This thread is now full f the shittiest explanations for the existance of God, no scientific proof whatsoever
There is no proof that there are constellations. The groupings of stars that we call constellations can be grouped by anybody in any way that they want. Stars in many (most) of the constellations are not near enough to each other to suggest that they should be grouped together. In fact, there is little proof that stars exist at all. You have heard of dark matter. A bunch of scientists made up a bunch of stories and a bunch of math regarding what stars and dark matter are. Yet nobody has been close enough to any star - even the sun - to say for sure what it is. And nobody has even sent space vehicles close enough to any star other than the sun, to even SUGGEST what they ACTUALLY are. Perhaps the ancients were right. Perhaps dark matter is the blanket with the pinholes. Perhaps the light coming through the pinholes is the light from Heaven (whatever that is). The star wobble that we see, that we interpret as planets moving around some of the stars, might simply be some kind of space/aether aberration that hasn't been identified yet... at least not to the public. Prove it, one way or the other.  You just went full retard, never go full retard. Like are you seriously questioning if the sun exists of if there are other stars? Are you just a troll? Because damn Now it seems to be you who are going religious. Since there isn't any way to prove that stars exist in the standard way we think about them, who really knows what they are? The closest thing we can do is recognize that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 - and then try to see if He has any explanation for us as to what the stars really are. No way to prove the stars exist? Dont we see the sun? With our own eyes actually. We can also feel its heat. Do you really need more proofs than that? I mean i seriously dont understand your point, serious question are you trolling? We see something. We call it the sun. So, the sun exists. We see something that we call the stars. The stars exist. We see darkness around the stars. We call some of it dark matter. Dark matter exists. What they all are is a big question. The sun may be different than the stars. The stars may be pinholes in the blanket of dark matter. Who knows? We have lots of observations and theories regarding the sun, the stars, and maybe even dark matter. We have no proof, although we may be close to getting some proof about what the sun is. No, the "darkness" is not called dark matter. Also, about the sun, we've had satellites orbiting it for decades... |
|
|
|
The book with the proof is called: HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION AND PROOF OF GOD AND THE COSMIC ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE WHAT IS CREATION AND HOW IT CAME TO BE It is the 7th volume in a series, and you can find it here: http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_36.pdfCite me some pages to read. I'm not skimming through a book of that length because I already know that whatever information in the book will not support your claim of empirical proof for God. So, I'd like you to cite some pages that reflect the reasoning behind your claim. |
|
|
|
I suggest you reference Journal 21, Chapter 3 and Journal 31, Chapter 13; I propose the straightforward idea that God has come to speak with you and I through these Journals.
My proposal is modest; if this thread would but read, the truth about man and god would be known. Your modest proposal must answer to my simple question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11107528#msg11107528Edit: What did you want me to specifically read about Pascal's Wager? You gave a link to a 500+ page book. |
|
|
|
3) Yep, here you reinforce your inductive fallacy. You can't use "the Word of God" to prove God exists before proving that God exists. You're caught up in a "chicken-or-egg?" problem. If you haven't proven God to exist, then you don't know its the Word of God. If you know it's the Word of God, then that means you've already proven to yourself somehow that God exists before looking at the evidence in the first place.
