



One thing to keep in mind however, much like everything else in the world, the laws of physics and chemistry are not guaranteed to be true in all instances. There are laws governing objects of astronomical sizes that vary significantly with the laws governing microscopic objects. These laws are simply events that we have observed over a period of time, in our own frame of reference. That by no means imply that these laws will automatically impose their rules upon the rest of the universe. Rather, it is the truth in the rest of the universe and the rest of time(past and future) that imposes their will upon our observations.

These laws were created to help us better understand how things work in our surroundings, in our own time frame, from our own perspective, but they are far from absolute truth. It is important to realize, first there was reality, then there was the comprehension of reality. Not, first there was the comprehension of reality, and thus reality was born.

Furthermore, maybe matter/energy can be created and we just haven't figured out how. Or maybe things can be in motion without an initial force. Well, technically all things are in motion in the 4th dimension, nothing can defy the flow of time. No force needs to cause time to move, it just moves. In that sense, we can break free of our three-dimensional mental confinement when we think about the concept of causality.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09

fear_unleashed wrote:

Science will always look for an explanation to anything but I believe in God and that he created the universe.


More like: Religion will always look for an excuse to anything proven by science, but I believe in Science and that it's the fundamental principle of our universe.


Fightingmonkey wrote:

I got this from 4chan so don't blame me >> ATHEISM

The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense.


Yeah I've seen that shit around too. It's a pathetic attempt by religious people to appear smart and make atheists sound dumb when their belief is more absurd than the Big Bang theory.


The problem with science vs religion is that science never really existed during the time when most religions were being made or processed. I'm not entirely sure of the years and dates at the top of my mind, but it goes something like this in a timeline:

|------When most religion was made----||-----------------------------------------------||---------When Science was made--|

Once you understand this, it's pretty much impossible for religion to claim that it can back up science since both was made in completely different time periods. Religion was precedent to the age of science; had the people who made religion done it after the enlightenment period of science, their concepts and ideas would be easier to debate against Science.

This is primarily why the whole idea of trying to counter science with a very obsolete belief in itself is inane and stupid.



LemonyPanda wrote:
Newton's first law states that an object cannot move unless acted upon an outside force, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless again acted upon an outside force.

So imagine, if somehow mass WAS created, it would be simply just floating around not moving at all. There would have to be someone to give a little push, to cause this enormous chain of reaction for us to be living.

This is where atomic energy,potential energy, and gravity comes into play. The moving force behind the Big Bang idea cannot be fully proven at the moment with our current knowledge of physics. Many scholars theorize that it has something to do with a Singularity which exists at the core of a Black Hole and provides a large gravitational pull. The pressure in these singularities are considered to be so powerful beyond our mathematical capabilities of understanding.


LemonyPanda wrote:
Here's another famous equation E=mc squared. (E stands for energy, m stands for mass, c stands for the speed of light) This means that all mass, every single atom CAN be created, if there are enormous amounts of energy and extremely high speeds, but again, you can't have that unless you have Newton's first law of physics, NOTHING can move unless there is some kind of force.

Not necessarily. The formula doesn't claim that mass can be created out of energy and speed of light, but rather each mass posses its own energy under the idea of conservation of mass.

E = mc^2 cannot be automatically thought of as m = E/(c^2).


LemonyPanda wrote:
So who started all of this? Some kind of outside force to push first domino and create a spectacular chain of events to create this present day? Not to mention creating life and humans who can rationalize, think, have morales for themselves, and to CREATE life as well. (and btw Einstein believed there was a God but didn't believe in christianity)

Refer to my earlier post of singularity.

I guess in a very open-minded point of view, there can be possibly a very powerful force, whether it's a being or science, behind the creation of earth. However, you're dismissing a lot of the things which science does to directly disprove the Bible and God itself; example, carbon-dating.

