EDO is the best and most undervalued project in bitfinex, after listed there it has never been pumped significantly, I think this is good to buy EDO now. It will go larger project and best wallet.
The volume is too low on bitfinex and that is some concern for me.I do hope we have EDO to be listed soon on Binance, Bittrex and then we may see a spike in volume. the best choice is bittrex, I am sure the volume are very high if can be added on bittrex just waiting good news by dev. Bittrex is currently the best exchange for all altcoins, earlier poloniex was used to be the top exchange.Has the team applied for the exchange or did they register themselves for a free listing on binance voting? The fuck are you talking about? Don't you read news? Bittrex is borderline scam with their verification system and non existent support system. There are literally hundreds of thousands of unresolved tickets, disabled and banned accounts everywhere. Bittrex is the worst exchange. The reason for the delay is 50k new users being added and growing further.Has anyone been scammed by bittrex till date? Can you post the link? I am still waiting for your baseless claim to be proved right. I don't care how many users they have. They maliciously changed their ToS to not let people withdraw money before getting verified not to mention all the disabled/blocked accounts for no reason. Their support system is absolutely garbage, people have been waiting for more THAN 1 MONTH, I don't care how many new users are there, they should have solved this shit not let your clients wait for months and not even give any statement regarding the situation. |
|
|
|
Since the first, I do not at all believe with the theory of evolution. as a religious person, I remain convinced that the human was created from soil.
How do you sleep at night after dropping statements like those? You are basically saying you don't want to believe in science and you would rather believe that we came from soil. How is that more believable than evolution? |
|
|
|
''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer. Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design. By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s). But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all. It just moves the mystery back a step.'' God was outside of the universe to have been able to make it.If He was the same as the universe, the universe would have already been there in God.Entropy shows that there was a beginning, so God was/is not of the universe.Because of this, we don't know if complexity and designing apply to the nature of God at all.
It doesn't matter that god was outside the universe, being outside the universe doesn't automatically make you have no cause. My argument still standsAll it does is shows that if cause exists outside the universe, it is different than cause for one inside. Therefore, universe cause doesn't apply outside the universe. If it were cause as exists within the universe, it would be part of the universe, and not outside. ''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity. But this is certainly mistaken. We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature. In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed. This is an example that shows God. God, being different than humanity, designs differently. God's machinery is different than the machinery of mankind. Yet it is similar in the fact that approximately 100% of man's machinery uses the machines of God, and uses examples of the way the machines of God work to make mans' machinery work.I don't know if you understood my point here. My point was that your method to determine whether something is designed or not is flawed.You have a nice opinion, there. For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed. Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed. How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures? Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp. We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture. One of the purposes why God designed sharp rocks was so that man could use the example of them for cutting... for learning how to cut.Another was for the beauty in the blending of their complexity... multitudes of atoms and molecules blended in all kinds of ways in each rock, always moving as machinery works - because absolute zero isn't quite attainable that we know of.The markings on mans' tools are often different from those on God's machines, because the goals and usages are for different purposes, even though the general appearance of the tools may be similar.
How do you know that god designed the rocks?By the fact that rocks are made up of machines... if in no other way than the fact that their parts move within them with ambient heat, according to set laws, just like all machines. Machines have makers. Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. '' There is really no simplicity in nature. The appearance of simplicity may seem to be there at first glance. But detailed scientific examination is proving that simplicity doesn't exist. In fact, the universe is so complex that to the simple minded there is simplicity, but to the complexly minded there is complexity.The fact that mankind is not able to separate anything of the universe, to be a self-enclosed universe unit, completely separate from the universe, thereby making it to be its own universe that is the same as this universe but not part of it, shows that every part of the universe is complex with regard to the whole that it is part of.
No one said there is simplicity in nature. My point is that the method for establishing design is difference from nature and not complexity. The fact that something is complex does not always indicate design, hence the rock example.That's a wonderful but faulty assumption on your part. ''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture. Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.'' The whole structure of the universe is the sign that it was designed. An art museum proves that people design differently among themselves. Certainly the Designer of all things is going to design differently than people can even imagine at times. Complexity certainly shows design.How is the whole structure of the universe a sign that it was designed? An art museum proves nothing because we know people made the paintings/art. We don't know whether someone designed the universe or not. My whole argument is to show that complexity does not show design, hence again, the rock example and many many more.
