I guess you are seeing the rating depending on your personal trust setting. It's different for sure for others. i.e I see green for BayAreaCoins, OgNasty, TMAN.
mprep is the same for me...

So I guessing the answer is no.

How about this? You said that the Bible is true because it is a witness account of what happened.  And as such it is reliable.

My question is:  "Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.  When God talked to them in the Garden of Eden, who was the witness to write about it?  Some hunched Jew hiding in the bushes?"

Same goes for the Quran, "Who was the witness when Muhammad (a blind man) went from Mecca to Jerusalem, alone at night, and then flew to heaven, nobody saw it, yet someone wrote about it?  Who was the secret witness?"

The writers of these texts had a vivid imagination (talking snakes, winged horses), today, their work would put them in the same genre as Harry Potter books.

Didn't you ever read Proverbs in the Bible? If you had, you would find that it is full of practical advise. Most of the other book have practical advice, as well.

Science, however, is full of ideas that many people think have been proven, like big bang for example, and black hole theory. Science is the thing making claims without proof.


Thanks to non-scientists, the foundations of science were laid, so science had a place to begin. Consider the simple wheel, for example. And the printing press. Both of which were made by engineers, not scientists, and without which science would never have amounted to anything at all.


Without the popular religions, there would be no order in society, and scientists would be non-existent... or at best, would be chiseling out of stone.


Not sure why you are so against looking at science from a practical point of view. You treat science as though it were God... or the most important religion of all.


When you have the writings of the witnesses, who heard it directly from God, why don't you revise things like your stupid 13.5 billion years to match the facts?


Obviously you don't understand the reasoning behind it, so just believe it like all the rest of the believers who will receive eternal life. Or don't you want eternal life?


Without the Bible, the simple proof is the machine nature of the universe. Intelligent designers design the machines that people make. The machine of the universe has been made by Someone Who is far greater than mankind. The word "God" barely fits Him He is so extremely intelligent and powerful.

Many people look for aliens who are more intelligent and smarter than people. But you disdain the greatest Alien of all, One Who is able to build universes. Why are you trying to remain in a backward state? Step up to truth.



The Bible is God's Word. Read it any time you want to hear him talking to you.

If you won't change and become a believer in Jesus salvation, you will never find out what God looks like. He isn't going to share His goodness with someone who says he wants to see, yet won't accept what he is shown.

And that's exactly why religions are useless, this is all based on science and research. We don't need religion for any of this, religion does nothing, it's outdated. Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that all humans follow a faith based belief system. This is merely an extension of your belief that to be alive is to be religious. My personal beliefs are based on an evidence based system.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic.  

Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
 
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.

These assumed truths are so deeply ingrained in us now we have difficulty even recognizing them as assumptions but they are necessary for science to exist.

If you don't believe the assumptions science becomes impossible for you. The progress and maintenance of scientific achievement requires that these assumptions be accepted and propagated at least by an educated elite.

The same situation applies to the apriori Truth of God which rests at the foundation of western culture. Undermine the assumption and the whole society starts to wobble.

This is what Nietzsche foresaw when he announced "God is dead" in 1882. Nietzsche predicted drastic consequences as a result. He predicted millions would die in the 20th century in wars of extremist ideologies. Peterson describes these ideologies as parasites that act on a damaged religious substructure.

Nietzsche also predicted that it would not be until the 21st century that we would be forced to acknowledge the crisis of nihilism. These predictions given in 1882 are an intellectual tour de force.

Believing blindly without contemplation still works for some but that blanket of protection is gradually being pulled away. Going forward it will increasingly be necessary to fully define oneself down to your core metaphysical truths. Unless you can look into the abyss of nihilism and reject it with certainty the abyss will sooner or later pull you in.

The failure with this solution is that it does not really solve the underlying problem. High IQ while generally a good thing does not make one morally capable. Without moral capability all high IQ does is enable you to cause more damage and defection.

