Bitcoin Forum
July 05, 2024, 08:12:10 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 230 »
801  Economy / Speculation / Re: bitcoin cultists should give up trying to free humanity from evil bankers on: December 19, 2014, 06:27:52 PM
Why would you ever look to personal trading success as an indicator of market performance?  It's irrelevant.
802  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Is the answer to life, the universe and everything 37? on: December 19, 2014, 03:54:48 PM
I didn't know that "life," "the Universe," and "everything" constitute questions.

If anything, I think one (1) would be closer to the answer since one (1) is analogous to a principle of identity.  Life, the Universe, and everything multiplied by one remain uniquely themselves, and yet identity is something fundamental which they all share.  One unites us, and thereby allows for relational differences.

Number philosophy is fun Smiley

The 37 and the questions were a reference to 42 and the great question from the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. But why do you think humans do not fit into the current evolutionary model?

Because many of our traits and characteristics precluded the evolutionary need for those traits and characteristics, and that's aside from the fact that there is no current definition of "species" that is Universally applicable to, and consistent with, all humans.
803  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Review] Spondoolies SP20 review - A Green miner with a Loud fan on: December 19, 2014, 12:11:46 AM
Everyone that done review have hashrate dip to 0 in 1day hashspeed chart. In your case was the same? This units resets itself in 1 day periods?

I can't speak for others, but the stats I posted in my review were accumulated while leasing my rig out because of the Paycoin frenzy.  Any significant drop in hashrate was likely the result of renters switching pools or accidentally entering invalid pool mining credentials. 
804  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Is the answer to life, the universe and everything 37? on: December 18, 2014, 11:32:02 PM
I didn't know that "life," "the Universe," and "everything" constitute questions.

If anything, I think one (1) would be closer to the answer since one (1) is analogous to a principle of identity.  Life, the Universe, and everything multiplied by one remain uniquely themselves, and yet identity is something fundamental which they all share.  One unites us, and thereby allows for relational differences.

Number philosophy is fun Smiley
805  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin as an investment on: December 18, 2014, 11:24:14 PM
The low Russian ruble and no cash flow into Bitcoin points to a very real loss of confidence in those who have defacto control and the idea itself. 

That photo of Karpeles giving the world the finger while wearing a very expensive suit comes to mine.

Do you actually expect a strong correlation between the prices of the ruble and BTC?

One word answer: Cyprus.

So?  What does that have to do with anything?  Do you think BTC was the best possible option for Cypriots while accounts were being confiscated?  Almost *any*thing else would have been better.

One of the early big spikes in Bitcoin value was when Russian money in Cyprus banks had been threatened.  I can't envision the Russian money completely trusting the Cyrpus banking system ever since but even after almost seeing reverse interest rates on savings (didn't the Swiss just do that?) they perhaps trust it more than Bitcoin.  (Hope Karpeles was looking in a mirror when he gave that finger.)


I find it hard to believe that the "spikes" were the result of BTC being purchased on behalf of those whose money was directly threatened.  That occurred during a time when news events directly catalyzed market movements.  A couple years ago, you could day trade successfully just from reading headlines.
806  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin as an investment on: December 18, 2014, 10:14:51 PM
The low Russian ruble and no cash flow into Bitcoin points to a very real loss of confidence in those who have defacto control and the idea itself. 

That photo of Karpeles giving the world the finger while wearing a very expensive suit comes to mine.

Do you actually expect a strong correlation between the prices of the ruble and BTC?

One word answer: Cyprus.

So?  What does that have to do with anything?  Do you think BTC was the best possible option for Cypriots while accounts were being confiscated?  Almost *any*thing else would have been better.
807  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Is the answer to life, the universe and everything 37? on: December 18, 2014, 10:02:29 PM
Still pretty funny though and interesting, it would explain a lot, I think an asteroid crashing us into this planet is a more likely scenario though.

