''Why call the Causer of the universe God? Because the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of God match the ultra great strength, intelligence, and order/organization of whatever the "outside Thing" MUST BE to make a universe like ours.'' You realize how stupid this argument is? If I include Badecker in the dictionary and give it the description of ''creator of the universe'' would that mean that badecker is the creator because that's how it is defined in the dictionary? Are you this dumb or what's wrong with you.
There are many gods defined as creators of the universe, why chose your christian god and not the others? Perhaps it's because that's what they taught you when you were a kid?
Why do you always limit yourself to such a tiny scope of thinking? For example, you talk about what is in the dictionary. How did it get there, whatever it is? God placed it there through cause and effect, right? But you are free to put things in a dictionary, just like other people, right? And you are free to tear pages out of your dictionary, right? You might even get away with tearing pages out of the library dictionary, right? But you aren't free to tear all the pages about God from all the dictionaries and other writings that contain God, because God wants info about Himself to be there for people to read. If He didn't, these things wouldn't be there by C&E, right? What about your freedom to add words or tear out pages? It is only an allusion of freedom, an artificial freedom. Why? Because none of us has the strength to do anything outside of C&E, or to do C&E without God doing it for us. Why? Because when we decide to cause something to bring about a certain effect, and then we do it, something caused us to decide that way, and many things caused us to be able to carry it out. So, God is giving us freedom at the same time He is limiting our freedom. And He does it all for our joy and salvation. That's why He allows us to use our freedom to put false info about false gods into writings... so that we can see where these false gods don't line up with reality... so that we can come to Him and be saved, rather than reject Him... God, the only Thing that maintains us, as shown by C&E. Take Zeus for example. Zeus died, even though many hold that he isn't dead as long as people believe things about him. But nowhere does Zeus have any writings that show that he is the holder of C&E in everything. In this and many other ways Zeus is incomplete regarding the universe and reality. But if he were complete regarding the universe and reality, then all that would have happened is that people would have added another name - Zeus - to the names that match the God of all things. Again, if you are biased or prejudiced against the word "God" for some reason, use other words or names. I previously gave you a couple - Supreme Being, Great First Cause - and in another post ages ago, I even showed you more. The point is to recognize God for the Greatness that He is in every way, so that you can find salvation from your own demise in this life. The point is simple. The more we get into science, the more science proves that God not only exists, but that He is the Holder and Controller of all things. Just because there are people who don't want to recognize the science of this, doesn't mean it is not there.  Meh, a lot of useless talk and you still haven't showed what evidence you have to points to god and not multiple gods or multiple other causes, your argument is still invalid. |
|
|
|
"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." "... every ..." XDDD and you just showed your IQ again. FOR EVERY ACTION , means that if there is a ACTION, not that everything has a cause, how fucking dumb can a human being be? |
|
|
|
It's a simple question so we can establish something between the 2 sides. We need a starting point. I really want to walk through this step by step. You have been here 3 years so I would think you are game. The quest is the truth. Not winning an argument. Does the ship really go behind the giant water curve 3 miles out?Do you believe you actually witness the ship go behind a giant water curve off the coast (3 miles out)? Or do you believe it is perspective which makes it disappear? How can you bring the ship back into sight with binoculars if it went behind the water curve? NASA employees, Bill Nye have both said we know the earth is curved because we can see the ship disappear behind the curve. I call this clear bullshit. If you believe that the ship really does go behind the curve 3 miles out there really is nothing left to talk about as I would consider you intellectually dishonest. I can't tell if you are being silly, are attempting to be deceptive, or are just plain ignorant. The answer to your yes/no question, "Does the ship really go behind the giant water curve 3 miles out?," as it stands, is not a simple yes/no. Here's why not. And it is easy. The horizon is different distances away, depending on how high off the ground you are at the same spot on the beach. If you are a 6-foot tall person standing on the beach, the horizon will be at a certain point. If you are standing on the top of a 100-foot tall tower, exactly and directly above the point where you were standing on the beach, the horizon will be further away. If you let the girls bury you in the beach sand, so your head sticks out of the sand, exactly between the spot where your feet were planted when you were standing on the beach, the horizon is much closer. You don't have enough info in your