If god is all powerful why does he allow sin?

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Don't get upset bruv. I thought you wanted a robust debate. What's all this shit about the real Zack. I thought this was our banter. I can take it easy if you want to be a baby about it.

The fact remains: who should we believe, Phil or Einstein,  Godel and other far more intelligent people?

Again you haven't replied to anything of my questions - come back with anything in your own words. By your own rules, you lose. Just because of your stubborn stupidity.

I thought atheism was about seeking the truth. Guess I was wrong. You just proved it. At least you managed to prove one thing.

Mate I do not get upset at childish abuse thrown or a religious person hell bent thinking a theory is a fact when all that has been tested is protons, nothing yet in the way of humans.
I do seek the truth and I see good ideas here with space, though not when it comes to humans within our own time and again too much is an unknown here.

As I say all you can do is to descend to insults mainly what all religious people do when their faith comes under scrutiny, which you are proving now, again unless you can go into the future you cannot prove this is the case with all matter or that in fact you can even prove that time really exists.

The later is your first point of call, which of yet without your theory would not even work in the first place, some scientists say the universes is not real and we live in a computer simulation, the ideas are numerous, but as yet what you have is a theory, which is a concept not a fact, which is what you fail to understand from the start. The fact is the matter what is taken as fact has been proven wrong many times, thus the consensus at the moment is that something is a seen as scientific but not fact   

So if you wish to debate and am all for it, if you wish to act like a child, then you still need to grow up

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Yes, all those scientists in that YouTube video were all MUSLIM!  

Don't get upset bruv. You're begginng to sound like a bigot. I really hope I haven't driven you to that.

 ://?roflmao?/: 


You do not get my meaning muslims themselves try to make things fit for their faith, how about embryology for a start, a completely plagiarized error written by Galen found in the Quran

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Mate I do not get upset at childish abuse thrown or a religious person hell bent thinking a theory is a fact when all that has been tested is protons, nothing yet in the way of humans.
I do seek the truth and I see good ideas here with space, though not when it comes to humans within our own time and again too much is an unknown here.

As I say all you can do is to descend to insults mainly what all religious people do when their faith comes under scrutiny, which you are proving now, again unless you can go into the future you cannot prove this is the case with all matter or that in fact you can even prove that time really exists.

The later is your first point of call, which of yet without your theory would not even work in the first place, some scientists say the universes is not real and we live in a computer simulation, the ideas are numerous, but as yet what you have is a theory, which is a concept not a fact, which is what you fail to understand from the start. The fact is the matter what is taken as fact has been proven wrong many times, thus the consensus at the moment is that something is a seen as scientific but not fact   

So if you wish to debate and am all for it, if you wish to act like a child, then you still need to grow up

Lol! Your debating the poster not the post posts had a high calibre of stupidity childish insult which I can expose in one question:

Is the gps time dilation a concept?

It's based on the same equations we have been discussing. Just at a much smaller scale.

Now expand the same theory across galaxies and the time dilation is that much greater.

This is not a concept - it's very much real. Otherwise your sat nav wouldn't work.

This is not me saying this - but actual scientist. So of course I think you're stupid childish insultfor arguing with me. But you Your debating the poster not the postdo so because then you Your debating the poster not the post know I have won the second part of the debate.

But you Your debating the poster not the post continue the charade if you Your debating the poster not the postwant. I actually find that more entertaining.

Again bruv - didn't mean to upset you. Genuinely thought you Your debating the poster not the post had the balls to take it.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


 ://?roflmao?/: 


You do not get my meaning muslims themselves try to make things fit for their faith, how about embryology for a start, a completely plagiarized error written by Galen found in the Quran

Classic thread diversion - tut tut   

Another sign of someone losing the debate.

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Your debating the poster not the post posts had a high calibre of stupidity childish insult which I can expose in one question:

Is the gps time dilation a concept?

It's based on the same equations we have been discussing. Just at a much smaller scale.

Now expand the same theory across galaxies and the time dilation is that much greater.

This is not a concept - it's very much real. Otherwise your sat nav wouldn't work.

This is not me saying this - but actual scientist. So of course I think you're stupid childish insultfor arguing with me. But you  Your debating the poster not the postdo so because then you Your debating the poster not the post know I have won the second part of the debate.

But you Your debating the poster not the post continue the charade if you Your debating the poster not the postwant. I actually find that more entertaining.

Again bruv - didn't mean to upset you. Genuinely thought you Your debating the poster not the post had the balls to take it.

