|
No point in arguing anymore, notbatman is dishonest and/or a troll.
He said: ''Canon and Nikon use this encryption technology to digitally sign their photographs.''
I showed him proof and photos taken with a nikon camera from space showing the earth and the curvature, he hasn't responded. He is a dishonest liar and no one should listen to anything of what he says.
|
|
|
|
BADecker thanks for the reply, but we're not really getting anywhere here. I'll just address a couple of your points.
Your comments about philosophy are a little flawed, I still don't think you quite understand what it is. You talk about "no absolute proof of philosophy", this is an oxymoron. Philosophy itself, is an example of an a priori concept. The same could be said of any subject, for example theology, or even the study of Bigfoot. By it's own definition, it must logically exist without a doubt - we can use reason and logic alone to prove its existence, without evidence.
That's not to say all the ideas in any subject are absolutely proven. Only fields which rely on pure logic and reason, such as mathematics, boast facts that can be 100% proven.
My mention of "belief" was on topic, read my sentence again. My point was that it is possible for humans to debate the existence of entities which they don't fully understand, such as gods or black holes. The problem is obviously more tricky with a god, because it does not follow the laws of the universe. This is my whole point, and you're still not getting it. Empty space/nothingness/vacuum is something that we can't put our hands on for scientific investigation. Yet we do not debate its existence, even though we don't know if it follows any laws of the universe, or any laws at all.
Your last few paragraphs go on to take my words out of context, I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that I said outer space doesn't exist, or the space between atoms etc. And I also don't see how, even if this were true, that it would somehow be proof of god.
The closest that we come for proving the existence of "nothing" is, we measure relationships and qualities of "things" which are not "nothing." When one proves that God exists by measuring "things" in one way or another, what's the difference?
You absolutely can provide evidence for "nothing", such as the physical space between atoms, or the vacuum of outer space. The first simple example that comes to mind would be that dissolving salt in water actually decreases the volume of water. So there must be some empty space for that salt to occupy. There is a lot more evidence, I'll leave you to look it up if you want.
Exactly the idea I was trying to get across. Regarding the proof for God, the "machinery" of the universe uses all the laws and many more, that we use when we build our machines. The only example we have of our machines being built is, they have people as builders. The machines of the universe are so far in advance of our machines that they prove that there was a Supremely Greater Builder than mankind. This fits the definition of God.
You certainly don't need to be able to "grab hold of something" to provide evidence for it, are you serious? Even if that were true, can you grab hold of your god?
Let me put my initial point another way, to try and help you understand:
1. Some things are 100% true, such as mathematical formulae (eg. 1+1=2) and tautological statements (eg. "all bachelors are unmarried"). We don't need empirical evidence to prove them, because the logic in the concepts automatically makes them true.
2. Established science laws and theories, are virtually 100% true. Things like the laws of thermodynamics, the theory of gravity etc. They can never be proven 100% because they rely on empirical evidence. However, evidence for them is overwhelming, they are falsifiable, and no-one has ever produced repeatable experiments that prove them wrong. So most people consider them as scientific fact - they are as close as we can get.
3. Then we have more fringe scientific ideas, such as String Theory (not a real scientific theory, because it cannot be tested and is therefore not currently falsifiable). It makes sense, the numbers add up, but we have no way of providing empirical evidence for it.
4. Lastly we have hypotheses about supernatural stuff, ideas that don't follow the laws of the universe as we currently understand them. Telepathy, ghosts, homeopathic medicine etc. The general point about these types of things is that repeatable experiments have shown them to be false. Not 100% false of course (a priori knowledge), but no solid empirical evidence for them exists.
Which of these 4 categories do you think the idea of a god would best fit into?
Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation that was not produced by cause and effect, proves programming. Programming proves a programmer. We have have seen no other example in the universe of programming where a programmer doesn't exist? C&E programming is the core of the universe that we have seen. Why do I call it programming? Look at the next paragraph. Complexity as great as it is, proves that the whatever caused all things to exist as they do was extremely great. Who but someone that fits the definition of God could set in place the countless C&E operations to produce things as great as the intelligence of man, man's emotion, and multitudes of complex operations in the universe? After all, you don't grab a handful of sand, toss it into the air, and a computer is the result. There is no evidence of anything like this ever coming close to happening. There is always planning, and a whole lot of work that goes into making a computer and programming it. Why would anyone think that this was not true for the setting up of the universe, as well? On top of this, there is no random that we have observed in the universe. What we call random is simply complexity that is so great that we don't know how to follow the "operations" of it. There is no random in the universe. The logic of the C&E operations in the universe is so extremely great, that it almost proves God all by itself. Entropy shows that there was a beginning. Why is this important? Without a beginning, one might conclude that C&E operations existed forever, and that they were the norm without God. Entropy shows that this idea is flawed. Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea, that things could grow to be more complex rather than growing to be less complex. There is no evolution. There is only devolution. Entropy proves it... the breaking down of complexity. This all proves that God exists. Does "nothing/emptiness/empty-space" exist? Yes, even though we cannot do any hands-on experiments of it to show that it exists. We understand it by seeing the relationships between the things that we can lay hands on. Does God exist? Yes, even though we cannot do any hands-on experiments of Him to show that He exists. We understand Him by understanding the relationships between cause and effect, complexity, and entropy.  ''Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation'' Not proved. In fact as I said 100 times already, there are processes which scientists believe are truly random (radioactive decay) This only proves god existence in your mind, can't you see that no one agrees with you? Get over it already. Entropy might show there is a beginning but it doesn't show whether the beginning is happening over and over again, a universe that creates itself would have a beginning but not really. ''Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea'' AGAIN after explaining to you what entropy really is you keep using it as you like because you are dishonest. Entropy does not prevent humans from evolving or a house to be made, are you stupid? |
|
|
|
^^^ It's a fucking conspiracy!
you are stupid |
|
|
|
Where is the edge of the world according to flat-earthers? The answer changes, but it usually involves some impenetrable barrier at said edge that prevents people from going past or falling off. Global conspiracies apparently prevent people from investigating these boundaries yet no one has ever seen this huge barriers that go around the world. humans have circumnavigated the planet in planes and ships, and no one has fallen into space. Rather, when ships traveling large distances on the ocean do appear and disappear on the horizon, they do so either mast or hull-first, respectively. If the Earth was flat, and you had the right optics, you could watch a ship sail from New York to Africa without losing sight of it.
Hit up a friend in Australia and ask them what constellations they can see at night. Now tell them which ones pepper your patch of darkness. They won’t be the same. Because the Earth is a shape other than a flat disk, when looking into the night sky the Earth itself can block your view.
If the flat Earth theory were true, everyone should be able to see the same constellations all the time, as if we all were staring up from the same section of summer grass.
Don't assume you can see through dense atmosphere at great distances anymore than you can see through a stack of plate glass. Don't assume the sky is flat when making claims about what we should see if we weren't stuck to the surface of a spinning ball in a vacuum by a magical force proven to exist only by two lead balls in a 17th century shed. As far as I'm aware the dome is a concave mirrored surface, this is going to distort what you see along with perspective when your vantage point changes and create star configurations like the southern cross.  ''by a magical force proven to exist only by two lead balls in a 17th century shed'' Yet you believe aether is real which all the experiments for it failed? You see how you make no sense? If the sun is so close, why don't we just send a rocket to prove it? It would be so easy to prove the earth is flat but no one does it, don't you wonder why? Don't you wonder why no one has ever seen the dome or videtaped a trip that goes around the ''ice wall'' that covers the edge of the earth? Are you really this deluded? The Sagnac experiment proves the aether and that you're a faggot for claiming otherwise. Also suggesting we land on the Sun with a rocket, you really like sucking cock don't you? You are the only one claiming it does. If it did we would use the aether model/theory instead of einstein's special relativity, why do you chose to believe in that and not what einstein proved? What are your parameters to decide in what you believe because it seems to me that you are just bnasically picking anything that supports the earth is flat and discarding everything that supports the earth being round. |
|
|
|
Where is the edge of the world according to flat-earthers? The answer changes, but it usually involves some impenetrable barrier at said edge that prevents people from going past or falling off. Global conspiracies apparently prevent people from investigating these boundaries yet no one has ever seen this huge barriers that go around the world. humans have circumnavigated the planet in planes and ships, and no one has fallen into space. Rather, when ships traveling large distances on the ocean do appear and disappear on the horizon, they do so either mast or hull-first, respectively. If the Earth was flat, and you had the right optics, you could watch a ship sail from New York to Africa without losing sight of it.