The universe is machinery. Machinery is designed. Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is'' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390Nice quote. I like it.'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over) That is the problem with modern science. It is so weak at this stage that it is unable to dabble with things outside of the universe. In fact, it can barely determine that something outside of the universe can even exist.
So you agree with me?About what? Seems like you are disagreeing with yourself. There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)'' We are aware of only one universe, and, therefore, only one first cause. Nobody can tell if there were or weren't many first causes. We barely even know a little about our universe. Do you expect us to be going beyond it?Note that it is "machineS," not "machine." Note that there isn't just one person who makes a machine. Rather there are many people who have made machines.Polytheism, when the gods join entirely together, becomes monotheism. Is this part of the scientific proof for the existence of God, or are we getting into religion?One universe can have more than one cause. Just like a mountain forming has different causes and all of them play an important role. In a small way, perhaps. But the complexity, and the fact that it is all acting together, eliminates anything more that one First Cause. ''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years. The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do. When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.'' Nice.You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now. Thank you. But you are slightly mistaken. Not knowing what the First Cause is, has to do with not knowing what He is scientifically. One of the attributes we can apply to Him is that He is God. So from an extremely general, scientific standpoint, we know what He is. He is scientifically God.''can apply to Him '' Why to him, how do you know the first cause is a him, how do you know the first cause has awareness?If you would rather play with words, you are really falling apart fast. However, I have gone far beyond the simple proof for the existence of God. I have proof that God is "He," and I have provide glimpses of it in other posts. You will have great difficulty determining things about God if you can't even understand that He exists. The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this? Imagine that you were in God's "realm," completely aware of God. If God has a cause from the standpoint of His realm, you might know it, and maybe even know what it is. But you would be entirely different than what you are now if you were in God's realm. Why? Because if you were the same as you are now, you would be part of the universe, and God's realm would be this universe.From the standpoint of our knowledge in the universe, scientifically we probably can't know if God has a cause or not. The word "cause" is of this universe. The cause concept didn't necessarily exist until the universe existed. I don't see how science in its limited ability could have determined if cause could have existed or not before the universe existed. Even the concept of "before" might not have existed "before" the universe.Causation is an integral part of the universe. Perhaps it the universe DID come about without a cause. Such a concept would go a great deal further in making God scientifically "palatable" to us.Do you understand that when we talk about subjects or concepts that are outside of our ability to comprehend, that the talk isn't always going to be clear?
Just curious. Have you been diagnosed with Alzheimer's? Or at least dementia? After all, you seem to forget that you have asked your questions multiple times in the past, and received my answers multiple times in the past. You need to start keeping notes.  Everything can be resumed in 1 small argument. All your proof of the existence of god ends up with 1 conclusion. There is a creator and that creator created the universe. Your whole argument does nothing to explain what the creator/creators are and if the creator is indeed sentient or not. You are just assuming after all your conclusions that the creator is god but like I said several times that doesn't have to be the case. Your whole argument doesn't dismiss the possibility of different creators or different causes, it also doesn't prove that what created the universe is indeed sentient/aware. You claim that nature is designed but my argument clearly shows that there is no way for us to know whether nature is designed or not because we don't know if something is designed based on complexity. |
|
|
|
BADecker has got to be the biggest idiot on the planet. He claims to have proof that his god exists, but he wants to keep it to himself.  Sheesh - he could end the religious debate for once and for all, and unite the globe in peace. What a selfish, inconsiderate idiot. Yeah, he keeps teasing us with words but never shows the scientific proof. I think he is waiting for the next years nobel prizes to get some. |
|
|
|
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story. Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information. Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth. Thank you. Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves. I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results. But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution. Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer. There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales. If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both. As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations. You just flunked basic science. I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now. The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education. The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point. Since I didn't talk about any moths, it's very easy to understand why you don't understand my point. You are simply out of it >>> close to funny farm material. When people understand the cause, it isn't random mutation, at least not in the sense of evolution. Rather, it is simply change. In the case of the moth, the method of change is understood, factually. In much of the change that evolution talks about, the method of change is only guessed at, or is not even noted. Rather, the change is attributed to spontaneous (random) activity going on. Now, if what is meant by random activity is simply that we don't know the cause and effect process, then we are accurate. But if we mean that there was a pure random change, then we are wrong. Most of evolution is attributed to pure random C&E, rather than unknown C&E. Evolution is wrong in this respect. Since one of the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation is cause and effect, and since scientists know this, because they know what they are doing, they are hoaxing when they promote standard evolution. Why? Because all of the stuff attributed to evolution, and everything, else is a cause and effect programming. Evolution is a complete hoax. Good science fiction, though. No one claims evolution is truly random, I don't know what you are talking about. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/The industrial revolution is a ''random'' event, It was not intended to make moths change color but it did, that's not random and no one claims it is. Why would you think the industrial revolution was a random event? There aren't any random events. There are only events that people call random because they don't understand what made them happen. Many people claim that parts of evolution are random. That's why evolution fails. None of it is random. ''RANDOM'' as not intended to make moths change color, are you dumb? The industrial revolution was caused by people, how does that change the truth that moths evolved or all the other animals evolve? That is your non-random, cause and effect response. Why would industrial revolution humans not be affected by C&E in their thinking, just the way we are being caused to post the way we are, by C&E? Because humans didn't have an industrial revolution purposely to change the color of a moth, that's why. The cause of the industrial revolution are humans and other things. That's the cause, the effects are many, one of them being moths changing color, I still don't see any problems here. What is your point exactly? Since cause and effect operates even on humans, humans DID have "their" industrial revolution purposely. The purpose and control simply weren't theirs. In fact, the main purpose might have been to change the color of moths for the main reason of our discussion, here, in this thread, in this forum. It doesn't matter though. What matters is that the moth evolved. That's our argument here, no? If evolution is real. It doesn't matter what caused the evolution, what matters is that things evolve. You believe in free will yet you are telling me that human actions are already pre destined? How does that work with your belief in God? |
|
|
|
It's just a matter of believing, not proof-concept of existence.
Believing in things just because you want to is stupid and illogical. If faith was a good pathway to truth we wouldn't have thousands of different gods, everyone would have picked the right one by now. |
|
|
|
EDO is the best and most undervalued project in bitfinex, after listed there it has never been pumped significantly, I think this is good to buy EDO now. It will go larger project and best wallet.
The volume is too low on bitfinex and that is some concern for me.I do hope we have EDO to be listed soon on Binance, Bittrex and then we may see a spike in volume. the best choice is bittrex, I am sure the volume are very high if can be added on bittrex just waiting good news by dev. Bittrex is currently the best exchange for all altcoins, earlier poloniex was used to be the top exchange.Has the team applied for the exchange or did they register themselves for a free listing on binance voting? The fuck are you talking about? Don't you read news? Bittrex is borderline scam with their verification system and non existent support system. There are literally hundreds of thousands of unresolved tickets, disabled and banned accounts everywhere. Bittrex is the worst exchange. |
|
|
|
The dome produces an immense electric field due to its polarization, the difference between it and the ground is what defines up and down and is ultimately the source of the force behind the air pressure or, in the case of a hard vacuum aether pressure that pushes objects down.
You've lost your pathetic attempt to convince anyone the world is flat.  He just keeps throwing out things here without the slightest bit of proof. The dome which no one has ever seen has an immense electric field that no one has ever measured. This isn't something that (((scientists))) deny, they're only lying about the source of the field on this one... "On an ordinary day over flat desert country, or over the sea, as one goes upward from the surface of the ground the electric potential increases by about 100 volts per meter. Thus there is a vertical electric field E of 100 volts/m in the air. The sign of the field corresponds to a negative charge on the earth’s surface." -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. II Ch. 9: Electricity in the Atmosphere You'll find links to actual experiments that measure this in the references section. Now wipe the sauce off your face and GTFO. I'm fairly sure 99.99% of scientists would deny the existence of an electrified dome. You can ask them if you want. You will find actual experiments that prove earth is round.  Why would 99.99% of (((scientists))) lie about the existence of an electrified dome? Yeah exactly, why would they lie about it? Good question, maybe you can answer it because it seems really hard for me to understand their reasoning. |
|
|
|
''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer. Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design. By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s). But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all. It just moves the mystery back a step.'' God was outside of the universe to have been able to make it.If He was the same as the universe, the universe would have already been there in God.Entropy shows that there was a beginning, so God was/is not of the universe.Because of this, we don't know if complexity and designing apply to the nature of God at all.
