You can replace Yahweh with god in my argument if you need to. You obviously mean Yahweh when you say god, as far as I know you don't believe in Zeus, you said plenty of times you believe in the god from the bible.
nothing in your argument indicates what caused the universe. Just that it had to be more complex. ''If this isn't enough, throw in the machine nature of the universe, and the fact that machines have makers, and the proof becomes super-solid.'' Redundancy, this would prove that the universe has a maker, I already agreed with that statement, so what? Machines have makers, the universe is a machine? Fine, lets say it is, the universe has makers then, so what, again? How do you know it's only 1 maker and it's a god? How do you know it's not many creators and how do you know they are gods? Your argument does not say they have to be gods, it just says they/it has to be more complex than the universe.
Again, your argument is meaningless.
There you go, again, trying to turn this thread into a religious thread. If there was not a oneness to GM, the parts of all the cars would never fit properly. So, even if GM is made up of many people, they are all one when it comes to the making of working automobiles. The universe and laws of physics are way more complex than GM. God is One, even if He is made up of many entities.  You keep saying god though, but again, nothing in your argument indicates it's a ''god''. Your argument says machines have makers, plural. The universe could easily have makers too then. ''the parts of all the cars would never fit properly'' Because you say so? Is that how it works? You just make up stuff along the way to fit your argument? ''they are all one when it comes to the making of working automobiles.'' No they aren't. Just like a few people can build a car, they are not one, they are many, someone might be responsible for the engine and someone else for the windows, your argument is garbage. Rip badecker. You will not comeback from this no matter how hard you try lol |
|
|
|
Let me try with simple words and sentences, maybe that way it's easier for you. This is what you have as ''evidence'':
Cause and effect, complexity and entropy. You want to show that the universe had a beginning, fine by me, you also want to show that everything has a cause, let's say that's right, then you also want to show that the universe is really complex so whatever made the universe has to be complex too. Even if I agree with these arguments, the only thing you are showing is that the universe had a cause that has to be complex. There is nothing else in your argument that indicates the creator of the universe is Yahweh. There is nothing that indicates anything really besides what I said. We don't know if something can even exist outside the universe, I could say giant elephants with superpowers live outside the universe and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.
Do you understand the flaws in your argument? There is nothing in your argument that rules out the possibility of different creators working together for example, also nothing in your argument indicates that it has to be an all knowing all powerful god (Yahweh)
Seems like your argument is trash after all, hopefully you understand it this time.
The flaw in your thinking has to do with this: You neglect to show anything in the universe that produces complexity without some greater complexity causing it. In fact, the simple fact that complex things appear to be caused by simple things in some cases, really shows that the complexity of the causer is greater. Why? Because it makes the final complex things come out of simple things... when it would have been much easier to simply make the less complex things directly. So, now you want to give the great God proven by science, a name. And the name you use is the one from the Christian religion. Can you never keep religion out of it? As I said, even if we agree with that premise, nothing in your argument indicates what caused the universe. Just that it had to be more complex, so what? How do you go from something that has to be more complex to Yahweh? You didn't answer anything, my whole argument still stands, your argument indicates absolutely nothing about who created the universe, could be multiple entities, could be something entirely different, you claim it's Yahweh, yet you have literally no proof. If you PMed me that question (Yahweh), this doesn't mean that I would have to answer. If you have an argument in the things you express, it isn't for this thread. When you bring in the NAME, it has to do with religion. this is a science thread. How in the world many times does someone need to tell you that before you get it through your abnormally thick skull? This thread, in case you haven't noticed, is about scientifically proving the existence of God. Any argument that you use that includes the NAME, doesn't have anything to do with this thread, whether your argument stands or not. Start a new thread if you like. The fact that God is scientifically proven to exist by the combination of C&E, entropy, and complexity as they stand in this universe, is evident to all of science that is looking for truth. If this isn't enough, throw in the machine nature of the universe, and the fact that machines have makers, and the proof becomes super-solid. You can replace Yahweh with god in my argument if you need to. You obviously mean Yahweh when you say god, as far as I know you don't believe in Zeus, you said plenty of times you believe in the god from the bible. nothing in your argument indicates what caused the universe. Just that it had to be more complex. ''If this isn't enough, throw in the machine nature of the universe, and the fact that machines have makers, and the proof becomes super-solid.'' Redundancy, this would prove that the universe has a maker, I already agreed with that statement, so what? Machines have makers, the universe is a machine? Fine, lets say it is, the universe has makers then, so what, again? How do you know it's only 1 maker and it's a god? How do you know it's not many creators and how do you know they are gods? Your argument does not say they have to be gods, it just says they/it has to be more complex than the universe. Again, your argument is meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
Stakes for week 2 are fully updated, as always if you think there is a mistake, pm me.