question to make it possible to give a yes or a no. And you know this. You are simply being deceptive, or you are playing around. However, if you don't know this, you really need a room next to notbatman.Wow that was an amazing avoidance of a simple question. I'll ask again just to show everyone you will not answer this question. Your at sea level on the beach. No 100 foot towers. Your head is in a vice and cannot change altitude. It is 6 feet above sea level. The boat disappears bottom first and eventually goes out of sight. Did it go behind the water curve or out of your perspective? Cannot wait to see your response. Going over the horizon is not termed behind the water curve. If you mean going over the horizon, say what you mean. As far as perspective goes, what do you consider something that is out of sight? Is it out of your perspective? Your language and terminology is different than people generally use. So, what about my post you quoted? Do you think that the distance of the horizon varies with how high you are above the water? Or not? Of course the horizon changes depending on your elevations. Let me rephrase to help you out. Your head is locked at 6 feet above sea level. Your head cannot change elevations. It is stuck at 6 feet above sea level. I will repeat. Your head is stuck at 6 feet above sea level. It cannot go to 5 or 7 feet above sea level. It is stuck at 6 feet above sea level. Remember your head is at 6 feet above sea level. Ok so your head is 6 feet above sea level. It cannot change. The ship begins to disappear bottom first. Remember your head is stuck at 6 feet above sea level. It cannot change. You can no longer see the ship. Your head is still 6 feet above sea level. You did not lay down or go onto of a 100 foot tower. Your head is stuck in position at 6 feet above sea level. What happened to the ship? Why can you no longer see it? Remember your head is fixed at 6 feet above sea level. It never changed during this entire time. 6 feet. Sea level. Ship bye bye. Why? 6 feet. There are literally hundreds of videos of ships disappearing bottom first, people knew this hundreds of years ago, are you stupid? |
|
|
|
So, you think you can think along the lines of something outside of the universe clearly enough to know what it is, right?Even if, in their relationships among themselves, there were more beings outside the universe than the number of electrons that could fill the whole volume of the universe, for us there is still only One. That One is outside-the-universe. Or have you been out there to check it all out? Have you facts that show that there could not be one intelligent Being outside the universe, that is so vastly intelligent, that building a universe like ours is child's play to Him/It? Your stuff is speculation. Outside the universe is not speculation. Outside is one outside. Show how it is not, and that your showing is other than speculation or ideas. That's the point you dumbass, you claim to know what it is and you call it god, I'm trying to make you realize that we can't know what it is, I'm glad you finally realized it without really realizing it. LOL! How many times do I have to say that I and others measure God by the relationships between things of the universe? Never do I say that we have any knowledge of things outside the universe, except that the universe shows that there are such things. In fact, I constantly say that we don't know anything about outside the universe, objectively. To point, on this. Everything in the universe has a cause-and-effect relationship to something that caused it. In addition, the universe never shows anything that exists without a cause. In addition, nothing in the universe ever caused itself. So, what caused the universe, as all the evidence of the universe shows? Something outside of the universe caused it. Universe shows us this by example within itself. Why call the Causer of the universe God? Because the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of God match the ultra great strength, intelligence, and order/organization of whatever the "outside Thing" MUST BE to make a universe like ours. Why MUST BE? Because if it wasn't, we wouldn't have much of a universe, and we, ourselves, wouldn't have the complexity to measure the universe as greatly as we have. Why not? Because it takes something in the line of God to make this kind of a universe. So, whatever is outside the universe is God. Now, if you are measuring the Maker by the order, organization, and complexity of the universe, why don't you at least accept the term "God" which the universe shows that the Maker is? If you are biased against the word "God," you have all kinds of other word combinations that you can use, like Supreme Being, or Great First Cause. ''Why call the Causer of the universe God? Because the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of God match the ultra great strength, intelligence, and order/organization of whatever the "outside Thing" MUST BE to make a universe like ours.'' You realize how stupid this argument is? If I include Badecker in the dictionary and give it the description of ''creator of the universe'' would that mean that badecker is the creator because that's how it is defined in the dictionary? Are you this dumb or what's wrong with you. There are many gods defined as creators of the universe, why chose your christian god and not the others? Perhaps it's because that's what they taught you when you were a kid? |
|
|
|
Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that.
