Bitcoin Forum
June 02, 2015, 11:31:27 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.2 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  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 ... 212 »
281  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 04, 2015, 04:16:12 PM
Hmm.. What to say next?

I bought a present for my then 10 year old daughter, a crystal ball. She said, what's this for daddy? I said, "It is nothing more than a point of focus for that which you already know, but without it, you will never see as clear as you will if you learn to use it"

The next year, I bought her a pack of Tarot card's.. again she ask's, why these dad? I said, "Well, now that you know what the crystal ball is for, you should be able to see the same thing in the card's, but the cards can help focus more than the crystal ball" - "how's that dad?" - "The card's have intentional combinations of colour and curves designed to evoke your subconciousnous, allowing you to enter Samadhi, which is the actual purpose of freemasonry. Freemason's practice this all their life, attempting to create that which is nothing more than a state of trance. This state of trance is required in order to "move to the goal" - read the origional emerald tablet's, for this goal.. This is why it is a requirement of many secret societies, that the aspiring member must learn the emerald tablet of by heart, note, I say tablet, not tablet's.. do not be confused. There are however people born with the ability to instantly induce this state of mind, and this is, if anything, that which they wish to keep from the world. I can only leave it to you to realise why. Maybe your ball or cards will help, but I doubt it, you either can or cant do it, but in time, you will.."

So we're looking for Scientific proof of god are we? Let's attempt to cut to the chase, and assume that there is indeed two other worlds, excluding the one we stand on. We live in this one, would you call this fact? Do you have scientific proof that you have dreamt at ANY time in your life? NO.

Do you have any proof that there are remnant's of your what you'd call 'soul' after death? NO. You cant prove you have one while your alive. Can you prove that the soul is the spirit? NO. And herein is a key.

They say god is everything, he is our light, our life, and when he withdraws his breath from your body, you die. What? You die? By believing this (scientific) fact, you kill any chance you have of being reborn, if this is your desire. Again, herein is a key.

The emerald tablets of Thoth have a most perfect description of an entity that lives in ALL of us, Known as the "dweller" - the all seeing eye. Why do you think this has been used by freemasonry for over 64.000 years? Notice when I ask a question, no-one answer's, unless they are capable of doing so? They cant, or WONT, not because they are correct or incorrect, they WONT, because they know not to. What I mean by this, is this:

I found a pool of water that, when drank, gives you eternal life. But there is only so much of this gold, so to whom should I share my new found wealth with?

If we all knew we could CHOOSE to be reborn, or move on to higher forms of existance by shedding the body as a snake shed's it's skin.. would you? EVERYONE would.

So let's start at the beginning.. The oldest manuscript on earth is the emerald tablet's, not THE emerald tablet, which simply teaches micro/macrocosmus man. In earlier post's I mentioned that in earlier days of my life, i had dreams.. no, visions, of being inside a larger living entity, and most folks probably laughed. Try lookin up, and make me believe you are outside this universe? You cant, for I am right. Yet I was describing a vision of this micro/macrocosmus image. The emerald Tablets, the bible, both mention spirit.. or spirit's. From the 17th century, there was an explosion of books classed as 'magic' books, be that magic, good or evil, is not the point here, the fact is these books exist, and the potential reader is warned not to take these books lightly, for they do indeed give access to potent FORCES, that MAY be described as spirit's. I need go no further re: spirit's for now, but I will say this: People have been practicing these 'act's' for want of a better word, for at least 64.000 years, some civilisations call these spirit's god's, other's, demon's. But it is true, that they are also governed by higher scource's. They have to follow the laws as we do, only human law, as mentioned in the emerald tablet's, runs counter to those COSMIC laws. Quite simply, for now, it is nothing more than magic, the applicant KNOWS the cause and effect, of drawing a stupid picture, looking into a glass ball, or carrying out (masonic/religious) RITUAL's. Magic cannot be called good OR evil, for it is a coin with two side's, one good, one evil. It is the USER who decide's the cause and effect.
This was portrayed in the matrix, where the frenchman seduced the lass with chocolate, and described what I just did. So it's ok to say I'm wrong, but freemasonry, or the church, whatever church, or religion, is correct?

Again, earlier I mentioned the hands of a clock. The large hand is the Moon. The small hand is the Sun. The second hand, is Mercury. And you think you know time? Try naming these hands with the respective god's of your country. All you know is a scientific measurement created by man that does NOT exist anywhere else in nature. But the Sun, the Moon, and Mercury are the elder brothers, and their orbit's are the 'cycles', as are the repetitive event's of life, like the four seasons. That part I believe in, and can be best described as a loop.

