Give me Liberty

The scientific proof is clear, god can exist. All things that are possible according to the laws of physics will occur due to quantum fluctuations and chance if time is not in the equation. Time cannot be considered in the equation because we do not know if the universe is open, closed or neither.

For example an atom of hydrogen a million light years away will interact with another atom located here if time is not a factor. If the laws of physics allow something to happen, without time being in the equation, statistically it will happen, including the creation of the atom and God. And if new laws or changes in old laws are possible they will exist.

All indication is that we do not know if the universe is gravitationally "open" or "closed". We do not know the mass of the universe or the nature of time. A person therefore cannot say that the universe is a certain size or has existed for a certain length of time, especially if the time of creation of the universe is included. That would be simply an unsupported guess. What we do understand is that we have no idea of what comprises time or space, therefore we can only take into consideration what we know for certain. It is certain that time is undefined in length because we cannot determine if the universe is open or closed or if the fact that should it be closed, what was its origin. Because we cannot prove that time has a beginning or end we must go with the obvious fact that it is undefined in length. Therefore God must exist.

The laws of physics require that God can exist because he is required to exist according to the laws of physics. There is proof that non biological computer like storage of information, transmission of information at the speed of light, analyzing of information, and other human and god like manipulation of laws and information needed by a God can occur. Because these lower level aspects of godly like powers exist, it is required that other aspects of a god also exist because they too are possible. These laws also demand that God not exists and does not exist. Therefore God will exist and will not exist depending entirely on random chance and location in space and time.

This of course would require a God to either create himself or be created under the laws that are possible. To understand a possible parallel one need only apply the mass energy equation to a photon and red shift it until its wavelength is infinite. We cannot know what laws are possible or whether or not God created himself or was created by nature, we only know that He must exist now, in the past or the future.

This is limited proof that god can exist, can you come up with additional proof?

Please, I am serious here, only serious answers will have a chance of winning.

The scientific proof is clear. All things that are possible according to the laws of physics will occur if time is not in the equation. For example an atom of hydrogen a million light years away will interact with another atom located here if time is not a factor. If the laws of physics allow something to happen, it will happen, including the creation of the atom and God. And if new laws are possible they will exist.

The laws of physics require that God can exist because he is possible and therefore will exist. They also demand that God not exist. Therefore God will exist and will not exist depending entirely on random chance, location in space and time.

This of course would require a God to either create himself or be created under the laws that are possible. We cannot know what laws are possible or whether or not God created himself or was created by nature, we only know that He must exist now, in the past, or in the future or perhaps not in our life time.

Hey, let’s look at this “life at conception” fantasy that is being hawked by the pro life murderers. http://www.prolifeismurder.com/

As a person that likes an orderly progression and simple presentation of facts let’s do this by the numbers. If you have a problem with anything I say just spit out the number of the line and we will handle your problem.

1) Science and religion agree that at one time there was no life on earth. And then there was life on earth.

2) Life was either created or evolved.

3) There is no current evidence for life coming from nothing, even though it did begin from nothing in the past.

4) No one knows what life is, they can only describe it once it exists. We know it when we see it.

5) There is a parallel in religion and science that roughly says that life started from a single human or cell and from that point was passed forward.

6) The Bible and Science give examples of life being passed from generation to generation after the first creation and do not say life is created individually for each person. Religious example: Jesus was born of a virgin not created out of thin air. Scientific example: Life is passed forward through sexual reproduction, not spontaneous development.

7) Therefore life is alive and has the potential to be passed forward from generation to generation.

8) In conception a live sperm and a live egg unite. There is no record of a dead sperm or egg being united and being alive.

9) There is life before conception but only a fraction of life after conception.

10) At conception and before birth, 70 percent of life is destroyed. http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/8/4/3...

11) Before conception there is a 100 percent concentration of living matter, after conception and before birth most of the living matter is destroyed. Conception destroys 70 percent of life and leaves behind 30%.

12) Matter was living before conception and is no longer alive.

13) Conception is not the point at which live begins, it is the point at which life ends.

How many "young ladies" do you know that are taught that abortion is wrong, birth control is abortion, and to say "no" is dishonorable to men and just not fun. And she doesn't work or take care of the kids.