It doesn't matter that god was outside the universe, being outside the universe doesn't automatically make you have no cause. My argument still stands''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity. But this is certainly mistaken. We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature. In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed. This is an example that shows God. God, being different than humanity, designs differently. God's machinery is different than the machinery of mankind. Yet it is similar in the fact that approximately 100% of man's machinery uses the machines of God, and uses examples of the way the machines of God work to make mans' machinery work.I don't know if you understood my point here. My point was that your method to determine whether something is designed or not is flawed.For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed. Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed. How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures? Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp. We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture. One of the purposes why God designed sharp rocks was so that man could use the example of them for cutting... for learning how to cut.Another was for the beauty in the blending of their complexity... multitudes of atoms and molecules blended in all kinds of ways in each rock, always moving as machinery works - because absolute zero isn't quite attainable that we know of.The markings on mans' tools are often different from those on God's machines, because the goals and usages are for different purposes, even though the general appearance of the tools may be similar.
How do you know that god designed the rocks?Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. '' There is really no simplicity in nature. The appearance of simplicity may seem to be there at first glance. But detailed scientific examination is proving that simplicity doesn't exist. In fact, the universe is so complex that to the simple minded there is simplicity, but to the complexly minded there is complexity.The fact that mankind is not able to separate anything of the universe, to be a self-enclosed universe unit, completely separate from the universe, thereby making it to be its own universe that is the same as this universe but not part of it, shows that every part of the universe is complex with regard to the whole that it is part of.
No one said there is simplicity in nature. My point is that the method for establishing design is difference from nature and not complexity. The fact that something is complex does not always indicate design, hence the rock example.''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture. Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.'' The whole structure of the universe is the sign that it was designed. An art museum proves that people design differently among themselves. Certainly the Designer of all things is going to design differently than people can even imagine at times. Complexity certainly shows design.How is the whole structure of the universe a sign that it was designed? An art museum proves nothing because we know people made the paintings/art. We don't know whether someone designed the universe or not. My whole argument is to show that complexity does not show design, hence again, the rock example and many many more.
Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is'' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390Nice quote. I like it.'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over) That is the problem with modern science. It is so weak at this stage that it is unable to dabble with things outside of the universe. In fact, it can barely determine that something outside of the universe can even exist.
So you agree with me?There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)'' We are aware of only one universe, and, therefore, only one first cause. Nobody can tell if there were or weren't many first causes. We barely even know a little about our universe. Do you expect us to be going beyond it?Note that it is "machineS," not "machine." Note that there isn't just one person who makes a machine. Rather there are many people who have made machines.Polytheism, when the gods join entirely together, becomes monotheism. Is this part of the scientific proof for the existence of God, or are we getting into religion?One universe can have more than one cause. Just like a mountain forming has different causes and all of them play an important role. ''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years. The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do. When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.'' Nice.You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now. Thank you. But you are slightly mistaken. Not knowing what the First Cause is, has to do with not knowing what He is scientifically. One of the attributes we can apply to Him is that He is God. So from an extremely general, scientific standpoint, we know what He is. He is scientifically God.''can apply to Him '' Why to him, how do you know the first cause is a him, how do you know the first cause has awareness?The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this? Imagine that you were in God's "realm," completely aware of God. If God has a cause from the standpoint of His realm, you might know it, and maybe even know what it is. But you would be entirely different than what you are now if you were in God's realm. Why? Because if you were the same as you are now, you would be part of the universe, and God's realm would be this universe.From the standpoint of our knowledge in the universe, scientifically we probably can't know if God has a cause or not. The word "cause" is of this universe. The cause concept didn't necessarily exist until the universe existed. I don't see how science in its limited ability could have determined if cause could have existed or not before the universe existed. Even the concept of "before" might not have existed "before" the universe.Causation is an integral part of the universe. Perhaps it the universe DID come about without a cause. Such a concept would go a great deal further in making God scientifically "palatable" to us.Do you understand that when we talk about subjects or concepts that are outside of our ability to comprehend, that the talk isn't always going to be clear?[/quote] |
|
|
|
What Science do is it answers the questions "What"
E.g.