Yeah...I wouldn't count on that.  Humans do not in any way fit nicely into the current evolutionary model.
808  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin as an investment on: December 18, 2014, 09:43:39 PM
The low Russian ruble and no cash flow into Bitcoin points to a very real loss of confidence in those who have defacto control and the idea itself. 

That photo of Karpeles giving the world the finger while wearing a very expensive suit comes to mine.

Do you actually expect a strong correlation between the prices of the ruble and BTC?

If you live in a country whose currency's value is in decline, do you think the smart thing to do is to...invest?  Investing is something you do when you have all your immediate needs met and you have the money to invest.

Moving from the ruble to Bitcoin is like jumping off a sinking ship onto an active volcano.  Why on Earth would somebody do such a thing when BTC is so volatile?  High volatility is expected in such a small market whose reach extends to a global scale.  It's perfectly reasonable to establish confidence in BTC's future while simultaneously making the decision that it's currently a risky investment.
809  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin as an investment on: December 18, 2014, 09:32:01 PM
Bitcoin is independent of any of the fiat economies.


Oh, really?

Yet Bitcoin's value is measured in USD ... And merchants "accepting" bitcoin, actually doesn't accept Bitcoin at all, but USD through Bitpay and Coinbase ... Doesn't sound very independent to me.

If all the fiat economies of the world were to come crumbling down at the same time, would poor peasants in Africa and Asia all suddenly come flocking to Bitcoin? Or would they perhaps focus on getting food in their stomachs instead?

The Bitcoin hype started dying as soon as Gox went out of business and took Markus and Willy with it. Every BTC bubble was fueled by Gox manipulation schemes. Now the world is seeing bitcoin for what it really is: A couple of thousand deluded cultist hoarders, and another couple of thousand junkies and pervs looking for drugs and child porn on the deep web.



So why, then, are venture capitalists pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into infrastructure and business development?
810  Economy / Services / Re: Silver Wallets Signature Campaign on: December 18, 2014, 01:55:07 PM
I received my gold-plated wallet.

Excellent design.  It's fun to stare at Smiley

811  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Review] Spondoolies SP20 Legendary Review on: December 18, 2014, 05:23:01 AM
Woo, some of asics is over temp  Smiley

yeah he needs to drop his max volt number down from 0.79 to 0.74

then check his temps in 2 hours.

He has the correct psu to run fast. 


@op

thanks for the review.

You're welcome, and thanks for the tip on the max volt number.  I plan on tinkering with the settings once the Paycoin proof-of-work phase is done.   I'd rather not screw with my miners while others are renting them Smiley
812  Bitcoin / Hardware / [Review] Spondoolies SP20 Legendary Review on: December 18, 2014, 01:42:58 AM
First, I would like to extend a *huge* thank you to Spondoolies for this opportunity, and I feel especially fortunate because there are so many great legendary members who not only have vastly more experience with mining hardware than I do, but who are also capable of writing a great review.

Preface: I've always been keen on computers and tend to pick things up quickly, but I'm not a software developer, I'm not a hacker, and prior to my foray into Bitcoin I had never built or deconstructed a computer of any kind.  Accordingly, this review may be useful for those who are intimidated to explore mining due a lack of technical know-how, or for newbies facing Bitcoin's sharp learning curve.

Shipping, Preparation, and Delivery:

On December 11, after providing Spondoolies with my shipping details, I received an email containing both an invoice generated by Spondoolies for the product and a copy of the FedEx shipping label.  The invoice is nicely transparent and provides the company's contact information.

To prepare for receipt of the miner, I purchased a 1300W PSU.  Specifically, it was this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00COIZTZM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
.  I'd recommend a high-quality PSU rated at 1300W unless you plan on some significant underclocking.

The miner arrived on December 15.  The following pictures illustrate just how awesome this packaging was.  The box was taped *very* securely, and the cardboard inserts help keep the device nice and snug during shipment.  I picked up the package and tried shaking it lightly, but its contents didn't jiggle whatsoever.  The cardboard inserts also support the miner from the top and bottom in addition to the sides.  






