No, proof is "not" a personal thing.  This is you making up a definition of "proof" that is not only different from its actual definition, but is 100% inverse and contrary to the actual definition.

Actual definition of proof implies it is objective, and thus it can be understood independent of personal experience (i.e. it isn't personal).

Your definition of proof states that it is personal, and therefore is *not* objective and *cannot* be understood independent of personal experience.

So, no, proof is not judgmental, nor is it personal.

Why do I bother mentioning this when you will obviously avoid any direct response?  Who knows.  Probably practice for concise explanation during future debates with competent opponents.

You state:    
Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I'm trying to help you out.

...

Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.

You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.

Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.

Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:

The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.

Wow! Page 203!

No, he's right to throw up.  You asked an invalid question.  Light isn't constrained by time, so your question is literally inapplicable.

The speed of light is a constant regardless of an observer's velocity, location, or a change in both.  Regardless of whether I'm stationary or moving towards the speed of light, the speed of light will appear the same in both cases.  Even if I'm going 99.9999% the speed of light, light would still appear to be going as fast as if I were stationary.

Furthermore, when we move or change location, our "time-frame" changes relative to everyone else.  This is empirically verifiable.  The faster you move, the slower you age relative to those who aren't moving.  If you take two atomic clocks set to identical times and leave one stationary on the ground the other travels around Earth in a space shuttle, at the end of the flight you will notice that the once-similar clocks are now different.  The clock that was on board the space shuttle will appear to have slowed down in time, and in fact it did relative to the stationary clock.

We experience time due to perceived changes in our relative spacetime location.  The word "spacetime" exists because they are inseparable -- space is a function of time, and time is a function of space.  Because changes in spacetime location are relative to the speed of light, we can conclude that light is transcendent of locality and whatever swathe of spacetime we happen to inhabit.

Phrased another way, your questions don't make sense because "2000 years ago"  isn't the same for everyone.  If you're moving at near the speed of light, 2000 years for you could be thousands or millions of years for me.  In contrast, 2000 years for me could be a few seconds to you if you're moving at near light speed.

Stop making crap up when you don't know what you're talking about.

I think I threw up in my mouth...

Dude, this isn't just a matter of disagreement.  There is no opinion here.  I "disagree" with what you are saying in the same way I would "disagree" if you said that 2+2=5.  

2+2=4 because of the rules of math.  If you say 2+2=5, I would disagree because you are provably wrong.

The same applies when you say "I have proof or evidence of God!"  I disagree not because it's some mere opinion, but because it is simply a logical impossibility.  Drawing conclusions from a set of evidence is an inductive process, and it is absolutely impossible for you to arrive at a definitive conclusion for God in this manner.

Now, maybe in your head you can come up with some weird set of rules which might lead you to conclude that 2+2=5.  But, those are your rules, not the rules of actual mathematics.  It's completely meaningless to everyone else if they don't know what your weird rules are.

Similarly, when you start making up terms and definitions for words like "science" or "logical" or "proof," your arguments become completely meaningless and invalid in the same way that 2+2=5 is invalid.  

You might wonder why I think you're making up terms and definitions for words like "science," "logical," and proof."  Great, because I'll tell you.



1) You have made up many definitions for "Science," which is evident in previous posts when you state things like:


or



No dude.  Modern science is neither a religion, nor does it have anything to do with "salvation" whatsoever.  And 'hell no,' dude, the 2nd quotation is just absolutely ridiculous.  The science "fact" and "fiction" you mention both follow from the exact same general process from which all scientific theories are formed, i.e. conclusions are inferred from evidence.  If more evidence arises that doesn't fit the current explanation, the scientific method specifically instructs us to reformulate our original theory and keep testing it to see if it breaks.  There are no "hurt feelings" in Science, and its method necessitates that we ditch current theory to account for new evidence.  Nothing to do with religion or salvation at all.

And by the way, Chaos Theory is predominantly a purely mathematical discipline, not a scientific one.  Yes, there are some applications of Chaos Theory in a few scientific sub-disciplines, but Chaos Theory is primarily founded upon mathematics, not science (i.e science pulls Chaos Theory applications from mathematics, not vice-versa).



2) You have made up definitions for "logical" when you say things like:


or


Reading through your posts in this thread literally gives me a headache because of all the cringing I do.  Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining in the same way a bad car crash is entertaining, and maybe that's why I keep responding to you.

Logic is logic.  That's it.  The scientific method utilizes a subset of pre-existing logical rules to create an internally-valid method for exploration.  Saying something like you did in the first quote is just words on a page that have no actual meaning.  Cause and effect is about actions and reactions, or stimulus and response.  Logic consists of the valid rules of cognition.  You are, somehow, equating the two, and accordingly I have no idea what the hell you mean.  