|
|
|
|
Your stakes for week 1 are updated now, my bad. Week 2 stakes are being updated today. |
|
|
|
Those are examples of suggested evolution by novices and scientists who wish that they were examples of evolution. They are inconclusive regarding evolution. But they are not inconclusive regarding being simple adaptation. Nope, those are examples of evolution and you can't debunk them so you type simple sentences so your brain doesn't stop working. It happens all the time, your brain has a defense mechanism, it will not accept being wrong and it has to ignore these arguments. |
|
|
|
You don't seem to really understand what you are saying. Let me break it down for you.
''My faith changes according to my choice'' Your choice to believe in god or not relies on external knowledge, you can't simply believe in god without any knowledge of anything, since everything else is not determined by you, your faith isn't really yours. God put you where you are, god decided that you will be born in that country at that time and everything else that surrounds your life was decided by god, your only free will is to use those occurrences and believe or not in God, problem is that everyone is different, we are all born in different places, have different lives and it's not fair to ask a muslim born kid to believe in your god, obviously for a kid born into a christian country and a christian family it's much easier. God is either not fair, stupid or doesn't exist, since he cannot be unfair or stupid the only option is that he doesn't exist.
You don't seem to understand that among your assumptions are: 1. "Your choice to believe in god or not relies on external knowledge;" 2. "you can't simply believe in god without any knowledge of anything;" 3. "your faith isn't really yours." Once you realize that you are stating these things without knowledge that they are true, you will realize that everything else you say falls apart. You are retarded. How do you choose to believe in god or not if you don't know anything about god, answer that, you idiot. |
|
|
|
''Why do you think that someone who is born without an arm would want to be or would not want to be born without an arm?'' You are just trolling now, god according to the bible made us using his image, meaning 2 arms, unless you are mentally ill you know having 2 arms is better than having one. That's why I know anyone would want to be born with both arms yet they aren't, just like everyone would want to be born healthy and not have cancer or some rare disease.
''So, praise God for life if nothing else.'' Would you want to live with a rare disease that causes you extreme pain since you are born and kills you in 15-20 years after you are born?
God is a sick bastard, our free will is meaningless because being here is not fair, someone born into a christian country will have much more chances to believe in god than someone who isn't.
Is that why you want 6 or 8 arms? I used to think that you are trolling, but the further you go shows that it must be inbred willing ignorance. Life is a battle in some ways. You are continuing to prove it. So, life in the midst of a dread disease is a conquering of that disease. And death is a killing of that disease, while death believing in God is eternal life in perfection. People are winning, but unbelievers are losing. You are the sick critter. Why? Because you freely ask for death and destruction (even though you could change), but blame God that you so ask. I like your ramblings but they are absolutely useless to what I said. God is not fair. ''someone born into a christian country will have much more chances to believe in god than someone who isn't. '' Just like someone born with a disease and killed in 10 years because of it will have less chances to believe in god than someone who lives 70 years. It's simple logic and you can't even accept that. |
|
|
|
Let me try with simple words and sentences, maybe that way it's easier for you. This is what you have as ''evidence'':
Cause and effect, complexity and entropy. You want to show that the universe had a beginning, fine by me, you also want to show that everything has a cause, let's say that's right, then you also want to show that the universe is really complex so whatever made the universe has to be complex too. Even if I agree with these arguments, the only thing you are showing is that the universe had a cause that has to be complex. There is nothing else in your argument that indicates the creator of the universe is Yahweh. There is nothing that indicates anything really besides what I said. We don't know if something can even exist outside the universe, I could say giant elephants with superpowers live outside the universe and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.