The Miner:  The miner itself feels sturdy enough.  You can find all the dimensions and specs for the SP20 here:  http://www.spondoolies-tech.com/products/holiday-special-sp20-jackson-shipping-from-stock

I placed the miner on a hard, plastic surface adjacent to some sliding glass windows.  It's cold where I live, so convection through the windows helps keep temps down.  I also oriented the fan to push warm air back into my home.





Setup:  Ah, yes...setup.  In the past, I've run into a number of headaches when setting up various ASIC and other mining devices ranging from GPU rigs to the Antminer S1, though admittedly many of these headaches were the result of a lack of experience.

So, how does the SP20 stack up in terms of ease of setup?  I'm pleased to say it's not intimidating whatsoever.  In fact, once I had everything wired up, it took me about 3 minutes or so to get the thing hashing.

These are the all the steps I took during setup:
1)  Unpack the device and place it in a desired location, bearing in mind factors such as heat and noise.
2)  Grab a PSU with at least four 6-pin ATX connectors.  Run the connectors from the PSU to the four 6-pin female ports on the rear of the miner.
3)  Grab an Ethernet cable and run it from your Internet router to the miner.
4)  Use the "paperclip trick" to trigger the PSU to run continuously while disconnected from a motherboard.  If you've never done this, it's far more simple than it might sound.  This video provides a tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXgQSokF4
5)  Now that everything is wired up and powered, open your web browser and type in "myminer.io" to gain access to the miner's management console.  You will be prompted for a username and password whereupon you will enter "admin" for both.   After doing this, you will be logged into the management console.
6)  Click on "Settings" in the upper left corner of the management console.  Here you will be able to underclock or overclock your SP20 by tinkering with voltages. You will also be able to control the fan speed of your miner.  If you are unsure about how changing these variables will affect your miner, it is recommended to use conservative settings to ensure the safety of your hardware.  

Here, you also have the option to change your UI (user interface of the management console) password.  I strongly recommend this.

7)  Click on "Pools" in the upper left corner of the management console.  Here you will be able to point your miner to whatever pool account you wish.  If you do not have an account at a mining pool, you will need to create one.

Cool  That's it!  Once you've configured your pools, the miner will automatically restart itself and begin mining for you!

Performance:  Here are screencaps of the homepage of the management console, mining statistics, my miner settings, and a view of the ASIC stats page accessible via the management console:






Review:  I haven't had this thing long, but this machine rocks.  Although I certainly haven't personally tested every ASIC device out there, I've tested quite a few, and the SP20 is the best I've come across in terms of ease of setup.

The device has been mining for more than 36 solid hours now without any hiccups whatsover.  I don't have the proper equipment to accurately measure power draw or noise levels, but using the settings I depicted above I have been getting a steady 1.58-1.60 TH/s without any indication that my PSU is being taxed at its limits.

I'll be honest, this thing is loud (i.e. running at 80% max fan speed), and unless you happen to be a fan of such background noise (I am, and its fan purrs me to sleep) this isn't a miner that you're going to want to keep in your bedroom.  Additionally, *any* miner is going to give off heat according to its power draw, and it just so happens the extra heat generated by the SP20 has allowed me to completely shut off my heat, even during colder nights.  But don't worry, the fan on this miner is a beast and a half and pushes out nearly 200 cfm.

In summary, I couldn't be happier with this miner.  If you're in the market for a sturdy, easy-to-use, cost-efficient miner, the SP20 must be considered as one of the strongest choices.

Pros:  Speedy and professional delivery; stellar packaging; sturdy construction; easy to configure and use; cost-efficient; overclocking and underclocking readily available.

