 Is that weird?  Anyone else have a habit of not paying attention? |
|
|
|
Shame we're clearly not dealing with the scientific proof of god, which according to your question may suggest that WE are the creator, as guided by the ALL-SOUL - (GOD) shown in my remix of the emerald tablets, that part where it state's "Formless was He within his Temple (galaxy/universe?), yet was He formed in the image of men." <-note the last wod is not MAN
edit: is it possible that the temple is the head?
You now know the fact..
Stop with "scientific proof of God" garbage. It is simply a logical impossibility for there to be any. Empirical methods of exploration like the Scientific Method have a scope of exploration which is simply insufficient to comment about the matter whatsoever. Period. The end. Anybody who concludes one way or another about God's existence based upon empirical evidence (or a lack thereof) is wasting air, and has no idea what he is talking about. |
|
|
|
I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol? Just out of curiosity, how does one falsify an assumption? Assumption being the mother of all fuck ups  By proving its inverse true. |
|
|
|
I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol?
I use the words that I do because they serve a specific purpose(s), namely consistency and poignancy. |
|
|
|
Most posts in this thread can be joked about. But I've yet to hear a valid response to this: In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration). Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science. I think the quote by Christopher Hitchens best addresses unfalsifiable assumptions. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/photos/data/500/0308-ScienceVsFaith.pngChristopher Hitchens comes up short on this issue for he fails to consider logical falsification. Hitchens was wrong, and if he were still alive I'd love for him to provide physical evidence for support of his statement (rather than the logical basis he would undoubtedly defer to). Edit: By the way, I'm a huge fan of Hitchens with respect to his political commentary and his anti-dogmatic stance about religion. Edit 2: Yet, based upon the quote, do you think Hitchens would dismiss, then, the non-empirical assumptions of science? Science (well, at least classical physics) depends upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe, an assumption for which there is not, nor could there ever be, any physical evidence. Empirical falsification of this assumption would require empirical data collected via observation in a Universe totally void of observers, leading to an irreconcilable contradiction. Logical falsification of a Postivistic Universe is amazingly simple. |
|
|
|
BY intelligent design, do you mean the design is intelligent, or it was designed by an intelligent designer? Because The only consistancy in nature is the randomness of everything, as nothing appears twice in the same form.
Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..
The product of intelligent design is a mental construct. If reality is demonstrated to be a mental construct, i.e. made from/by mind, then it follows intelligent design is true. |
|
|
|
It's the empirical evidence that get's me.. you have evidence of whatever, or you dont. The rest, as earlier stated, is nothing more than empirically unfalsifiable assumptions, assumptions being wild guess's without evidence at best.
There are different kinds of falsifiability. Empirical falsifiability is only one of them. Logical falsifiability is another. It is impossible to empirically falsify the non-empirical assumption of a Positivistic Universe wielded by science. However, it is possible to logically falsify the non-empirical assumption of a Positivistic Universe by proving its inverse to be logically true (i.e. we do not live in a Positivistic Universe). Similarly, claims that intelligent design is not empirically falsifiable are true, but insignificant. Intelligent design can be proven true by proving its inverse false, or could be falsified if its inverse were proven logically true. |
|
|
|
You miss my point: whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant - You did make this statement. The rest is just assumption.
Yes, whether God actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to the consideration that I was making. That consideration is this: A person who believes that a lack of empirical evidence for intelligent design is valid enough to discredit it invokes a contradiction in that the same person is unwilling to apply the same scrutiny as he does with regards to intelligent design to the empirically unfalsifiable assertion of the method which he claims supports his belief. So, whether God actually does or does not exist is irrelevant because the point I'm emphasizing is an inconsistency in the reasoning of those who deny a belief in the existence of intelligent design based upon a lack of physical evidence. |
|
|
|
To quote the above, you clearly state god is irelevant, so your point of posting this in this thread is?
...That's not what I said. |
|
|
|
Which god did science prove exists? SPOILER ALERT: The one you happen to believe in. What luck!  LOL!   I wouldn't use that meme in response to an invalid point...the irony is unsettling. This whole thread is a joke. <Edit> This thread makes about as much practical sense as this schematic diagram.  Most posts in this thread can be joked about. But I've yet to hear a valid response to this: In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration). Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science. |
|
|
|
Which god did science prove exists? SPOILER ALERT: The one you happen to believe in. What luck! LOL! I wouldn't use that meme in response to an invalid point...the irony is unsettling. |
|
|
|
Which god did science prove exists? SPOILER ALERT: The one you happen to believe in. What luck! I would again like to point out that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon God even if you assume God's existence right off the bat. In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration). |
|
|
|
Will I make it?
