I thought I would clarify this a bit further, even though I responded to it already in my previous post.

What I'm saying is that I protest against claims for/against the existence of God based upon empirical evidence because the topic needs to be held to a higher degree of critical analysis than what empirical methods are able to provide.

Think of it this way:  Empiricism is simply a theory about knowledge acquisition.  But, it's only one of many.  There are other methods of acquiring knowledge that totally and completely trump science when it comes to discussing basically *anything* that has a supra-physical component(s).

The TL;DR version is that empiricism is awesome for exploring and explaining isolated phenomena in terms of other isolated phenomena.  Aside from that, it's essentially useless.

I *do* believe God exists.

Responding to paragraphs in order:

1)  Here you correctly point out the problem with ascribing a definition to God before confirming His existence.  This runs straight into the fallacy of induction. Let me be clear that this is *not* sound logic.  I'm well aware of that.  

However, if logic necessesitates the existence of some entity that, for all practical considerations, remind us of intuitive notions of God (e.g. Omnipotent; a Creator), then it would be practical to just call it 'God.'  But whatever you call it just comes down to personal preference.

And yes, I'm suggesting that a monotheistic god can not, nor ever could be, explored via science.  Science can't even explore or falsify its own assumptions, so how could you possibly expect it to capably explore something even more general?

2)  Think of it this way:  I start with a preconception of what god is, i.e. an intelligent designer.  Then, I forget all about that preconception and simply go about my business trying to use logic to uncover the fundamental truths of reality.  One such truth happens to be that reality is a mental construct.  Knowing this, I can retrieve my original presupposition and compare it to my findings.  Since it is practical to equate 'reality as a mental construct' with 'intelligent design,' I can practically conclude God exists.

3)  See above.  The only thing I would add here is that talking about something outside of reality is pointless.  If there were something real enough outside of reality so as to be able to affect it, it would be inside reality.

4) Again, the atheists' 'retarded logic' I'm referring to is thinking that empirical methods of exploration have any business exploring something that is self-apparently beyond its scope.  Inductive limitations render this impossible.  Anyone who claims otherwise has a poor understanding of the limitations of empiricism.

5)  I think it would be worth your time to consider why common atheist rebuttals such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Space Teapot are invalid right from the get go.

6)  I'll skip your response to BadDecker, but with regards to your last paragraph I think it's pretty clear that you have the opportunity to learn something by sticking around.

Responding to each paragraph in order:

1)  Wrong.  It has nothing to do with a person's will.  It's simply an impossibility to make any definitive claims about a monotheistic god based upon evidence because it runs directly into the fallacy of induction.

2)  In criminal court, juries cast a verdict based upon the interpretation of evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt," and not "beyond all doubt."  In civil cases, judgments are simply based upon preponderance of the evidence.  To conclude about God based upon evidence requires infinite data to reach a conclusion beyond all doubt.  This is impossible.

3)  Nothing you state here is a valid consideration.  Witnessing a 'miracle' doesn't suggest God exists whatsoever.  Neither does talking with a burning bush.  For example, you wouldn't be able to decipher whether it was a monotheistic or a polytheistic god that performed the 'miracle.'

4)  If you don't know what the scientific method is, you probably shouldn't pretend that you do.  This entre paragraph is garbage (sorry).

5)  None of the considerations you state here imply the existence of god.  The "machine-like Universe" is a dead argument and does not in any way imply God's existence.

What would you say about intelligent design if it were demonstrated that reality is a mental construct?

Deferring to scientific evidence for God or a lack thereof in support of an argument is a waste of time because there is no amount of evidence that could prove or disprove the existence of a monotheistic god in the first place.  Monotheistic gods are, by definition, beyond the scope of empiricism. 

Whenever I watch religious debates -- and because of YouTube, I've seen a lot -- the same scenario tends to unfold over and over again.  The religious tend to use some form of retarded logic to try to turn religious texts into some scientific account, and atheists rightfully jump all over them for it.  But then, instead of simply shutting up, the atheists can't help but toss in their own form of retarded logic and make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence.  Then the religious, who already jumped on board the retard wagon, try to rebut the atheists' counterpoint as though it's actually a tenable position.  It's not.

So, we have one group of people making BS claims, and another group making BS counterclaims about which the first group then makes its own BS counterclaims. 

If you're going to debate God's existence, great.  Just leave empiricism out of it.

Actually it's happened for a 2nd and 3rd time already with BTC.  Did you know that this is not the largest crash in BTC's history?  Actually, it's not even close (by a factor of ~4).