High IQ Psychopaths
https://www.iq-brain.com/blog/high-iq-psychopaths/

As a superior alternative I would suggest the establishment of voluntary institutions throughout society focused generally on the importance of moral behavior. These could be costly in terms of membership perhaps requiring time consuming weekly meetings and monetary donations as a demonstration of commitment.

Individuals with psychopathic tendencies would have difficulty consistently participating in costly membership rituals dedicated to a premise they find pointless. Consequently they would be less likely to participate in them especially on a sustained basis over multiple years.

High IQ people drawn from these institutions on average would be more morally capable then equally high IQ people drawn from society at large due to this self selection effect. Society would learn via trial and error that better results are obtained from selecting qualified leaders with long histories of membership in one of these institutions.


If my analysis in the opening post of this thread is correct this is not ideal when looked at from a purely Darwinian perspective.

I do not believe that the Earth is flat. That is my opinion and I will stick with that.

I'm still scratching my head on why the stars....sorry, I mean projected holograms....circle in the opposite direction for us people in the Southern Hemisphere (or is that Hemiflat???). What kind of magic is that?!?! 

But there are plenty of scientists who did consider it though and we still have no scientific theories about god. How do you explain that?

Here's the explanation again:

You say that there is no such thing as true randomness because C&E is in everything, therefore evolution has to be a hoax.

I'm saying that, first of all, some things like radioactive decay seems to be truly random, we don't know just like we don't know if they aren't.

Moreover if everything has a cause, what caused god? You then say that god is outside the universe, bla bla, the typical made up shit and you say that he has no cause. So if god, that created the universe, has no cause, then everything is indeed random in the way that the first cause of everything has no cause and it is random.

It's no wonder you believe in a flat Earth, your reading comprehension is abysmal at best or blinded by your one-eyed subjectiveness at worst.

Here's a key point taken straight from the article that you conveniently ignore constantly when the Sagnac experiment is discussed:

      "...the Sagnac experiment is inconclusive, since it agrees with both the aether and relativity models."

Somewhere I read that more than 25% of the trans-genders are HIV positive. If that is true, then it is not a lifestyle that we should be promoting. Normal HIV prevalence is around 0.025%, which means that their prevalence is a thousand times higher.

Let me break down his points in more readable form.

CoinCube believes that because there are truths and infinities in Mathematics that cannot be proven there must be an external infinite entity that exists but cannot be proven to exist.

He also claims that such truth (about existence of such infinite entity aka God) predicates all our system of logic and is required for that system to work truthfully.

He also claims that this infinite entity interacts with the physical world, is the source of the moral code that we should follow.  

He claims that any other moral code that is not dictated by predicated on this external supernatural infinite entity is doomed to fail and leads to atrocities and disintegration of societies (or utter tyranny).

What is infinity and does it even exist? In our everyday experience, we find only finite things. A basket of eggs contains only a fixed number of eggs and no more. Our bodies are composed of particles (molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, etc.). But whatever particles describe our make up, we find only a finite number. It may be billions or trillions or more, but it still doesn’t get close to infinity. Even the known universe is finite – it’s only so many light-years in diameter and contains only so many elementary particles.

How, then, does one even get close to infinity? People have long realized that there’s no biggest number because it’s always possible to add 1 to any number and get still a bigger number. So numbers themselves, taken collectively, are infinite. Any given number is finite, but the mere fact that numbers go on forever – that’s infinite.

But what sort of infinite is this? The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384– 322 BC) proposed that there are two types of infinity, a potential and an actual infinity. In a potential infinity, one can keep adding or subdividing without end, but one never actually reaches infinity. In a sense, a potential infinity is an endless process that at any point along the way is finite. By contrast, in an actual infinity, the infinite is viewed as a completed totality. Aristotle rejected actual infinity, claiming that only potential infinity exists.