Any timeline? 5 years would be ideal... after that I might give up If you're still valuing your bitcoins based on an exchange rate, you're doing it wrong.
How else would I measure its purchasing power? If I don't value it by its purchasing power how else should it be valued?? Exchange rate != purchasing power. Purchasing power parity is tough to determine, the Big Mac index that the Economist publishes is your best bet. What you should do is look at how many BTC are required to buy 1 Big Mac over the next 5 years (on average). You'll know deep in your bones what inflationary vs. deflationary means then How do you figure the exchange rate isn't equal to purchasing power? Whether you exchange 1 BTC for $260 or several dozen Big Macs, the exchange rate is $260 or several dozen Big Macs respectively. The purchasing power of any currency is whatever you are able to exchange it for. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, people who have steeped themselves in a particular religion, mostly find it difficult to set it aside when they find out it is a false religion.
Can you compile a list for us all of all these false religions? How do you recognise a false religion? No, I probably couldn't. I would probably miss at least a few. Besides, I don't have the time that it would take to investigate and compile. You could probably search Wikipedia for a list of main ones. Well, with Christianity all around you, and with all the talk about the Bible I have been doing in this thread, start there, the Bible, and ask God to direct you on your journey into this kind of religious seeking. But you have to be sincere in your testing for God. Ask Him to prove Himself to you if He really exists. But do it from the standpoint of really asking sincerely. He doesn't cater to people who are simply playing around or attempting to mock Him.  I would be particularly interested to hear you respond *directly* to his question about how you are able to recognize a false religion. The direct instructions for such would probably be similar to the instructions Moses gave the people of Israel for determining if a prophet was a prophet of the Lord, or a false prophet. This would be to match the things that he said with what happened. You could say similar about matching a religion with the way things work. In fact, in this and other threads, I have been pointing out that the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them. A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here) simply doesn't have enough information behind it to say that it is absolute truth, or often very near the truth. The Bible is full of prophecies that were fulfilled. There are others that have not been fulfilled yet. Other religions have few prophecy listings, and few that are fulfilled. One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years. They have only come back according to other prophesy, and not with the glory that they held in the past. Responding in order: 1) Logic fail. You're shooting yourself in the foot again. Let me get this straight - you think that the way to determine whether a religion is true or false is to first assume Christianity is true and then look to it for a method of distinguishing true religions from false ones? What the heck kind of logic is that? You're putting the cart way, way, WAY before the horse. The point here is that you can't just assume Christianity is true before you've subjected it to a method to determine whether it is true or false. The result is that you are self-evidently using an illogical approach to determine whether Christianity is true rather than a logical one. 2) Stop contorting what science is. When you say things like, "...A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here)..." you are just talking out your rear. The word 'science' has several concrete, established definitions. When you start making up new definitions on the fly, you are simply demonstrating an inability to effectively communicate with others. Type in "science definition" into Google and check the result. The definitions that pop up are the only definitions applicable to 'science.' When you use the word 'science,' it must be used according to those definitions. If you don't, then you're simply not talking about science. Period. And, when you say "...the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them..." I would remind you that you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what science is (because you continually invent definitions for it). It's pretty hard for the "things we call science" to match the "scientific ideas that should be applied to them" when you change the definition of what 'science' is but not the definition of 'pure science' or 'the scientific method.' Your reasoning here is shockingly terrible. 3) Talking about prophecies is irrelevant if you can't subject Christianity to the same method used to determine whether a religion is true or false. Lol. A fall that lasted 1900 years? Haha what the hell? Are you joking? Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? You finally came up against something that shows you what God is all about, and you just can't take it. I can accept that. Is this in response to my post? This isn't even relevant to anything I said. I did not "come up with anything" in my post that shows me what God is all about, nor can't I take it, and so therefore you are "accepting" whatever you just imagined. Care to respond directly to my points, or would you like to continue making up my point of view for me, ignoring me when I tell you that's not my point of view, and then believe you are the victor for winning (and somehow, still losing) an argument against yourself? Please be specific about your ideas. I truly have no idea what the hell your post was about. Keep on trying. You just might figure it out. Of course, nobody figures anything out that they don't want to, right? I will assume your continued failure to respond to specific points that I make is a reflection of your inability to do. I respond point-by-point to virtually every consideration in your posts. As a result, I am holding the door wide open for you to do the same, and so you have the opportunity to select from any number of my ideas and to demonstrate why those ideas are wrong. Furthermore, I structure my posts in a way which makes it even easier to respond by numbering my considerations. For example, I numbered three (3) considerations, but you failed to respond directly to any of them. I would challenge you to respond in kind by similarly numbering your considerations so that you are able to provide a clear rebuttal to each of mine. Again, failure to do so will be considered a reflection of your inability to provide sound reasoning for your beliefs. |
|
|
|
If you're still valuing your bitcoins based on an exchange rate, you're doing it wrong.
I'm sure the OP would sell you all of his BTC for $690/BTC. I'll cut you a bargain and sell mine at $400/BTC. Edit: I was very surprised to read this comment from you. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, people who have steeped themselves in a particular religion, mostly find it difficult to set it aside when they find out it is a false religion.
Can you compile a list for us all of all these false religions? How do you recognise a false religion? No, I probably couldn't. I would probably miss at least a few. Besides, I don't have the time that it would take to investigate and compile. You could probably search Wikipedia for a list of main ones. Well, with Christianity all around you, and with all the talk about the Bible I have been doing in this thread, start there, the Bible, and ask God to direct you on your journey into this kind of religious seeking. But you have to be sincere in your testing for God. Ask Him to prove Himself to you if He really exists. But do it from the standpoint of really asking sincerely. He doesn't cater to people who are simply playing around or attempting to mock Him. I would be particularly interested to hear you respond *directly* to his question about how you are able to recognize a false religion. The direct instructions for such would probably be similar to the instructions Moses gave the people of Israel for determining if a prophet was a prophet of the Lord, or a false prophet. This would be to match the things that he said with what happened. You could say similar about matching a religion with the way things work. In fact, in this and other threads, I have been pointing out that the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them. A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here) simply doesn't have enough information behind it to say that it is absolute truth, or often very near the truth. The Bible is full of prophecies that were fulfilled. There are others that have not been fulfilled yet. Other religions have few prophecy listings, and few that are fulfilled. One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years. They have only come back according to other prophesy, and not with the glory that they held in the past. Responding in order: 1) Logic fail. You're shooting yourself in the foot again. Let me get this straight - you think that the way to determine whether a religion is true or false is to first assume Christianity is true and then look to it for a method of distinguishing true religions from false ones? What the heck kind of logic is that? You're putting the cart way, way, WAY before the horse. The point here is that you can't just assume Christianity is true before you've subjected it to a method to determine whether it is true or false. The result is that you are self-evidently using an illogical approach to determine whether Christianity is true rather than a logical one. 2) Stop contorting what science is. When you say things like, "...A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here)..." you are just talking out your rear. The word 'science' has several concrete, established definitions. When you start making up new definitions on the fly, you are simply demonstrating an inability to effectively communicate with others. Type in "science definition" into Google and check the result. The definitions that pop up are the only definitions applicable to 'science.' When you use the word 'science,' it must be used according to those definitions. If you don't, then you're simply not talking about science. Period. And, when you say "...the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them..." I would remind you that you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what science is (because you continually invent definitions for it). It's pretty hard for the "things we call science" to match the "scientific ideas that should be applied to them" when you change the definition of what 'science' is but not the definition of 'pure science' or 'the scientific method.' Your reasoning here is shockingly terrible. 3) Talking about prophecies is irrelevant if you can't subject Christianity to the same method used to determine whether a religion is true or false. Lol. A fall that lasted 1900 years? Haha what the hell? Are you joking? Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? You finally came up against something that shows you what God is all about, and you just can't take it. I can accept that. Is this in response to my post? This isn't even relevant to anything I said. I did not "come up with anything" in my post that shows me what God is all about, nor can't I take it, and so therefore you are "accepting" whatever you just imagined. Care to respond directly to my points, or would you like to continue making up my point of view for me, ignoring me when I tell you that's not my point of view, and then believe you are the victor for winning (and somehow, still losing) an argument against yourself? Please be specific about your ideas. I truly have no idea what the hell your post was about. |
|
|
|
Sending to him first would not be a risk to you as much as it would be a risk to him if he sent first.