No matter how you spin it, your method doesn't work. Sorry. Get the truth from the source, and read the journal I referenced in totality before determining that you are right about scientific proof of God. Are you truly happy to read what I have referenced? 4) There is no empirical proof of an afterlife, and you more-or-less acknowledge this by correctly describing the evidence as "suggestive." However, even if you somehow proved an afterlife exists, it does not in any way prove God exists. Some have argued that there is no scientific way to prove anything, and that science only serves to disprove a thing. You must yourself prove that God exists because God dwells within; that is where the proof will come from--within you! Does it bother you that I have proved to myself that God is real by reading Dharma's writings (and thinking upon the same)? One can see from the AECES top 40, taken altogether, that a process conducive to survival (of some 'aspect') apparently exists. An adequate explanation of the Eisenbeiss case must be simple; it follows that professor Eisenbeiss is telling the 'truth' (valid message) by way of the 'surviving personality' (source) and medium (signal). The message (chess game) was transmitted; Hence, the afterlife is valid truth, and it is supported by the now-recognized fact that life is more than just complicated chemistry; belief in the afterlife is both scientific and in accord with 'information theory'. Actually, the elucidation of the content-source problem (so necessary for evaluation of inspired writings) is but an exercise in information and communication theory; the simplest and most adequate signal transmission mechanisms are posited because science evidences signal transmission all throughout nature, and in science the simplest explanation is best. Joint, would you Kindly reference the bit about Pascal's Wager from this book? I advise you to search through the text: http://library.atgti.az/categories/philosophy/R.Sorensen%20-%20A%20Brief%20History%20of%20the%20Paradox.pdfBack to quoting Journals; once you have read about the Wager, you can see that the Journals are highly "suggestive"! If MAN can keep you from communion with GOD, he can control you! If you are ever to find God and be WITH GOD--YOU MUST COME INTO COMMUNION WITH GOD--AND BYPASS THE INPUT OF MAN. Since your time as man is short indeed and your time with God is long indeed--infinite, would it not be worthy to learn to talk with God and get His instructions for passage and cease and desist listening to the misguided and misguiding ones from the pulpits and thrones of "authority" and "expert blatherings"? If they be MAN--THEY DO NOT KNOW! THEY ONLY PRESENT THAT WHICH IS ALREADY THRUST UPON THEM AND YOU--BY MAN! I AM NOT MAN IN FLESH--AND DHARMA IS NOT ME. What is that you don't understand about the limits of empiricism precluding any logical possibility of forming empirical conclusions about God? |
|
|
|
Transparency is the number one most common request --
Please let me know specifics about what things we can do to be more transparent
I would like to see an archive of meeting minutes and corresponding dates. Written transcripts are great. Having them coupled with audio transcripts is also great when possible. Basically, if any concrete and significant decisions are made, I would like to see the discussions precluding whatever action is taken. |
|
|
|
Well , scientifically proven i dont know , but certainly somethings are very impressive to be true that could lead people to think about a god (creator of everything) existence. Check out , 3 orbits filmed on airplance , that cant be explained , doesnt seem fake video or manipulated. God or not , there is something very power about life .
It's impossible for there to be empirical proof for God. Imagine this is a real scenario: Some guy with a shiny white aura floats down from the clouds. He points a finger and kills a living person with a fireball he shoots from his fingertips. He points a finger at a dead person and resurrects him before your eyes. He points yet another finger, and a million loaves of bread pop out of thin air and fall to the ground for the hungry to eat. Then, he points to the sky, snaps his fingers, and makes a new star constellation. Then he says, "I am God." ^^Even this does not constitute empirical proof for God. Simply put, it isn't even possible to imagine what would constitute empirical proof for God. There is simply nothing that would ever suffice, for you would always need make assumptions that cannot be backed by evidence in order to reach your conclusion that God exists. |
|
|
|