Recent figures say it cost $281,000 to properly raise each child. So I guess we all must pay 1,900,000.00 dollars to raise her kids so that this "young lady" can practice her faith that says abortion is murder and birth control is no better. What do you think?

The 14th amendment to the Constitution clearly states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ..." If a fetus were a life at conception then it would be a citizen. But to be considered a life / citizen by our Constitution, it must be born.

Roe v Wade makes it clear that a fetus is not a person until it is born. That is the state of the Law.

And the Bible says that conception is punishment and does not call the fetus a living person. In fact the Bible states that life starts when the breath of life is breathed into the lungs.

It seems that all of the documents that guide our society agree that life begins at birth, not conception.

Conception is punishment for eating of the tree of knowledge. Genesis 3:16 Yet giving birth is a blessing. So the Bible is perfectly clear that the purpose of conception is to punish women, it is not when life begins. The Bible is clear that life begins with Adam and Eve and makes it clear that life is continuous through Eve. Genesis 3:20 According to the Bible life is continuous from Eve forward, there is no moment of conception that gives life. The Bible does not say that conception is the beginning of life. In fact when life begins is when it is breathed into the fetus. I don't know if this can be made any more clear.

God has made a punishment for pro-lifers who believe life begins at conception. He has burdened them with the guilt of the fact that attempting to save a fetus will kill a child. The deaths of these children are a direct result of the pro-life movement.

And God has further punished the pro-life women for attempting to stop his will. God has made it impossible for a pro-life woman to choose sex without causing an abortion.

These facts along with the words of the Bible that make judgment a sin and those that make the telling of untruthful statements a sin will bring God's wrath upon the pro-life movement.

How can it be that life starts at conception when the Bible says that life is continuous through Eve with no stopping point and with the fact that conception is punishment?

http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/OVJTWG364FQE74BIMLH...

http://www.prolifeismurder.com/

The Bible is very clear. If you believe that God supports your pro-life beliefs about life at conception then what about the creation of Man and Woman in Genesis 1:26-28. There can be no argument that God directly says that man was created in his image. He does not say that man is created from a fetus. Then to make abortion perfectly clear God states that Man has dominion over every living thing that "moveth on the earth".

This makes it very clear that man has dominion over life, death and abortion (in light of the 10 Commandments that do not mention abortion), it was God given. The Bible goes on to state that life begins at the first breath.

There is nothing in the Bible that takes away these God given rights and duties. Finally God has made His physical laws in such a manner that attempting to save a fetus causes the death of a child. And He has made it impossible to have sexual relations without killing a fetus. I am interested in any argument that would prove the pro-life position. But I believe I have heard them all, and all are simply excuses to allow pro lifers to raise money and kill children. But if you have an argument, I promise to listen, and I will not respond and make you look bad. http://www.prolifeismurder.com/ http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/OVJTWG364FQE74BIMLH...

Didn't God know as much as you know? After all he said he weaved you together in the womb; and, He said he knew you in the womb; and, He said many other things about you and the womb. But then to ruin your argument he said you were alive when you took your first breath. Then to top it off he kills 70 percent of the fetuses in the womb and does not let them live. Then he punishes pro lifers by making abortion legal even after they passed laws making it illegal. Then he took away their arguments about life starting at conception by proving 70 percent of the conceived fetuses die at conception. And He made it true that saving a fetus kills a child. And He made pro-life organizations take all the money from their followers to impoverish them. Then he took away the claim that life was special by giving man cloning. Then He allowed test tube babies. Then He made pro-lifers lose all their elections. Then He ...... and I could go on all night long. If God is on your side He certainly has a strange way of proving it. So why isn't the Bible on your side if you are right?

If I told you I have a bucket with 7 dead fetuses and three live fetuses and that the bucket of fetuses prove that life begins at conception, would you take me serious? Well what is the difference from that and the simple minded statement that "life starts at conception" if most of the conceptions are dead? Perhaps the pro-lifers should say that dead human life starts at conception. That would be more accurate. Human "life" is not dead no matter the DNA. Human life is alive and if the pro life movement cannot furnish living life in quantities that make sense, then I must take their assertions as a joke.

Please explain to me how dead human DNA proves that a fetus is a human life? If it were a life, it would be alive. And it is a natural fact that 7 out of 10 conceptions never are born. http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/OVJTWG364FQE74BIMLH...

Of course this joke would be funny except for the fact that each time a pro-lifer tries to save a fetus, he kills a child. http://www.prolifeismurder.com/

Farmer Bob brought you 1000 fertile eggs to start your chicken farm. So what would you think if 700 of them never lived. Would you say that those 700 dead eggs were life and pay the farmer. No sane person would pay. But I think most pro lifers would. They have bought into the insanity that fertile human eggs are alive when 700 out of 1000 die. It is a fact that 7 out of 10 conceived eggs die in the womb. http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/OVJTWG364FQE74BIMLH... And pro-lifers call these dead conceptions the absolute proof that life starts at conception.

Of course they must try and hoodwink their followers and keep the truth from them about the number of dead fetuses that they call live.

Could it be that they must deceive so that they can collect donations from the hard earned dollars of the pro life followers that believe them?

70% of all conceptions fail and end in death. So it is impossible to say that life begins at conception. Unless of course you believe that death is life.

Life starts at intentionality:

There is a point at which there is a 100% chance of a human life being formed. And that point is when a committed couple chooses to have a child.

Accidental conceptions are likely to fail and not be repeated. Rapes, failed relationships and changed circumstances also lead to low probability conceptions. Nature aborts most of these conceptions on its own, we abort many others. However in committed relationships, it matters not how many are naturally aborted, the relationships that are fertile always end in a baby.

This shows the true nature of sexual relations as they progress under man's control. Those that are intentional and wanted have a 100% success rate. And those conceptions that are not meant to be usually fail.

It is important to note that whenever we spend money to save unwanted fetuses with 70% death rates, we are wasting money that could be used to save born humans. Saving a fetus causes the death of a child http://www.prolifeismurder.com/ .

So do you agree that life starts at intentionality?

A unique set of DNA is created in the stage of Meiosis. At conception this DNA is killed about 60 percent of the time and another 10 percent is killed later. The "creation" of new life occurs at the meiosis stage and is terminated most of the time at the conception stage. A person might wish it were true that conception begins new life, but the actual fact is that conception ends more lives than it starts. Just a fact. Unique life actually starts at meiosis.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP...

A unique set of DNA is created in the stage of Meiosis. At conception this DNA is killed about 60 percent of the time and another 10 percent is killed later. The "creation" of new life occurs at the meiosis stage and is terminated most of the time at the conception stage. A person might wish it were true that conception begins new life, but the actual fact is that conception ends more lives than it starts. Just a fact. Unique life actually starts at meiosis.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP...

Who was the first strong conservative leader to link together a need to end abortion, stop homosexuality and give the state the power to enforce their own religious views.

Hint: The movement this person belonged to thought this person was too radical and turned down his request. Yet he remains the best example of a pro life conservative.

Here is a further hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler

Check here in the year 1936 for my choice for correct answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#1...

But you might like Stalin also about 1936.

What these murderers knew is that by stopping abortion, they actually increased the number of deaths. Which is what murderers of the pro life ilk want.

Pro Choice actually saves lives and pro life kills lives. http://www.prolifeismurder.com/

I am entertaining other answers, so take a stab- so to speak.

Of course if you are going to kill fetuses, you might as well kill old people, the sick and the lame. If the goal is to kill to save lives then there would then be a never ending spiral of death.

Likewise is it better to save a fetus than a child? It would seem that the minute you give preference to the fetus over the child it will likewise lead to a never ending spiral of death. What would stop a group from saying it is wrong to save women or blacks or any other group and give these groups advantage over another group? This preferential treatment of fetuses, or others would also lead to a never ending spiral of death.

The only natural and logical thing to do is to save the most people possible. Any other path will lead to preferential treatment that is not only unnatural but illogical.

http://www.prolifeismurder.com/

A pro lifer said: "And anyway, once again, a new person being born into an American family does NOT cause the death of (whatever number it is this week) in Africa. But you just go on thinking that it does. The same number of people who donate to African charities now will still do so when a new baby is born"

On the web page http://www.prolifeismurder.com/ it is mathematically proved that saving a fetus, causes the death of multiple children. The page does not say that fetuses should be killed. It does say that money should be used to save as many children as possible. There is a big difference between advocating killing a fetus to save a child and saving the most children that a person can save. In one case there is a knowledge that spending money to save one fetus will cost the lives of many children. In the other case a person intentionally kills a fetus to save a child. The pro lifer that changed the wording to make sound as if I want to kill fetuses to save children knows that I want to save the most children. And he knows that it is impossible to save the fetuses without killing the children. He simply does not care about the outcome, as long as he can personally feel good about "saving" a fetus. Is it right to allow children to die to save a fetus?

Is there anyone else that does not see that affirmatively saving a child is not the same as killing a fetus?

A pro lifer said:

"But that does not justify you (or anyone else) slaughtering and ripping apart babies. And nothing you say will change that. If enough money is raised to save EVERYONE; then great. If not; than death should not come by our own hand. The answer; as I have been telling you for about a year now; is to raise more money and work to save everyone."

On my web site http://www.prolifeismurder.com/ I prove mathematically that it is impossible to save a fetus without killing a child. I never say that a fetus should be killed, I simply say that the most lives should be saved. And a choice to let the children die and save the fetuses is a death by this pro lifers' own hand. He might as well take a match and set afire a housefull of chidlren.

And it is a fact that if you eventually save all the children, some will have been fetuses. So the only way to save the most children is to save the ones that are alive first. If this pro lifer wants me to post pictures of the children he has murdered, then he only has to wait a few days. I am compiling photos of decapitated humans and people buring to death in fires. But I really don't think that is the best thing to do. I have shown this pro lifer the facts including that millions will die because of his actions, yet he untruthfully changes the subject to cover his own murders. What can a person do when another person intentionally causes other people to kill and maim children.

No where do I suggest killing fetuses, I suggest saving all kids, he chooses to save only fetuses. Which is best for society?

A pro lifer said: "you can't play judge and decide who is more important. all children are important whether they are in your neighborhood or in a mother's womb. Stop trying to justify murder."

He implies that my page http//www.prolifeismurder.com tries to justify murdering fetuses. The intent of the page is to save all children, including fetuses. The page simply points out that by using the methods of the pro life movement, more children will die than fetuses. For example, on the page it is proven mathematically that 12 children in Africa will die for every fetus saved in America. But the fact is that it applies to America also. Probably as many as 8 to 10 US children could be saved with what it costs to save one fetus. He says I am trying to justify murder. I say he is trying to justify murder, what do you think. Please support your answer. Explain why it is better for a pro lifer to save one fetus and let 10 kids die.

A troll that follows me around said: "Abortion is the MOST wrong thing the human race ever started doing. Ever. Every day, it KILLS more people than accidents, war, and disease combined. And of course it's deadly. As a matter of fact, several babies have just been slaughtered in the course of me writing this. A moment of silence please. A few more babies have been slaughtered in the course of you reading this. Another moment of silence please. "

end quote

This pro life troll knows that for the cost of saving one fetus, he can save several children. So by spending his money saving fetuses, he is letting more children die. Each time he laments the death of a fetus above, several children die. So why does he keep wanting the children to die and to save the fetus. If abortion kills fewer children than being pro life, then is not abortion better than being pro life. There is no doubt that abortion is not good, but how can a pro lifer let children die simply to save a fetus? The only way to save the fetus would be to save all the children first. That would then justify saving the fetus. Till then each attempt to save a fetus causes more death than saving a child. Sorry, it is a mathematical fact. If you think otherwise, explain yourself. http://www.prolifeismurder.com/

A troll that follows me around says :

"Also, do not fall to Give Me Liberty's dangerous rhetoric. His argument in his blog is that another newborn baby into this World adds to the food and money shortage and therefore causes increased death."

What the web page actually says is that a person has a choice to save either a fetus or several children. If anything the final result is that the cost is the same and the number of children saved is more. Is there anyone else out there that cannot see this simple fact. Do you think this person is intentionally misleading people, or does this person have a leg to stand on in his opinion?

http://www.prolifeismurder.com/