Yet, you don't have even one example of something that is not an effect, while the whole process of scientific investigation uses C&E as the foundation for its operation... because C&E penetrates everything. First of all, as I previously mentioned, cause and effect is NOT a scientific law, it's a philosophical thought. ''David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.'' There are also scientific examples against the statement of ''everything has a cause'' which is again, not scientific. Radioactive decay or Virtual particles are examples of it. Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account. C&E is used in all scientific observation and experimentation. Nobody has found even one pure random event. There are probably many of natural or scientific laws that have not been formulated into verbal verbal or written laws simply because they are obvious. It took the apple bouncing off Newton's head to get him to think in the direction of formulating his law of universal gravitation. The idea that radioactive decay or virtual particles may not have a direct C&E action as other things do, but they do indeed have at least an indirect C&E operation. If nowhere else, the C&E that affects them is the making of the universe. Language that avoids the C&E is simply political talk, if it is not simply ideas. What does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax? You are grasping at straws. ''Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.'' No it doesn't. Period. Newton's 3rd law never said that something is always caused by something. |
|
|
|
'' Supremely Intelligent Supreme Being'' No I'm not you are just ignoring everything to keep your belief going. I said numerous times that multiple supremely intelligent beings could have created the universe, can you disprove that, no you can't, therefore why do you keep claiming it was god when it could have been numerous supremely intelligent beings? I pointed out to super intelligent aliens several times. Again you have no ARGUMENT against any of my examples, you can't keep claiming it was god, period. You lost, deal with it.
There is only ONE God. Why? Because there is only one "outside of the universe." We have no evidence of anything in the universe making itself without something from outside of itself making it. But there is evidence and proof all over the place in countless numbers of things where they are made by something outside themselves. This brings us to the question >>> Does anything ever make itself, from scratch, without something outside of it making it? Another way to say this is >>> Is there ever any spontaneous generation of anything? We have no evidence of such. Everything we know about has at least one maker. Even the idea of radioactive decay having to do with some form of spontaneity, is just an idea, but might be a theory. What it isn't is a known fact. But if it somehow could be a fact, it would be one against countless trillions of trillions of makers making things. In other words, things have makers outside of themselves... once something is made the maker might go inside of it... the maker generally doesn't entirely become part of the thing that he made even if he is inside of it. One God, not originally from within the universe He made, but partially within it now, yet also outside of it, and different than it. Again, One God because outside-the-universe is all we know about what is outside of the universe. Outside includes not even understanding what this "outside" is or means, because we are universe oriented. One outside. That's it. One God. ''There is only ONE supreme intelligent alien. Why? Because there is only one "outside of the universe." There are a few supreme intelligent aliens, why? Because the universe is so complex that multiple creators are required to build it The universe was created by ''Insert any name'' supreme being And so on and so on. Again, why does it have to be your god and not a super intelligent alien? Why not multiple aliens, why not any other being that we can think of? Why god? Nothing in your argument rules out the possibility of multiple causes, meaning that you can't be certain it was god and not gods. Even if, in their relationships among themselves, there were more beings outside the universe than the number of electrons that could fill the whole volume of the universe, for us there is still only One. That One is outside-the-universe. Or have you been out there to check it all out? Have you facts that show that there could not be one intelligent Being outside the universe, that is so vastly intelligent, that building a universe like ours is child's play to Him/It? Your stuff is speculation. Outside the universe is not speculation. Outside is one outside. Show how it is not, and that your showing is other than speculation or ideas. That's the point you dumbass, you claim to know what it is and you call it god, I'm trying to make you realize that we can't know what it is, I'm glad you finally realized it without really realizing it. |
|
|
|
Another take on the Palmer station summers day as the conveyor escalator moves through the day. Noon is at "highest" part for "southern" part on the crazy steep roller coaster journey. lets remember 1000% flatness into eternity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS-akcip240&feature=youtu.beThere is nothing more for now so i am done for a week or two. Dude, even notbatman said your posts are cringe, doesn't that tell you anything? |
|
|
|
Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that.