I would say your knowledge in physics and chemistry is severely lacking to come to the conclusion that there's a high chance of science proving God's existence when more than often it disproves the existence of God.
335 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / pinas
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

makix wrote:


fear_unleashed wrote:

Science will always look for an explanation to anything but I believe in God and that he created the universe.


More like: Religion will always look for an excuse to anything proven by science, but I believe in Science and that it's the fundamental principle of our universe.


Fightingmonkey wrote:

I got this from 4chan so don't blame me >> ATHEISM

The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense.


Yeah I've seen that shit around too. It's a pathetic attempt by religious people to appear smart and make atheists sound dumb when their belief is more absurd than the Big Bang theory.


The problem with science vs religion is that science never really existed during the time when most religions were being made or processed. I'm not entirely sure of the years and dates at the top of my mind, but it goes something like this in a timeline:

|------When most religion was made----||-----------------------------------------------||---------When Science was made--|

Once you understand this, it's pretty much impossible for religion to claim that it can back up science since both was made in completely different time periods. Religion was precedent to the age of science; had the people who made religion done it after the enlightenment period of science, their concepts and ideas would be easier to debate against Science.

This is primarily why the whole idea of trying to counter science with a very obsolete belief in itself is inane and stupid.



LemonyPanda wrote:
Newton's first law states that an object cannot move unless acted upon an outside force, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless again acted upon an outside force.

So imagine, if somehow mass WAS created, it would be simply just floating around not moving at all. There would have to be someone to give a little push, to cause this enormous chain of reaction for us to be living.

This is where atomic energy,potential energy, and gravity comes into play. The moving force behind the Big Bang idea cannot be fully proven at the moment with our current knowledge of physics. Many scholars theorize that it has something to do with a Singularity which exists at the core of a Black Hole and provides a large gravitational pull. The pressure in these singularities are considered to be so powerful beyond our mathematical capabilities of understanding.


LemonyPanda wrote:
Here's another famous equation E=mc squared. (E stands for energy, m stands for mass, c stands for the speed of light) This means that all mass, every single atom CAN be created, if there are enormous amounts of energy and extremely high speeds, but again, you can't have that unless you have Newton's first law of physics, NOTHING can move unless there is some kind of force.

Not necessarily. The formula doesn't claim that mass can be created out of energy and speed of light, but rather each mass posses its own energy under the idea of conservation of mass.

E = mc^2 cannot be automatically thought of as m = E/(c^2).


LemonyPanda wrote:
So who started all of this? Some kind of outside force to push first domino and create a spectacular chain of events to create this present day? Not to mention creating life and humans who can rationalize, think, have morales for themselves, and to CREATE life as well. (and btw Einstein believed there was a God but didn't believe in christianity)

Refer to my earlier post of singularity.

I guess in a very open-minded point of view, there can be possibly a very powerful force, whether it's a being or science, behind the creation of earth. However, you're dismissing a lot of the things which science does to directly disprove the Bible and God itself; example, carbon-dating.

I would say your knowledge in physics and chemistry is severely lacking to come to the conclusion that there's a high chance of science proving God's existence when more than often it disproves the existence of God.


then why do you think the age of religion precedes the age of science? and what proof/s do you have? im just curious
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

aristotel wrote:

then why do you think the age of religion precedes the age of science? and what proof/s do you have? im just curious


We began worshiping deities before we had the tools to figure out what was really causing a lot of natural phenomena, and once we did have those tools it was (and still is) difficult for people to let go of the idea that some conscious being was behind it all.
335 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / pinas
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09
well i believe that science is the search for truth. were our ancestors not trying to search for truth before, too? even the cavemen apply/know science.. since they also tried improvising tools like for food and other stuff. whichever came first does not matter.what matters most is our purpose to live in this world.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

LemonyPanda wrote:

and what "particles" are we talking about. Anything exists either in the form of mass or energy. You can't just simple create the other.


