Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build? Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.  You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning? Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so. The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method. You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker). But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable. There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion. So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning. This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument. In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion. The fact that you have a sort of fancy way of saying that you don't believe the evidence makes me feel a bit better. You see, if someone came up to me and literally proved that the God I have been believing in for years was a complete and total lie, I would feel bad. And I sympathize with all those poor folks who are seeing how they can prove it to themselves that probably, almost for a fact, God exists, when, here for these last many years, they have trained themselves to feel comfortable in life by ignoring God. It pains me that they have pain, same kind of pain I would have if my God were proven false. So, you are making me feel better by providing them a way so that their pain is relieved some... if they read your post, that is. Thank you for posting. It's not that I "don't believe the evidence," but rather it's that there cannot possibly be evidence that proves the existence of God. It is a true statement to say there is no evidence that proves God, but again, this doesn't matter because evidence was never the requirement. Neither the atheist nor the theist should argue against/for the existence of god by citing evidence because neither. Evidence simply means "that which is apparent," and the scientific method is a sound way to make sense of that sense of that evidence. You can't deny that the scientific method is a good method, but what you need to understand is that the scientific method simply has limitations, and it's only concerned about things that are observable. This isn't bad at all, and in fact in this regard the scientific method is a perfect method. There is absolutely nothing about it that can be improved. It's scope simply isn't intended to explore something as comprehensive as God, and so it can't, nor does it try. My advice is to appreciate science for what it is and all the amazing technologies it brings us, as well as a better understanding of specific events and processes as they unfold in the Universe. Religion contributes nothing in the way of technological development and an understanding of specific physical, chemical, and biological processes whereas science is perfectly suited for the task. |
|
|
|
This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof. The joint, although I agree with what you say, I must take exception to your generalization. Actually, I have asserted the position that God transcends evidence based on pure reason. These quotes are not exact but are close enough: There is a mode of being as much transcending Intelligence and Will, as these transcend mechanical motion. Doubtless we are totally unable to imagine any such higher mode of being. But this is not a reason for questioning its existence; it is rather the reverse. The Ultimate Cause cannot in any respect be conceived because it is in every respect greater than can be conceived. And we may therefore rightly refrain from assigning to it any attributes whatever, on the ground that such attributes, derived as they must be from our own natures, are not elevations but degradations. Again quoting Spencer: "our minds are utterly unable to form even an approach to a conception of that which underlies all phenomena because of the incompetency of the Conditioned to grasp the Unconditioned". However, I then turned around and showed this thread evidence for one of the core messages of spirituality--reincarnation: aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
first case....... chessplaying ghosts
Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss. Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations? Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim. I showed that the survival hypothesis is the simplest explanation for these events; that is a separate conversation, but maybe it is important to have it in this thread because it could elucidate the nature of life and God. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9491770#msg9491770Fair enough This is a much more appropriate context for the topic of this debate. |
|
|
|
Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build? Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker. You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning? Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so. The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method. You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker). But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable. There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion. So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning. This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument. In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion. |
|
|
|