BADecker seems to think moses was created before god. I actually know he blundered here, and accept that, but had to jump on him for being such an idiot as to not know the scource of HIS book. You see, The bible is only just over 2000 years old. The folks that believe in this have been conned. They believe the only start of existance is written in the bible, and even go as far as to say that people used to live for thousands of years.. just to make up for the rest of the missing human history of the planet. But there is a scientific fact which allows me to prove that they are wrong. It has been posted throughout this thread, and not one single person chimed in to say, well, what about this?

The masonic god is known as Ja-Baal-On - how many movies adapt this to zeboulon?

Are you ready?

Yahweh, the christian name of god, existed before christianity. Before Moses. Before Jesus. 62.000 years ago in FACT. Created by (jewish)  freemasonry. Christianity is 2000 years old, not the rest of the planet's history. Ja of Ja-Baal-On is short for Yaweh. or yod hay, vau hay, proving Yaweh is jewish, Baal is cananite, (not jewish) and is viewed in the egyptian papyrus of the weighing of the soul by Anubis, (opener of the way) who weighs the soul while THOTH sit's ontop of the scales. See that half bull/crocodile? This is the devourer of souls, who required child sacrifice. The greeks have an almost identical image of the weighing of the heart. Of course, the names of the depicted character's in the greek version will be the greek gods. The point of 'On' - Osirius, is to remove the O. You now have Sirius. The short map I gave in earlier posts is nothing compared to the truth I know of. I Asked a question last night: Lets pretend for a moment that the sky above reflects that which is below, in this case, show me Earth above, without pointing to the ball you stand on..

A decent scientist may not be able to find proof of a particular thing, so then may ask those who have had similar problems, but overcome them. Those he asked, wrote their evidence in a book, then died before the decent scientist. The decent scientist reference's the deceased's writing's, considering them as proof. Well, for at least since they started 'praying' well before the pyramids were ever designed, they have acted out certain ritual's, with scientifically proven result's. Over and over again. So I say, if you want proof of god, start practising some of these magic 'spell's' for want of a better word, see if you get any results.. I personnaly prefer reading agrippa, due to the books being older than say john dee, but would never dream of practising - the art of magic.

Of couse God exists, only keep in mind, Jaweh is only ONE god, There are other's, like BAAL, the real question is, is who is subordinate to who?

They are ALL subordinate to the one no-one has or can ever name, for, as previously mentioned, THEN he has a life span. And hence can die.




Basically the only relevant consideration I have to offer after reading all of this is a follow-up to the beginning of this statement that you make:

Quote
So we're looking for Scientific proof of god are we? Let's attempt to cut to the chase...

Yes, let's cut to the chase.  I am *not* looking for scientific proof of god because it is *logically impossible* for there to be any based upon the incontrovertible statements I made in my previous post.

Beyond that, I have no words.  Sorry.
282  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 04, 2015, 03:12:14 PM
Shame we're clearly not dealing with the scientific proof of god, which according to your question may suggest that WE are the creator, as guided by the ALL-SOUL - (GOD) shown in my remix of the emerald tablets, that part where it state's "Formless was He within his Temple (galaxy/universe?), yet was He formed in the image of men." <-note the last wod is not MAN

edit: is it possible that the temple is the head?

You now know the fact..

Stop with "scientific proof of God" garbage.  It is simply a logical impossibility for there to be any.  Empirical methods of exploration like the Scientific Method have a scope of exploration which is simply insufficient to comment about the matter whatsoever.  Period.  The end.

Anybody who concludes one way or another about God's existence based upon empirical evidence (or a lack thereof) is wasting air, and has no idea what he is talking about.

Wowsers.. you are the only one here wasting air with your irelevant nonsensical crap that means nothing to anyone else, I have been posting evidence taken from a plethora of books, (instead of one) including the oldest manuscript on earth.. why try to answer if you know you cant? Take it up with the OP who asked for Scientific proof that God exists. Since the oldest manuscript on earth deals with not only scientific proof, but shows the way to discovering so called masonic secret's, which in turn show not only proof of, but where to find it, I would ask you again, take it up with the OP. When he closes this thread, then that'll be that, but some people want the evidence I have posted, since no-one else is capable due to having masonic brethren as family. Or believe in that christian nonsense that sends you to THEIR house.