Mass in itself is merely a description of matter. From our current understanding of the universe, any form of matter would be composed of particles at its smallest level. Other theories like string theory don't have sufficient evidence to be regarded as canon.

What do you mean by the last sentence?

2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

Faeleia




I'll just share a couple of these things I've learnt through listening to my pastor unravelling Jesus. You may choose to refute or accept, I will not attempt to prove myself right, since I am no science expert. You know now that the earth spins on an axis of 23.5 degrees? This creates the 4 seasons, because of the position of earth surface gets uneven exposure to the sun.

Before Noah's flood, the earth didn't spin at an angle at all. Without the tilt, the entire earth is evenly covered by the sun, there would not be the four seasons, places would get even number of day and night everywhere.

But when God flooded the earth, he tilted the earth so that the waters would gather at both ends of axis. This is where you get your north and south pole. If earth was straight back up, or tilted at an angle just a little less or more, the earth would either get burnt of closeness to the sun, or flooded by the waters again. You can try to find scientific backing to this if you want.

First mentions in the bible is important. Often, we rely on other people to interpret the bible for us, but actually, apart from that, God has placed in believers the holy spirit as a guide to witness to truth such that when we hear truth being preached, it gives comfort because truth being spoken actually confirms what you already know but haven't realised. If you feel uneasy after listening to sermons because the messages preaches a heavy sermon about a judgemental God, a wrathful God who only seeks punishment, then please don't continue listening to those.

After Noah's flood, when he left the boat to take a look outside, the bible first mentions the appearance of a rainbow, which has never appeared before. This rainbow refers to no more judgement, which can be cross-referenced to other mentions of rainbow in the bible.

I'll just quote a man who attends the same church as I do:


Christians ought to model themselves unto Jesus who has a rainbow or no judgment mentality towards His children.

Jesus has a rainbow crowning his head (Rev 10) and reading this with Isa 54:9, we have the assurance that God has no judgment towards those who believe in His Son.


Please read the rest of the article here if you're interested. I find it to be a great refreshing for me.
http://tycm.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/the-cross-your-redemption-from-shame-and-reproach-7-dec-2008-1st-svc/

Today, the New covenant writes of a God who has already cut the covenant deal with Jesus, grace in exchange for Law. The grace of Christ superabounds where the law condemns. When you see his grace, he sees your faith. Therefore, don't try to muster faith to believe in him blindly. Your God that I believe in feeds the birds of the land, he clothes the lilies of the field. If he pays attention to small details, what more will he neglect his children, seated at his right hand in Christ?



Your pastor is a moron.

The very shape of the planet would prevent an uniform climate and season. The very idea of Earth being at a tilt comes from an arbitrary reference point, as there is no true "up" or "down" in space. Time zones do not come from the angle of axis, but the rotation of the planet.

I don't what reasoning led you to believe that the angle of axis affects how water. Simply put, gravity affects all objects from the center of mass.

The type of life on the earth is only possible from several different factors, one being the position of the planet relative to the sun. And no, the planet would not burn up from a little difference in distance or tilt.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09

excalion wrote:

One thing to keep in mind however, much like everything else in the world, the laws of physics and chemistry are not guaranteed to be true in all instances. There are laws governing objects of astronomical sizes that vary significantly with the laws governing microscopic objects. These laws are simply events that we have observed over a period of time, in our own frame of reference. That by no means imply that these laws will automatically impose their rules upon the rest of the universe. Rather, it is the truth in the rest of the universe and the rest of time(past and future) that imposes their will upon our observations.

These laws were created to help us better understand how things work in our surroundings, in our own time frame, from our own perspective, but they are far from absolute truth. It is important to realize, first there was reality, then there was the comprehension of reality. Not, first there was the comprehension of reality, and thus reality was born.

Furthermore, maybe matter/energy can be created and we just haven't figured out how. Or maybe things can be in motion without an initial force. Well, technically all things are in motion in the 4th dimension, nothing can defy the flow of time. No force needs to cause time to move, it just moves. In that sense, we can break free of our three-dimensional mental confinement when we think about the concept of causality.