Again very hilarious to say the least, that does not prove that the future is set in stone for humans or many things, but only within a theory of time, of which you have yet to prove that time exists, something being avoiding like the plague.
What you have to show is how for example what people do tomorrow is set, of which this has not been proven, all that has been done is to show protons in an experiment, nothing more and you take that as fact the future is set, that is hilarious to say the least

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Classic thread diversion - tut tut   

Another sign of someone losing the debate.

Not losing anything you take something as a theory as fact, or have other theories once taken as fact been disproved?

Take your time on that, which means the consensus by scientists at the moment back this theory

DOH

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Again very hilarious to say the least, that does not prove that the future is set in stone for humans or many things, but only within a theory of time, of which you have yet to prove that time exists, something being avoiding like the plague.
What you have to show is how for example what people do tomorrow is set, of which this has not been proven, all that has been done is to show protons in an experiment, nothing more and you take that as fact the future is set, that is hilarious to say the least

This is why I think you're being stupid childish insults again,for the sake of trying to be right.

You're not arguing with me - you're arguing with Eintein,  Godel and others.
I am not arguing with Einstein but on whether humans have no free will of which you are claiming

Your stupidity childish insults again, is further compounded by brining in protons - that's quantum mechanics.
Which is used to test this theory, DOH, again we want to see you apply this to humans, something you are avoiding

So how can you blame me for berating you when you clearly don't know the difference but pretend to.
I know the difference and know you have no case on anything here, which is making me PMSL at you getting so wound up

Again - GPS would not work without these theories - that's all the proof I need.
GPS. how about humans, which you know makes your view point very difficult to explain, hence why you keep avoiding the matter

I haven't even begun to bring in religion into this debate. But it seems you want to preempt because you have lost the science debate.
What science debate, science is what the consensus is for that moment, which you must admit does change, DOH, or did you not read the theory on black skin evolving?
DOH

Where are all these bro-scientist on this board - and why aren't they defending you of I'm so wrong?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Not losing anything you take something as a theory as fact, or have other theories once taken as fact been disproved?

Take your time on that, which means the consensus by scientists at the moment back this theory

DOH

Read my post above.

And before you start being 'incorrectly' pedantic about the word theory - where does tHat leave The theory of evolution?

Your digging yourself a huge hole. Which I'm sure the likes of HF will take advantage.

heavenly father wrote:if we all keep throwing copy and paste around it doesn't really help, only the validity of the source can be questioned...  

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:if we all keep throwing copy and paste around it doesn't really help, only the validity of the source can be questioned...  

DOH, so quoting top scientists is not important now?

Run along and play there is a good boy

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Read my post above.

And before you start being 'incorrectly' pedantic about the word theory - where does tHat leave The theory of evolution?

Your digging yourself a huge hole. Which I'm sure the likes of HF will take advantage.

I have always seen the theory of evolution as just that, even HF looked inept when I told him that, because it is a theory, I suggest you look up the meaning of theory.

DOH

Man you get so wound up its hilarious

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


DOH, so quoting top scientists is not important now?

Run along and play there is a good boy

if they can quote from elsewhere back it just becomes a ping pong match..

top scientists can be wrong or change their views you know...  

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:if we all keep throwing copy and paste around it doesn't really help, only the validity of the source can be questioned...  

DOH, so quoting top scientists is not important now?

Run along and play there is a good boy

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I have always seen the theory of evolution as just that, even HF looked inept when I told him that, because it is a theory, I suggest you look up the meaning of theory.

DOH

Man you get so wound up its hilarious

Wound up by bro-scientists, yup - every time. Which is why I berated you. No offense.

Scientific theory is SUBSTANTIATED explanation as to why something happens.

Do you want me to repeat that? Or just keep on berating you.

Perhaps you are getting confused with a hypothesis. Look that up.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


DOH, so quoting top scientists is not important now?

Run along and play there is a good boy

Don't be a hypocrite  Didge. You're the one who wanted everything in our own words. Or don't the rules don't apply to you?

Now you get upset when you don't have the words to explain yourself and have to rely on others.

I'll ask again - where are all these so called scientists on this board - Ben, Stardesk, beekeeper, and others. Why aren't they defending you if I'm so wrong?

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Wound up by bro-scientists, yup - every time. Which is why I berated you. No offense.

Scientific theory is SUBSTANTIATED explanation as to why something happens.

Do you want me to repeat that? Or just keep on berating you.

Perhaps you are getting confused with a hypothesis. Look that up.

Do as you please Zack I am not convinced and neither will I be that it is fact because it is based upon explanation, which again has been shown where before something f as a theory taken as fact has been proven to be wrong, or do you now dispute that has happened?

The reality is I am yet to see you make this in any sense or shape or form showing nobody has choice over their actions, that you have not done in any shape or form, but are reliant on this concept only to back your point, where even scientists do not agree with the examples provided.