Yet, you don't have even one example of something that is not an effect, while the whole process of scientific investigation uses C&E as the foundation for its operation... because C&E penetrates everything. First of all, as I previously mentioned, cause and effect is NOT a scientific law, it's a philosophical thought. ''David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.'' There are also scientific examples against the statement of ''everything has a cause'' which is again, not scientific. Radioactive decay or Virtual particles are examples of it. |
|
|
|
'' Supremely Intelligent Supreme Being'' No I'm not you are just ignoring everything to keep your belief going. I said numerous times that multiple supremely intelligent beings could have created the universe, can you disprove that, no you can't, therefore why do you keep claiming it was god when it could have been numerous supremely intelligent beings? I pointed out to super intelligent aliens several times. Again you have no ARGUMENT against any of my examples, you can't keep claiming it was god, period. You lost, deal with it.
There is only ONE God. Why? Because there is only one "outside of the universe." We have no evidence of anything in the universe making itself without something from outside of itself making it. But there is evidence and proof all over the place in countless numbers of things where they are made by something outside themselves. This brings us to the question >>> Does anything ever make itself, from scratch, without something outside of it making it? Another way to say this is >>> Is there ever any spontaneous generation of anything? We have no evidence of such. Everything we know about has at least one maker. Even the idea of radioactive decay having to do with some form of spontaneity, is just an idea, but might be a theory. What it isn't is a known fact. But if it somehow could be a fact, it would be one against countless trillions of trillions of makers making things. In other words, things have makers outside of themselves... once something is made the maker might go inside of it... the maker generally doesn't entirely become part of the thing that he made even if he is inside of it. One God, not originally from within the universe He made, but partially within it now, yet also outside of it, and different than it. Again, One God because outside-the-universe is all we know about what is outside of the universe. Outside includes not even understanding what this "outside" is or means, because we are universe oriented. One outside. That's it. One God. ''There is only ONE supreme intelligent alien. Why? Because there is only one "outside of the universe." There are a few supreme intelligent aliens, why? Because the universe is so complex that multiple creators are required to build it The universe was created by ''Insert any name'' supreme being And so on and so on. Again, why does it have to be your god and not a super intelligent alien? Why not multiple aliens, why not any other being that we can think of? Why god? Nothing in your argument rules out the possibility of multiple causes, meaning that you can't be certain it was god and not gods. |
|
|
|
Baddecker's logic isn't bad but there are a few key things he doesn't quite understand.
1. The meaning of random mutation
2. The importance of C&E research
1. Random mutation doesn't mean quite what you think it means. It doesn't mean that the occurrence of mutation is random. Mutations are inevitable and we know their causes. Radiation, viruses, replication mistakes, and environmental toxins can all damage DNA.
Replication mistakes C&E
We know that DNA polymerase makes mistakes at a rate of 1 in 10,000,000 nucleotide bases and the average rate in eukaryotes in 50 bases per second so that cause alone adds up to about 15 "typos" per month. The "random" is about where in the 150 million base pairs, will the mutation occur. Its not loation specific. If you are typing a novel, no one can predict where in the novel your typo will occur.
Environmental toxins/Radiation C&E
We know that free radicals or radiation can knock electrons off of DNA molecules, damaging or changing them. Radiation and chemical toxins move through space randomly so no one could predict which part of your DNA will be hit or when this collision will occur but it is inevitable that radiation will hit your nucleotide molecules at the right angle to knock electrons off.
