New suppositions about God and the supernatural entities

[feeling]

LOOOOOL
Yeah they are shit. But the way of thinking described in the hypothesis is shit in itself. "People are just machines" people are machines no matter what the difference is what they are made of. How is having a soul suddenly makes you not a machine.
The 4th and 5th hypothesis are complete bullshit which makes no sense.

Btw jesus is the tyrant because he made hell in the first place.

---

Btw who wounded the cat?

3th and 4th and 5th all the best.
They are the more rationally than previous.

About 4th if there are invisible intelligent and soul and spirit they can claim to some person they are God.
I heard in sat christian TV, peoples said we hearing voice of Jesus.

About "live is not machine", if scientist think soul is exist they can research and finally find scientific rules of soul and make devices for implement with soul. for exam they send soul of one person to other planet for discovering.

I carefully read all the hypothesis and they all seem to be shit.

About "live is not machine", if scientist think soul is exist they can research and finally find scientific rules of soul and make devices for implement with soul. for exam they send soul of one person to other planet for discovering.

Woah woah drugs are bad.

So who wounded the cat?

[A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c]

3th and 4th and 5th all the best.
They are the more rationally than previous.

About 4th if there are invisible intelligent and soul and spirit they can claim to some person they are God.
I heard in sat christian TV, peoples said we hearing voice of Jesus.

About "live is not machine", if scientist think soul is exist they can research and finally find scientific rules of soul and make devices for implement with soul. for exam they send soul of one person to other planet for discovering.

I carefully read all the hypothesis and they all seem to be shit.

About "live is not machine", if scientist think soul is exist they can research and finally find scientific rules of soul and make devices for implement with soul. for exam they send soul of one person to other planet for discovering.

Woah woah drugs are bad.

So who wounded the cat?

dirty Muslims ate his leg!

[Simon Moon]

This is my impression on atheism:
Atheists believe that:
1- All living beings are just machine.

Not something all atheists believe.

2- There is consciousness only in the brain.

All evidence points to consciousness being a product of a material brain.

Please provide evidence for a consciousness that exists absent a physical brain.

We'll wait.....

3- There is no soul (spirit).

Way to vague of a term. I have heard almost as many definitions as the number of people I've asked to define it.

4- There is no invisible intelligent beings .

I've never made this claim.

I have yet to see evidence for one, therefore I feel no justification to believe they exist. But I am open to evidence. Got any?

5- There is not any telepathy and

There has yet to be shown there is even a phenomena to study, yet alone a mechanism that could account for it.

6- There is not Influence on the object from distance by thinking.

See response to #5.

But I think The fifth hypothesis is true about God. 50% 4th 50% 3th => 5th

On what do you base your belief on? How did you arrive at the percentages?

[A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c]

New suppositions in this topic is about God and about the supernatural entity.

Sorry, but in what sense are any of your suppositions/hypotheses 'new'?

Boru

I speak a little English. Google Translator will translate very wrong.
I'm proofreading. But what I have in mind translation is difficult.

what is new:
1) God of the Abrahamic religions is in both the first group and second group. From inside view of each religion, any religion says God is only one exist.
But a outer view of all Abrahamic religions they belong to second group because they gods are different!!!

2) 4th and 5th also is new

---

I had written this article before reading this book: "The Holographic universe" by Michael Talbot.
I think some of its is true.

[feeling]

Hypothesis should be backed up by evidence otherwise it's just pile of shit.

[A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c]

Hypothesis should be backed up by evidence otherwise it's just pile of shit.

These are hypothesis.
That is Theory you said should be backed up by evidence.

For exam:
Democritus had introduced the atom in his hypothesis .
it had not backed up by evidence despite this it was not pile of shit.

I had written before:

1) Every so often, some people think that science has reached its end, and everything has been discovered, but the new discovery makes it fall.

2) Also, there are some things that we can not test it, but this does not prove that there are not exist.
For example, if in ancient times, someone believed , there are electromagnetic waves, he could not prove it, but this failure does not prove there not electromagnetic waves.electromagnetic waves were exist.

3)Many things that humans believe it is a supernatural entity, only material things had not been discovered.
humans thought thunderbolt occur because God become angry.

[feeling]

Hypothesis were backed up by facts. That's why he got it right. But if you just make shit up without backing it up with anything then it's a pile of shit. For instance earth is flat was at least backed by the horizon. But the earth being on 3 turtles was bunch of fucking shit. You get the difference?

[A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c]

Hypothesis were backed up by facts. That's why he got it right. But if you just make shit up without backing it up with anything then it's a pile of shit. For instance earth is flat was at least backed by the horizon. But the earth being on 3 turtles was bunch of fucking shit. You get the difference?

Hypothesis not equal with Hypothesis.
Theory must backup with evidence.
Last month i read a book. i wrote this article before reading this book.
The Holographic Universe by Micheal Talbot. you can find some evidence in this book.

[Angrboda]

Hypothesis were backed up by facts. That's why he got it right. But if you just make shit up without backing it up with anything then it's a pile of shit. For instance earth is flat was at least backed by the horizon. But the earth being on 3 turtles was bunch of fucking shit. You get the difference?

If you're talking about Democritus, he's simply a part of a pre-scientific tradition which attributed existence to particles made of various things, from water (Thales), to air (Anaxamenes), to fire (various), to a mysterious 'primal matter' (Aristotle). This wasn't reasoning from evidence but more pure philosophy, reasoning from first principles. They reasoned that big objects had to be composed of smaller units, but beyond that, they were just pulling shit out of their ass. I like Democritus, but giving him credit for a scientifically valid atomic theory is giving him credit he doesn't deserve. He got lucky, reasoning from first principles and basic ontology. Nothing more.

[A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus