0
Some Toothpaste brands claim you can whiten your teeth in 30 days by using their toothpaste assuming that you brush your teeth 3 times a daydoes brushing your teeth 90 times in one day do the same?
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Do not try that trick! You will ruin your teeth and your gums! If you want to have your teeth whiter, start by having a dental cleaning to remove all the spots. Then, if your teeth are not white enough, you can do a tooth whitening, either at the dentist, or you can also use some products sold at the pharmacy. Another thing you could do is brush your teeth every day and night.
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Wiki User
∙ 15y agoi wouldn't think so
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How many hours per daydoes the average senior citizen watch TV?
1
How many times in a day does a mother change her newborns baby's diaper?
1. 10 min 2. 8 min 3. 6 min 4. 5 min 5. 4 min 6. 7min 7. 12min Family Feud answer: How many times a daydoes a mother change her newborn baby's diaper? (NUMERIC ONLY)
What are the arguments against God?
Please do not include comments that do not answer this question. Opinions from contributors:OpinionHumans have always been very curious about their origins. With the advent of science, not only human origins can be investigated but also the origins of the Earth and Universe. Obviously why the world seemed so wonderful and why anything should bother to exist seemed inexplicable to them. For some psychological or evolutionary reason, it seemed logical to the ancient peoples that the world and themselves should have come into existence through the work of some powerful being (invisible, yet powerful). They couldn't find such a force or being. But there were other advantages to the notion of a god than just explaining the improbability of nature. The notion of a spirit watching over them seemed comforting to some. Children were told about their god who would protect them. If a child asked where did the world come from, a ready made answer could easily be found. Over generations of story telling, a culture obviously becomes convinced of a real god. It is merely a matter of culture - where one was raised and in what time - which particular brand of nonsense infects the child brain, as Dawkins puts it - that determines which religion an individual will follow.OpinionScientific Arguments: These arguments are based on science; specifically, the large number of cases where what the scientific method has near-proven about our world and our universe, is largely incompatible with religious dogma.There are far more scientific contradictions of God than philosophical ones. The bedrock of the so called intelligent design movement is that matter cannot come from nothing. One of the many reasons intelligent design isn't normally allowed in the class room is that physics shows that matter does indeed spontaneously materialize, and that the true evidence of a universe with a God, would be one in which nothing existed. In fact, it has been said by Nobel Prize winning scientists that because there is material in the Universe that is proof God doesn't exist.'Intelligent Design', and most quasi-scientific religious arguments, are based on the Argument from Improbability. It usually manifests itself as something akin to the following: "Phenomenon X is unbelievably complex. All of its parts work together in perfect order. This could not have spontaneously self-generated?"OpinionIn reference to a biological system:The discovery of Evolution. No sane person has ever suggested that a tree, or a bacterium, or a fish, or a person, came about by chance. The idea is absolutely ludicrous. The religious people claim that evolution is a theory of chance, and indeed, if the two alternatives were 'it generated itself by chance' and 'it was created' then intelligent design may carry some weight. But it does not, because nobody is suggesting chance as an alternative to design. The two opposing theories are intelligent design and evolution by natural selection. The theory of evolution is one of stunning simplicity - there are very, very slight changes to an organism in each generation, and they are small enough changes that anybody could accept they had come about by chance. Some of these very small changes will be advantageous, and increase an organism's survival chances, thereby causing the genes for themselves to become more prevalent in the gene pool. Over a vast timescale of millions of years, the effects of these tiny changes add up to become greatly noticeable, and giving us the wealth of diverse life we have today.Intelligent design immediately raises a huge question: if everything complex was designed, then who designed the designer? If God has 'always existed', then why could not life have 'always existed'? Ditto the spontaneous self-generation of God.OpinionScience has provided much more accurate and verifiable explanations for the observable world and universe; so good, it has been said, that had we had these scientific explanations to begin with, religion would have never taken root in the first place.OpinionMost religions claim that their God is a loving God, and that he loves and cares for his people. Certainly, mainstream Christianity, Islam and Judaism all preach this. However, there is the rather obvious problem that the world includes a lot of suffering, and evil. Religions attempt to overcome the problem of evil by attributing evil to Satan, however, if God were indeed a sovereign and all-powerful God, his authority would surely preside over all things including Satan, and he could end evil. The fact that he doesn't, or so far hasn't but one day will, affirms the fallacy of an all-loving God, as he has allowed evil to exist either thus far, or indefinitely; if he can't, than the proposition that he is all-powerful is dispelled.OpinionIt has been pointed out by Richard Dawkins that if you are a Christian, you have been told that Christianity is correct. You believe this. You also think you know that all other religions are completely incorrect and belief in them would be heretical. If you were a Muslim or Jew or Hindu you would think that you know that your respective religion were truly and undeniably the correct one and believe passionately that Christianity were incorrect. As you see, the idea of God is simply an opinion, with no actual truth in any statement about him anywhere. There cannot be a truth if all other religions in the world think the exact opposite. And their religion isn't true either as every other religion in the world other than themselves is against their doctrines too. God is in the eye of the beholder as it were.Most of the evidence 'for' God (even ignoring the fact that it is largely pseudo-scientific ramble) is evidence 'for' Yahweh, 'for' Allah, 'for' Baal and Jupiter and every other creator being that has ever been postulated. So it does not go anywhere towards proving one particular set of fantastical beliefs.OpinionRebuttal of Pascal's WagerPascal's wager, simplified, is this: Believe in God, and if you're right, you are rewarded with heaven. If you're wrong, you get nothing. Don't believe in God, and if you're right, you get nothing. If you're wrong, you get punished with Hell. Therefore, it makes more sense to believe in God.This is clearly fallacious on two counts: firstly, that faked belief in God (I know that I personally could never 'believe' in something for the sake of a bet) is unlikely to win you his favour, and secondly that it would be ludicrously easy to worship the wrong God, since there are thousands of them that have been proposed, and hundreds of belief systems that are currently followed.God said "they [humans] will live no longer than 120 years", yet somebody lived to 122 years. Therefore, God's word is not correct, though it is said to be perfect. Therefore, a perfect God's word must be correct. Therefore, God cannot be perfect, and therefore cannot exist.