Virus C&E
Viruses literally hack into a cells DNA and change it. Again, no one knows when you will contract a virus, or what part of your DNA will be affected by that virus as viruses evolve quickly as well.
2. We know that all of these things will happen, and we know the C&E but scientific research is not just about C&E, a lot of it is simply about finding correlation between two variables. C&E is definitely more informative than correlation but a lot of times, correlation is alll we are able to pin down.
Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that. |
|
|
|
God from the Bible that the OP talks about is the God of the universe. Why? That is what the Bible says. The Bible talks about God from a different standpoint than science. This thread talks about a scientific standpoint. This means that Bible stuff doesn't count if it doesn't fit scientific stuff. So, the Bible in the OP simply tells us that we are talking about God, not god (There are many gods referred to in the Bible, now and again.). So, which god of the Bible are you talking about? The God of the universe is supported scientifically as I have shown in the links, above. EDIT: Probably the most complex thing in the universe is the brain of mankind, and/or its inter-connectivity, and/or the communications that go on between the parts of the brain through the inter-connectivity. There is sentience connected to the brain of mankind. Complexity only makes equal or less complexity. Therefore, God is greater sentience. ''So, which god of the Bible are you talking about? The God of the universe is supported scientifically as I have shown in the links, above.'' Entropy: A beginning
Cause and Effect: Universe must have a cause
Complexity(not defined but it doesn't matter): Whatever created the universe must be more complex than it
And that's where your argument ends, where does it show it was god? It simply shows the universe had a beginning and a cause and it has to be more complex. Again, this does not show it was God, it only points out to a complex being or beings or something that is not a sentient being, since it only has to be more complex.Complexity only makes equal or less complexity. Therefore, God is greater sentience. Complexity only makes equal or less complexity, Therefore whatever created the universe had to be more complex, not God, just more complex, why Your God and not many gods? Are you even serious? Who or what other than God could make the universe? What do you mean "where does it show it was God?" God is the only Thing that it shows. ... Forget about god, imagine you didn't know anything about the bible or any religion. Then you are presented with your arguments, C&E, complexity, etc. What conclusion would you arrive at? If you agreed with all the 3 arguments, what would you say created the universe? Your argument simply says it has to be ''something'' more complex, it doesn't give that something any other characteristic, it doesn't say whether it's a person, a sentient being, something without consciousness, multiple beings, etc etc. Intelligence is complexity that is backed by the subconscious. Yet, the best or highest intelligence of mankind can only create limited things, and can barely see anything beyond a tiny bit of the complexity of nature. The more we study nature and the universe, and the more we see the great complexity that is way beyond any complexity we do, the more we see the intelligent design in everything. Whatever the Designer is, He/It is way beyond us... a Super Intelligence. More and more scientists who are coming to understand about the design and the complexity of the universe, are coming to understand that there is a Great Designer. Often-times a person can feel an answer without being able to put all the pieces of whatever leads him to the answer in place. In the past, when people didn't have the exact sciences like we do today, they still understood that the Great Intelligence existed, by what they saw in nature. Their result was God, or in many cases, gods. For some strange reason you are so completely against the idea of a Supremely Intelligent Supreme Being, that you won't accept It when It almost stares you right in the face. Consider. You have identity. You say "I" or "me." Nobody understands the things about you the way you do. That's why nobody but you can say "I" or "me" about the things of yourself. So, why would you think that the "I" or "me" of what you are is not surpassed by some Great "I" or "Me?" The science of the way C&E and complexity operate backs this up. But you simply want to deny this science. Why? '' Supremely Intelligent Supreme Being'' No I'm not you are just ignoring everything to keep your belief going. I said numerous times that multiple supremely intelligent beings could have created the universe, can you disprove that, no you can't, therefore why do you keep claiming it was god when it could have been numerous supremely intelligent beings? I pointed out to super intelligent aliens several times. Again you have no ARGUMENT against any of my examples, you can't keep claiming it was god, period. You lost, deal with it. |
|
|
|