What is the composition of an organism? or
What is the origin of man?
Religion on the other hand answers the question "Why"
E.g.
Why are we designed this way?
Why do we exist?
To answer your question, the scientific proof that God exists are the questions that Science has no answer. Science cannot create a method to answer the question "Why do we exist?". The answer to what is the purpose of life comes from a higher being which is God. There's a limit to what Science can give an explanation, that's where Faith comes in.
No it doesn't. It makes it up. Faith doesn't give any explanation, it just states thing for no reason. |
|
|
|
Honestly, I think religion is more of a guideline on how to live a fruitful and peaceful life in this world. It is the concept that teaches us whether if we're doing bad or good in this world. Just imagine if there was no religion, then people can never tell if what they are doing is right or wrong. The only problem now, is that there are too many religion which the beliefs are contradicting.
The bible has a manual on how to enslave people. I don't see that as a peaceful guideline. It also promotes rape, murder and many more things that we consider evil today. It's not a good book. |
|
|
|
The dome produces an immense electric field due to its polarization, the difference between it and the ground is what defines up and down and is ultimately the source of the force behind the air pressure or, in the case of a hard vacuum aether pressure that pushes objects down.
You've lost your pathetic attempt to convince anyone the world is flat. He just keeps throwing out things here without the slightest bit of proof. The dome which no one has ever seen has an immense electric field that no one has ever measured. This isn't something that (((scientists))) deny, they're only lying about the source of the field on this one... "On an ordinary day over flat desert country, or over the sea, as one goes upward from the surface of the ground the electric potential increases by about 100 volts per meter. Thus there is a vertical electric field E of 100 volts/m in the air. The sign of the field corresponds to a negative charge on the earth’s surface." -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. II Ch. 9: Electricity in the Atmosphere You'll find links to actual experiments that measure this in the references section. Now wipe the sauce off your face and GTFO. I'm fairly sure 99.99% of scientists would deny the existence of an electrified dome. You can ask them if you want. You will find actual experiments that prove earth is round. |
|
|
|
Well your point is valid as much as evolution is just a theorem and not completely proven it has also help us make meaning of much of the past that has influenced the future massively. So as much as i wouldnt stick to evolution i wouldnt throw it away either Why do you talk about evolution when you have no idea? Is it to increase post count or what is it? Evolution is a scientific theory not a theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory It is completely proven. |
|
|
|
I'm an atheist and have the following standpoint:
- All religions are hoaxes, making people belive in non-existing gods.
Religions serve the following purposes:
1. Making people have some comfort in their lives, having something else than themselves to pray to and look up to. This is mostly culturrally dependent,
most people adhere to the religion were they grew up, and what was ingrained in them from early childhood.
2. To keep uneducated people in control.
3. To keep power and control in a central position.
If religion was all about love to your God, and it was all a mental thing, there would be no need for churches, and all accessories that goes with a religion.
It's sad that a God-fearing man goes regularily to church to get closer to his maker. He could've been just as close to his God in his couch at home.
Many religious entities collect money, and are rather greedy, there are internal battles about power and control, just think of the Vatican.
I think it's rather sad that in 2012, so many people put their belief in something that doesn't exist. You may pray, and you may feel that your prayers were heard,
and things turn for the better in your life, but most of the time, the prayers are futile, and the only one that can change anything in your life is yourself.