I wouldn't call the use of different models in varying circumstances a lack of guarantee. It comes from the fact that the laws of physics do not guarantee themselves to be active in all times at all points. That we derive from empirical evidence, which we use induction to surmise that physical laws apply to all instances. Hume points this out in a much wordier way.

Things can be in motion without an initial force, provided that motion (in relation to something else) was their ultimate original state.

Time itself is merely the observation of change. If nothing changed, the 4th dimension would not exist.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 1/14/09
As I already forgot to mention

there is no need to attribute aspects to God when you can attribute them to the universe
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

aristotel wrote:


makix wrote:


fear_unleashed wrote:

Science will always look for an explanation to anything but I believe in God and that he created the universe.


More like: Religion will always look for an excuse to anything proven by science, but I believe in Science and that it's the fundamental principle of our universe.


Fightingmonkey wrote:

I got this from 4chan so don't blame me >> ATHEISM

The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense.


Yeah I've seen that shit around too. It's a pathetic attempt by religious people to appear smart and make atheists sound dumb when their belief is more absurd than the Big Bang theory.


The problem with science vs religion is that science never really existed during the time when most religions were being made or processed. I'm not entirely sure of the years and dates at the top of my mind, but it goes something like this in a timeline:

|------When most religion was made----||-----------------------------------------------||---------When Science was made--|

Once you understand this, it's pretty much impossible for religion to claim that it can back up science since both was made in completely different time periods. Religion was precedent to the age of science; had the people who made religion done it after the enlightenment period of science, their concepts and ideas would be easier to debate against Science.

This is primarily why the whole idea of trying to counter science with a very obsolete belief in itself is inane and stupid.



LemonyPanda wrote:
Newton's first law states that an object cannot move unless acted upon an outside force, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless again acted upon an outside force.

So imagine, if somehow mass WAS created, it would be simply just floating around not moving at all. There would have to be someone to give a little push, to cause this enormous chain of reaction for us to be living.

This is where atomic energy,potential energy, and gravity comes into play. The moving force behind the Big Bang idea cannot be fully proven at the moment with our current knowledge of physics. Many scholars theorize that it has something to do with a Singularity which exists at the core of a Black Hole and provides a large gravitational pull. The pressure in these singularities are considered to be so powerful beyond our mathematical capabilities of understanding.


LemonyPanda wrote:
Here's another famous equation E=mc squared. (E stands for energy, m stands for mass, c stands for the speed of light) This means that all mass, every single atom CAN be created, if there are enormous amounts of energy and extremely high speeds, but again, you can't have that unless you have Newton's first law of physics, NOTHING can move unless there is some kind of force.

Not necessarily. The formula doesn't claim that mass can be created out of energy and speed of light, but rather each mass posses its own energy under the idea of conservation of mass.

E = mc^2 cannot be automatically thought of as m = E/(c^2).


LemonyPanda wrote:
So who started all of this? Some kind of outside force to push first domino and create a spectacular chain of events to create this present day? Not to mention creating life and humans who can rationalize, think, have morales for themselves, and to CREATE life as well. (and btw Einstein believed there was a God but didn't believe in christianity)

Refer to my earlier post of singularity.

I guess in a very open-minded point of view, there can be possibly a very powerful force, whether it's a being or science, behind the creation of earth. However, you're dismissing a lot of the things which science does to directly disprove the Bible and God itself; example, carbon-dating.

