I have not heard any adequate rebuttals from skeptics to the Scientific Evidence for the Afterlife that I have presented.
This shows me that the truth is out there but people will simply NOT bother to read it.
What's the afterlife got to do with proving god? People always use anything that is supernatural to prove God, somehow i dont know how... And we should make a difference between Bible God or just God as a superior being One of those gods is a bully, who threatens people into believing him or else.... The other doesn't ask or require belief and certainly doesn't demand worship. Guess which one is the devil tricking you.If I was Satan, I would have a book written about me called the Bible and make people believe I am God. Isn't there some passage in the Bible warning about how the devil is waiting behind every corner, ready to deceive? What better corner to hide behind than the corners of the Bible? |
|
|
|
These twat's like to make the world think they are seperate arseholes from their alias's.. strange, how they always come and go at the same time, give or take an alias, they sure are groupies, shame they have no band, and I pity god when they take him to hand..
And the fact that you and I are responding to each other and are online at the same time indicates something that you completely missed -- all of us are actually you! What are the odds? |
|
|
|
What a fuckin buch of idiot's, dont they kiddie fidlers above me know what ignored means? Ah well, back to bombardin 'em wi their shit back, buch o fuckin troll's, PROVING my point they are indeed as claimed.. he simply dunno to fuck off, or shut the fuck up eh?
Ah well, back to it, only this time..
I think it's trying to communicate with us... |
|
|
|
You gotta take your meds dude, its starting to affect you a lot. You have serious issues
Lol, affecting me a lot, are you lost? I have'nt had so much fun in years.. it's great noticing that the only folks sayn am fucked in the head wont say nothing of the paedo's they love helping, yup, have a nice day.. No. It doesn't affect you at all. Obviously. And that's why you left me fifteen (15) negative feedback remarks on March 17th. Am gonna be leaving you a lot more, since I have A: Clearly moved to my own thread, which is for showing the world WHO support's this Paedofeelya ring run by you (just added), Vod, Oyo, and BaDICKer, and anyone else that wants to support them with abusive posts/threads.. come on, this is an off topic thread, show yourself... And B: Since trolling is the art of STALKING goin way too far, you are welcome here, so the rest of the world can see who the paedofeelya scam member's ARE.. pmsl... You really are all using alias account's arent you, the same 4-5 of ya eh? the rest bugger off.. not BaDICKER, VOD, OYO, or The JOINT.. paedofeelya scam ring completed.. Nah, there's gotta be more.. Imagine arguing with yourselve's thinking you can defeat others.. Actually, *every* member on this forum is the same person, except you. It must be true because nobody else agrees with you. Keep leaving useless feedback. Notice the effect it's had on my trust rating, then notice the effect it's had on yours. Remember, the more negative feedback you leave, the better it is for me. |
|
|
|
You gotta take your meds dude, its starting to affect you a lot. You have serious issues
Lol, affecting me a lot, are you lost? I have'nt had so much fun in years.. it's great noticing that the only folks sayn am fucked in the head wont say nothing of the paedo's they love helping, yup, have a nice day.. No. It doesn't affect you at all. Obviously. And that's why you left me fifteen (15) negative feedback remarks on March 17th. |
|
|
|
The Joint's just a cry baby, make sure you wear your diving suit, and bring a laser pointer to your meeting, since he'll accuse you of not reading his un-related drivel..
Yeah, you keep thinking that. This is definitely a matter of not reading posts, and certainly not in any way related to your slanderous, unfounded claims that I'm a drug-user, a confirmed scammer, and a multi-account deception manager, nor is it related to your unapologetic, fraudulent misrepresentations of post content.  |
|
|
|
This thread is hilarious. Nobody types as dry and boring as I do. Nobody. And to think I was accused of being BADecker. |
|
|
|
Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel.
As if I don't believe in God or something.
Was that post in response to me? There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post.
Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it?