Uh, no dude.  The Scientific Process is an inductive method of reasoning.  Inductive methods of reasoning have limitations which prohibit it from commenting upon the universal (and therefore stands no chance at commenting upon the cause of the unversal).

http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~beran/inference.html

Quote
Hume's scepticism rests entirely upon his rejection of the principle of induction. The principle of induction, as applied to causality, says that, if A has been found very often accompanied or followed by B, and no instance is known of A not being accompanied or followed by B, then it is probable that on the next occasion on which A is observed it will be accompanied or followed by B. If the principle is to be adequate, a sufficient number of instances must make the probability not far short of certainty. If the principle, or any other from which it can be deduced, is true, then the causal inferences which Hume rejects are valid, not indeed as giving certainty, but as giving a sufficient probability for practical purposes. If this principle is not true, every attempt to arrive at general scientific laws from particular observations is fallacious, and Hume's scepticism is inescapable for an empiricist.

The principle itself cannot, of course, without circularity, be inferred from observed uniformities, since it is required to justify any such inference. It must therefore be, or be deduced from, an independent principle not based on experience. To this extent, Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a sufficient basis for science. But if this one principle is admitted, everything else can proceed in accordance with the theory that all our knowledge is based on experience. It must be granted that this is a serious departure from pure empiricism, and that those who are not empiricists may ask why, if one departure is allowed, others are to be forbidden.

You were saying?

The only reason the scientific method works is by first relying upon assumptions or premises which are independent of experience, i.e. non-empirical.  It is axiomatic via the scientific method that, by definition, it cannot explore the non-empirical, but only the empirical...which is exactly what I've been saying.

Edit:  Furthermore, the last sentence quoted is particularly relevant.  If a departure from "pure empiricism" must be made to account for the non-empirical assumptions of science, then why cannot a departure be made for other non-empirical things (i.e. the non-empirical characteristics that would necessarily exist, again by definition, of an intelligent designer)?
283  Other / Off-topic / Re: I just did this on: March 04, 2015, 05:08:43 AM
LOL. I've gone downstairs a few times just to find myself standing there thinking, "WTF did I come down here for?" FML, I'm not THAT old, yet.  Sad

<Edit>
Your fridge obviously belongs to a bachelor. Grin

At least it's clean.  Smiley

I had a feeling I'd get called out on being a bachelor.  No live-in family = fewer liabilities and more booby traps Wink

Grape Crush, though!  Hello, 1993!

Edit:  You should see my freezer.  Jagermeister and freeze pops  Cheesy
284  Other / Off-topic / I just did this on: March 04, 2015, 03:46:16 AM


Is that weird?   Cheesy

Anyone else have a habit of not paying attention?
285  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 04, 2015, 03:37:49 AM
Shame we're clearly not dealing with the scientific proof of god, which according to your question may suggest that WE are the creator, as guided by the ALL-SOUL - (GOD) shown in my remix of the emerald tablets, that part where it state's "Formless was He within his Temple (galaxy/universe?), yet was He formed in the image of men." <-note the last wod is not MAN

edit: is it possible that the temple is the head?

You now know the fact..

Stop with "scientific proof of God" garbage.  It is simply a logical impossibility for there to be any.  Empirical methods of exploration like the Scientific Method have a scope of exploration which is simply insufficient to comment about the matter whatsoever.  Period.  The end.

Anybody who concludes one way or another about God's existence based upon empirical evidence (or a lack thereof) is wasting air, and has no idea what he is talking about.
286  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 11:04:31 PM
I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol?

Just out of curiosity, how does one falsify an assumption?

Assumption being the mother of all fuck ups Wink


By proving its inverse true.
287  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 11:04:00 PM
I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol?


I use the words that I do because they serve a specific purpose(s), namely consistency and poignancy.
288  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 10:56:07 PM
Most posts in this thread can be joked about.  But I've yet to hear a valid response to this:

Quote
In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration).

Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.

I think the quote by Christopher Hitchens best addresses unfalsifiable assumptions.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/photos/data/500/0308-ScienceVsFaith.png


Christopher Hitchens comes up short on this issue for he fails to consider logical falsification.

Hitchens was wrong, and if he were still alive I'd love for him to provide physical evidence for support of his statement (rather than the logical basis he would undoubtedly defer to).

Edit:  By the way, I'm a huge fan of Hitchens with respect to his political commentary and his anti-dogmatic stance about religion.