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living. You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours. As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built. Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god. Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son. Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else. But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that. I give up... You're obviously way too brainwashed for any logic to change your mind. If your god is all powerful he could just say 'we cool' and not torture anybody, but instead he makes it a high stakes game where you only win if you believe in something with no evidence, and if you do you can be a horrible person and still make it to heaven. There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any. Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience. Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience. This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof. Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God. Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists. That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter. Yes, but. Through the things written in this thread, some people are going to become stronger believers in God. Hopefully some others will be saved. That makes this thread of ultimate importance. You should probably be more concerned about the truthfulness of the information that leads a person to believe one way or another. If some people become stronger believers in God as a result of this thread, I can tell you that it wasn't because you provided them good reason to do so. Your arguments and reasoning are horrific. |
|
|
|
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living. You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours. As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built. Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god. Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son. Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else. But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that. I give up... You're obviously way too brainwashed for any logic to change your mind. If your god is all powerful he could just say 'we cool' and not torture anybody, but instead he makes it a high stakes game where you only win if you believe in something with no evidence, and if you do you can be a horrible person and still make it to heaven. There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any. Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience. Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience. This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof. Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God. Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists. That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar. Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine. It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy? FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me. So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god? And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit? The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God. They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose. The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God. So yes, it's a bad analogy. It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground. You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against. Ah, are you then referring to the existence of "god" vs. the existence of "God?" The former being a concept and the latter being a specific deity, such as the Christian or Muslim or what-have-you? I'm not sure it matters anyway, but if you're referring to the second, the analogy is a match. Not quite. You are correct that I'm differentiating between God and god, but the distinction I'm making isn't the same as you suggest. Specifically, I'm making the following points: 1) There is a difference between polytheistic and monotheistic gods. 2) There is a different standard of proof between polytheistic and monotheistic gods. Specifically, empirical proof is required for a polytheistic god, but not for a monotheistic one. Instead, conceptual proof based upon a priori knowledge is required for a monotheistic god; this is not required for a polytheistic god. 3) The FSM and the teapot constitute invalid counterarguments to the existence of a monotheistic god because they ask the opponent for information that is irrelevant and unnecessary to the existence of a monotheistic god, i.e. they ask for empirical evidence when empirical evidence is in no way required to prove a monotheistic god. 4) Any counterargument to the existence of a monotheistic god must instead attempt to demonstrate why a monotheistic god is a logical impossibility based upon a priori knowledge. I have never seen a sound argument of this type before. |
|
|
|
More seriously, here is the mining revenue over 6 months, it takes as a reference 10% difficulty increase at each round :  I will sell this contract for 45 BTC, you can clearly make a good ROI with it No, you're not looking at 10% each "round," you're looking at 10% each month. This makes an enormous difference as this would mean ~5% each difficulty adjustment. You should make this more clear. I've never once heard a month referred to as a "round" when talking about BTC difficulty. |
|
|
|
More seriously, here is the mining revenue over 6 months, it takes as a reference 10% difficulty increase at each round : I will sell this contract for 45 BTC, you can clearly make a good ROI with it No, you're not looking at 10% each "round," you're looking at 10% each month. This makes an enormous difference as this would mean ~5% each difficulty adjustment. |
|
|
|
The fact of the matter is there is absolutely 0 evidence for young-earth creationism right now.
That's NOT true. There might not be evidence that you accept, but those are two wildly different scenarios. The video link was a perfect example. You admitted you refuse even to look at it. Even the pope is supporting evolution.
Appeal to authority. Doesn't matter what the Pope thinks when it comes to science, or even Christianity for that matter. The protestant revolution in the 17th century freed us from his 'authority'. The papacy was declared to have the status of a God centuries before that. If that's not fallacious, then I declare myself a pope too.
If there was solid scientific evidence that disproved evolution scientists would be shouting it from the rooftops (and then try to use the new data to figure out what really happened, because that's how science works).