So like I said you have taken a concept and tried to make it fit your belief, of which yet you cannot prove in regards to humans

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Don't be a hypocrite  Didge. You're the one who wanted everything in our own words. Or don't the rules don't apply to you?

Now you get upset when you don't have the words to explain yourself and have to rely on others.

I'll ask again - where are all these so called scientists on this board - Ben, Stardesk, beekeeper, and others. Why aren't they defending you if I'm so wrong?

Why are you asking me, ask them, what a daft disposition to ask

Again you used a video and links did you not to back your claim thus showing you are guilty of the same, so please spare me the gobbledygook zack, that really is pathetic.  

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Do as you please Zack I am not convinced and neither will I be that it is fact because it is based upon explanation, which again has been shown where before something f as a theory taken as fact has been proven to be wrong, or do you now dispute that has happened?

The reality is I am yet to see you make this in any sense or shape or form showing nobody has choice over their actions, that you have not done in any shape or form, but are reliant on this concept only to back your point, where even scientists do not agree with the examples provided.

So like I said you have taken a concept and tried to make it fit your belief, of which yet you cannot prove in regards to humans

Explaining that means you have to accept the science of space time first. But you're too scared to do that because it will shatter your illusions.

I have answered every question of yours, backed with what other scientists are saying.

All you have said is "it's just a concept" or I don't believe it -

As for your last sentence: do humans use gps?

You need to take a break. Your illusions have even shattered today and it will take some time for you to fully absorb it.

Take care.

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Explaining that means you have to accept the science of space time first. But you're too scared to do that because it will shatter your illusions.

I have answered every question of yours, backed with what other scientists are saying.

All you have said is "it's just a concept" or I don't believe it -

As for your last sentence: do humans use gps?

You need to take a break. Your illusions have even shattered today and it will take some time for you to fully absorb it.

Take care.

I have no need to take a break ha ha

So funny, I want you to test that humans cannot alter their future and that it is set in stone, using this science, not GPS PMSL

Again you are using a concept nothing more and I find it hilarious you stick to this theory as fact.

I am under no illusions, even more so the fact you take the Quran as fact, the work of nothing more than a man, who was nothing more than suffering delusions, yet you take what he claims as divinet as fact, based on faith, so before you go telling someone to look at themselves, you may want to start with yourself

  

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Do humans use gps?

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Do humans use gps?

Yes humans use GPS as a means to get somewhere, does that mean the human will use the GPS to get there and can the GPS get it wrong?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Yes humans use GPS as a means to get somewhere, does that mean the human will use the GPS to get there and can the GPS get it wrong?

Can I have that in English please. Didn't get it.

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Can I have that in English please. Didn't get it.

Humans can use a GPS



GPS can be wrong

clear enough for you

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Humans can use a GPS



GPS can be wrong

clear enough for you

Oh wow. Now I know you're hanging by finger tips. Crystal clear.

The science that makes GPS is not wrong.  Can you see the difference?

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Oh wow. Now I know you're hanging by finger tips. Crystal clear.

The science that makes GPS is not wrong.  Can you see the difference?

I see the difference and I can see how things fail, like you not being able to prove time exists.

That is key to your argument, without its existence your concept fails  

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I see the difference and I can see how things fail, like you not being able to prove time exists.

That is key to your argument, without its existence your concept fails  

Actually didge you're the idiot here

A gps to use your example cannot be "wrong" UNLESS it's broken or there is user error when the data is put into the gps

Worst case is that a gps will simply not work due to a lack of sufficient satellites positioned overheard

Even then the gps may work to a lesser degree of accuracy

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Actually didge you're the idiot here

A gps to use your example cannot be "wrong" UNLESS it's broken or there is user error when the data is put into the gps

Worst case is that a gps will simply not work due to a lack of sufficient satellites positioned overheard

Even then the gps may work to a lesser degree of accuracy

Given up the other ghost then, oh well and I am not disputing the GPS either
What I am disputing is time, we use it as a measure, but does it really exist.

Thus hence why I have asked Zack to prove exists, as it is instrumental to his claim

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Given up the other ghost then, oh well and I am not disputing the GPS either
What I am disputing is time, we use it as a measure, but does it really exist.

Thus hence why I have asked Zack to prove exists, as it is instrumental to his claim

You can get all philosophical about it but then I'm not a philosopher.  I'm a physicist - or at least have a degree in one.