Hit up a friend in Australia and ask them what constellations they can see at night. Now tell them which ones pepper your patch of darkness. They won’t be the same. Because the Earth is a shape other than a flat disk, when looking into the night sky the Earth itself can block your view.
If the flat Earth theory were true, everyone should be able to see the same constellations all the time, as if we all were staring up from the same section of summer grass.
Don't assume you can see through dense atmosphere at great distances anymore than you can see through a stack of plate glass. Don't assume the sky is flat when making claims about what we should see if we weren't stuck to the surface of a spinning ball in a vacuum by a magical force proven to exist only by two lead balls in a 17th century shed. As far as I'm aware the dome is a concave mirrored surface, this is going to distort what you see along with perspective when your vantage point changes and create star configurations like the southern cross. ''by a magical force proven to exist only by two lead balls in a 17th century shed'' Yet you believe aether is real which all the experiments for it failed? You see how you make no sense? If the sun is so close, why don't we just send a rocket to prove it? It would be so easy to prove the earth is flat but no one does it, don't you wonder why? Don't you wonder why no one has ever seen the dome or videtaped a trip that goes around the ''ice wall'' that covers the edge of the earth? Are you really this deluded? |
|
|
|
I don't believed in Evolution, I believed what my Bible says and how God created Adan and Eve and also the world. ☺
It actually seems like it happened the other way around- That humans created Gods according to their liking. In reality all religions have similar principles: morality, good will, purity. But the thing is, people forget about these things, and hope that if they accept Jesus christ, Allah, Buddha, or whoever else as their lord all mighty, that this itself gives them the access to the heavenly kingdom with all the benefits. And so they praise the lord, but at the same time the followers don't change their habit patterns. so what is so good about just praising some icon, because doing only that doesn't make the person any better. The truth is that an avarage religion (blind)follower is as unhappy and miserable as any other sheelpe working blindly to pay the bills. Actually, it is the other way around. Over the thousands of years, there have been scattered ideas about evolution. But there has always been great strength in the idea of God/god(s). Now days people are tired of looking at the ideas of God, so they make themselves out to be God/gods by developing an extended form of evolution. So gods (people) still exist. And they are creating for themselves a chunk of foolishness in evolution, so that they can be like God, and make their own creation... at least in their minds. Evolution is not only a hoax. It is also a religion. It also science fiction. 1. God makes imperfect humans knowing they will fail 2. He then makes his son which is himself to suicide for himself so he could forgive humanity (although he created it) 3. He didn't forgive anyone at all since we are still here and not in heaven 4. He says he will comeback (no one knows what he is waiting for) Not only are you making assumptions in the things you say above, but God didn't use evolution to make any of it. Assumptions? It's all written in the bible wtf you talking about. Assumptions, until one sees the solid science that backs up the fact that evolution is a hoax. The solid science that backs up the fact that evolution is real? This is what you believe: 1. God makes imperfect humans knowing they will fail 2. He then makes his son which is himself to suicide for himself so he could forgive humanity (although he created it) 3. He didn't forgive anyone at all since we are still here and not in heaven 4. He says he will comeback (no one knows what he is waiting for) Why would anyone take your word seriously? |
|
|
|
^^^ Perspective doesn't splay vertical lines you schmuck, you're a fucking idiot! I asked for proof and you've failed to provide any and you've made the false claim that perspective causes vertical lines to converge.
So you think the train rails actually touch at the end? Fuck off, the train tacks are horizontal. So the sun is hiding behind the trees then? How is it illuminating half of earth when the sun is just hiding behind some trees? |
|
|
|
^^^ Perspective doesn't splay vertical lines you schmuck, you're a fucking idiot! I asked for proof and you've failed to provide any and you've made the false claim that perspective causes vertical lines to converge.