Agreed, profit-potential is generally greater if you purchase BTC outright as it would take an unlikely set of circumstances (especially given current ones) to generate more BTC than mining.

We both agree that we can't know future price movement.  But, let's consider the two main options we're focusing on: 1) We can buy BTC, and 2) We can buy a miner instead.

Currently, we are in a down market.  If at any point during the past year someone purchased BTC (and didn't successfully day-trade with it) and held it, they would have lost money.  Similarly, if they had purchased a miner with BTC, virtually all will have lost money.  The chance for ROI over the past year given these conditions is/was essentially 0%.

I've purchased several miners with fiat during the past year, and every single one of those achieved >200% ROI.  In other words, they were the best decisions I could have made at the time.  Pretty much anyone who has purchased a miner with fiat during the past year would have done far better than those who purchased BTC outright or bought a miner with BTC.

Basically, we agree on a lot of things, but the point I keep emphasizing is that, generally, buying a miner limits the range of potential gains but also losses, and therefore carries less risk in many ways.

I'm optimistic about Bitcoin, but not fanatically so.  I'll try to give you some additional considerations.


Whether a currency is "backed" by anything is of little importance, at least inasmuch as all money is backed by a mere belief in its value. In other words, money -- no matter what form -- ultimately has value because people believe it has value.  This holds true whether we're talking about fiat, gold, oil, whatever, etc.

Possibly the most important characteristic of money is that people can agree that it holds a common value.  In a bartering economy, this does not hold true.  For example, a gold coin considered outside the context of price consensus (i.e. outside gold's purported value depicted in the gold markets) may be much more valuable to one person than another, such as when one person needs a good electrical conductor and the other person doesn't, etc.

To this extent, a digital currency is arguably superior to gold.  You can argue that it is precisely because 1's and 0's are arbitrary and intangible that consensus of value can be achieved.  For example, sugar might be considered an "intrinsically valuable currency" since it has nutritional value outside of social consensus.  But, do you think that sugar is more valuable to a normal person or to a diabetic?  The arbitrariness of pure math can avoid this issue.

Also consider that the Blockchain is valuable in a way that Bitcoin as a currency is not.  Bitcoins derive their value in part by their integration with their own Blockchain.  Bitcoins would lose their value consensus if, say, only the Litecoin Blockchain existed.  So, as it turns out you can make an argument that bitcoins have some intrinsic value, but in the sense that useful bitcoins are inherently tied to the Blockchain (which is why testnet bitcoins on the testnet blockchain are worth jack).  The most profitable BTC companies to date are typically those that facilitate transactions on the Blockchain (and thereby increase its value and utility) such as payment processors, exchanges, and casinos.  The more the Blockchain is used and develops in the complexity of its inter-connectivity, the more socially valuable it becomes.


The value of something is always related to something else.   Let's imagine, per your example, that BTC is backed by gold.  So, you can take 1 BTC and sell it anywhere in the world at market value and receive predictable sum of gold.  Okay, great.

Now you have gold.  Now suppose that after some time passes you want to sell your gold.  How valuable is that gold?  How did it get its value?

The point is that there are two (2) things that can always be stated about value: 1) Value is always relative and is thus subject to change, and 2) Intrinsic value does not necessarily equate to consensus value.  Because consensus value is required for a good form of money, and because value is always subject to change, the natural conclusion is that intrinsic value of money really doesn't matter at all.


There are two things I want to say, here.  First, inflation in and of itself is not bad, but actually can be very good for tempering certain market conditions; the only real problem is irresponsible inflation.  Second, alternative cryptocurrencies don't work with the Bitcoin Blockchain.  Sure, if new alt-coins emerge and people decide to move BTC holdings into those alts, then you can imagine it as though Bitcoin is being inflated (even though it isn't) because the sum of all cryptocurrencies in total will have inflated. But...

...I actually wonder if this is precisely why Satoshi didn't allow any room for inflation whatsoever (except by way of a hard fork).  In other words, I wonder if foreknowledge of alt-coin development led to the decision to make BTC completely deflationary, as a naturally-evolving inflation mechanism to help temper cryptocurrency markets in general would arise from the alt-coins themselves.


I think it's a little fanciful to think BTC is valued today because people are fearful of the dollar.  I can't imagine that very many people use BTC primarily for ideological reasons, and if they do then I'm guessing money isn't especially tight for them right now (else it would be insane to speculate on this market).  I simply think BTC is valued today because its unique features allow it to be a preferable form of money transmission with specific regard to certain types of transactions.  Someone may use BTC for online gambling while using fiat for every other transaction in their lives, for example.  In my case, I prefer to sell things for BTC rather than fiat because I can avoid chargebacks and the enormous fees of eBay et. al., and because of the ease and timeliness of international transactions.