Edit 2: Yet, based upon the quote, do you think Hitchens would dismiss, then, the non-empirical assumptions of science?  Science (well, at least classical physics) depends upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe, an assumption for which there is not, nor could there ever be, any physical evidence.  Empirical falsification of this assumption would require empirical data collected via observation in a Universe totally void of observers, leading to an irreconcilable contradiction. Logical falsification of a Postivistic Universe is amazingly simple.
289  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 10:49:39 PM
BY intelligent design, do you mean the design is intelligent, or it was designed by an intelligent designer? Because The only consistancy in nature is the randomness of everything, as nothing appears twice in the same form.

Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..

The product of intelligent design is a mental construct.

If reality is demonstrated to be a mental construct, i.e. made from/by mind, then it follows intelligent design is true.
290  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 10:47:57 PM
It's the empirical evidence that get's me.. you have evidence of whatever, or you dont. The rest, as earlier stated, is nothing more than empirically unfalsifiable assumptions, assumptions being wild guess's without evidence at best.

There are different kinds of falsifiability.  Empirical falsifiability is only one of them.  Logical falsifiability is another.

It is impossible to empirically falsify the non-empirical assumption of a Positivistic Universe wielded by science.

However, it is possible to logically falsify the non-empirical assumption of a Positivistic Universe by proving its inverse to be logically true (i.e. we do not live in a Positivistic Universe).

Similarly, claims that intelligent design is not empirically falsifiable are true, but insignificant.  Intelligent design can be proven true by proving its inverse false, or could be falsified if its inverse were proven logically true.
291  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 10:39:17 PM
You miss my point: whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant - You did make this statement. The rest is just assumption.

Yes, whether God actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to the consideration that I was making.

That consideration is this: A person who believes that a lack of empirical evidence for intelligent design is valid enough to discredit it invokes a contradiction in that the same person is unwilling to apply the same scrutiny as he does with regards to intelligent design to the empirically unfalsifiable assertion of the method which he claims supports his belief.

So, whether God actually does or does not exist is irrelevant because the point I'm emphasizing is an inconsistency in the reasoning of those who deny a belief in the existence of intelligent design based upon a lack of physical evidence.
292  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 10:21:19 PM
To quote the above, you clearly state god is irelevant, so your point of posting this in this thread is?


...That's not what I said.
293  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 10:14:18 PM
Which god did science prove exists?  

SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck!  Roll Eyes
LOL!  Grin


I wouldn't use that meme in response to an invalid point...the irony is unsettling.
This whole thread is a joke.

<Edit> This thread makes about as much practical sense as this schematic diagram.


Most posts in this thread can be joked about.  But I've yet to hear a valid response to this:

Quote
In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration).

Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.
294  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 09:30:57 PM
Which god did science prove exists?  

SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck!  Roll Eyes
LOL!  Grin


I wouldn't use that meme in response to an invalid point...the irony is unsettling.
295  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 03, 2015, 09:30:14 PM
Which god did science prove exists?  

SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck!  Roll Eyes

I would again like to point out that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon God even if you assume God's existence right off the bat. 

In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration).
296  Economy / Economics / Re: I need bitcoin to be $690 to break even.....will I make it? on: March 02, 2015, 08:15:48 AM

5 years would be ideal... after that I might give up



If you're still valuing your bitcoins based on an exchange rate, you're doing it wrong.

How else would I measure its purchasing power? If I don't value it by its purchasing power how else should it be valued??

Exchange rate != purchasing power.

Purchasing power parity is tough to determine, the Big Mac index that the Economist publishes is your best bet. What you should do is look at how many BTC are required to buy 1 Big Mac over the next 5 years (on average). You'll know deep in your bones what inflationary vs. deflationary means then Wink


How do you figure the exchange rate isn't equal to purchasing power?  Whether you exchange 1 BTC for $260 or several dozen Big Macs, the exchange rate is $260 or several dozen Big Macs respectively.  The purchasing power of any currency is whatever you are able to exchange it for.
297  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 02, 2015, 06:44:16 AM
Unfortunately, people who have steeped themselves in a particular religion, mostly find it difficult to set it aside when they find out it is a false religion.

Can you compile a list for us all of all these false religions?
How do you recognise a false religion?

No, I probably couldn't. I would probably miss at least a few. Besides, I don't have the time that it would take to investigate and compile. You could probably search Wikipedia for a list of main ones.

Well, with Christianity all around you, and with all the talk about the Bible I have been doing in this thread, start there, the Bible, and ask God to direct you on your journey into this kind of religious seeking.