If 'solid scientific evidence' is all you need, I think human tracks beside dinosaur tracks would be an amazing proof against evolution. That's just one example of actual science in Patton's video. I am a very skeptical person. If science could form a solid case for evolution, I'd reconsider my position. But while evolution is founded on fallacious arguments (like circular reasoning, dating fossils from rock layers, and rock layers from fossils) I'm 100% unimpressed. Thanks for proving I was right not wasting an hour on him. The so called man footprints were debunked a long time ago. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.htmlScience has made a amazing case for evolution over and over and over. There is a reason only the occasional nutjob like him thinks he can disprove it. Thank you for the wonderful link to a wonderful website. Obviously you are a wonderful, sensitive human being. I empathize with you. I, also, do not like being pushed down a street where there only seems to be pain. The whole goal of God is love. He loves you sooooo much, that He sent Himself in the form of Jesus to die for you, so that you can rise with Him in the resurrection, to an eternal life of love, joy, piece, yes, and even glory. We are your friends, here. Nobody - especially not Jesus - wants to cause you pain and grief. Forget the churches and the Christians who have done you wrong. Sure, they hurt you for a moment, but many of them weren't trying to do that, and those that were trying, were doing it only because they were in some kind of pain and fear, just like you. It is soooo wonderful when you simply give yourself over to Jesus. You don't have to keep on straining to prove your own value and worth - not even to yourself. Jesus, Himself, values you so extremely much that He wants to give you the best life of all. When you join Him, does that mean that there will never be pain again? No. But it will all be gone in a moment, gone with the few, troubled years of this life... and when you have Jesus with you, He will never allow you to be pushed beyond what you can bear, at any time in this life. He will never place you into a position where you can't take the life He allows for you. Jesus is calling you, now. Come. Let Him into your heart where He can soothe all your troubles of mind and soul. He loves you. Let Him take you into His heart of love. Won't you please pick Him up?, join with Him?, let your troubles and anxieties be relieved? Many of us are hoping for you. This thread is about scientific evidence, not getting all preachy about how god loves me. I actually was brought up in a very religious home and learned firsthand all the damage that religion can do. I'm not going to throw the facts to the wind just so I can think my life has a life after this one and (re)join a cult Oh, coldgamer. I am so distressed for you. And not for you, only. but, also, for the many others who have been hurt like you have. Do you remember what Darth Vader said to Luke about the power of the Force? He said something like, "You don't know the power of the Dark Side." But what did he do? He found the last remaining vestiges of Light within himself. He remembered the love. His love for his son, Luke, overcame all the forces of the Emperor, and all the forces of the Dark Side, as well. Come, now, and return to the Light. In the Dark Side you will always be manipulated, just like Darth Vader was. Nobody in the Light will ever force you. The Light may call. It may invite. It may entice. It may even plead. But it will never force. Why remain with all those that the Dark side is dragging to their doom by capturing them in their time of weakness? They are caught up in a science that is failing them right and left. And it is only the propaganda of lies heaped upon lies that keeps them in some semblance of informal hope. God will never drag you. With Him you are always free. Come back to the Light. Revive your hurt soul and spirit. Go directly to the loving Father, Himself. Only you can do this for yourself. There is none other that can do it for you. Only you can come into the Light yourself. Come with us, along side us, and find the peace, joy, love, and even glory, and certainly friendship, that you are seeking. ...And you *still* do not understand the difference between science as a method and science as a body of knowledge. Remember, you use inductive reasoning (the kind that science uses) in every single post you make. The more you talk, the more you argue against your own position. Nobody wants to "come along" with someone gleefully intending to commit intellectual suicide. Remember the original Star Trek series? You can look up to find which episode it was where Kirk and some others were trapped by an alien life form. Spock was in command. Spock used every strategy he could logically think of to save his buddies and break free. When he couldn't find an answer, he broke down and became emotionally upset. The Enterprise and the crew were saved, however. And when they were all back aboard, they teased Spock about his breakdown from strict logic to emotion. Spock had a different idea. His supposed breakdown from logic to emotion was only logical. After all, he had tried every logical means to save everybody, and all the logic failed. The only other logical thing was to become emotional... which worked, by the way. ---------- Modern scientific