Cons:  Loud; some aspects of the management console user interface are not intuitive for the tech-illiterate.
813  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin as an investment on: December 15, 2014, 10:14:05 PM
Bitcoin was never meant as a investment and it is risky to do so.

The early hype was that since the number of Bitcoins that can exist won't change it will have better long term value than fiat.  This was after some years of savings accounts earning pennies per thousand dollars per year.  So, I'd say it was presented as an investment.

Did you read the Satoshi white paper?

That is how BTC was presented.
I didn't get that from the white paper? It does not mention investing or speculating on bitcoin. I'm certainly not saying you can't and many, many people have encouraged others to speculate. But I don't see where Satoshi has?

Actually, I meant the opposite.  I meant that the white paper is how BTC was "presented," and it was presented as a framework for a decentralized monetary system, and not as an investment.
814  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin as an investment on: December 15, 2014, 09:32:02 PM
Bitcoin was never meant as a investment and it is risky to do so.

The early hype was that since the number of Bitcoins that can exist won't change it will have better long term value than fiat.  This was after some years of savings accounts earning pennies per thousand dollars per year.  So, I'd say it was presented as an investment.

Did you read the Satoshi white paper?

That is how BTC was presented.
815  Economy / Speculation / Re: Let's face it...most of you bears are just bitter over losing money.. on: December 15, 2014, 09:26:53 PM
In conclusion: Don't leverage, just hold.

Only on Bitcointalk is it possible to find a thread where someone pronounces that those who have been negative about the prospects for the price of an investment would have been better off buying and holding, as we come to the end of a year where prices have fallen steadily by 70%!!!!

And what's even more nuts, is that most people who read my statement above will think I'm an idiot, and just don't get it!


Dude, WTF is wrong with you? Roll Eyes Shocked Don't you know that they aren't losses if you hodl and don't sell. I'm never selling my coins... ever. I'll just jack off to their infinite value every now and then. I mean, f--- the market... they just don't get it... they don't realize how cool these things are. They are each worth a million dollars. I'm the richest man in the world with all of these million dollar coins. This isn't money, man... this is wealth. Bullish as fuck, bro.

Bahahahahaha

I can't tell whether this is full of sarcasm or not.  In case it's not, then okay.

In case it is, then realize that you were responding to a sensible statement.  It's a terrible thing to try to convince yourself that you aren't losing anything by holding, even when your *purchasing power* is dwindling. 
816  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: December 13, 2014, 07:42:45 AM
Atheism is a religion. It is a religion of hate for God.
Atheists don't hate god. They simply just don't believe he exists.
I don't believe in Santa Claus, by your logic I also hate him.

Wrong. Rather, there aren't any true atheists. Why? Because everybody knows in his heart that God exists. Why? Because the Spirit of God is in the heart of everybody, holding every person alive. All know Him instinctively - "no atheists in the foxholes." Extreme joy, or extreme fear or pain in the life of anyone, shows him/her that he/she believes in God.

Those who claim that God doesn't exist are liars. Because of this, essentially there aren't any atheists. Those liars who adamantly claim they are atheists, do so because they think that their claims will make Him go away. They hate Him.

Smiley

I don't believe anyone can be 100% atheist, as there will always be that little bit of doubt however small.

But....

I also don't believe anyone can be 100% religious, as there will always be that little bit of doubt however small.

What does "100% religious" mean? If you mean like I said, that atheists are liars, this is a statement that they are not 100% believers in their religion.

As in 100% belief in whatever god they believe in exists. There will always be that little bit of doubt that their god might not exist.
Just because you don't want to hear what the atheists have to say, doesn't mean they are lying. Their views are just as valid as yours. This is a rather childish if you ask me.

Why do you think I don't want to hear atheists, at least somewhat? I read what they have to say, here. Others just hit "Ignore."

Everyone, as a person, is just as valid as any other person. This means that they have a right to hold their views as being valid. It does not mean that the views themselves are valid.


