51

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
Atheists are too people believers, they simply believe that god is not present
And believing - too atheists: only trust in "on one god more":D

52

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
By the way, atheists are too people believers, they simply believe that god is not present
It is typical delirium,  . Talking such nonsense undersigns for two things: that it concerns believers and that it cannot is made to speak about a science.

53

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Perhaps "about a science" - superfluous

54

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

alekov
quite often strive to talk a word "genetics", for example. Or to oppose genetics of the theory of evolution. They  do not want to position themselves simply , and declare  a rationality and rationality of the opinions.

55

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

To whom the subject is interesting, esteem.  all explained and proved))
http://magazines.russ.ru/october/2007/7/va5.html

56

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Alex G.K.
It is typical delirium,  .
Be so kind as, furnish proofs that god is not present
The thesis: time while it nobody saw, it is not present - does not roll :-\
Any star systems for the time being too nobody saw:gigi:
While there are no proofs, you too the believer, that is believe that god is not present
Also worship to the textbook of the physicist as bibles

57

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
Be so kind as, furnish proofs that god is not present
One more popular at  delirium.
For help by the semiliterate: prove presence, instead of absence of this or that phenomenon. There will be bases for a hypothesis of "gods" - there will be also a reviewing of this hypothesis. Meanwhile no occasions to introduction of such concept are present.

58

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
Be so kind as, furnish proofs that
does not sleep
:laugh:

59

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Alex G.K.
Prove presence, instead of absence of this or that phenomenon
So it is impossible to prove absence in this case. Means to eliminate possibility it is impossible.

60

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Donmike
Onotole explained all and proved
You ?:rolleyes:
Adding from 12/6/2016 13:53:
Zhelezaka
Possibility
Which from? A dark blue astral rabbit, ? Billions other?

61

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

"Existence" question I suggest to lower, admitting, proceeding from B.Sulama's announcement "And actually, there is in the world an aspect of comprehension of the Creator as the desire to that does not exist actually does not clear up." "Jajtsegolovye" undertook and most advantageously comprehension of what for atheists "does not exist".:laugh: Beginning, let us assume, with Majmonida.:up:

62

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Zhelezaka
Whether Can
For what you so Nikolaicha?:eek:

63

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Alex G.K.
It is not necessary to prove absence GENERALLY. Accordingly "it is impossible to prove absence" - senseless , characteristic for 
And still once thought that the Sun spins round the Earth smile
It can and is. Not senselessly.
-Here you do not trust?
-No.
-And now present that God is.
-Presented. Perhaps I will agree.

64

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
To lower, admitting, starting with
Deviates -

65

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

alekov
For what you so Nikolaicha?
smile

66

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Zhelezaka
Present
- Rabbit you see?
- No
- And it - is ():laugh:

67

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

alekov
Somehow so wink

68

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

alekov
A rabbit you see?
Rabbit?

69

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Alex G.K.
Once again and slowly: it is not necessary to prove absence GENERALLY. Accordingly "it is impossible to prove absence" - senseless , characteristic for .
The science is under construction on proofs, and the faith can is under construction and on their absence
So atheists - people believers. Religion such - atheism, with the seminary students, henchmen... :-\
alekov
- A rabbit you see?
- No
- And it - is ()

Just about, you believe - you do not believe:gigi:

70

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

doom5
Gopher.
The bore smile

71

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
The science is under construction on proofs, and the faith can is under construction and on their absence
So atheists - people believing

Insertion in incoherent  "so" does not transform yours  into a reasoning.
Adding from 12/6/2016 14:24:
Zhelezaka
Something can tell on a subject, except drunk chatter?

72

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Alex G.K.
Or to oppose genetics of the theory of evolution. About
I will not argue with you on the theory of evolution, though it only the THEORY
Because the given theory is raised in a rank of official religion of planetary scale

73

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Zhelezaka
The citation!

74

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
I will not argue with you on the theory of evolution
Correctly. Be not dishonored. With the registration  type
The given theory is raised in a rank of official religion
You cannot intelligently argue on scientific questions.

75

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Alex G.K.
Insertion in incoherent  "so" does not transform yours  into a reasoning.
And I do not argue, I state:gigi:
You can trust in something, can not trust, this your right
But if it exists, but to it is deep on your faith
For example, fogs  deeply to spit, you trust in its existence or not, consider its pictures as fakes or not