Well, now. God has been proven to exist by the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. And I personally believe that all scientific investigation is part of the proof that God exists. This isn't to say that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe. The Bible, while not as full of evidence for the existence of God, is full of evidence that shows that it is an impossible book. The way it was written, the period of time it took, the traditions of the Jews (Hebrews) regarding it, the facts of life that it expresses, the fulfilled prophesies, the fact that it may be the the book with the widest distribution worldwide ever, the fact that its popularity is beyond any other, all show that it is impossible for it to have come into existence. So, why and how could an impossible-to-exist book ever have come into existence without God moving it into being? Dont we all agreed that your "proof" was only fallacies? I think we all did but you, i dont know if you have some sort of problem but you better check it with a doctor "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." So is proof. In a jury trial, often the evidence is sufficient to convince some of the members of the jury, but not enough to convince other members. Perhaps the majority of forum members who have viewed the evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, have indeed concluded that it is not enough evidence to be proof. Yet there are non-forum members all over the world who adhere to this evidence as proof. If the evidence at the link were the only evidence - for example, the evidence of probability for the complexity of the universe coming about in some other form, strongly suggests that God is the only thing that could have done it - then you detractors of the proof for God might have some little strength. But since the evidences at the link are only 3 or 4 evidences when there are many others as well, the amazing thing is as follows. It is amazing that you folks who express that you want to believe the real truth, are so willing to believe such falsehood regarding God... the falsehood that He does not exist. I'm sure you aren't retarded in the regular sense of the word. But what is it that blinds you so extremely much, that you don't want to acknowledge the truth of the evidence that is right in front of your eyes? That's what some people are like, I guess. No, proof is not "in the eye of the beholder." Proof is proof. If I believe that some evidence constitutes proof for something but you don't believe the same, then neither one of us can be certain if proof is "in the eye of the beholder." Fortunately, proof is not "in the eye of the beholder." Our opinion is irrelevant. All we need to do is look to the logical rules of sound inference to determine whether the evidence actually constitutes proof. Specifically, we look to these rules and ask the question, "Is it logical that our conclusion necessarily follows from the evidence?" The answer is either that it does or doesn't. There is no middle ground. The evidence you keep referencing is not proof for God, and that won't change no matter how hard you try to convince yourselef. |
|
|
|
|
My advice would be to focus on transparency, transparency, and more transparency. The Foundation, in my opinion, is not necessary, and I certainly don't trust it to avoid self-serving interests.
I don't think the Foundation will do much of anything, nor do I think it's really done much of anything to this point. I don't see any reason why the entire community shouldn't be able to review, for example, meeting minutes, etc.
Basically, the Foundation comes off as being a 'Good ol' Boys' club. I do not currently view the foundation as serving any important or necessary purpose. Maybe transparency could convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Hi Joint, the simplest and most adequate understanding of the evidence for survival demands something like God, and by the way, you can read the scientific proof in the Journal called "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".
You can conclude, but you would be wrong. You're committing an inductive fallacy. Simply put, you can't say evidence proves God unless you already know what God is, but at the same time you can't know what God is until you've proven it. 1. Try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy. 2. Have you ever tried READING MY TRUTH? 3. Your statement is little different from the Problem of the Criterion, but here I am giving you God's WORD and the references to "the content-source problem" so that you may decide for yourself if Phoenix Journals contain the truth you would rather have on your side--every time! 4. There is strong evidence for the afterlife, in Journals and in parapsychology, so what comes next for science? Take a look at the "Quantum Parapsychology" page on FB. 5. What you are saying to me in this thread is not more important than what is said right here in this quote; that is why I am saying it to you, because I wish to draw your attention to something important (about God and Truth)... IS HATONN REAL?
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT WHICH I OFFER IS VALID TRUTH? 1) Please reread what you just said, here. It's ridiculous. Make an argument that doesn't rely on the notion of fallacy? Yes, I'm sure it would be convenient for your argument if we just ignore the fallacy of it altogether. Heck, why talk about fallacies at all? Why don't we just say that nothing is subject to logical scrutiny and we just all end up accepting everything BADecker has been saying, too? Your argument is fallacious. It is impossible for there to be empirical proof of God. To think there is necessitates that you commit a logical fallacy. Here's an analogy: The logical axiom of identity states that 'x=x.' Based upon knowledge of this logical axiom, we don't need to go about trying to find evidence for something that isn't itself. To do so would be idiotic and a complete waste of time. We already know it's a logical impossibility to find an 'x' that isn't an 'x,' e.g. finding an apple that isn't an apple, a person that isn't a person, etc. The same goes for inductive fallacies. We already know with 100% confidence (such that we absolutely know that we cannot possibly be wrong) what the limits of empirical exploration are. Accordingly, we know what empiricism can't explore or concluded upon. Intelligent Design/God is one of those things. Deal with it. You have no empirical proof for God, and you never will. It. Is. Impossible. 