Quote
Interesting isn't it when your highly suspect lies spaw out such as "believe in god or you'll burn", you gloss over those little gems. Interesting.

Yes, my beliefs. You have the right to consider them to be lies.


Quote
It works both ways you see.

Your comments suggest to me, that the possibility of god not existing is terrifying to you. Why is that? The only hate I am picking up on is your hate of those that have a different opinion to yourself.

A blind man is walking along on a bridge, tapping away with his cane. Suddenly his cane taps on emptiness. He doesn't realize that he took a wrong turn somewhere in his crossing of the bridge, and he is now standing at the edge of the chasm below. No fear, because he doesn't realize.

A man that can see, standing at the same spot, might be wetting his pants out of fear.

That isn't hate. It is the fear of a seeing harm come to a blind person, actuated by empathy. If the blind man doesn't heed the lack of tap from his cane, or doesn't heed the warning call of the seeing person...

Well, you get the picture.

However, in addition to the above allegory, when people sincerely move in the direction of believing in God, God appreciates that. He is a merciful God. He definitely would turn from His anger about people denying Him, to giving them special blessings for turning to Him. Blessings that come to the nation, come also to me a little.

Selfish, ain't I?

Smiley

LOL, can't help but chuckle when believers claim to be "saving" non-believers. Let me tell you the real reason people come knocking on your front door to "save" the occupier from their sins.

Yes, this is something that believers can't do. Only God can save anybody. Why? Because no believer can keep even himself from dying. Only God who created life in the first place has the power to raise people from the dead.


Quote
Think of a drug addict going to a few parties one night.
At the first party, out of the 10 people attending he's the only one doing drugs. He feels awkward as everyone else is enjoying their drug free night. He feel isolated, doesn't fit in with the crowd. Starts questioning if he should be doing the drugs or not. Quickley leaves.
At the next party everyone is on drugs. Much better. Feels confident now everyone is "on his side". Doing drugs was the right choice because everyone else is doing it right!

Same thing with religion. The more people they can "get on their side" the better. Proves they are right, because everyone else is believing. Better in a crowd. Safety in numbers. More the merrier. I know, let's go out and get more members to make us stronger.

It is true that "birds of a feather flock together" and "there is strength in numbers." It is also true that most people of any religion don't have logical reasons for the basic points in their religions, like why they believe in God, or why they don't believe in God.


Quote
Let's make one thing quite clear ladies and gentlemen. They are certainly not trying to save anybody apart from themselves.

The point isn't saving anyone. With regard to life, nobody can save anybody else except temporarily - doctors and hospitals do this temporary saving quite often. The people they save still get old and die sometime.

The thing that is being done is, ideas are being scattered out among the unsaved so that they might consider their options for being saved.


Quote
Selfish, ain't I?
Yes. See above.


Your comments suggest to me, that the possibility of god not existing is terrifying to you. Why is that?
You didn't answer this question.


I don't know why my comments suggest such things to you. I am working on finding out. I am guessing that you have fewer answers than I do. And until your answers satisfy you and make you comfortable, you are trying to push off my answers which make you uncomfortable... even scare you. I didn't answer because I didn't want to push you into examining your inner fear too closely, for fear of frightening you. Now that you are pressing the question, I have answered.

Smiley

I think Buffer Overflow is referring to this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secondary+gain

In a more general sense of the term, almost everyone seeks some type of secondary gain from even what they consider to be virtuous actions.  For example, I post as I do in this thread because, through now almost 13 years of deep exploration into the topic and having affiliated with at least 6 different spiritual beliefs throughout my life, I genuinely believe that others can benefit from what I've learned and that what I'm saying is generally correct (though admittedly not as precise as I would like, which in itself suggests something).

But my secondary gain is that I'm a narcissist and I like talking about things I feel (key word) confident about so I can assert a dominant perspective.