Do you understand the flaws in your argument? There is nothing in your argument that rules out the possibility of different creators working together for example, also nothing in your argument indicates that it has to be an all knowing all powerful god (Yahweh)
Seems like your argument is trash after all, hopefully you understand it this time.
The flaw in your thinking has to do with this: You neglect to show anything in the universe that produces complexity without some greater complexity causing it. In fact, the simple fact that complex things appear to be caused by simple things in some cases, really shows that the complexity of the causer is greater. Why? Because it makes the final complex things come out of simple things... when it would have been much easier to simply make the less complex things directly. So, now you want to give the great God proven by science, a name. And the name you use is the one from the Christian religion. Can you never keep religion out of it? As I said, even if we agree with that premise, nothing in your argument indicates what caused the universe. Just that it had to be more complex, so what? How do you go from something that has to be more complex to Yahweh? You didn't answer anything, my whole argument still stands, your argument indicates absolutely nothing about who created the universe, could be multiple entities, could be something entirely different, you claim it's Yahweh, yet you have literally no proof. |
|
|
|
Hello, Lutpin
Wallet escrow already refilled, when payment will be sent?
He will probably send it tomorrow like usual. |
|
|
|
That is definitely some interesting interpretation of the bible, of course any bible scholar would disagree with you. Even badecker here doesn't believe the earth is flat. We are still waiting for real evidence, though, fake cgi videos don't count.
Genesis 1:4 should be under the first heading I edited it, it's the on-off switch. There's no evidence that can satisfy somebody willing to make dishonest arguments and support manufactured evidence. You really haven't given any, one video of a moon with some weird effect. You go from that to claim the moon and other stars and planets are holograms, show me the hologram projector then. Your interpretations of the bible, as I said, are just your imagination, again, no scholar would agree with you, in fact 99.99% of believers don't. Maybe you should think about that. In Genesis 1:3 (KJV) it says "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." but God hasn't created the Sun, Moon or any Stars yet. What do you reckon is the correct interpretation then? What is this light, where is this light coming from, why is there light? Don't say just because God said so, it was magically wished into existence, don't give me that bullshit. Take your appeal to authority with your bible scholars and go blow them out of your asshole! Oh it's actually very easy to explain that, people that wrote that book 10.000 years ago had no idea about almost anything and clearly made terrible mistakes, can't blame them for their ignorance though. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errorsThe first issue with insects walking on all fours is clearly a translation error, crawling insect being correct. The argument assumes our ancestors were so stupid they couldn't count to six, you can take that and the rest of your appeal to rationalwiki authority and blow it out of your asshole!  beer batter "kosher" grasshopperGod wouldn't let the only proof of his existence to have translation errors. Creating human from clay and ribs. Talking snake. We all are sinners because of a fruit eaten by an innocent uneducated girl. Punishing pharaoh for having a harden heart which God gave him at the first place. Dividing ocean. A bloke survived in the whole digestive system of a sea monster for 3 days. Woman became pregnant without the good part (I mean without having sex). Turning water into wine violating basic laws of physics. Resurrection of a man the god allowed to be killed. According to the book of Genesis, Chapter 1 Verses 11 to 13, vegetation was created on the third day along with seed bearing grasses, plants and trees, and sun was created on the fourth day (verses 14-19). How is it scientifically possible for vegetation to have appeared on earth without the presence of the sun? We know the earth is far older than 10k years. This story of the flood, as given in the Bible, contradicts scientific evidence from archaelogical sources which indicate that the eleventh dynasty in Egypt and the third dynasty in Babylonia were in existence without any break in civilisation and in a manner totally unaffected by any major calamity which may have occurred in the 21st century B.C. I'm bored to find more, there are plenty, bottom line is the bible is garbage overall but it is absolute garbage when it comes to scientific understanding of the world so please refrain from ever using it again as proof for anything. |
|
|
|
That is definitely some interesting interpretation of the bible, of course any bible scholar would disagree with you. Even badecker here doesn't believe the earth is flat. We are still waiting for real evidence, though, fake cgi videos don't count.