investigation doesn't have a handle on things like soul, spirit, emotion, consciousness, etc. Science is making strides, but so far there is only objectively looking at, and manipulating them slightly. The point? Since science doesn't have it, we need to use whatever means we have. These other means might not appear to be science, but since strict science doesn't have it, in the whole realm of what we are attempting, any means that are NOT science, are really, scientific... at least until strict science comes up with some concrete and conclusive answers. It'd be nice if you actually responded directly to anything anyone says instead of your two-step process of: 1) Ignore, then 2) Keep talking. First, let me remind you that you're talking to someone who also believes in God. I'm not someone who you should feel compelled to convert, because I'm already on that side of the fence. But, while I'm over here along with you, I'm trying to tell you that your reasoning is just plain, fucking awful. Reason is something that you use every time you write a post. It isn't exclusive to science or scientists. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you don't still have free will and can take the wonderful gift of reason and butcher it beyond belief. That being said, you almost *never* respond to anything that anyone else actually writes. Time and time again, you make use of logical fallacies that aren't even clever in usage. Using logical fallacies in a deceiving way (i.e. using logical fallacies that seem like sound arguments, but aren't whatsoever) is a tactic used by good lawyers. To a lawyer, it doesn't matter if his argument is right or wrong, it just matters what others believe it is, because the goal is to convince others that he has the winning argument. But whereas lawyers know how to use logical fallacies in a way that slips them past someone's better judgment, your arguments are absolutely absurd. You're deferring to a sci-fi television series from the 70's as an argument to believe in the Bible. Are you out of your f***ing mind? If it weren't for the fact that I think, deep down, you know your arguments suck and so you resort to simply trying to appear to others as though you're winning these debates, I'd suggest you might actually be delusional. First Star Wars, now Star Trek. Really? Emotion is not a way to reason. You can reason about your emotions, sure. But, based on your logic, why not just shoot up with heroin and feel the resulting emotion and let that guide you? I'll tell you why you wouldn't, and it's because you also know that just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean that something is necessarily right or wrong, good or bad, etc. And, even if it did, there is nothing in your Star Trek analogy that says anything about being religious or believing in God. Whether or not God exists is independent of your argument. God can exist, and your arguments supporting its existence and why you should believe in God can still suck. Like yours. Your arguments suck. Again, coming from someone who also believes in God, your arguments suck. You get that? They suck. No, really. They suck. |
|
|
|
The fact of the matter is there is absolutely 0 evidence for young-earth creationism right now.
That's NOT true. There might not be evidence that you accept, but those are two wildly different scenarios. The video link was a perfect example. You admitted you refuse even to look at it. Even the pope is supporting evolution.
Appeal to authority. Doesn't matter what the Pope thinks when it comes to science, or even Christianity for that matter. The protestant revolution in the 17th century freed us from his 'authority'. The papacy was declared to have the status of a God centuries before that. If that's not fallacious, then I declare myself a pope too.
If there was solid scientific evidence that disproved evolution scientists would be shouting it from the rooftops (and then try to use the new data to figure out what really happened, because that's how science works).
If 'solid scientific evidence' is all you need, I think human tracks beside dinosaur tracks would be an amazing proof against evolution. That's just one example of actual science in Patton's video. I am a very skeptical person. If science could form a solid case for evolution, I'd reconsider my position. But while evolution is founded on fallacious arguments (like circular reasoning, dating fossils from rock layers, and rock layers from fossils) I'm 100% unimpressed. Thanks for proving I was right not wasting an hour on him. The so called man footprints were debunked a long time ago. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.htmlScience has made a amazing case for evolution over and over and over. There is a reason only the occasional nutjob like him thinks he can disprove it. Thank you for the wonderful link to a wonderful website. Obviously you are a wonderful, sensitive human being. I empathize with you. I, also, do not like being pushed down a street where there only seems to be pain. The whole goal of God is love. He loves you sooooo much, that He sent Himself in the form of Jesus to die for you, so that you can rise with Him in the resurrection, to an eternal life of love, joy, piece, yes, and even glory. We are your friends, here. Nobody - especially not Jesus - wants to cause you pain and grief. Forget the churches and the Christians who have done you wrong. Sure, they hurt you for a moment, but many of them weren't trying to do that, and those that were trying, were doing it only because they were in some kind of pain and fear, just like you. It is soooo wonderful when you simply give yourself over to Jesus. You don't have to keep on straining to prove your own value and worth - not even to yourself. Jesus, Himself, values you so extremely much that He wants to give you the best life of all. When you join Him, does that mean that there will never be pain again? No. But it will all be gone in a moment, gone with the few, troubled years of this life... and when you have Jesus with you, He will never allow you to be pushed beyond what you can bear, at any time in this life. He will never place you into a position where you can't take the life He allows for you. Jesus is calling you, now. Come. Let Him into your heart where He can soothe all your troubles of mind and soul. He loves you. Let Him take you into His heart of love. Won't you please pick Him up?, join with Him?, let your troubles and anxieties be relieved? Many of us are hoping for you. This thread is about scientific evidence, not getting all preachy about how god loves me. I actually was brought up in a very religious home and learned firsthand all the damage that religion can do. I'm not going to throw the facts to the wind just so I can think my life has a life after this one and (re)join a cult Oh, coldgamer. I am so distressed for you. And not for you, only. but, also, for the many others who have been hurt like you have. Do you remember what Darth Vader said to Luke about the power of the Force? He said something like, "You don't know the power of the Dark Side." But what did he do? He found the last remaining vestiges of Light within himself. He remembered the love. His love for his son, Luke, overcame all the forces of the Emperor, and all the forces of the Dark Side, as well. Come, now, and return to the Light. In the Dark Side you will always be manipulated, just like Darth Vader was. Nobody in the Light will ever force you. The Light may call. It may invite. It may entice. It may even plead. But it will never force. Why remain with all those that the Dark side is dragging to their doom by capturing them in their time of weakness? They are caught up in a science that is failing them right and left. And it is only the propaganda of lies heaped upon lies that keeps them in some semblance of informal hope. God will never drag you. With Him you are always free. Come back to the Light. Revive your hurt soul and spirit. Go directly to the loving Father, Himself. Only you can do this for yourself. There is none other that can do it for you. Only you can come into the Light yourself. Come with us, along side us, and find the peace, joy, love, and even glory, and certainly friendship, that you are seeking. ...And you *still* do not understand the difference between science as a method and science as a body of knowledge. Remember, you use inductive reasoning (the kind that science uses) in every single post you make. The more you talk, the more you argue against your own position. Nobody wants to "come along" with someone gleefully intending to commit intellectual suicide. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of the question in general. If you want BTC to remain globally accessible and available to all, you really have no choice but to accept the volatility until the market grows much, much larger and is able to absorb that volatility.
The good news is that we have witnessed decreasing volatility every year. This is exactly what we would expect to see.
|
|
|
|
Step 1: Invest a significant sum of money into this new get-rich-quick scheme called Bitcoin.
Step 2: Nag every single store/vendor to begin accepting BTC in hopes that the value will increase (aka "the pump") so you can get rich while sitting on your fat ass despite the fact that Bitcoin is clearly not ready to be adopted on a massive scale. Most vendors will even spend money setting up and integrating Bitcoin with only few getting sales in Bitcoin since it's small minority.
Step 3: Do all of the above alongside thousands of fellow dumbasses.
Step 4: Act like an instinctive dumbass without ever thinking independently and sell/buy alongside fellow sheep at the first rumours of the least meaningful "news" (aka theymos had a fart? SELL SELL SELL SELL).
Step 5: Create a toxic environment for real businessmen with the price dropping 10% within 24 hours. Most people that accept BTC now sell it instantly to USD via Bitpay.
Who wouldn't actually prefer 10$ BTC with a steady 5% yearly growth to stay right above inflation? Stop being greedy assholes. Poor people will never understand that the world is analogues to the Bitcoin protocol in the sense that you make a lot more money working with it than against it, the early adopters made so much money (which they rightfully deserve and their earnings are proportional to their overall contribution) because they were the ones taking all the risks, you contribute nothing and thus you deserve nothing, it takes absolutely no innovation to invest into BTC at this point, you will lose your house, your car and more than likely (being with a low financial intelligence to begin with) your last pennies, which yet again, will be proportional to what you deserve.
There are no "shortcuts" in life.