States need to separate themselves from religion, and any religious society needs to take care of itself. Many religious societies does serve a good purpose in their
municipality, and there's nothing wrong with that, and I do respect anyone that has their faith, but I don't think there's any God of any sorts, and people need to take
responsibility for their own lives.
Will the earth ever come to a point where people are so educated that they understand that science is the only true answer, and that everything else is fairytales ?
As much as I respect any Christian or any devoted religious person from any other religion (I may think his belief is a joke, but I would never say it to his face to force a confrontation in disrespect), I don't think any religions should have any special protection under the law.
Part of the problem is that Religion is so ingrained into the culture of most countries, that many people don't even question it.
Education will put the power in the hands of the people to learn about the world around them, and will remove the power of the leaders of their religion over them.
As an atheist, I don't think your religion defines whether you're a good person or not, that's more down to the person itself, and the values you've been taught in your upbringing, and what you've learned through your education.
Now, with the recent uproar about the 'Innocence of Muslims'-movie, people shouldn't get upset about it. If they don't like it, they should simply ignore it, and don't speak of it. Killing people, making riots etc. and claim that it's because of this movie, this is not right. People are always responsible for what they do.
If I were a Christian, and someone mocked my religion and called me a religious fool, and I got angry and burned down their house, that would be completely unacceptable by me, and I would need to take the full penalty for it.
Some people say we should not provoke 'islam' through cartoons, movies etc. And this may seem like the easy way out. But what if we continously bombarded Islam with this material, would they keep rioting every day of the week, every week, every month and every year, or would they finally sit down and say to themselves: "I'm tired of fighting, I can be a good muslim, no matter what any people say about my religion".
Islam doesn't receive more goodwill by having it's followers react like this, I would think most sivilized people just seeing this for what it is; outright crimes. Also I think a lot of the people that we see rioting in the streets, are only using this movie as an excuse for acting like they do.
Is there a single other Religion in the world were the members would've reacted like this over a movie ?
What do you all think ?
I disagree for me I think that the function of religion is to provide people with common ground a purpose. Religion is not hhe building or the place or the name it is a group of people with the same beliefs who are united in one purpose and clarity No it's not. It was simply invented because people didn't have answers for many different phenomena and they had to come up with something. It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
i know that each of us have different faith but in Science in his infinite wisdom has try to debunk every reasons why people believe in God from the world of medicine where almost every form of transplant is possible to the various theories to debunk the existence of God by the philosophers among other explanations for things that remain un-understandable in the past, but for me, I still believe in the super-natural because several things will happen in life that one cannot even explain and that is the Supernatural and that is simply God working in which I am proud to have and will still believe in.
If those things cannot be explained why do you chose god as an explanation if they cannot be explained? Your reasoning is absolutely garbage my friend. |
|
|
|
These are all valid possibilities to the origin of life, the first is similar to the panspermia theory, where life is carried from planet to planet by asteroids, or possibly other life.
The second is the simulated universe hypothesis, whereby we are actually being simulated on a hyper-advanced computer.