2) I already know that whatever empirical evidence you have is not proof of God. I would be happy to read whatever evidence you have, but I will always draw the conclusion that it does not constitute proof of God, and I will be correct 100% of the time. 3) Yep, here you reinforce your inductive fallacy. You can't use "the Word of God" to prove God exists before proving that God exists. You're caught up in a "chicken-or-egg?" problem. If you haven't proven God to exist, then you don't know its the Word of God. If you know it's the Word of God, then that means you've already proven to yourself somehow that God exists before looking at the evidence in the first place. No matter how you spin it, your method doesn't work. Sorry. 4) There is no empirical proof of an afterlife, and you more-or-less acknowledge this by correctly describing the evidence as "suggestive." However, even if you somehow proved an afterlife exists, it does not in any way prove God exists. 5) The difference it makes is that valid =/= sound. Unfortunately, your argument isn't even valid because we already know with absolute confidence that Intelligent Design/God falls outside the scope of empiricism, and therefore you will never have empirical proof. |
|
|
|
Hi Joint,
The Eisenbeiss case supplies evidence that all atheists are mistaken; if this is only "suggestive" of God, that is fine with me because man already has TRUTH sufficient to back up an adequate and complete understanding of professor Eisenbeiss' observations. The best explanation will incorporate all of the data, and I am supplying that TRUTH right here.
Inspired writings are suggestive of a higher truth, and they can be gauged by way of the content-source problem. Such an analysis suggests that the Phoenix Journals are true; Phoenix Journals also provide one with a better understanding of the content-source problem, so I am promoting this content in order to educate readers about the true nature of rebirth.
So, I conclude that it is a lie to say that God does not exist or that God cannot be evidenced scientifically; the simplest and most adequate understanding of the evidence for survival demands something like God, and by the way, you can read the scientific proof in the Journal called "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".
You can conclude, but you would be wrong. You're committing an inductive fallacy. Specifically, you are holding up evidence to a preconceived notion of God which you haven't proven to be true, but which you must assume to be true if you are to confirm that the evidence proves God exists. This is exactly why it is impossible for there to be any empirical proof of God's existence. Simply put, you can't say evidence proves God unless you already know what God is, but at the same time you can't know what God is until you've proven it. |
|
|
|
...For some reason, the joint and BADecker have yet to respond to my posts...
Yes, I did. I'll take a look at it. But again, it's a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be empirical proof of God. Empirical proof or "evidence" is only relevant to things that are observable. By definition, an "intelligent designer of reality" has non-observable components. Therefore, you can't prove God with evidence. The best you can do is a logical proof, and then find suggestive or corollary evidence to support it after the fact.
To make an analogy, when you have a thought you are exposed to the non-observable content and meaning of that thought. Others around you might be able to do an empirical neurological analysis of your brain at the time you're having a thought, and certain types of electrical and neuronal activity will suggest that you are indeed having a thought. As a result, they can find suggestive, corollary evidence that you are having a thought, but they wouldn't be able to make this suggestion if you didn't know your thought existed in the first place so as to be able to link brain activity to it. . |
|
|
|
Price updates |
|
|
|
|
The Unfunded 2011 S2 has been sold through PM to the first person who asked according to timestamp. He can make himself known if he wishes.
Sorry, guys. Is there something special about the unfunded ones?
|
|
|
|
|
User Wolfbite alerted me to an error I made with regards to my description of the 2011 S2 "redeemed" coin. This coin is not "redeemed," but rather "unfunded." These "unfunded" coins with tampered holograms were sold by Casascius so that people could see what a coin with a broken hologram looks like. I did not think to distinguish between "unfunded" and "redeemed."
I have no idea what difference this makes to a potential buyer. I apologize for any confusion. Thanks, Wolfbite!
|
|
|
|
2011 1-BTC Casascius Series 1 w/ error (brass): BTC6.0
I offer 2 BTC for this coin!