Genesis 1:4 should be under the first heading I edited it, it's the on-off switch. There's no evidence that can satisfy somebody willing to make dishonest arguments and support manufactured evidence. You really haven't given any, one video of a moon with some weird effect. You go from that to claim the moon and other stars and planets are holograms, show me the hologram projector then. Your interpretations of the bible, as I said, are just your imagination, again, no scholar would agree with you, in fact 99.99% of believers don't. Maybe you should think about that. In Genesis 1:3 (KJV) it says "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." but God hasn't created the Sun, Moon or any Stars yet. What do you reckon is the correct interpretation then? What is this light, where is this light coming from, why is there light? Don't say just because God said so, it was magically wished into existence, don't give me that bullshit. Take your appeal to authority with your bible scholars and go blow them out of your asshole! Oh it's actually very easy to explain that, people that wrote that book 10.000 years ago had no idea about almost anything and clearly made terrible mistakes, can't blame them for their ignorance though. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors |
|
|
|
I knew some low life looser would dig up this.
Well, whatever you think it's up to you. I have no interest about what you are doing outside the forum however if it is something against the forum then I have problems with you. By the way, the whole article is poorly written without giving any number, statistics, data. It's a made up article which reflects your personal thinking, frustration in most cases. Lot's of misleading/wrong information. I am sorry, you have a long way to go before you understand the whole BitcoinTalk.org community.
- Would you mind to admit these(the bold marked statements)? ''Merit is maintained by these same accounts of old Bitcointalk users who have all the power, and do not want to spread it equally with all the other users.'' Let's be honest, 99.99% of newbie accounts do not deserve any merit ever, they are either alt accounts of someone else or shit posters. OP name one account that has no merit and deserves 100 and I will agree with you. |
|
|
|
That is definitely some interesting interpretation of the bible, of course any bible scholar would disagree with you. Even badecker here doesn't believe the earth is flat. We are still waiting for real evidence, though, fake cgi videos don't count.
Genesis 1:4 should be under the first heading I edited it, it's the on-off switch. There's no evidence that can satisfy somebody willing to make dishonest arguments and support manufactured evidence. You really haven't given any, one video of a moon with some weird effect. You go from that to claim the moon and other stars and planets are holograms, show me the hologram projector then. Your interpretations of the bible, as I said, are just your imagination, again, no scholar would agree with you, in fact 99.99% of believers don't. Maybe you should think about that. |
|
|
|
... Where in the bible it's mentioned that the sun and stars are holograms? You think God made them that way however you never really presented one shred of evidence that the sun or stars are what you say they are, we are all waiting for your evidence. ...
Okay, I've found indirect evidence that supports the idea that the Sun, Moon and Stars are projected off of a mirrored dome (holograms). It's only a shred of evidence but the bible isn't exactly a book of technical schematics. 1. First there was a working light created (the projector): And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. -- Genesis 1:3, KJV2.(a) Then the dome was created: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. -- Genesis 1:4, KJV And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:7, KJV2.(b) That the firmament forms a dome: I was there when the LORD put the heavens in place and stretched the sky over the surface of the sea. -- Proverbs 8:27, CEV2.(c) That the dome was engineered: To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. -- Psalm 19:1, KJV2.(d) That the dome is a concave mirror: Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror? -- Job 37:18, ESV3. Finally the Sun, Moon and Stars were created: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: -- Genesis 1:14, KJV And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:15, KJV God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. -- Genesis 1:16, KJVThese passages are evidence that a projector was created first, then a mirrored dome and finally the Sun, Moon and Stars are projected off the dome; a light sorce and a concave mirror, this is the essence of a holographic projection system. That is definitely some interesting interpretation of the bible, of course any bible scholar would disagree with you. Even badecker here doesn't believe the earth is flat. We are still waiting for real evidence, though, fake cgi videos don't count. |
|
|
|
In college, I read through multiple organic chemistry textbooks. There's only one Diels-Alder reaction (my favorite), so you would think there would be only one way to write about it and that all the organic chemists would plagiarize the best description.