So what, you say? For all practical purposes, we get on quite well with quite a bit less than even a potential infinity. Take the world’s most powerful supercomputer, Japan’s K Computer, which runs at 10 petaflops, using 705,024 SPARC64 processing cores. There are absolute limits to what this machine can do in terms of storage, retrieval, and processing. It’s safe to say that 10^100 (i.e., the number 1 followed by 100 zeros, aka “google”) sets an absolute limit on the amount of processing steps this machine will ever do, on the length of the longest number it can compute, and on the amount of bytes available to the machine’s memory.

And yet, the infinite is not so readily cast aside for practical reasons. Modern mathematics is done almost entirely in terms of sets (recall the “New Math”). Set theory treats just about anything as a set (the only things that are not sets are things too big to be sets – more on that in another post). Now numbers are sets. For instance, 0 is the empty set (it contains zero items). The number 1 is also a set (it is the set that contains zero, and thus is a set with one item).
But all the numbers taken collectively (0, 1, 2, etc.) also form a set, known to mathematicians as the natural numbers and represented as {0,1,2,3,…}. Ah, but what’s that ellipsis, those three dots (i.e., …), doing there? Doesn’t that tell us that the natural numbers are really just a potential infinity? Mathematicians don’t treat the natural numbers as a potential infinity but as an actual infinity – a completed totality that includes all numbers 0, 1, 2, etc.

But what do mathematicians know anyway? Perhaps treating the natural numbers as an actual infinity is just a convenient way to think about numbers and do calculations. If people’s concerns about infinity were left simply at the level of mathematics and its scientific applications, the debate over potential and actual infinities would be moot. But it turns out that this debate spills over into other areas, notably theology. If God is real, is he an actual infinite or is he just a potential infinite? Most religious believers see God also as unchanging, so if God is real and infinite, he must be an actual infinity.

Now it’s interesting that Georg Cantor, who invented set theory over 100 years ago, did so in part for theological reasons, seeing the infinite sets he came up with as a reflection of the infinity of God. Others, however, not believing that God exists or thinking that the very concept of an actual infinity is incoherent, reject the actual infinity and thus view Cantor’s so-called actual infinities as simply a device for describing much more mundane and finite processes. Yet it is a device that every working mathematician uses. As the great mathematician David Hilbert put it, “No one will drive us from the paradise which Cantor created for us.”

The debate over potential and actual infinities has been ongoing for centuries, and this short post won’t resolve it. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that Cantor’s work on set theory has showed that the concept of an infinite set makes mathematical sense and avoids contradiction. Certain paradoxes, such as that infinite sets can be put in one-to-one correspondence with proper subsets (e.g., there are as many even numbers as natural numbers: 0à0, 1à2, 2à4, 3à6, etc.), may fly in the face of common intuitions, but science confronts us with lots of things that are counterintuitive.

In any case, modern mathematics, especially in its wholesale incorporation of set theory, has given the single biggest boost to the view that the actual infinite exists. Not that this proves the actual infinite exists – the nature of existence itself (a field philosophers refer to as “ontology” – the study of being) is itself up for grabs. But the mere fact that treating mathematical entities as actual infinities has yielded incredibly fruitful mathematical insights (Cantor’s paradise) gives the actual infinite breathing room that it never had in the past.
—–
References:

Joseph Dauben, Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).
Michael Hallett, Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).

So you are smarter than most scientists, you understand the proof for god but they don't. Why not publish a paper, a scientific paper to make them understand the proof? How come the other scientists that do believe in god never published such paper? How come they didn't try to convince their partners about god using scientific proof? Seems really weird to me unless... wait for it.... there is no scientific proof for god, they know there isn't even if they believe in god and thus can't really publish a scientific paper about it or create a scientific theory. Who knows, right?

OWW, gottem. Too much logic for you at once eh? YOu are the one saying that cause and effect proves evolution is a hoax, I debunked it, deal with it, don't be a baby and admit when you lose.