I would say your knowledge in physics and chemistry is severely lacking to come to the conclusion that there's a high chance of science proving God's existence when more than often it disproves the existence of God.


then why do you think the age of religion precedes the age of science? and what proof/s do you have? im just curious


What do you mean "what proof do you have"? Religion came mostly about and was heavily involved during the dark ages. The science era, or called the "enlightenment" era, came significantly later in history. Do I have to go and find a history textbook for you? Although I despise K-12 textbooks, it should be adequate enough for you.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

LemonyPanda wrote:

Ok, think back to the beginning of chemistry class where you learn your first chem law

The conservation of mass, which means matter cannot be created nor destroyed (altho einstein proves this wrong but i'll get to that in a sec)

According to this law, then there wouldn't be anything here today, scince nothing can be created nor destroyed.

Here's another law, but from physics.

Newton's first law states that an object cannot move unless acted upon an outside force, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless again acted upon an outside force.

So imagine, if somehow mass WAS created, it would be simply just floating around not moving at all. There would have to be someone to give a little push, to cause this enormous chain of reaction for us to be living.

Here's another famous equation E=mc squared. (E stands for energy, m stands for mass, c stands for the speed of light) This means that all mass, every single atom CAN be created, if there are enormous amounts of energy and extremely high speeds, but again, you can't have that unless you have Newton's first law of physics, NOTHING can move unless there is some kind of force.

So who started all of this? Some kind of outside force to push first domino and create a spectacular chain of events to create this present day? Not to mention creating life and humans who can rationalize, think, have morales for themselves, and to CREATE life as well. (and btw Einstein believed there was a God but didn't believe in christianity)


Agree with me? or think im just a procrastinator who should be working on his massive amounts of homework right now but is too lazy and decided to post his lame ass thoughts on the internet?

comment and discuss


EDIT: for those saying that God should be believed through faith yes i agree with you too. You guys aren't getting my point. The reason why i created this thread was to show that there has to be some outer force not following the rules of physics. Can it be the Christian God? I believe so but that is up for the individual to decide. All i'm proving is that there IS a god out there, not saying that it was Jesus did all this


It can be Christian God
But Zeus and Thor are also good candidates, not to forget about Haruhi Suzumiya. LOLz.

I am actually wondering if those old laws and theories of physics is still used to explain the "nature". I am still waiting for someone who at least have learned about string theory to comment about the interpretation of the latest experiment in modern physics.

Or maybe we should wait for the LHC to find "God's Particle"
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09

leviathan343 wrote:


excalion wrote:

One thing to keep in mind however, much like everything else in the world, the laws of physics and chemistry are not guaranteed to be true in all instances. There are laws governing objects of astronomical sizes that vary significantly with the laws governing microscopic objects. These laws are simply events that we have observed over a period of time, in our own frame of reference. That by no means imply that these laws will automatically impose their rules upon the rest of the universe. Rather, it is the truth in the rest of the universe and the rest of time(past and future) that imposes their will upon our observations.

These laws were created to help us better understand how things work in our surroundings, in our own time frame, from our own perspective, but they are far from absolute truth. It is important to realize, first there was reality, then there was the comprehension of reality. Not, first there was the comprehension of reality, and thus reality was born.

Furthermore, maybe matter/energy can be created and we just haven't figured out how. Or maybe things can be in motion without an initial force. Well, technically all things are in motion in the 4th dimension, nothing can defy the flow of time. No force needs to cause time to move, it just moves. In that sense, we can break free of our three-dimensional mental confinement when we think about the concept of causality.


I wouldn't call the use of different models in varying circumstances a lack of guarantee. It comes from the fact that the laws of physics do not guarantee themselves to be active in all times at all points. That we derive from empirical evidence, which we use induction to surmise that physical laws apply to all instances. Hume points this out in a much wordier way.

Things can be in motion without an initial force, provided that motion (in relation to something else) was their ultimate original state.

Time itself is merely the observation of change. If nothing changed, the 4th dimension would not exist.


But as long as things have mass, they will have attraction force to each other, so being exist itself will bring change. Are we talking nothingness here? lolz.

Is there something concrete that can exclude mass in its property?

btw, Hello... nice to meet you again.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09


Einstein was a Jew....

Anyway! I’m a Christian, but I don’t think you’re on to anything. This is a long post but I read yours so please hear me out and read this wall of text.