I agree. This is a good form of self-conditioning reinforcement.  You agree with what? Again, who are you responding to? I didn't even claim anything, so what are you agreeing with? Is there someone standing behind me you keep talking to? Sorry you are having a bad day. Perhaps things will turn around for you later if they haven't already. I'm just trying to understand who you're talking with, because none of your responses are even close to the same topic as anything i wrote. So, are you responding to me? If so, wow dude. It's like you actively try to be as off-topic and incomprehensible as possible. What's worse is you're proud of it. What's worst is that you're good at it. |
|
|
|
After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.
Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.
However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be. If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).
Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole. Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid. In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.
So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie? Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence? Well, it's plainly not. To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...to you. But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible. Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible. You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence. I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.
Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence. In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism. Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place. Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?
On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence. The key word here is 'consistent.' Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it. You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.
Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility. Those who think it does sound like you. Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.
You actually fall into the latter category. Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence. Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.
But do you know what is totally hilarious? The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater!
Let me use the shark and the goldfishes in the fish tank. There is a glass fish tank. It is divided into two parts by a single pane of tough glass. One part holds a school of goldfish. The other part holds a shark. The shark sees or otherwise recognizes the goldfishes, and the goldfishes similarly see the shark. The shark naturally wants to eat the goldfishes. It swims full speed at the goldfishes, but is stopped by the pane of glass... even hurts its "nose" when it runs full speed into the glass divider. After a time of attempting to attack the goldfishes, the shark becomes conditioned to the fact that it can't get to the goldfishes, that it hurts its nose when it tries, so it stops trying. In addition, the goldfishes become conditioned to the fact that the shark can't get to them. The divider pane of glass is removed, and the shark and the goldfishes swim together for a time. The shark doesn't eat the goldfishes, and the goldfishes aren't afraid of the shark. Their conditioning keeps them apart. However, if the shark accidentally sucks in a goldfish in its natural process of breathing, the conditioning starts to break down. The machine/Machine-Maker example found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is overwhelming and abundant proof that God exists. When one throw in the fact that scientists are constantly using the scientific method on parts of the universe (albeit mostly parts here on earth) thereby proving the machine-like qualities of the universe, one can easily see how the machine/Machine-Maker analogy not only applies, but is being proven by scientists on a daily basis. The point of the fish story, above, is, your conditioning simply keeps you from seeing the obvious. Unlike fish, human beings have the ability to reinforce their own conditioning. And that is exactly what you do when you use the idea (be the idea yours or others) that inference can't be used as proof. I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence in the courts is always used correctly. But much of the time it is. Your conditioning is starting to break down. Why is your thinking conditioning and mine not? Because it is the natural state of mankind to recognize God in the workings and existence of the universe. It is only conditioning that stops some people from recognizing God. The evidence for this is, like the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 link says, the world is full of people who naturally recognize God. That's why we have the religions. EDIT: Wow! 227 pages! Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel. As if I don't believe in God or something. Was that post in response to me? There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post. Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it? I agree. This is a good form of self-conditioning reinforcement. You agree with what? Again, who are you responding to? I didn't even claim anything, so what are you agreeing with? Is there someone standing behind me you keep talking to? |
|
|
|
After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.
Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.
However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be. If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).
Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole. Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid. In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.
So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie? Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence? Well, it's plainly not. To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...to you. But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible. Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible. You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence. I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.
Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence. In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism. Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place. Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?
On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence. The key word here is 'consistent.' Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it. You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.
Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility. Those who think it does sound like you. Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.
You actually fall into the latter category. Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence. Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.
But do you know what is totally hilarious? The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater!