Again, your word "possibilities" shows that we don't really know about evolution as a unit theory. Certainly many parts of what is suggested to be evolution have been proven factual. But they have been proven factual for other lines of thinking than evolution at the same time. The evolution theory is a mere story. Even if parts of evolution have been proven factual, NONE of religion has been proven factual. Science has the guts to say it doesn't yet know the answers to everything, religion claims to know the answer to everything, and does not change in the face of new information. Most people don't want to know the truth, they want reassurance that they already know the truth. Thank you. Since evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole, and even as a theory, believers in it have a relgion going for themselves. I didn't say evolution has been proven non-factual as a whole. I'm saying evolution is a known FACT, we don't know 100% of the mechanisms involved because it happens over such extreme timescales, but we have proven that the broad effects are true. Religion is the belief without evidence, science is the generation of a best fit model based on the evidence available, one is based on complete delusions (religion), the other is based experimental analysis, the scientific method and constant attempts to stress test the results. But I have showed you that evolution is not a known fact. The reason is that all the parts of it can be applied to other things, and many of the applications are far better for the other things than for evolution. Fundamentally, cause and effect tears evolution entirely apart, because there are no random mutations. So-called random mutations were all caused by multitudes of cause and effect actions, making it all programmed whether it is evolution or not. Programming needs a programmer. There will be no fruit in continuing a discussion with you. But I'll finish with this. Everything has a cause and effect as far as we know, random mutations occur due to cause and effect principles, UV light strikes the mitochondrial DNA, a photolytic lesion develops causing a base adjunct to occur, the replication machinery has a known error rate and this base falls within that margin of error and thus the mutations persists. You are clearly not a scientific man, thus there is no reason for me to continue discussing with, I am arguing with the facts, you are arguing with opinions, thus we are on two different scales. If random is not opposite to cause and effect, it is at least entirely different. If mutations are random, they are not C&E based. If they are C&E based, they are not random. They can't be both. As long as evolutionists persist in the idea that there are random mutations, they have nothing, because random has not been proven to exist anywhere. In fact, the greater the scientist, the more he/she is into C&E activity in his/her investigations. You just flunked basic science. I am fairly certain that I am vastly more educated than you in this field, certainly more qualified. To say that things cannot be random because everything is C&E based is absurd, random simply means unpredictable, let me see you predict which cells in your body are developing mutations right now. The random you speak about is not pure random. All you are saying is that you don't know, when you say random. That's what quantum "this or that" is about. It is about organized guesswork - probability. So, thank you for your insight from your great education. The peppered moth didn't ''randomly'' evolve, it changed color due to industrial pollution, thats the cause, and it's evolution is the effect. I don't see your point. Since I didn't talk about any moths, it's very easy to understand why you don't understand my point. You are simply out of it >>> close to funny farm material. When people understand the cause, it isn't random mutation, at least not in the sense of evolution. Rather, it is simply change. In the case of the moth, the method of change is understood, factually. In much of the change that evolution talks about, the method of change is only guessed at, or is not even noted. Rather, the change is attributed to spontaneous (random) activity going on. Now, if what is meant by random activity is simply that we don't know the cause and effect process, then we are accurate. But if we mean that there was a pure random change, then we are wrong. Most of evolution is attributed to pure random C&E, rather than unknown C&E. Evolution is wrong in this respect. Since one of the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation is cause and effect, and since scientists know this, because they know what they are doing, they are hoaxing when they promote standard evolution. Why? Because all of the stuff attributed to evolution, and everything, else is a cause and effect programming. Evolution is a complete hoax. Good science fiction, though. No one claims evolution is truly random, I don't know what you are talking about. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/The industrial revolution is a ''random'' event, It was not intended to make moths change color but it did, that's not random and no one claims it is. Why would you think the industrial revolution was a random event? There aren't any random events. There are only events that people call random because they don't understand what made them happen. Many people claim that parts of evolution are random. That's why evolution fails. None of it is random. ''RANDOM'' as not intended to make moths change color, are you dumb? The industrial revolution was caused by people, how does that change the truth that moths evolved or all the other animals evolve? That is your non-random, cause and effect response. Why would industrial revolution humans not be affected by C&E in their thinking, just the way we are being caused to post the way we are, by C&E? Because humans didn't have an industrial revolution purposely to change the color of a moth, that's why. The cause of the industrial revolution are humans and other things. That's the cause, the effects are many, one of them being moths changing color, I still don't see any problems here. What is your point exactly? |
|
|
|
The dome produces an immense electric field due to its polarization, the difference between it and the ground is what defines up and down and is ultimately the source of the force behind the air pressure or, in the case of a hard vacuum aether pressure that pushes objects down.
You've lost your pathetic attempt to convince anyone the world is flat. He just keeps throwing out things here without the slightest bit of proof. The dome which no one has ever seen has an immense electric field that no one has ever measured. |
|
|
|
i like to scroll this thread to see how many times my buddy BADecker posts these links.... everytime he does... i drink.. dude!! it's been 10 pages or so!! come on man WTF??... i got a six pack waiting!!  For now there is no 100% scientific proof of God existence, but I believe even science will lead us to God existence.