But you have to be sincere in your testing for God. Ask Him to prove Himself to you if He really exists. But do it from the standpoint of really asking sincerely. He doesn't cater to people who are simply playing around or attempting to mock Him.

Smiley

I would be particularly interested to hear you respond *directly* to his question about how you are able to recognize a false religion.

The direct instructions for such would probably be similar to the instructions Moses gave the people of Israel for determining if a prophet was a prophet of the Lord, or a false prophet. This would be to match the things that he said with what happened. You could say similar about matching a religion with the way things work.

In fact, in this and other threads, I have been pointing out that the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them. A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here) simply doesn't have enough information behind it to say that it is absolute truth, or often very near the truth.

The Bible is full of prophecies that were fulfilled. There are others that have not been fulfilled yet. Other religions have few prophecy listings, and few that are fulfilled. One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years. They have only come back according to other prophesy, and not with the glory that they held in the past.

Smiley

Responding in order:

1) Logic fail.  You're shooting yourself in the foot again.  Let me get this straight - you think that the way to determine whether a religion is true or false is to first assume Christianity is true and then look to it for a method of distinguishing true religions from false ones?  What the heck kind of logic is that?  You're putting the cart way, way, WAY before the horse.  

The point here is that you can't just assume Christianity is true before you've subjected it to a method to determine whether it is true or false.  The result is that you are self-evidently using an illogical approach to determine whether Christianity is true rather than a logical one.

2) Stop contorting what science is.  When you say things like, "...A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here)..." you are just talking out your rear.  The word 'science' has several concrete, established definitions.  When you start making up new definitions on the fly, you are simply demonstrating an inability to effectively communicate with others.

Type in "science definition" into Google and check the result.  The definitions that pop up are the only definitions applicable to 'science.'  When you use the word 'science,' it must be used according to those definitions.  If you don't, then you're simply not talking about science.  Period.

And, when you say "...the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them..." I would remind you that you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what science is (because you continually invent definitions for it).  It's pretty hard for the "things we call science" to match the "scientific ideas that should be applied to them" when you change the definition of what 'science' is but not the definition of 'pure science' or 'the scientific method.'  Your reasoning here is shockingly terrible.

3)  Talking about prophecies is irrelevant if you can't subject Christianity to the same method used to determine whether a religion is true or false.  

Lol.  A fall that lasted 1900 years?  Haha what the hell?  Are you joking?  Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

You finally came up against something that shows you what God is all about, and you just can't take it. I can accept that.

Smiley

Is this in response to my post?  This isn't even relevant to anything I said.  I did not "come up with anything" in my post that shows me what God is all about, nor can't I take it, and so therefore you are "accepting" whatever you just imagined.

Care to respond directly to my points, or would you like to continue making up my point of view for me, ignoring me when I tell you that's not my point of view, and then believe you are the victor for winning (and somehow, still losing) an argument against yourself?

Please be specific about your ideas.  I truly have no idea what the hell your post was about.

Keep on trying. You just might figure it out. Of course, nobody figures anything out that they don't want to, right?

Smiley

I will assume your continued failure to respond to specific points that I make is a reflection of your inability to do.  I respond point-by-point to virtually every consideration in your posts.  As a result, I am holding the door wide open for you to do the same, and so you have the opportunity to select from any number of my ideas and to demonstrate why those ideas are wrong.

Furthermore, I structure my posts in a way which makes it even easier to respond by numbering my considerations.  For example, I numbered three (3) considerations, but you failed to respond directly to any of them.  I would challenge you to respond in kind by similarly numbering your considerations so that you are able to provide a clear rebuttal to each of mine.  Again, failure to do so will be considered a reflection of your inability to provide sound reasoning for your beliefs.
298  Economy / Economics / Re: I need bitcoin to be $690 to break even.....will I make it? on: March 01, 2015, 11:50:17 PM
If you're still valuing your bitcoins based on an exchange rate, you're doing it wrong.

I'm sure the OP would sell you all of his BTC for $690/BTC.  I'll cut you a bargain and sell mine at $400/BTC.

Edit:  I was very surprised to read this comment from you.
299  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: March 01, 2015, 11:39:55 PM
Unfortunately, people who have steeped themselves in a particular religion, mostly find it difficult to set it aside when they find out it is a false religion.

Can you compile a list for us all of all these false religions?
How do you recognise a false religion?