I'm sorry, but it's fairly clear you don't know much about the current state of the Bitcoin economy if this is how you view volatility. Bitcoin's market cap is *tiny* compared to other currencies. And yet, although tiny, it operates on a global scale. This simply means that it's subject to higher volatility. Volatility during 2014 is down from 2013, and 2013 was down from 2012, and 2012 was down from 2011. As more users enter the market, the market grows stronger and more resilient and it can absorb that volatility more easily. Basically, the more market share BTC gains, the less volatile it will become. Bitcoin has many chicken-and-egg problems, but it's been up against these same problems during previous years when the market was weaker, and it's always persevered. |
|
|
|
an interesting read
This thread is an example of when the negative feedback was warranted. The OP in this case was trying to buy trust, something that is untrustworthy Since you decided to necropost, how's this for untrustworthy?  |
|
|
|
Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds: For all x, if x is a microstate of existence and f(x) is a mezostate of existence then x is defined to be another name for f(x).
Let me mull this one over a bit. And thanks for the link. |
|
|
|
Do I didn't get all my trust for working my ass off for 3 years making sure everyone I trade with is satisfied? I never thought of it that way.
I don't know if this was in response to my post: Looks like default trust is turning into a good old boys network. It is, by definition, an old boys network. You cannot get in by your own actions. You cannot get kicked out by your own actions. It is purely the choice of the existing members. If so, then yes you got your feedback, and overall trust numbers by proving over time that you were a trustworthy person. Was that what got you into the default trust network? I have no idea. If anyone in DefaultTrust or DefaultTrust+1 trusts you, then you are in. If they don't, you aren't. You could be the most trustworthy person in the world, but have not come to the attention of the right people, and be excluded, or you could be a confirmed scammer, and still be included, as long as one of those people maintains his trust rating. Because of account reselling, they might not even be the same people who were originally trusted. Your extremely positive trust ratings are likely to be a good indication you are trustworthy. Simply being in the default trust network is an incredibly poor indication of that one way or the other. The default trust network is simply a bad thing. That doesn't reflect poorly on you. I don't think you can fairly say the default trust network is bad without saying the whole trust system is bad. In both cases, the trust system assumes that people will be honest/trustworthy in using it so that you can accurately rely on the feedback. My opinion is that there are always going to be people that abuse the trust system (just want to clarify I'm not speaking to this particular situation, but generally), and that the default trust network actually helps to mitigate this issue by indirectly ascribing more value to trustworthy accounts. If people have an incentive to be trustworthy, i.e. to possibly 'make it' onto the default trust list and have a more valuable account, then they are more likely to be trustworthy. |
|
|
|
. . . . . . limx→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0
S₁ = kBln 0 = kBln e−(−0) = kB(−(−0)) = −(−0)
S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂
S₂ = −0 = kBln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ kB = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e−0 = −0 = Ω
. . . I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist. How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing? We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0"). Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence. In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence. In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence." If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent. And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple. If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity? Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?" . . .
As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which state any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium? The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from the other. This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.
So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?
Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds: ∀x∀y[microstate(x, existence) ∧ mezostate(y, existence) ∧ x ∈ y ⇒ x ≔ y]
Yeah. I need to learn more about notation. Any way you could take that mathematical statement and phrase it in English? I should be able to reverse model it back to your notation. |
|
|
|
Nope nope and nope.
No God, sorry to break it to you.
As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which states any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium? The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from each other. This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities. So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents? |
|
|
|
More and more bitcoins will continue to be removed from circulation for years to come....... Value of these coins will start rising crazy soon!
Assuming demand and all else remains the same... Demand is low at the moment, and wouldn't this only lessen demand? I mean now these criminal users have nowhere to spend their bitcoins and no reason to get any more. So naturally demand will be DECREASING I personally do not believe I have enough information to make any assumptions about how this will affect demand. On one hand, if illicit activity catalyzes demand to a significant degree, it could hurt demand. On the other hand, if weary investors or business owners who have been skeptical to enter the market due to concerns over liability regarding anonymous, illicit activity catch word of this news, this may ease their concerns and encourage demand. It's hard to say in my opinion. |
|
|
|
More and more bitcoins will continue to be removed from circulation for years to come....... Value of these coins will start rising crazy soon!
Assuming demand and all else remains the same... |
|
|
|
Non-existance is conciousnous. (the thought that grew in the abyss)
I'm a current believer of the following: God:Universe :: Man:Thoughts |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