Cause and effect exists in everything. There is no pure random. The thing we call random or probability arises from our inability to see tiny details, like which molecules move a leaf as it twists in the summer breeze. Cause and effect are like programming. Cause and effect all by itself almost proves that God exists, and programed everything to be what it is. When you add complexity and entropy to the way things exist and operate, the only way they could exist and operate is through God. If God didn't exist, none of the universe would exist as it does. None of this explains what God is in detail. We can draw some conclusions about the nature of God from science and observation of nature. But the details are limited without direct revelation from God, Himself. Whatever brought the universe into existence, no matter what form or qualities He has, It is still God. if I had a nickel for every time BADecker mentions "cause and effect" and "entropy" without fully understanding the concepts of them I'd be a millionai... Oh wait I own some bitcoin. Nice. Tell me about it. After explaining to him several times that those things do not prove god, he just ignores my posts. His delusion wont let him see the truth. In all your so-called explaining, you have essentially said nothing. You have not explained why and how those things do not prove God. You have only said over and over that I am wrong. Yet, I have explained over and over how and why they do prove God. Standard examples are listed 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. Come on. You can do better than that. If you can't, all your nay-saying is political science, and worthy of no review at all. Holy mother of mythical invisible sky fairy!!.... dude!!! i take a break from here and come back a few billion pages later and you are still posting your boilerplate links?? damn ... you need to do an update or something! but that's ok my friend!! i get to drink!!! lmao Those links contain the information that proves that God exists. Obviously the info can be written in many different ways. Do me a favor, and write it all up for me in a different way. Btw, Astargath has proven that he is full of political science... not understanding of the science that proves or disproves that God exists. If he knew anything about science, he would state his points rather than just copying and pasting links to other peoples' work. ''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer. Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design. By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s). But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all. It just moves the mystery back a step.'' ''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity. But this is certainly mistaken. We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature. In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed. For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed. Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed. How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures? Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp. We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture. Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. '' ''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture. Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.'' Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is'' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over) There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)'' ''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years. The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do. When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.'' You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now. The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this? |
|
|
|
i like to scroll this thread to see how many times my buddy BADecker posts these links.... everytime he does... i drink.. dude!! it's been 10 pages or so!! come on man WTF??... i got a six pack waiting!! For now there is no 100% scientific proof of God existence, but I believe even science will lead us to God existence.
Cause and effect exists in everything. There is no pure random. The thing we call random or probability arises from our inability to see tiny details, like which molecules move a leaf as it twists in the summer breeze. Cause and effect are like programming. Cause and effect all by itself almost proves that God exists, and programed everything to be what it is. When you add complexity and entropy to the way things exist and operate, the only way they could exist and operate is through God. If God didn't exist, none of the universe would exist as it does. None of this explains what God is in detail. We can draw some conclusions about the nature of God from science and observation of nature. But the details are limited without direct revelation from God, Himself. Whatever brought the universe into existence, no matter what form or qualities He has, It is still God. if I had a nickel for every time BADecker mentions "cause and effect" and "entropy" without fully understanding the concepts of them I'd be a millionai... Oh wait I own some bitcoin. Nice. Tell me about it. After explaining to him several times that those things do not prove god, he just ignores my posts. His delusion wont let him see the truth. In all your so-called explaining, you have essentially said nothing. You have not explained why and how those things do not prove God. You have only said over and over that I am wrong. Yet, I have explained over and over how and why they do prove God. Standard examples are listed 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. Come on. You can do better than that. If you can't, all your nay-saying is political science, and worthy of no review at all. Holy mother of mythical invisible sky fairy!!.... dude!!! i take a break from here and come back a few billion pages later and you are still posting your boilerplate links?? damn ... you need to do an update or something! but that's ok my friend!! i get to drink!!! lmao He is probably going insane at this point. After I already debunked every single one of his ''proofs'' he probably cried for days and now acts like no one has ever rebutted his stupid evidence. |
|
|
|
No gravity = no pressure = no weight = no "lighter" = no density.  The dome produces an immense electric field due to its polarization, the difference between it and the ground is what defines up and down and is ultimately the source of the force behind the air pressure or, in the case of a hard vacuum aether pressure that pushes objects down. Schizophrenia is a hell of a disease. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