I think it's okay to acknowledge these things about ourselves.  Maybe it's these 'deficiencies' that give us the necessary motivation to continue, and most importantly to learn from the results.  
817  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: December 12, 2014, 04:23:25 PM
We first have to start with the claim as a hypothetical.  This is permitted because we needn't argue for the claim itself, at least in a direct sense.

The claim, unsupported by any evidence, serves as a point of reference.  Having made the claim, we then need to create a theory that explains the entirety of reality at the height of generality, i.e. a theory whose explanatory power cannot logically be surpassed.  By definition, such a theory would provide insight into the most fundamental characteristics of reality. 

After first demonstrating that such a theory is sound, we look at those fundamental characteristics and hold them up to our initial claim.  If the results of the theory imply the claim, then we can conclude God exists, and at a 100% level of certainty (practically, it's irrelevant if people modify their original claim; identifying and knowing the absolute limit of rational explanation is the important part).

First of all, all you'll have as a result is a hypothesis, not a theory. And that's no more valid than an opinion, albeit based on logical set of words. And second, that theory does not automatically prove god exists, particularly because you would have to define what god is in the first place. So far no one has been able to.

1) How do you figure that "all that results is a hypothesis?"  You don't actually mean this, do you?  To reference a common example, would you consider the derivation of the quadratic formula or any other purely abstract proof a mere "hypothesis"?

2) Scientific hypotheses and theories are not the only kind that matter.  Theories needn't be scientific or empirical to be strong or true,  and needn't be scientific or empirical at all.  Theories are just descriptions of something, and that description can be good, bad, specific, general, etc.  There is absolutely nothing sound about concluding that evidence is required for sound theory making, or that empiricism must lead to the strongest kinds of theories.  In many cases, the opposite is true because empirical theories can never be asserted at a 100% level of confidence, while other types of theories can.

3) Consider that, for example, something like the derivation of the quadratic formula is a purely abstract proof that requires exactly zero physical evidence but yields direct application to physical reality.  Conversely, also consider that empirical methods of analysis maintain certain unfounded assumptions such as the idea that we live in a Positivistic Universe, an idea for which there is no evidence and which can actually be demonstrably proven to be false.

4) You misunderstood my post as evidenced when you say "...you would have to define what god is in the first place."  I already conceded that you can't just ascribe some arbitrary definition for God and start from there.  What I meant is that, practically, if we create a sound theory of reality whose explanatory power is at the height of generality, that theory will either directly reflect whatever preconceived notions we may have had about God, or it won't (or we won't be sure).  For example, if the theory directly implicates consciousness or mind is a common substrate of reality, then, practically speaking, we could say the theory directly implies God.  I say this is 'practical' because the 'practical' difference between a theistic and an atheistic view of the Universe is whether its origins are physical or mental.  Would you have any issue agreeing that God exists if it was proven that reality is a mental construct?

So, again, the idea is not to start with some preconceived notion of God and then attempt to prove that it exists.  Instead, just think of it as an optional consideration...for fun.
818  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: December 11, 2014, 05:19:25 AM
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that god is not real...

There. I just made a counter argument just as valid as all of yours.

In simple form, your argument is valid.

In complex form, questioning where the complex things of the universe came from, the clearest answer is God, even though we don't have absolute proof for Him, and may never have it.

No, that's the simplest answer. But it is no more valid or true than answering that the universe came from a unicorn's butt. The reason is that there is absolutely no way to test and verify your claim, since as you said, there isnt even any conclusive proof that he even exists, and thus your "god did it" is nothing but your own personal opinion. And as everyone keeps telling you, until you actually provide proof, one that we can test and verify ourselves, all you're arguing about is your own unsubstantiated opinion.

You are correct there is no way to 'test' for God...in an empirical sense; there is no possible way that any amount of evidence could constitute proof of God.  But you are incorrect that there is no way to verify the claim.

We first have to start with the claim as a hypothetical.  This is permitted because we needn't argue for the claim itself, at least in a direct sense.