Do you think that's the case? Let me tell you: It isn't. There's no excuse for what you described. It's just being lazy if you can't write out a description of POS (or anything else) in your own words. That's a ridiculous, dishonest excuse if someone tells you it's impossible.
You mean that you can rewrite the rules how POW or POS works using hour own words ? I mean, you can't rewrite the rules themselves, but you can talk about them in different ways. https://medium.com/novamining/main-differences-between-pow-and-pos-cryptocurrency-mining-c4cc279d9739https://www.quora.com/What-is-PoW-and-PoS-in-bitcoinCheck the 2 links, the answers are fairly different even tho ultimately they are describing the same thing. |
|
|
|
... One thing at a time here, I'm scouring the good book for solar references. While I'm reading you can view some video evidence that the Moon (along with the Sun and Stars) is a projected hologram.  Lunar Wave by CRROW777 -- https://youtu.be/scvvVKnJzzg (mirror video & mirror site due to "shut it down") An obvious edited fake video is not proof that the moon is a hologram, sorry. Give me a real video of the moon. Like I said the video is to pass the time while I compile biblical evidence for a projected Sun, and also to show that I have more than zero evidence like you claim. So tell me what make it "obvious" that its fake, for example when a NASA tech is so high on coke that he accidentally misses a CGI edit, and the stage harness and wires are visible on the ISS astronaut in the live video feed then I say "hey, that's obviously fake"? Obviously fake, I mean, I could create that effect in an hour or so using a video of the moon, easily. You have fake evidence which is worse than having zero evidence. You offer nothing to indicate that it's fake other than a claim that you could easily reproduce the effect. The camera is panning meaning any added animation would have to synchronize with the motion and the line moves in perfect synch with camera pan; an indication that it's unedited video. You then use this claim that an edit job that would take many hours of painstaking work to synchronize seamlessly is proof it's fake? Shit or get off the pot, what are indications are there in this video that it's a CGI edit job? Your claim of being a CGI editing master as proof the video is fake, much like the surface of a spinning ball doesn't hold any water. This video isn't the best evidence but it is evidence the Moon is a projection none the less. Extremely obvious CGI, plus a black background would make it extremely easy to edit in any way. All flat earth videos are clearly CGI. Btw I'm acting like you, maybe you didn't realize that. You are saying it can't be edited because the camera is moving but we have videos and livestreams of space and yet you say all of those are fake, funny how your brain works, huh? There are many indications with the video NASA provides of manipulated and composit images and they have a huge budget with a ton of manpower and the latest CGI software and hardware. Also I don't claim that it can't be an edited video just that there's nothing to indicate that it is. Your claim that all flat earth videos are clearly CGI doesn't make any sense, do you mean balloon footage? There are literally 20 million FE videos on YouTube from millions of different users. Sying they're all CGI is nonsense with that many sources and nothing in most of the videos to indicate any kind of deception. You claim the video is extremely obvious CGI yet can't point to anything specific, you've been BTFO. ''There are literally 20 million FE videos on YouTube'' You sure about ''literally''? I can tell you one thing, there are literally hundreds of millions of pictures of earth from space and yet you don't seem to care about that. ''You claim the video is extremely obvious CGI yet can't point to anything specific'' It's just a wave, anyone can make it, do you think I don't have a telescope? Are you saying that if I use a telescope I will be able to see the wave? Rofl. |
|
|
|
... One thing at a time here, I'm scouring the good book for solar references. While I'm reading you can view some video evidence that the Moon (along with the Sun and Stars) is a projected hologram. Lunar Wave by CRROW777 -- https://youtu.be/scvvVKnJzzg (mirror video & mirror site due to "shut it down") An obvious edited fake video is not proof that the moon is a hologram, sorry. Give me a real video of the moon. Like I said the video is to pass the time while I compile biblical evidence for a projected Sun, and also to show that I have more than zero evidence like you claim. So tell me what make it "obvious" that its fake, for example when a NASA tech is so high on coke that he accidentally misses a CGI edit, and the stage harness and wires are visible on the ISS astronaut in the live video feed then I say "hey, that's obviously fake"? Obviously fake, I mean, I could create that effect in an hour or so using a video of the moon, easily. You have fake evidence which is worse than having zero evidence. You offer nothing to indicate that it's