Your approach is pretty common. It’s called the Casual Argument. Essentially the scientific debate in defense of divinity’s existence from this approach comes down to one question. Has the universe always existed or was it created at a given point in time?

Maybe that energy, that matter, wasn’t created at all. Maybe it has always existed? God has always existed, correct? So, then why can’t we suggest the same possibility for the natural universe? The Casual Argument now falls onto thermodynamics.

According to the first law of Thermodynamics there is a finite supply of energy in the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that this energy is constantly decreasing and converting into entropy-chaos, unavailable substance that can do nothing. Eventually Thermodynamics will climax into a Thermodynamic Equilibrium. When this happens we run into the ‘Heat Death,’ and the ‘Big Crunch.’ In this event the entire universe will be absolutely obliterated. Gravity slows time and shrinks space. In the ‘Big Crunch,’ time is infinitely slowed and space is infinitely shrunken and so both cease to exist.

You understand so far? Right now things are looking pretty good for God, huh? Not really, here’s why. The Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to an isolated system. However, nothing in the universe is isolated from the effects of gravity. Gravity doesn’t only shrink time, it also bends it. So, it’s actually possible that the universe is eternally old.

One theory of space-time suggests that if you fly to one edge of the universe you’ll emerge on the other end. This allows the universe to extend-which it does-without the existence of an exterior void because it can now bend into itself. Because gravity acts not only on physical bodies but also on the physical universe-space and time-it is possible that the universe is eternally old. That’s because time can be bent to create a sort of circle. This would allow the universe to continuously repeat.

That means that we do not have proof of God’s existence. However, that’s not all! The Casual Argument still stands-here’s why! Recent studies of black holes suggest that gravity is subject to the laws of Thermodynamics. That may not be true, but it seems true. It’s more likely than not. Assuming the more likely theory, the universe is not and cannot be eternally old; therefore, SCIENCE SUGGESTS GOD MAY BE REAL!

Or does it? No, not really. Science suggests that there was a creation, that’s the Big Bang Theory for you. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a God. It shows that it’s certainly possible, but not that it’s necessarily true. Maybe there’s another universe and a new reality produced our reality. In the other reality energy CAN be created and CAN be destroyed.

There can potentially be an infinite amount of realities and universe out there. Assuming that this is true then anything and everything is both true and false. That’s dualism. Really, you can go on for pages and pages about this. So far my post is clapping out at two pages.

However, despite what Pastor Hagee, Richard Dawkins, Paul Davies…despite what these people may think or want you to think, science has not proven or disproven God. It is simply impossible to prove a negative. You can prove that something exists but you cannot prove that it does not. At the same time, you cannot prove something without physical evidence.

As David Hestenes said, “Scientists explore the physical world for reproducible patterns which…organize into theories according to laws.”

Unless you feel that God is simply a mundane physical event, in which case he is not omnipotent or omniscient (maybe not even cognitive,) then I’m afraid you cannot prove him. So, science cannot prove one thing or the other. It’s an interesting field of thought but I’m afraid that once you dive into the singularity we really know nothing and can only speculate-not prove.

In a time so full of doubt and disagreement people are desperate to affirm their faith, or lack there in. Richard Dawkins tries to pretend there’s conclusive evidence and proof against God. Deists work towards the opposite. In both cases, there’s no basis in true fact.


However, you can argue about Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha. They were physical entities and we can really use logic, psychology, and history to gage the likelihood of their existence and the truth of their message. I recommend you read, “Between Heaven and Hell,” by Peter Kreeft if you’re interested in that. It’s the closest you’ll come to ‘proving’ god’s existence.

13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 1/14/09
o well i've only heard some of these laws you guys mentioned like the law of thermodynamics and the string theory but i do not know it enough to argue it. carry on folks i'll just sit in the corner reading my high school physics book reading about logitudinal waves
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.