doG

I understand the Uncertainty Principle just fine. I also understand the meaning of any/all gods/deities to include those that are supernatural, outside of nature, and/or those that are outside the Universe as we know it. I guess I can assume at this point that you didn't understand the question. BTW, it's exactly that abrasive, arrogant, finger pointing, holier-than-thou attitude you exhibit toward others, as you have me, that keeps getting you neg repped by others. It's really quite juvenile.

That's not proof that any and/or all possible gods MUST fall under the rules as we understand them. There is plenty we don't know. Please fill in those gaps for us in order to complete your proof.

That is technically an ad hominem attack. If that's your debate style so be it but don't complain when members neg rep you for this. That is normal for messengers that attack messengers in place of debating the message. Maybe the communication problem is your own. You might see what you're saying clearly but others may not. If you've not conveyed a message as clearly as you think others should see it does not mean it is automatically their fault.

None for, none against would be zero wouldn't it? Why would the probability for existence be greater than zero with zero supporting evidence? Here's the 5 I found: All seem to be condescending. I'm not surprised they gotten the negative votes that they have...

Isn't there more than just left, right and center?

You are asserting that all human beings gossip?

we?

Wow, that is a classic strawman. Could you please name some genuine physicists that believe in time travel? Didn't think so...

Which god are you referring to?

Prove it. Rules are rules so let's see the proof. Then again, maybe this thread does belong in the trash can as the rules imply. I can't see the op actually stepping up with any evidence to support his/her opinion.

Read back over this part of your OP. The verbiage used sounds like you are asserting these things as facts, not possibilities. If you are making such assertions then the Speculations Forum Rules clearly say, "Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure." You should not be making complaints if you have been asked to provide some sort of proof for these assertions and you have not done so. If you have received neg rep as a result of not abiding by the rules you shouldn't be complaining about that either. Read through your other posts and see where you have provided actual proof and not just some opinion you have proffered as proof. I've not read through them myself but I suspect you will find some explanation as to why some members have reacted to your posts the way they have. Look particularly for any links you have posted to support your assertions from outside sources. If you can't find any then maybe you should post some.

If you think.as a matter of your opinion that there is likely.a.god that's fine. If you proffered that it the likelyhood of a deity existing is statistically greater than zero then you are making a positive assertion and you need to support it or admit.that that you can't. In my opinion, your opinion should not be negrepped. Making an assertion though and refusing to back it up deserves a.neg rep. It reinforces the rule that assertions need to be supported. BTW, this post is unbiased on this particular point since I've not given you any rep in that thread or reviewed any rep you've received.

No. Just creating a valid thread on a valid scientific speculation is not a reason to get neg repped. However, if you offer an opinion as a speculation and you are asked if you have anything other than your opinion to support it and you offer nothing but your opinion over and over and over then probably yes. Reputation is about the quality of the content posted and opinions proffered as evidence are not quality posts. Someone offering their personal thought experiment and expecting it to be viewed as evidence has not made a quality post and probably deserves a neg rep for the expectation that it be viewed as evidence.

I can't agree or disagree but I will add this, if you are providing good quality scientific evidence to support your assertions you deserve positive rep for those posts. If you present your opinion as an assertion though and you cannot or will not support it with quality scientific evidence to back it up then negative rep is probably using the system as intended. I will say too that negative rep you receive as a result of any attacks you may made on others is an abuse of the intended use of the system.

To elaborate further I'd agree that the system works exactly as it is supposed to. It doesn't work exactly as desired though but it is an efficient system for it's purpose. For the most part it informs members as to which other members have generally provided the best quality of content, not who is the most popular. It also informs members whose content is questionable generally. It's not perfect. As pmb has pointed out, some people do make it personal even though they shouldn't. They are those that abuse the system but the are not a reason not to use it. Water won't put out magnesium fires but that's no reason not to use water to put out fires. Nothing is perfect or works as desired all of the time. In general I'd say everyone really needs to think twice before using the reputation system. Give positive rep to quality content, not ad hominem attacks that you happen to agree with for some reason. Use negative rep for incorrect answers to questions, not people you simply dislike. If you dislike someone that much add them to your ignore list instead of abusing the rep system as polling system of popularity. Using it the way way it is intended to be used will help to keep it working exactly the way it's supposed to so that it will provide the best quality of information it is designed to convey.

Just one? Darn! Genesis 6:5-7 God regretted his decision to create mankind so he decided to commit the ultimate act of genocide, by murdering the entire human race: men, women, children, infants and newborns. God decided to exterminate people by drowning - a slow and painful way to die. I guess his initial design wasn't so intelligent after all so he/she/it tortured them all to death so he could start with a clean slate. Ahhhh, such a loving creator.

No it doesn't and no it doesn't. Further more I'd wager you can't support any of these assertions with science.

However, a simple set of equations that explains everything is not evidence of some kind of intellect behind the Universe...

I think it's probably more accurate to say that it makes up the past...

Ah, I see it has a 2X homeopathic preparation of Zincum Gluconicum in it. That means they diluted the zincum gluconium by 10:1 and then the diluted the dilution 10:1 again after banging it on a tire for a bit giving you a 1/100th dilution of zincum gluconium banged twice on a tire. Your throat should be feeling better just reading this since it knows you'll probably opt for something else next time

Ummm..........NO! Religion is about belief regardless of the facts and science is about the facts regardless of belief.

IMO homeopathy is simply a synonym for fraud. Certain ingredients like Ignatia, Lycopodium, and Nat Mur are basic homeopathic ingredients. Zinc lozenges with any of these ingredients could be listed as homeopathic.

So books written by selfless people are true by default? Can you support that assertion?

Don't try to read it that way. It is a collection of books so read each of them individually as separate books. Reading through the bible as if it is a single book hops around so much that it becomes very confusing.