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Actually didge you're the idiot here

A gps to use your example cannot be "wrong" UNLESS it's broken or there is user error when the data is put into the gps

Worst case is that a gps will simply not work due to a lack of sufficient satellites positioned overheard

Even then the gps may work to a lesser degree of accuracy

Given up the other ghost then, oh well and I am not disputing the GPS either
What I am disputing is time, we use it as a measure, but does it really exist.

Thus hence why I have asked Zack to prove exists, as it is instrumental to his claim

heavenly father wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

I dont undersatand your point, and you did not address a single one of mine.

it is inefficent which is inperfection. God should be a LOT smarter than You and Should be smarter than me to So why doesn't he do it more efficently. he is doing a bad job far from perfect, taking years to do somethign he could have done in an instant.. is it laziness that means even with all knowledge and all power he doesn't bother? it shoudl be really easy for him to fix this.

If you cant respond to any of the points I will assume you admit you are wrong, if you say you rely on faith I will assume that also is an admission of you complete acceptance that you are following nothing but a very incorrect Fairytale.

efficient by your standards, your standards are bound by your knowledge of things, would it be more efficient to just build a house, yes, until it collapses through lack of foundations, when you have eternity efficiency seems to diminish in my mind, if you have forever to achieve something why do you need to be efficient, besides God knows what his ultimate goal is and his plan is likely to be a lot better than anything you can come up with...

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You can get all philosophical about it but then I'm not a philosopher.  I'm a physicist - or at least have a degree in one.

Now you have learnt a lesson in the art of debating Zack.
You showed a weakness, pride, being that you had me cream crackered on the science, something I could never hope to match you on, but your failing was pride, you placed all your eggs in one basket, failing to be able to prove one aspect of your claim, proving time. I was on my knees in this knowing I could only play on one thing,  pride and you fell for it.

To the point in hand to me we have free will and time is and always has been a concept we as humans have made up, I do not have to be scientific like you to understand, because out of the two of us, I am the one who deals in history and psychology, why you back my views many times in regards to your own faith.

So now you know you follow a concept, not a fact

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Given up the other ghost then, oh well and I am not disputing the GPS either
What I am disputing is time, we use it as a measure, but does it really exist.

Thus hence why I have asked Zack to prove exists, as it is instrumental to his claim

Yes I see you've given up the ghost didge.

When DID you realise you were making a fool of yourself

Thus and hence are the same thing in the context you used them in

idiot

"Prove exists"

What the fuck is that??

Mongo

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Yes I see you've given up the ghost didge.

When DID you realise you were making a fool of yourself

Thus and hence are the same thing in the context you used them in

idiot

"Prove exists"

What the fuck is that??

Mongo

He has a hard time constructing a cohesive sentence when he's stressed.

I must say, he's learnt a lot of tactics from you.

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

He has a hard time constructing a cohesive sentence when he's stressed.

I must say, he's learnt a lot of tactics from you.

PMSL the day you look to smelly for recognition, that really shows you have reached the bottom, ha ha, dear me you are so acting like a child it is hilarious


We both know you are screwed because you need to prove time exists an you cannot, so opps, sorry to burst your bubble

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


PMSL the day you look to smelly for recognition, that really shows you have reached the bottom, ha ha, dear me you are so acting like a child it is hilarious


We both know you are screwed because you need to prove time exists an you cannot, so opps, sorry to burst your bubble

Are you viewing the Sun as it is now? YES/NO

PhilDidge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Are you viewing the Sun as it is now? YES/NO

I don't buy the sun.

  

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I don't buy the sun.

  

You're a coward. And you just lost another debate.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Yes I see you've given up the ghost didge.

When DID you realise you were making a fool of yourself

Thus and hence are the same thing in the context you used them in

idiot

"Prove exists"

What the fuck is that??

Mongo

He has a hard time constructing a cohesive sentence when he's stressed.

I must say, he's learnt a lot of tactics from you.

PhilDidge wrote:Oh well guess nobody can prove time exists

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Oh well guess nobody can prove time exists

i don't think anyone needs to

we all know that time exists

you're the only one arguing that it doesn't

which is why you're on your own here

crack on fella

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

i don't think anyone needs to

we all know that time exists

you're the only one arguing that it doesn't

which is why you're on your own here

crack on fella

Are you sure, then why have scientists been unable to prove that it does?

DOH

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Are you sure, then why have scientists been unable to prove that it does?

DOH

what time is it now didge, where you are I mean?  

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

what time is it now didge, where you are I mean?  

Time is a measure we use, prove it exists, a clock does not prove time exists.


DOH

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

i don't think anyone needs to

we all know that time exists

you're the only one arguing that it doesn't

which is why you're on your own here

crack on fella

Are you sure, then why have scientists been unable to prove that it does?

DOH