So you think the train rails actually touch at the end? |
|
|
|
I don't believed in Evolution, I believed what my Bible says and how God created Adan and Eve and also the world. ☺
It actually seems like it happened the other way around- That humans created Gods according to their liking. In reality all religions have similar principles: morality, good will, purity. But the thing is, people forget about these things, and hope that if they accept Jesus christ, Allah, Buddha, or whoever else as their lord all mighty, that this itself gives them the access to the heavenly kingdom with all the benefits. And so they praise the lord, but at the same time the followers don't change their habit patterns. so what is so good about just praising some icon, because doing only that doesn't make the person any better. The truth is that an avarage religion (blind)follower is as unhappy and miserable as any other sheelpe working blindly to pay the bills. Actually, it is the other way around. Over the thousands of years, there have been scattered ideas about evolution. But there has always been great strength in the idea of God/god(s). Now days people are tired of looking at the ideas of God, so they make themselves out to be God/gods by developing an extended form of evolution. So gods (people) still exist. And they are creating for themselves a chunk of foolishness in evolution, so that they can be like God, and make their own creation... at least in their minds. Evolution is not only a hoax. It is also a religion. It also science fiction. 1. God makes imperfect humans knowing they will fail 2. He then makes his son which is himself to suicide for himself so he could forgive humanity (although he created it) 3. He didn't forgive anyone at all since we are still here and not in heaven 4. He says he will comeback (no one knows what he is waiting for) Not only are you making assumptions in the things you say above, but God didn't use evolution to make any of it. Assumptions? It's all written in the bible wtf you talking about. |
|
|
|
<snip>
Don't get caught up in his Reductio ad absurdum.It's my quest from now on to convince notbatman to stop believing in nonsense and accept that the earth is not flat. OK you can start by proving the Sun's rays hit the Earth in parallel. You claim Eratosthenes theory is correct, now fucking prove it! Wait, so you didn't like the photos of earth made with a nikon camera? The link is to prove he takes his photos with a nikon, he has plenty of photos in his profile: https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/876437156352446464https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/855781447659081729https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/832684613294182400https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/827619432398745600I thought you said those were impossible to forge.  The train's destination is not above the ground, but rather far away, and perspective means that the tracks appear not to be parallel but instead to converge to the vanishing point. The same applies to the beams of light above them. The Sun is very far away and the beams are pretty much parallel, but they're pointing towards you, and perspective makes them appear to converge towards the vanishing point - which in this case is the Sun's location in the sky. The technical term for these beams is "crepuscular rays." Occasionally, when the Sun is very low on the horizon, you can see "anticrepuscular rays," where the beams seem to converge to a different point on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun. Here's an example:  |
|
|
|
<snip>
Don't get caught up in his Reductio ad absurdum.It's my quest from now on to convince notbatman to stop believing in nonsense and accept that the earth is not flat. |
|
|
|
I don't believed in Evolution, I believed what my Bible says and how God created Adan and Eve and also the world. ☺
It actually seems like it happened the other way around- That humans created Gods according to their liking. In reality all religions have similar principles: morality, good will, purity. But the thing is, people forget about these things, and hope that if they accept Jesus christ, Allah, Buddha, or whoever else as their lord all mighty, that this itself gives them the access to the heavenly kingdom with all the benefits. And so they praise the lord, but at the same time the followers don't change their habit patterns. so what is so good about just praising some icon, because doing only that doesn't make the person any better. The truth is that an avarage religion (blind)follower is as unhappy and miserable as any other sheelpe working blindly to pay the bills. Actually, it is the other way around. Over the thousands of years, there have been scattered ideas about evolution. But there has always been great strength in the idea of God/god(s). Now days people are tired of looking at the ideas of God, so they make themselves out to be God/gods by developing an extended form of evolution. So gods (people) still exist. And they are creating for themselves a chunk of foolishness in evolution, so that they can be like God, and make their own creation... at least in their minds. Evolution is not only a hoax. It is also a religion. It also science fiction. 1. God makes imperfect humans knowing they will fail 2. He then makes his son which is himself to suicide for himself so he could forgive humanity (although he created it) 3. He didn't forgive anyone at all since we are still here and not in heaven 4. He says he will comeback (no one knows what he is waiting for) |
|
|
|