Let me use the shark and the goldfishes in the fish tank. There is a glass fish tank. It is divided into two parts by a single pane of tough glass. One part holds a school of goldfish. The other part holds a shark. The shark sees or otherwise recognizes the goldfishes, and the goldfishes similarly see the shark. The shark naturally wants to eat the goldfishes. It swims full speed at the goldfishes, but is stopped by the pane of glass... even hurts its "nose" when it runs full speed into the glass divider. After a time of attempting to attack the goldfishes, the shark becomes conditioned to the fact that it can't get to the goldfishes, that it hurts its nose when it tries, so it stops trying. In addition, the goldfishes become conditioned to the fact that the shark can't get to them. The divider pane of glass is removed, and the shark and the goldfishes swim together for a time. The shark doesn't eat the goldfishes, and the goldfishes aren't afraid of the shark. Their conditioning keeps them apart. However, if the shark accidentally sucks in a goldfish in its natural process of breathing, the conditioning starts to break down. The machine/Machine-Maker example found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is overwhelming and abundant proof that God exists. When one throw in the fact that scientists are constantly using the scientific method on parts of the universe (albeit mostly parts here on earth) thereby proving the machine-like qualities of the universe, one can easily see how the machine/Machine-Maker analogy not only applies, but is being proven by scientists on a daily basis. The point of the fish story, above, is, your conditioning simply keeps you from seeing the obvious. Unlike fish, human beings have the ability to reinforce their own conditioning. And that is exactly what you do when you use the idea (be the idea yours or others) that inference can't be used as proof. I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence in the courts is always used correctly. But much of the time it is. Your conditioning is starting to break down. Why is your thinking conditioning and mine not? Because it is the natural state of mankind to recognize God in the workings and existence of the universe. It is only conditioning that stops some people from recognizing God. The evidence for this is, like the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 link says, the world is full of people who naturally recognize God. That's why we have the religions. EDIT: Wow! 227 pages! Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel. As if I don't believe in God or something. Was that post in response to me? There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post. Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it? |
|
|
|
...
3) The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.
Remember again that:
a) Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b) By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c) Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.
So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.
Quit calling that garbage "proof."
Perfectly said.
...
"Lomatia tasmanica in Tasmania: the sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old"
"A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea is estimated to be between 12,000 and 200,000 years old. The maximum age is theoretical, as the region it occupies was above water at some point between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago"
There are already organisms on earth that are est. to be far above 6,000 years of age, eliminating the aspect that creation might have happened.
Now you, yourself, are spouting a bunch of unprovable junk... by your own admission. Or do you have a real, working, time viewer? After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is. Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant. However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be. If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct). Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole. Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid. In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility. So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie? Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence? Well, it's plainly not. To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way... to you. But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible. Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible. You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence. I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E. Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence. In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism. Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place. Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth? On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence. The key word here is 'consistent.' Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it. You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time. Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility. Those who think it does sound like you. Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings. You actually fall into the latter category. Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence. Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to. But do you know what is totally hilarious? The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater! |
|
|
|
Responding in order:
1) It's not getting the info across. You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.
Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?
So you're debating!? 2) This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well. That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility. Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.
Please leave me and "we" out of it. You are responsible for your own logical mistakes. Generally I don't do the "we" thing. But since so many people express the human race as one in their posts, for the sake of brevity and information flow, I have been doing the "we" thing. Now, all of a sudden, you want to leave yourself outside of the human race. Who do you think you are, God (rhetorical)?
3) The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.
Remember again that:
a) Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b) By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c) Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.
So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.
Quit calling that garbage "proof."