God from the Bible that the OP talks about is the God of the universe. Why? That is what the Bible says. The Bible talks about God from a different standpoint than science. This thread talks about a scientific standpoint. This means that Bible stuff doesn't count if it doesn't fit scientific stuff. So, the Bible in the OP simply tells us that we are talking about God, not god (There are many gods referred to in the Bible, now and again.). So, which god of the Bible are you talking about? The God of the universe is supported scientifically as I have shown in the links, above. EDIT: Probably the most complex thing in the universe is the brain of mankind, and/or its inter-connectivity, and/or the communications that go on between the parts of the brain through the inter-connectivity. There is sentience connected to the brain of mankind. Complexity only makes equal or less complexity. Therefore, God is greater sentience. ''So, which god of the Bible are you talking about? The God of the universe is supported scientifically as I have shown in the links, above.'' Entropy: A beginning
Cause and Effect: Universe must have a cause
Complexity(not defined but it doesn't matter): Whatever created the universe must be more complex than it
And that's where your argument ends, where does it show it was god? It simply shows the universe had a beginning and a cause and it has to be more complex. Again, this does not show it was God, it only points out to a complex being or beings or something that is not a sentient being, since it only has to be more complex.Complexity only makes equal or less complexity. Therefore, God is greater sentience. Complexity only makes equal or less complexity, Therefore whatever created the universe had to be more complex, not God, just more complex, why Your God and not many gods? Are you even serious? Who or what other than God could make the universe? What do you mean "where does it show it was God?" God is the only Thing that it shows. ... Forget about god, imagine you didn't know anything about the bible or any religion. Then you are presented with your arguments, C&E, complexity, etc. What conclusion would you arrive at? If you agreed with all the 3 arguments, what would you say created the universe? Your argument simply says it has to be ''something'' more complex, it doesn't give that something any other characteristic, it doesn't say whether it's a person, a sentient being, something without consciousness, multiple beings, etc etc. |
|
|
|
...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...
Wow, I did not expect that from you. I thought you were smarter than that. You realize CoinCube is the guy who started a thread titled, "Athiesm is Poison", right? (can't even spell Atheism) ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.0) He was bashing atheism daily, for more than a month, until I created a thread titled, "Christianity is poison"... at which point he finally renamed the thread... not exactly a brain genius you are dealing with here He is drowning in science, grabs any hypothesis/theory he can to validate his existing conviction, whether it be the Big bang, the Bolzman brain, computer simulation, holographic principle, or dark matter etc. When someone says humanity was created in the image of our creator, you know you are dealing with someone who does not understand biology. The conversation is over at that point. Sort of like notbatman and his dome theory of the electric field being responsible for the gravity. You just know when people wandered off to the delusion la-la land. The only question remains, how severe their delusion is. Then he accuses me of having faith. Guess what Coincube, evolution does not need faith, expanding universe does not need faith, 4.5 Billion years old Earth does not need faith, etc. we have data, we don't need faith. Well Coincube is one of those guys that are smarter than the average christian. He actually accepts evolution and doesn't believe the earth is only 10k years old if I recall correctly. |
|
|
|
Nope, we already discussed this several times and always ends up with you not being able to explain how it points to your god. As previously discussed: Nothing in your argument rules out the possibility of different entities Even if we agree with all the arguments there, it still doesn't show it was your god and not other god or multiple gods or multiple aliens or a simulation or anything that you can imagine. Your argument only shows 1 feature of what created the universe, it says it has to be more complex so anything that's more complex could be the creator/creators. Again, you can't really get away with this badecker, your argument is dead, admit it. If we discussed this, we barely discussed it. Rather, I almost always discussed about God, but you almost always discussed about god. Do you see the difference? In addition, you constantly talk about my god, whereas this thread has always been about God. The point is that we are talking in different directions. We are talking right past each other. And you are talking, basically, off-topic. Why are you talking off-topic? Because the OP, and the topic title, both talk about God rather than god, just as most of what I talk about is God, and seldom god, and barely ever my god (if I even have one), and seldom ever even my God. Why do talk as you do? Because you don't have any answers against the scientific proof that God exists, even though you might wish that He doesn't exist. The thread talks about the god from the bible, which is also the god you believe in. ''in the Bible'' It's mentioned in the first post and the article clearly says it's the God