No, I probably couldn't. I would probably miss at least a few. Besides, I don't have the time that it would take to investigate and compile. You could probably search Wikipedia for a list of main ones.

Well, with Christianity all around you, and with all the talk about the Bible I have been doing in this thread, start there, the Bible, and ask God to direct you on your journey into this kind of religious seeking.

But you have to be sincere in your testing for God. Ask Him to prove Himself to you if He really exists. But do it from the standpoint of really asking sincerely. He doesn't cater to people who are simply playing around or attempting to mock Him.

Smiley

I would be particularly interested to hear you respond *directly* to his question about how you are able to recognize a false religion.

The direct instructions for such would probably be similar to the instructions Moses gave the people of Israel for determining if a prophet was a prophet of the Lord, or a false prophet. This would be to match the things that he said with what happened. You could say similar about matching a religion with the way things work.

In fact, in this and other threads, I have been pointing out that the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them. A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here) simply doesn't have enough information behind it to say that it is absolute truth, or often very near the truth.

The Bible is full of prophecies that were fulfilled. There are others that have not been fulfilled yet. Other religions have few prophecy listings, and few that are fulfilled. One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years. They have only come back according to other prophesy, and not with the glory that they held in the past.

Smiley

Responding in order:

1) Logic fail.  You're shooting yourself in the foot again.  Let me get this straight - you think that the way to determine whether a religion is true or false is to first assume Christianity is true and then look to it for a method of distinguishing true religions from false ones?  What the heck kind of logic is that?  You're putting the cart way, way, WAY before the horse. 

The point here is that you can't just assume Christianity is true before you've subjected it to a method to determine whether it is true or false.  The result is that you are self-evidently using an illogical approach to determine whether Christianity is true rather than a logical one.

2) Stop contorting what science is.  When you say things like, "...A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here)..." you are just talking out your rear.  The word 'science' has several concrete, established definitions.  When you start making up new definitions on the fly, you are simply demonstrating an inability to effectively communicate with others.

Type in "science definition" into Google and check the result.  The definitions that pop up are the only definitions applicable to 'science.'  When you use the word 'science,' it must be used according to those definitions.  If you don't, then you're simply not talking about science.  Period.

And, when you say "...the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them..." I would remind you that you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what science is (because you continually invent definitions for it).  It's pretty hard for the "things we call science" to match the "scientific ideas that should be applied to them" when you change the definition of what 'science' is but not the definition of 'pure science' or 'the scientific method.'  Your reasoning here is shockingly terrible.

3)  Talking about prophecies is irrelevant if you can't subject Christianity to the same method used to determine whether a religion is true or false. 

Lol.  A fall that lasted 1900 years?  Haha what the hell?  Are you joking?  Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

You finally came up against something that shows you what God is all about, and you just can't take it. I can accept that.

Smiley

Is this in response to my post?  This isn't even relevant to anything I said.  I did not "come up with anything" in my post that shows me what God is all about, nor can't I take it, and so therefore you are "accepting" whatever you just imagined.

Care to respond directly to my points, or would you like to continue making up my point of view for me, ignoring me when I tell you that's not my point of view, and then believe you are the victor for winning (and somehow, still losing) an argument against yourself?

Please be specific about your ideas.  I truly have no idea what the hell your post was about.
300  Other / Obsolete (selling) / Re: [SOLD!] 1oz .9999 fine gold 2015 coin - below spot! on: February 27, 2015, 06:06:49 PM
Sending to him first would not be a risk to you as much as it would be a risk to him if he sent first.

An anonymous person vouching for another anonymous person... #seemslegit    Roll Eyes



Smoothie is hardly anonymous.  You know he created the Lealana litecoins, right?  

Btw, why are you demanding escrow from the guy selling pics of his wife because he is a newbie?  Ironic, don't you think?

Ok, I feel like being generous to the trolls today. Smiley  You have an hour to PM me smoothie's and blazedout's contact info (name/address).  Not a problem if they aren't anonymous, right?  Wink   I'll leave your post up if you can do this.

Tick tock tick tock....

Wow, a whole hour, and on a workday?  Gee, thanks! 

You can find all the info you request in a brief search of this forum, but I'm not going to dox someone because a suspected scammer wants me to.  Your reputation is the issue here, not his, and especially when literally hundreds of people know his name and his face.  The mark of a scammer is the continual (though usually unconscious) effort to redirect the focus of discussion away from himself and onto others.

How bout you dox yourself if you're as reputable and trustworthy as you claimed?
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 ... 212 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!