Thank you for explaining the precise reason that Big Bang, age of the universe, evolution-produces-life, black holes, dark matter and energy, parallel universes, chaos, and quantum anything, are all theories. The point remains. The evidence expressed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is proof that God exists. I'm not thinking that BADecker has been simply trolling the entire time. If you don't understand BADecker, just say so. The joint is saying that you cannot prove God's existence and vice versa, through science. It is impossible, and he is correct. All this time the joint and you have been thinking that I have been trying to prove (or something like prove) the stuff at the link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 ? All I have been doing is providing information about the evidence that scientists use on a regular basis to prove that God exists. Responding in order: 1) Yes, I'm debating. I wish you would. 2) There is no such thing as a human "race." We are human species. Race does not exist, it's a social construct and has absolutely no genetic basis. 3) How the hell did you confuse my desire to not be responsible for your idiotic thinking with a desire to be removed from humanity?! ...Seriously...what the hell? 4) No. The point is that nobody knows what you're thinking because you claim one thing at the same time that you claim the exact opposite, and also at the same time you claim something irrelevant. What happens is that you say something, we call you out on it, them you change your claim to something else. When we call you out on the new claim, you switch it again to something else. This makes it impossible to make sense of anything you say, because everything you say contradicts everything else you said, and will be contradicted itself by whatever you're going to say in the future. 5). *You* said that the information you linked was proof of God's existence. Then you said it wasn't. If you tell us that it is "proof," then duh, we think that's what you're trying to do...because you *told* us. 6). Scientists *never* use evidence to prove God exists, because it's *impossible.* How can you not understand this simple concept? |
|
|
|
It was the artists first time accepting bitcoin, and he has plans to hold onto most of it. I shared on reddit, and wanted to share with you fine people as well :-)  More Pics: http://imgur.com/a/gB51ZThe artist is Ricky Allman. He was working simultaneously on these three paintings when we met, and I had to have one of them. These took six months to complete. Here’s an interview juxtapoz did on Ricky. Very interesting. http://www.juxtapoz.com/current/talking-with-ricky-allman-from-mormonism-to-the-apocalypseThe other two that are still available haven't left his studio yet. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll get you in touch with Ricky! I'm very happy with my investment. This has to be one of the coolest paintings I've seen. Very nice! I think it's worth every bit of that 20 BTC. |
|
|
|
Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say. This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html: One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later. While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense. You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god
You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Proofs against god: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earthhttp://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.htmlhttp://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htmhttp://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.htmlYou can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God. The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists. Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily. A couple questions: 1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof? 2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty? Why or why not? Depends. He can change the definitions around to suit the situation. That way he gives the illusion his arguments have substance. I know, he butchers and tortures the English language repeatedly. This is basically me experimenting with various approaches to see if he responds differently to any of them. There's a part of me that likes to believe that 'nobody' who is capable of living on their own is that stupid, and that he knows when he signs off his account that he's dead wrong on so many things, but simply can't admit it because he's already invested so much time and energy trying to cast a certain impression (i.e. that he's super-duper smart and nobody except him understands the awesomeness of his logic...you know, because faith and stuff). It's called getting the info across. When I make mistakes, I am only acting like everyone else. At least I am willing to admit that we make mistakes. One area that I am not making very many, if any, mistakes in is, the evidences at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 that prove that God exists. The scientist in the joint should be able to recognize this. Responding in order: 1) It's not getting the info across. You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence. Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct? 2) This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well. That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility. Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes. Please leave me and "we" out of it. You are responsible for your own logical mistakes. 3) The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close. Remember again that: a) Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed. b) By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed. c) Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer. So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence. Quit calling that garbage "proof." |
|
|
|
Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say. This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html: One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later. While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense. You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god
You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Proofs against god: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earthhttp://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.htmlhttp://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htmhttp://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.htmlYou can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God. The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists. Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily. A couple questions: 1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof? 2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty? Why or why not? Depends. He can change the definitions around to suit the situation. That way he gives the illusion his arguments have substance. I know, he butchers and tortures the English language repeatedly. This is basically me experimenting with various approaches to see if he responds differently to any of them. There's a part of me that likes to believe that 'nobody' who is capable of living on their own is that stupid, and that he knows when he signs off his account that he's dead wrong on so many things, but simply can't admit it because he's already invested so much time and energy trying to cast a certain impression (i.e. that he's super-duper smart and nobody except him understands the awesomeness of his logic...you know, because faith and stuff). |
|
|
|
Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say. This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html: One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later. While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense. You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god
You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Proofs against god: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earthhttp://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.htmlhttp://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htmhttp://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.htmlYou can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God. The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists. Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily. A couple questions: 1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof? 2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty? Why or why not? |
|
|
|
It would be off-topic because the author of that site is talking about the Bible, and one, basic, specific religion.