from the bible so we are talking about the same thing. If you were confused because I typed god instead of God, you must be really confused about a lot of things. ''Because you don't have any answers against the scientific proof that God exists'' Again, your ''proof'' goes like this: Entropy: A beginning Cause and Effect: Universe must have a cause Complexity(not defined but it doesn't matter): Whatever created the universe must be more complex than it And that's where your argument ends, where does it show it was god? It simply shows the universe had a beginning and a cause and it has to be more complex. Again, this does not show it was God, it only points out to a complex being or beings or something that is not a sentient being, since it only has to be more complex. God from the Bible that the OP talks about is the God of the universe. Why? That is what the Bible says. The Bible talks about God from a different standpoint than science. This thread talks about a scientific standpoint. This means that Bible stuff doesn't count if it doesn't fit scientific stuff. So, the Bible in the OP simply tells us that we are talking about God, not god (There are many gods referred to in the Bible, now and again.). So, which god of the Bible are you talking about? The God of the universe is supported scientifically as I have shown in the links, above. EDIT: Probably the most complex thing in the universe is the brain of mankind, and/or its inter-connectivity, and/or the communications that go on between the parts of the brain through the inter-connectivity. There is sentience connected to the brain of mankind. Complexity only makes equal or less complexity. Therefore, God is greater sentience. ''So, which god of the Bible are you talking about? The God of the universe is supported scientifically as I have shown in the links, above.'' Entropy: A beginning
Cause and Effect: Universe must have a cause
Complexity(not defined but it doesn't matter): Whatever created the universe must be more complex than it
And that's where your argument ends, where does it show it was god? It simply shows the universe had a beginning and a cause and it has to be more complex. Again, this does not show it was God, it only points out to a complex being or beings or something that is not a sentient being, since it only has to be more complex.Complexity only makes equal or less complexity. Therefore, God is greater sentience. Complexity only makes equal or less complexity, Therefore whatever created the universe had to be more complex, not God, just more complex, why Your God and not many gods? |
|
|
|
Nope, we already discussed this several times and always ends up with you not being able to explain how it points to your god. As previously discussed: Nothing in your argument rules out the possibility of different entities Even if we agree with all the arguments there, it still doesn't show it was your god and not other god or multiple gods or multiple aliens or a simulation or anything that you can imagine. Your argument only shows 1 feature of what created the universe, it says it has to be more complex so anything that's more complex could be the creator/creators. Again, you can't really get away with this badecker, your argument is dead, admit it. If we discussed this, we barely discussed it. Rather, I almost always discussed about God, but you almost always discussed about god. Do you see the difference? In addition, you constantly talk about my god, whereas this thread has always been about God. The point is that we are talking in different directions. We are talking right past each other. And you are talking, basically, off-topic. Why are you talking off-topic? Because the OP, and the topic title, both talk about God rather than god, just as most of what I talk about is God, and seldom god, and barely ever my god (if I even have one), and seldom ever even my God. Why do talk as you do? Because you don't have any answers against the scientific proof that God exists, even though you might wish that He doesn't exist. The thread talks about the god from the bible, which is also the god you believe in. ''in the Bible'' It's mentioned in the first post and the article clearly says it's the God from the bible so we are talking about the same thing. If you were confused because I typed god instead of God, you must be really confused about a lot of things. ''Because you don't have any answers against the scientific proof that God exists'' Again, your ''proof'' goes like this: Entropy: A beginning Cause and Effect: Universe must have a cause Complexity(not defined but it doesn't matter): Whatever created the universe must be more complex than it And that's where your argument ends, where does it show it was god? It simply shows the universe had a beginning and a cause and it has to be more complex. Again, this does not show it was God, it only points out to a complex being or beings or something that is not a sentient being, since it only has to be more complex. |
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I've seen hundreds of cases like yours, not only from Bitfinex but many many other exchanges. It's really sad and scary. This is why crypto is not seeing massive adoption, sometimes it's so hard to cash out. This is insane waiting for months and months, disgusting really.
|
|
|
|
There,s nothing we can do to prove Beliefs, because GOD is belief.