An anonymous person vouching for another anonymous person... #seemslegit Smoothie is hardly anonymous. You know he created the Lealana litecoins, right? Btw, why are you demanding escrow from the guy selling pics of his wife because he is a newbie? Ironic, don't you think? Ok, I feel like being generous to the trolls today. You have an hour to PM me smoothie's and blazedout's contact info (name/address). Not a problem if they aren't anonymous, right? I'll leave your post up if you can do this. Tick tock tick tock.... Wow, a whole hour, and on a workday? Gee, thanks! You can find all the info you request in a brief search of this forum, but I'm not going to dox someone because a suspected scammer wants me to. Your reputation is the issue here, not his, and especially when literally hundreds of people know his name and his face. The mark of a scammer is the continual (though usually unconscious) effort to redirect the focus of discussion away from himself and onto others. How bout you dox yourself if you're as reputable and trustworthy as you claimed? |
|
|
|
Steve Vai
He is probably the best guitarist if we are thinking about music based around guitar
I agree, Steve Vai is one of the best in the world in terms of sheer ability. He makes his guitar sing. |
|
|
|
Sending to him first would not be a risk to you as much as it would be a risk to him if he sent first.
An anonymous person vouching for another anonymous person... #seemslegit Smoothie is hardly anonymous. You know he created the Lealana litecoins, right? Btw, why are you demanding escrow from the guy selling pics of his wife because he is a newbie? Ironic, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, people who have steeped themselves in a particular religion, mostly find it difficult to set it aside when they find out it is a false religion.
Can you compile a list for us all of all these false religions? How do you recognise a false religion? No, I probably couldn't. I would probably miss at least a few. Besides, I don't have the time that it would take to investigate and compile. You could probably search Wikipedia for a list of main ones. Well, with Christianity all around you, and with all the talk about the Bible I have been doing in this thread, start there, the Bible, and ask God to direct you on your journey into this kind of religious seeking. But you have to be sincere in your testing for God. Ask Him to prove Himself to you if He really exists. But do it from the standpoint of really asking sincerely. He doesn't cater to people who are simply playing around or attempting to mock Him. I would be particularly interested to hear you respond *directly* to his question about how you are able to recognize a false religion. The direct instructions for such would probably be similar to the instructions Moses gave the people of Israel for determining if a prophet was a prophet of the Lord, or a false prophet. This would be to match the things that he said with what happened. You could say similar about matching a religion with the way things work. In fact, in this and other threads, I have been pointing out that the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them. A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here) simply doesn't have enough information behind it to say that it is absolute truth, or often very near the truth. The Bible is full of prophecies that were fulfilled. There are others that have not been fulfilled yet. Other religions have few prophecy listings, and few that are fulfilled. One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years. They have only come back according to other prophesy, and not with the glory that they held in the past. Responding in order: 1) Logic fail. You're shooting yourself in the foot again. Let me get this straight - you think that the way to determine whether a religion is true or false is to first assume Christianity is true and then look to it for a method of distinguishing true religions from false ones? What the heck kind of logic is that? You're putting the cart way, way, WAY before the horse. The point here is that you can't just assume Christianity is true before you've subjected it to a method to determine whether it is true or false. The result is that you are self-evidently using an illogical approach to determine whether Christianity is true rather than a logical one. 2) Stop contorting what science is. When you say things like, "...A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here)..." you are just talking out your rear. The word 'science' has several concrete, established definitions. When you start making up new definitions on the fly, you are simply demonstrating an inability to effectively communicate with others. Type in "science definition" into Google and check the result. The definitions that pop up are the only definitions applicable to 'science.' When you use the word 'science,' it must be used according to those definitions. If you don't, then you're simply not talking about science. Period. And, when you say "...the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them..." I would remind you that you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what science is (because you continually invent definitions for it). It's pretty hard for the "things we call science" to match the "scientific ideas that should be applied to them" when you change the definition of what 'science' is but not the definition of 'pure science' or 'the scientific method.' Your reasoning here is shockingly terrible. 3) Talking about prophecies is irrelevant if you can't subject Christianity to the same method used to determine whether a religion is true or false. Lol. A fall that lasted 1900 years? Haha what the hell? Are you joking? Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