You don't stop talking about this bible on this thread! Why stop now? My Bible talk mostly has been in response to people like you who keep on bringing up the Bible when they should be staying on-topic like I was when I produced the proofs for God found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Now that I have gone past most responding to Bible questions, why do you bring it up again? It is YOU who doesn't want to remain on-topic. Since you really seem to want Bible answers, read it. Well the scientific angle is a no go, because you keep changing the definition of words on the fly. Scientfic conversation is impossible when a clown starts doing that. You are wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you appear to be wrong headed. Even if I change the meanings of words on the fly (which I don't), that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that under the standard definitions of words, anyone who wants to see the proof that God exists can do so by examining the overwhelming evidences for the existence of God here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, that make up the proof. If he is wrong, then why is he right? He's still alive, isn't he?  Why do you attempt to derail the topic of this thread? How does one derail a thread by being 100% on topic? |
|
|
|
It would be off-topic because the author of that site is talking about the Bible, and one, basic, specific religion.
You don't stop talking about this bible on this thread! Why stop now? My Bible talk mostly has been in response to people like you who keep on bringing up the Bible when they should be staying on-topic like I was when I produced the proofs for God found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Now that I have gone past most responding to Bible questions, why do you bring it up again? It is YOU who doesn't want to remain on-topic. Since you really seem to want Bible answers, read it. Well the scientific angle is a no go, because you keep changing the definition of words on the fly. Scientfic conversation is impossible when a clown starts doing that. You are wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you appear to be wrong headed. Even if I change the meanings of words on the fly (which I don't), that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that under the standard definitions of words, anyone who wants to see the proof that God exists can do so by examining the overwhelming evidences for the existence of God here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, that make up the proof. If he is wrong, then why is he right? |
|
|
|
You dont speak of the truth when it ACTUALLY matter's, and hence, you are a false prophet.. a Liar. Your own book warns us about you.
It's funny to read dicksperiment, a proven liar, call other people liars.  Yeah, you and I are supposedly the same, now. Who knew? BTW, if you're my left hand, thank you for all the wonderful moments we've shared together. |
|
|
|
Would you like to explain how to scientificly measure your ''evidence'' because im a bit lost, thanks. To translate, because he's that brainwashed BADecker has rewritten the definition of a scientist so it fits his religion better, kind of like how religious people try to re-write history and everything else in order to make the world try and fit in their respective religions, why do you think that they always try to wipe out other cultures' and beliefs? Too bad for him the real world doesn't ever work like that, otherwise why would all these other religions and beliefe systems exist in the first place if his was so perfect? It gets better than that. On more than probably 1-2 dozen occasions now, I've had to remind BadDecker that i believe in God. And on more than probably 1-2 dozen occasions now, BadDecker has responded to my criticism of his reasoning by basically saying I'm wrong because I don't believe in God. It goes like this: Him: "Blah blah blah, BS evidence, therefore God." Me: "Um no, because blah blah." Him: "You wouldn't understand, because science blah blah." Me: "Still, no, not even close." Him: "Hey, it's your choice not to believe in God and blah blah." Me: "Um...I believe in God, remember? Him: "Well, that's a start! And blah blah, BS evidence, therefore God." Me: "Um, again, no, because blah blah." Him: "You wouldn't understand, because science blah blah." Me: "No. It's impossible. I've told you this. Everyone has told you this." Him: "Hey, it's your choice not to believe in God! Blah blah." Me: "' " Oh, you're simply upset that someone found the proof that God exists before you did. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395EDIT: In addition to being able to stay on topic better. And yet, on page #218, you say this: No, I'm not upset. I'm amazed that you are saying "proof" = "stuff [that] isn't really the evidence [and] only points at the evidence." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