The claim, unsupported by any evidence, serves as a point of reference.  Having made the claim, we then need to create a theory that explains the entirety of reality at the height of generality, i.e. a theory whose explanatory power cannot logically be surpassed.  By definition, such a theory would provide insight into the most fundamental characteristics of reality. 

After first demonstrating that such a theory is sound, we look at those fundamental characteristics and hold them up to our initial claim.  If the results of the theory imply the claim, then we can conclude God exists, and at a 100% level of certainty (practically, it's irrelevant if people modify their original claim; identifying and knowing the absolute limit of rational explanation is the important part).
819  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: December 10, 2014, 11:13:47 PM

If you can't conclude that
Quote
God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method,
then you can't conclude that
Quote
He can be revealed in part by that method.

In other words, if you can't understand God in His entirety, then it's impossible to conclude that any "part" of God you might be witnessing is actually God.

Consequently, there is no amount of empirical evidence that can lead to a conclusion that God exists.

Why? (Of course, we are speaking of God, which makes things different than any example.) A crude example might be a car. We see the car, yet we see it only from one side at a time. A mechanic may know every last thing there is to know about an engine and transmission - even the metallurgy - yet he may know little or nothing about the fabrics that make up the upholstery, or the glass that makes up the windows.

Smiley

Because it's a limitation of inductive reasoning.

Your car analogy doesn't work.  The reason the car analogy doesn't work is because a car can fit within the entirety of our scope of observation, whereas a monotheistic god cannot.

We know what a car is.  A car is a product of human invention and imagination, and so we know what the definition of a car is.  Accordingly, any time we actually see a car (i.e. we observed/evidenced it), then we can relate that observation back to the definition of a car.  Because the observation matches our known definition of what a car is, we can conclude that we are observing a car.

This doesn't work with God.  If God exists, he cannot be the product of human invention and imagination.  Accordingly, unlike the car, we are unable to start with any presumptions about what God may be.  So, it doesn't matter what evidence you find because you'll never be able to relate your observations back to a known definition of God so as to be able to conclude that the evidence is actually a part of God.

Edit:  Do you realize that, in using your car analogy, you were attempting to use a method of inductive reasoning similar to what's practiced via the scientific method?  Science forms hypotheses (i.e presumptions) which are then tested by evidence.  If the evidence supports the presumption, then the hypothesis holds.  For example, evidence is held against the hypothesis/theory of evolution to test whether the available evidence supports it.  You are trying to do the same thing by making a God "hypothesis", so-to-speak, and then holding up evidence against that hypothesis to see if your hypothesis holds.  However, in the same way that evidence cannot lead to a conclusion that evolution is correct at a 100% level of confidence, evidence cannot lead to a conclusion that God exists at a 100% level of confidence.

Edit 2:  I think it's imperative you understand this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Quote
The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:

Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) or
Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature.[2]
The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method and for that reason the philosopher C. D. Broad said that "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." Although the problem arguably dates back to the Pyrrhonism of ancient philosophy, as well as the Carvaka school of Indian philosophy, David Hume introduced it in the mid-18th century, with the most notable response provided by Karl Popper two centuries later.

I totally am NOT against science or scientists. What I am against is scientists using some scientific evidence or proof to extrapolate all kinds of things that can easily be extrapolated in multitudes of ways and directions using the same or other scientific evidence or proof. And what gets me is when they try to tell us that they have found the whole thing when they have merely extrapolated in a single direction of many. (Sorry if I didn't say that very well. Please try to get the idea of what I am talking about, anyway.)

It seems evident that we exist, even though we don't really have enough scientific evidence or proof - by a long shot - to make a determination that we do. Same with God, especially that the evidence that we do have, would have been planted here by Him if He DOES exists. We have nothing that I have seen, in ideas or philosophy or science (could easily have missed it, however) that suggests where we and the universe might have come from, that has nearly the strength of the God idea.