How do you know that empty space exists? You can't grab hold of it. You can't find ways to analyze it directly. Science doesn't really know what it is. So, can you prove that empty space exists? Or is empty space just a belief? The way we know that empty space exists is to analyze relationships between some of the things that lie within empty space. So, we know that empty space is a fact. We don't have to simply believe. Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, when combined as they are in our universe, prove that God exists. Why? Because these 3 things can't exist together as they do in our universe without God making them to exist this way. Do these 3 describe God? Barely. We can't tell from these 3 if He is the God af any particular religion, or if there is no religion that describes Him. But they DO let us know that He exists, simply because they could not exist without Him. ''Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, when combined as they are in our universe, prove that God exists. Why? Because these 3 things can't exist together as they do in our universe without God making them to exist this way.'' How so? Why is a god (your god) necessary to make those 3 things exist? You are simply assuming it for some unknown reason when your whole argument doesn't say anything about god. Where in your argument do you show that those 3 things can't exist without god? I have explained this over and over for you. If you are really curious, go on back over the thread and read what I have said. Start here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. Nope, we already discussed this several times and always ends up with you not being able to explain how it points to your god. As previously discussed: Nothing in your argument rules out the possibility of different entities Even if we agree with all the arguments there, it still doesn't show it was your god and not other god or multiple gods or multiple aliens or a simulation or anything that you can imagine. Your argument only shows 1 feature of what created the universe, it says it has to be more complex so anything that's more complex could be the creator/creators. Again, you can't really get away with this badecker, your argument is dead, admit it. |
|
|
|
There,s nothing we can do to prove Beliefs, because GOD is belief.
How do you know that empty space exists? You can't grab hold of it. You can't find ways to analyze it directly. Science doesn't really know what it is. So, can you prove that empty space exists? Or is empty space just a belief? The way we know that empty space exists is to analyze relationships between some of the things that lie within empty space. So, we know that empty space is a fact. We don't have to simply believe. Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, when combined as they are in our universe, prove that God exists. Why? Because these 3 things can't exist together as they do in our universe without God making them to exist this way. Do these 3 describe God? Barely. We can't tell from these 3 if He is the God af any particular religion, or if there is no religion that describes Him. But they DO let us know that He exists, simply because they could not exist without Him. ''Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, when combined as they are in our universe, prove that God exists. Why? Because these 3 things can't exist together as they do in our universe without God making them to exist this way.'' How so? Why is a god (your god) necessary to make those 3 things exist? You are simply assuming it for some unknown reason when your whole argument doesn't say anything about god. Where in your argument do you show that those 3 things can't exist without god? |
|
|
|
Again, you keep talking about complexity without defining it. ''The word "God" fits, and especially because we don't understand what God is.'' The word Zeus also fits, all the other god names also fit, aliens also fit, super intelligent being from outside the universe also fits, and so and so on, there is no evidence that points towards god.
To help you out, check the dictionary and encyclopedias for the definition of complexity. Perhaps you have studied about Zeus enough to know that Zeus fits. But I guarantee you, not all other gods fit, nor do aliens. If you want to call the God of the universe "super intelligent being from outside the universe," you have just described some aspects of God. All you are saying is that all evidence points toward God. Why? Because "god" is not "God." So, you are right... god doesn't fit, but God does. ''the state of having many parts and being difficult to understand or find an answer to'' You said ''If there were not enough complexity in existence for us to reason and have personal identity'' So if there wasn't enough what, enough parts that are difficult to understand? If there were not enough (parts and being difficult to understand or find an answer to) in existence for us to reason and have personal identity. That's what you said, how does that make any sense? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