fake other than a claim that you could easily reproduce the effect. The camera is panning meaning any added animation would have to synchronize with the motion and the line moves in perfect synch with camera pan; an indication that it's unedited video. You then use this claim that an edit job that would take many hours of painstaking work to synchronize seamlessly is proof it's fake? Shit or get off the pot, what are indications are there in this video that it's a CGI edit job? Your claim of being a CGI editing master as proof the video is fake, much like the surface of a spinning ball doesn't hold any water. This video isn't the best evidence but it is evidence the Moon is a projection none the less. Extremely obvious CGI, plus a black background would make it extremely easy to edit in any way. All flat earth videos are clearly CGI. Btw I'm acting like you, maybe you didn't realize that. You are saying it can't be edited because the camera is moving but we have videos and livestreams of space and yet you say all of those are fake, funny how your brain works, huh? |
|
|
|
... One thing at a time here, I'm scouring the good book for solar references. While I'm reading you can view some video evidence that the Moon (along with the Sun and Stars) is a projected hologram. Lunar Wave by CRROW777 -- https://youtu.be/scvvVKnJzzg (mirror video & mirror site due to "shut it down") An obvious edited fake video is not proof that the moon is a hologram, sorry. Give me a real video of the moon. Like I said the video is to pass the time while I compile biblical evidence for a projected Sun, and also to show that I have more than zero evidence like you claim. So tell me what make it "obvious" that its fake, for example when a NASA tech is so high on coke that he accidentally misses a CGI edit, and the stage harness and wires are visible on the ISS astronaut in the live video feed then I say "hey, that's obviously fake"? Obviously fake, I mean, I could create that effect in an hour or so using a video of the moon, easily. You have fake evidence which is worse than having zero evidence. |
|
|
|
She can’t allow or disallow it because god is a figment of your imagination. She can’t destroy me because she only lives in the mind of you, David Koresh, and millions of other nutters.
She has turned someone into rock salt, caused a flood that killed almost everyone, killed children, killed women, created plagues that terrorized her creations and generally shown contempt for something she created.
I never understood why a god would need to have a gender. I assume it was written that way because men were dominate at the time. If a god were to have a gender, it would probably have to be male, considering all the violence and controlling it does... Yeah, it's funny how religious people don't realize how stupid it is to give a god a gender or to think that an all knowing powerful bla bla god would need or want our praising. Why would he even care about that? |
|
|
|
...
Yeah, what about 10.000 years ago, there was a hologram of the sun projected back then? You never answered who made it and why.
^^^ Engineered by God just like the Earth and Man.
So why does the bible not say that? You are burying yourself deeper and deeper. The bible clearly says god made the sun and the stars, it doesn't mention anything about a projection. Also why would god made them like that, to confuse us into thinking we are in a spherical planet? I thought NASA was responsible for this conspiracy, turns out it was god all long, you are funny notbatman  The madness of defending the globe hoax is getting to you, you can't even compose a coherent paragraph that doesn't contradict itself. Yeah keep ignoring it you dishonest troll. Where in the bible it's mentioned that the sun and stars are holograms? You think God made them that way however you never really presented one shred of evidence that the sun or stars are what you say they are, we are all waiting for your evidence. How's your schizophrenia doing btw? Challenge accepted, I'll look and see if there's reference... I suspect the Jews would have removed and/or fudged any books with those details when they translated them from Greek though. Also I've seen images of some of the remaining books, they're three feet wide and written by giants; the Jews have clearly plagiarize older works/stories from these giants. Just FYI, all celestial objects are projected off the dome not just the Sun and Stars. Of course you always suspect things that you have literally 0 proof of. Accept the real challenge and present evidence that all celestial objects are projections. One thing at a time here, I'm scouring the good book for solar references. While I'm reading you can view some video evidence that the Moon (along with the Sun and Stars) is a projected hologram. Lunar Wave by CRROW777 -- https://youtu.be/scvvVKnJzzg (mirror video & mirror site due to "shut it down") An obvious edited fake video is not proof that the moon is a hologram, sorry. Give me a real video of the moon. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