The witnesses say Jesus was dead. Hop on your time machine, and go back there and prove them wrong. The miracles that Jesus did show He was the Son of God. The witnesses say He did the miracles. Hop on your time machine, and go back there and prove them wrong. The witnesses say that Jesus came back to life. Hop on your time machine, and go back there and prove them wrong. All of mankind that ever lived, when combined, is nothing in strength when compared with the Son of God, even in man form. So, the Son of God could take on the punishment for all the imperfections of mankind, because He is also God. Since the Son was perfect - and willingly took the punishment and death because He loved people - the Father had to raise Him from the dead, simply to be just, because of His perfection. Why do people have to die because of their imperfection? Because they are attached to the universe in such a deep, spiritual (and physical) way, that entropy is destroying them by breaking down their complexity. The more complex, the easier to break down. The complexity in a human being is so great, that marvelous as a human is, the complexity of each human breaks down to death in a mere 100 years or less (usually). How foolish you are that you won't even accept the things of God, even when they are clearly explained to you. You don't really want to be rejected by the living Son of God, the only salvation for people, forever and ever do you? 'Cause that's where you are headed. And once you die, you won't be able to change your mind any longer. The witnesses say that Zeus resides in Olympus. Are they wrong? How foolish you are that you won't even accept the things of God, even when they are clearly explained to you. You don't really want to be rejected by the living Son of God, the only salvation for people, forever and ever do you? 'Cause that's where you are headed. And once you die, you won't be able to change your mind any longer. You idiot, you'll burn in the eternal pan for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster! So, you think you can find one or two witnesses who actually say that they ate and drank with Zeus or the FSM. LOL! This is your god: 1. God makes imperfect humans knowing they will fail 2. He then makes his son which is himself to suicide for himself so he could forgive humanity (although he created it) 3. He didn't forgive anyone at all since we are still here and not in heaven 4. He says he will comeback (no one knows what he is waiting for) |
|
|
|
Q: "determine whether an image is real or not" A: "A digital camera equipped with a processor for authentication of images produced from an image file taken by the digital camera is provided. The digital camera processor has embedded therein a private key unique to it, and the camera housing has a public key that is so uniquely related to the private key that digital data encrypted with the private key may be decrypted using the public key. The digital camera processor comprises means for calculating a hash of the image file using a predetermined algorithm, and second means for encrypting the image hash with the private key, thereby producing a digital signature. The image file and the digital signature are stored in suitable recording means so they will be available together. Apparatus for authenticating the image file as being free of any alteration uses the public key for decrypting the digital signature, thereby deriving a secure image hash identical to the image hash produced by the digital camera and used to produce the digital signature. The authenticating apparatus calculates from the image file an image hash using the same algorithm as before. By comparing this last image hash with the secure image hash, authenticity of the image file is determined if they match. Other techniques to address time-honored methods of deception, such as attaching false captions or inducing forced perspectives, are included." -- http://www.patents.com/us-5499294.htmlCanon and Nikon use this encryption technology to digitally sign their photographs. So then: https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/736926801830744068?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpetapixel.com%2F2016%2F06%2F01%2Fastronaut-shares-photo-nikon-dslr-kits-iss%2FAll the photos this guy made have to be real, right? That link doesn't have any pictures, just a bunch of smart remarks.  The link is to prove he takes his photos with a nikon, he has plenty of photos in his profile: https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/876437156352446464https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/855781447659081729https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/832684613294182400https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/827619432398745600 |
|
|
|
Q: "determine whether an image is real or not" A: "A digital camera equipped with a processor for authentication of images produced from an image file taken by the digital camera is provided. The digital camera processor has embedded therein a private key unique to it, and the camera housing has a public key that is so uniquely related to the private key that digital data encrypted with the private key may be decrypted using the public key. The digital camera processor comprises means for calculating a hash of the image file using a predetermined algorithm, and second means for encrypting the image hash with the private key, thereby producing a digital signature. The image file and the digital signature are stored in suitable recording means so they will be available together. Apparatus for authenticating the image file as being free of any alteration uses the public key for decrypting the digital signature, thereby deriving a secure image hash identical to the image hash produced by the digital camera and used to produce the digital signature. The authenticating apparatus calculates from the image file an image hash using the same algorithm as before. By comparing this last image hash with the secure image hash, authenticity of the image file is determined if they match. Other techniques to address time-honored methods of deception, such as attaching false captions or inducing forced perspectives, are included." -- http://www.patents.com/us-5499294.htmlCanon and Nikon use this encryption technology to digitally sign their photographs. So then: https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/736926801830744068?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpetapixel.com%2F2016%2F06%2F01%2Fastronaut-shares-photo-nikon-dslr-kits-iss%2FAll the photos this guy made have to be real, right? |
|
|
|