So, the first quote here isn't even a coherent sentence.  Don't believe me?  Okay, I'll prove it to you.  Let's insert an actual cause-and-effect reaction in the sentence and see if the sentence still makes sense:

"Stepping on the gas pedal in 'drive' makes your car go is good, sound, scientific logic."

...the hell? It isn't even grammatically correct.  Maybe it looks correct to you, but stepping on a gas pedal is not the "strict principles of validity," which is the crux of the actual definition of logic

Now, maybe you intended to say that logical, scientific methodology can be applied to explore cause-and-effect relationships (or something similar, like, "It is logical to press on the gas pedal in 'drive' to make your car go"), but that isn't at all what you actually said.  When you change meanings of terms, we don't know what the hell you're talking about, because according to the actual definitions of things your statements are literally incoherent.

And, as far as the 2nd quote goes, faith is by definition a belief in the total absence of evidence!

Check it out, here is the actual definition of faith:  


Yep, you read it correctly.  Definition #1 doesn't speak to evidence or proof at all.  Definition #2, which does, specifically negates both evidence (i.e. spirit is non-physical and incapable of being evidenced) and proof. Accordingly, your 2nd quote makes no sense.  If you think you can use evidence to support faith, you can't. By definition, it would no longer be "faith" if evidence supports your convictions.



3) You have made up definitions for "proof" like when you say "God always existed. This universe, and the dimensions that are part of it, these are the things that have a beginning...Cause and effect, combined with the complexity of the universe, along with the entropy therein, prove the second."

The things you listed do not in any way constitute proof that God has always existed.  Not even close.  There is absolutely nothing about what you said that directly implicates God whatsoever.  Nothing.  It is simply illogical to consider it as proof.  How do I know?  Because you are breaking the rules of logic, such as committing this logical fallacy:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29



4) And, my personal favorite, you also make up definitions for "atheism."  Check it out.  You said this:


Here is the actual definition of atheism:


You see the emboldened phrases?  This is why you are a terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE, debater.  You changed the definition of atheism into something that is 100% the inverse of the actual definition.  That is, "irreligion" is completely inverse to your claim that "atheism is a religion."

Accordingly, there is no debate necessary.  Your arguments are provably stupid right off the bat, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Note:  I would appreciate a thoughtful response.  I went through the trouble to cite and reference specific examples to help you understand, which took a bit of time.  The only reason I did it is that, on a few rare occasions, you have demonstrated some capacity for intellectual open-mindedness.  The result of that open-mindedness was a few decent posts of yours that were made decent simply because you were asking more questions instead of continuing to make ridiculous, nonsensical arguments, and being ignorantly proud of how right you think they were/are.

1)  Science has "not" taken on new meaning among the masses.  Among the stupid, maybe.  Among the educated, no.  

2)  That's pretty amazing that you think you can use the Scientific Method to prove God, because it's a logical impossibility.  This is the proof in the pudding that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Science. Science is an inductive method of knowledge acquisition.  By definition, no inductive method has or could ever have the capacity to conclude about something so Universal.  

Any single time that you have ever said there is physical evidence and proof for God, you are necessarily wrong 100% of the time.  This can't be debated, it's a logical rule.  Sorry, try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

3)  You are in no way speaking the language of a scientist, because point #2 demonstrates you don't even understand how data turns into theory.  And, the reality is backwards of what you stated.  People are "all mixed up" precisely because you aren't speaking anyone's language.  You toss out words that everybody else already knows and can understand just fine.  You take those words, butcher them to death, extract some weird meaning that not only makes it impossible for anyone else to understand what you're saying, but renders your ideas completing meaningless to everyone else except you.

Stop pretending you know anything about Science.  You don't, and that's because you don't know the real definition of it, and therefore you can't distinguish between what is scientific and what isn't.  



Edit: Oh, about that link you posted.  Yeah, I saw that.  Good job for referencing definitions for consensus.  I mean that, because that's something you should do....

...but then you went ahead and said something along the lines of, "Oh look! The data I have fits definition #1!"   And definition #1 of "proof" was: "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

And in no way did your data actually constitute proof of anything according to definition #1.  The so-called "evidence" that you think proves God is so insufficient that it could never say anything about God one way or the other.  

That's where an understanding of logic and sound inference comes into play, but you don't have that. There is not a single shred of physical evidence for God's existence, and that's because it's theoretically impossible for there to ever be any.

Poorly.  You talk about Science poorly.  I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane.  You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue.  For example, you've continuously called Science a religion.  It's not.  Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate.  When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.

People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions.  The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.  

If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.

Edit:  And thanks lol