If people are really worrying about their privacy, they're probably doing something illegal or are irrationally paranoid (if you're instead talking about things like the seizure and confiscation of banking accounts, then I can concede the point, especially if you're a Cypriot).  Collecting all data everywhere is certainly unsettling, but filtering through that data is completely different.  If you aren't doing anything illegal or suspicious, there's simply no good reason to waste time and resources to parse through all that extraneous data.  I admit, though, that I'm not a fan of this kind of data collection.  It is unsettling.

I don't think the primary value is privacy.  I think the primary value is its integration with the valuable technology of the Blockchain, compounded by its growing use.

It would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge "belief" in many other assumptions for which there is not a shred of evidence, some of which are absolutely required to engage in scientific exploration (which itself is unequipped to explore the concept of intelligent design).

@OP, I chuckled a bit at your enthusiasm, buying five of each to "compare the two." 

Is there any reason you didn't just get two SP20 Nano Farms?

Responding sequentially:

1) First of all, when the price of btc falls, the fiat cost of miners also decreases.  Second, speculation exists to varied degree.  How much you believe in your speculation significantly determines your investment strategy and how much risk you are willing to take.  Buying a miner can be a way to carry less risk under not so uncommon conditions.

2) The cost of BTC in and of itself has absolutely no bearing on ROI. By this I mean that you can theoretically profit at any price level above $0.

3) Simple math for ROI, dude.  Fiat in <= fiat out

4) Uh, no, you're wrong. If you pay $500 for a miner and mine 1 BTC and sell the btc for $920, then your profit is $420 (excluding other expenditures).  If you buy with fiat, then profits are tracked in fiat.  If you buy with BTC, then profits are tracked in BTC.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you are making an advisement based upon the assumption that the price will *certainly* be higher in the future.  But what if the market goes down?  If you buy BTC and the price goes down, you *always* take a loss.  But with a miner it is possible to get >100% in a down market.  Also consider that you still have the value of your hardware.

5)  Sure, you could buy more than 2 BTC at these prices,  but if the price falls then you have 2 less valuable BTC.  And, if the price goes down, difficulty can go down and you mine more BTC.

6) I've owned numerous rigs and ASICs that have achieved 100% ROI *solely* due to the fact that I either paid with fiat directly, or paid wth BTC but immediately repurchased the amount I spent.  In a few cases, the difference was >300%.

Bad logic.  There are many reasons why buying a miner could be better than buying BTC.  If people really believe that BTC will definitively increase in value, then the best option would seem to be selling everything you own for BTC that isn't essential to your immediate survival.

Obviously, that would be an unbelievably risky move, so basically anyone will factor in at least *some* level of risk.  For those who don't mind risk, buying BTC outright may be preferable.  However, if you hate risk, buying a miner can be a much safer option, especially in a bear market.  The trade off for that extra security is decreased profit potential over the long haul.

Bingo!  If history repeats, it's a great time to buy a miner with fiat.

The other benefit to buying a miner with fiat is that it is the *only* way to stand a chance at getting >100% ROI in a downtrend, even if it happens to require a very specific set of conditions (and it does).

It's not as simple as that.  You should know this by your own experience, i.e. I'm guessing you aren't buying all the alt-coins that have fallen off a cliff. 

The factor you are missing is demand.  Demand increases when perceived utility (not necessarily the same as price value) increases.  For example, you aren't rushing to buy all the alts because they yield little utility if you are the only one using them.

Well, they've received well over >$200 Million through crowd-funding.  I'm pretty sure everyone threw that money into an illegal operation.  Especially the NYSE.

I think you'll find that those who have paid for miners with fiat have had much more success getting >100% ROI.  I always buy with fiat, and in several cases now it's made the difference between <100% ROI and >300% ROI.

It really just depends how viable it turns out to be long-term.  If BTC is "good enough" for most people, then it's really not lunacy at all.  If hedge funds sink their teeth into the pie at some point, a >trillion-dollar market-cap is hardly unrealistic.  Then again, I've been around since 2011, so I've seen that type of growth (surely BTC's current position would have been considered "lunacy" back then, and it was).

At this point, his proof doesn't matter.  He's just going around giving people negative feedback and falsely accusing others of being scammers for either no good reason or no reason at all.

Well, V. Kodoff decided to leave me some feedback:


I love how you linked reference to this thread 

I'm on default trust at depth=2, so...ouch?