Amen! John 3:16 "For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave HIS only begotten SON, that whoever believes in HIM shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16 There is God  God bless my friend, He loves US! That's my most favorite bible verse. Our God is very self less. He even sacrificed His only begotten Son just for us to be saved from our sins and if have done a lot of sins, our God is really forgiving because He always forgives us. All we have to do is to ask for forgiveness and He will really forgive you. He didn't sacrifice anything, jesus was revived, that's not sacrifice at all. Plenty of people sacrifice their lives as well. And how does sacrificing your own son save humanity exactly? I'm extremely confused on god's logic. He has to kill his own son to forgive us? Yet he didn't even forgive us because we are still here. How deluded do you have to be to think any of that makes any sense? The witnesses say Jesus was dead. Hop on your time machine, and go back there and prove them wrong. The miracles that Jesus did show He was the Son of God. The witnesses say He did the miracles. Hop on your time machine, and go back there and prove them wrong. The witnesses say that Jesus came back to life. Hop on your time machine, and go back there and prove them wrong. All of mankind that ever lived, when combined, is nothing in strength when compared with the Son of God, even in man form. So, the Son of God could take on the punishment for all the imperfections of mankind, because He is also God. Since the Son was perfect - and willingly took the punishment and death because He loved people - the Father had to raise Him from the dead, simply to be just, because of His perfection. Why do people have to die because of their imperfection? Because they are attached to the universe in such a deep, spiritual (and physical) way, that entropy is destroying them by breaking down their complexity. The more complex, the easier to break down. The complexity in a human being is so great, that marvelous as a human is, the complexity of each human breaks down to death in a mere 100 years or less (usually). How foolish you are that you won't even accept the things of God, even when they are clearly explained to you. You don't really want to be rejected by the living Son of God, the only salvation for people, forever and ever do you? 'Cause that's where you are headed. And once you die, you won't be able to change your mind any longer. So If my father kills someone but I suicide for him, god would forgive my father? Again, totally retarded logic. Hop on your time machine and prove any of that happened in the first place All right. So you are a bit of a scientist, and do a few science experiments. These are the experiments you have first-hand proof for. Other than that, you listen to what a bunch of other people tell you, because they have witnessed it, themselves. If you suicide for him, you wouldn't be around to post in the forum. What kind of garbage are you even saying? Millions have witnessed ghosts, aliens, paranormal activity, demons, should I go on? Should I explain to you why ''witnesses'' are not reliable? Should I explain to you that we just have a book, we don't even have any of the witnesses here, alive. ''What kind of garbage are you even saying?'' The same garbage that is written in the bible. 1. God makes imperfect humans knowing they will fail 2. He then makes his son which is himself to suicide for himself so he could forgive humanity (although he created it) 3. He didn't forgive anyone at all since we are still here and not in heaven 4. He says he will comeback (no one knows what he is waiting for) |
|
|
|
Amen! John 3:16 "For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave HIS only begotten SON, that whoever believes in HIM shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16 There is God God bless my friend, He loves US! That's my most favorite bible verse. Our God is very self less. He even sacrificed His only begotten Son just for us to be saved from our sins and if have done a lot of sins, our God is really forgiving because He always forgives us. All we have to do is to ask for forgiveness and He will really forgive you. He didn't sacrifice anything, jesus was revived, that's not sacrifice at all. Plenty of people sacrifice their lives as well. And how does sacrificing your own son save humanity exactly? I'm extremely confused on god's logic. He has to kill his own son to forgive us? Yet he didn't even forgive us because we are still here. How deluded do you have to be to think any of that makes any sense? The witnesses say Jesus was dead. Hop on your time machine, and go back there and prove them wrong. The miracles that Jesus did show He was the Son of God. The witnesses say He did the miracles. Hop on your time machine, and go back there and prove them wrong. The witnesses say that Jesus came back to life. Hop on your time machine, and go back there and prove them wrong. All of mankind that ever lived, when combined, is nothing in strength when compared with the Son of God, even in man form. So, the Son of God could take on the punishment for all the imperfections of mankind, because He is also God. Since the Son was perfect - and willingly took the punishment and death because He loved people - the Father had to raise Him from the dead, simply to be just, because of His perfection. Why do people have to die because of their imperfection? Because they are attached to the universe in such a deep, spiritual (and physical) way, that entropy is destroying them by breaking down their complexity. The more complex, the easier to break down. The complexity in a human being is so great, that marvelous as a human is, the complexity of each human breaks down to death in a mere 100 years or less (usually). How foolish you are that you won't even accept the things of God, even when they are clearly explained to you. You don't really want to be rejected by the living Son of God, the only salvation for people, forever and ever do you? 'Cause that's where you are headed. And once you die, you won't be able to change your mind any longer. So If my father kills someone but I suicide for him, god would forgive my father? Again, totally retarded logic. Hop on your time machine and prove any of that happened in the first place |
|
|
|
I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.