Stand everything that all of us have talked about in this thread side by side, and see which of them makes the most sense. To me, it is the God idea. And I am not talking Christianity here. I am simply talking God in one of the more vague dictionary definitions of the word.

Smiley

I would agree with you that I, too, dislike when scientists or anyone else assert a conclusion with absolute certainty based upon empirical data.  Although, I think it's important to make a distinction between contexts in which the word 'prove' is acceptable in science vs. contexts in which it is not acceptable.  For example, while it is not acceptable to say that a scientific conclusion is proven beyond all doubt, it is acceptable to say that it is proven based upon the data that's available, and within a certain level of confidence (e.g. "The data supports the hypothesis, p < .05," indicating a 95% confidence level).  P < .05 is probably the most common standard used, although you'll see some studies which test hypotheses at other confidence levels (e.g p < .01, or a 99% confidence level).  The scientific method does not permit conclusions at a 100% confidence level.

Yes, it is self-evident that we exist, and you are correct that there is no conclusive, empirical evidence to support this.  Fortunately, we don't need any.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is the "same with God," as I wouldn't say that God is self-evident.  However, I would say that basically all of the ideas necessary to form a conclusion that God exists stem from that which is self-evident.

I would also agree that God seems the logical conclusion.

As a whole, this last post of yours seems much more reasonable than previous ones.

820  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: December 10, 2014, 09:09:30 PM

If you can't conclude that
Quote
God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method,
then you can't conclude that
Quote
He can be revealed in part by that method.

In other words, if you can't understand God in His entirety, then it's impossible to conclude that any "part" of God you might be witnessing is actually God.

Consequently, there is no amount of empirical evidence that can lead to a conclusion that God exists.

Why? (Of course, we are speaking of God, which makes things different than any example.) A crude example might be a car. We see the car, yet we see it only from one side at a time. A mechanic may know every last thing there is to know about an engine and transmission - even the metallurgy - yet he may know little or nothing about the fabrics that make up the upholstery, or the glass that makes up the windows.

Smiley

Because it's a limitation of inductive reasoning.

Your car analogy doesn't work.  The reason the car analogy doesn't work is because a car can fit within the entirety of our scope of observation, whereas a monotheistic god cannot.

We know what a car is.  A car is a product of human invention and imagination, and so we know what the definition of a car is.  Accordingly, any time we actually see a car (i.e. we observed/evidenced it), then we can relate that observation back to the definition of a car.  Because the observation matches our known definition of what a car is, we can conclude that we are observing a car.

This doesn't work with God.  If God exists, he cannot be the product of human invention and imagination.  Accordingly, unlike the car, we are unable to start with any presumptions about what God may be.  So, it doesn't matter what evidence you find because you'll never be able to relate your observations back to a known definition of God so as to be able to conclude that the evidence is actually a part of God.

Edit:  Do you realize that, in using your car analogy, you were attempting to use a method of inductive reasoning similar to what's practiced via the scientific method?  Science forms hypotheses (i.e presumptions) which are then tested by evidence.  If the evidence supports the presumption, then the hypothesis holds.  For example, evidence is held against the hypothesis/theory of evolution to test whether the available evidence supports it.  You are trying to do the same thing by making a God "hypothesis", so-to-speak, and then holding up evidence against that hypothesis to see if your hypothesis holds.  However, in the same way that evidence cannot lead to a conclusion that evolution is correct at a 100% level of confidence, evidence cannot lead to a conclusion that God exists at a 100% level of confidence.

Edit 2:  I think it's imperative you understand this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Quote
The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:

Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) or
Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature.[2]
The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method and for that reason the philosopher C. D. Broad said that "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." Although the problem arguably dates back to the Pyrrhonism of ancient philosophy, as well as the Carvaka school of Indian philosophy, David Hume introduced it in the mid-18th century, with the most notable response provided by Karl Popper two centuries later.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 230 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!