That's understandable. People of the past saw it. First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe. A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons. God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not. Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago. Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars. The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.
The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing. However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing. There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic. Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly. Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet. Your deception/idiocy is showing. Or have you been able to track an electron lately? You know, like you tag a deer, and follow its travels through the woods? What? You haven't been able to track even one electron? And you so seriously think that you can understand the Source of all cause and effect enough to apply your logic to IT correctly!? LOL! Why, you can't even remain on topic. Consider your post in the Health and Religion thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22320497#msg22320497: What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say. Wrong thread for that, buddy. In fact, you use reverse logic. In the face of the scientific proof that God exists, you assume that He doesn't exist. And then you go and stick it in the wrong thread. You are falling apart, and your logic and ideals right along with you. I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh at you like I do now and again. The devil has you trapped in a false religion, and you constantly show it. So, (without continued laughing) I offer you the admonition to re-evaluate science so that you can understand that all of the universe and nature prove that God exists. I debunked your links several times, your answers are always the same ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Maybe the devil has trapped you and you believe in the bible instead of the quran, who knows. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684Your debunking debunks itself by circular logic, or incomplete logic, or by logic that doesn't really exist, or by statements that cannot be proven factual, and often they say, themselves, that they are not factual. Because of this, your "stuff" is the stuff of religion, not science. You constantly bring religion into this science thread. What's the matter? You like your religion better than the religion of reality - science? Did I predict that or what? ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Is that what you do when you see your ''science'' getting destroyed by simple logic? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684Well, you didn't really predict it. I have been showing it to you for a long time now. Nah, you just have been saying the same stuff because it's the easiest way to dismiss the science that shows your proof is nothing but garbage. You just want to call anything god for some reason even if what created the universe is the universe itself, for example, in your mind it's still god. |
|
|
|
I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.
That's understandable. People of the past saw it. First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe. A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons. God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not. Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago. Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars. The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.
The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing. However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing. There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic. Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly. Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet. Your deception/idiocy is showing. Or have you been able to track an electron lately? You know, like you tag a deer, and follow its travels through the woods? What? You haven't been able to track even one electron? And you so seriously think that you can understand the Source of all cause and effect enough to apply your logic to IT correctly!? LOL! Why, you can't even remain on topic. Consider your post in the Health and Religion thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22320497#msg22320497: What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say. Wrong thread for that, buddy. In fact, you use reverse logic. In the face of the scientific proof that God exists, you assume that He doesn't exist. And then you go and stick it in the wrong thread. You are falling apart, and your logic and ideals right along with you. I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh at you like I do now and again. The devil has you trapped in a false religion, and you constantly show it. So, (without continued laughing) I offer you the admonition to re-evaluate science so that you can understand that all of the universe and nature prove that God exists. I debunked your links several times, your answers are always the same ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Maybe the devil has trapped you and you believe in the bible instead of the quran, who knows. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684Your debunking debunks itself by circular logic, or incomplete logic, or by logic that doesn't really exist, or by statements that cannot be proven factual, and often they say, themselves, that they are not factual. Because of this, your "stuff" is the stuff of religion, not science. You constantly bring religion into this science thread. What's the matter? You like your religion better than the religion of reality - science? Did I predict that or what? ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Is that what you do when you see your ''science'' getting destroyed by simple logic? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