No thank you. I have private offer for 4BTC currently. I would accept it... It's tempting FYI, I got 2BTC recently for a 2013. LOL, you got really lucky. This guy here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131828.0 sells them for 1.35 BTCThen maybe he's unlucky. The 2BTC is an outlier, but I turn them above 1.6 regularly. Not in this forum I guess  Correct I would be more willing to sell lower here on the forum. The prices marked are my "ideal" selling price. But there's lots of room for negotiation, mostly because I enjoy it (hence why 4 BTC is tempting on a coin I listed at 6 BTC). |
|
|
|
2011 1-BTC Casascius Series 1 w/ error (brass): BTC6.0
I offer 2 BTC for this coin!
No thank you. I have private offer for 4BTC currently. I would accept it... It's tempting FYI, I got 2BTC recently for a 2013. LOL, you got really lucky. This guy here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131828.0 sells them for 1.35 BTCThen maybe he's unlucky. The 2BTC is an outlier, but I turn them above 1.6 regularly. |
|
|
|
2011 1-BTC Casascius Series 1 w/ error (brass): BTC6.0
I offer 2 BTC for this coin!
No thank you. I have private offer for 4BTC currently. I would accept it... It's tempting FYI, I got 2BTC recently for a 2013. |
|
|
|
2011 1-BTC Casascius Series 1 w/ error (brass): BTC6.0
I offer 2 BTC for this coin!
No thank you. I have private offer for 4BTC currently. |
|
|
|
It's that time of year! Here is an assortment of some things I'm looking to get rid of (see bottom for terms of sale): See links for pictures. Oh, and prices are negotiable SOLD!2011 1-BTC Casascius Series 1 w/ error (brass): BTC6.0 BTC4.25
- Minted October 18, 2011!
- Address: 15M3Zmhq5nuMobdcwWwrD7rpXbGoVzvNLf
- One owner; received direct from Mike Caldwell
- Uncirculated; never touched; kept in safe
http://tinypic.com/r/ekf2ab/8
http://tinypic.com/r/23wlef4/8SOLD! 2011 1-BTC Casascius Series 2 (redeemed unfunded; brass): BTC0.3
- See what happens to a tamper-proof hologram
http://tinypic.com/r/x4jk3t/8
http://tinypic.com/r/169lrm1/8SOLD! 2013 1-BTC Casascius (brass): BTC1.2- Address: 135Hw7cQCfZWVEa8A3dpvYsYPqmtJMn175 - Uncirculated; never touched; kept in safe http://tinypic.com/r/b48c9z/8http://tinypic.com/r/2zdoeno/8Lealana Series 1 Collector Set w/ error: BTCAccepting Offers- 2 x 10-LTC, 0.5oz. silver - Collectors case and certificates of authenticity included - Uncirculated; never touched; kept in safe http://tinypic.com/r/2i8ko7q/8http://tinypic.com/r/34zy2cy/8http://tinypic.com/r/ev6tch/8http://tinypic.com/r/33waxl4/83 x Sapphire r9-290x GPU: BTC1.2 each- Used for ~1-2 months - Excellent condition - Current SquareTrade warranty http://tinypic.com/r/4vgvoh/8http://tinypic.com/r/j8i2jo/8Handmade Dragon cone incense burner (RARE!): BTC0.5- One-of-a-kind - Handmade; hand-painted - Beautiful, insane detail! - Stick incense cones in its butt and smoke comes out of its mouth http://tinypic.com/r/2hoab14/8http://tinypic.com/r/21cypgp/8http://tinypic.com/r/243mhsh/8http://tinypic.com/r/mkw3lt/8http://tinypic.com/r/fax2mr/8Sound Percussion full drum set: BTC1.75- Fantastic Condition! - Includes all stands, cymbals, and hardware! - Includes drum throne seat - Chicago-area pickup only http://tinypic.com/r/68vj8n/8Magic Card Collection (w/ rare Star Trek extras): BTC2.5- Thousands of cards (more not shown here) - Mostly 3rd and 4th edition (plus Legends, Dark, Beta, Antiquities, Ice Age, Fallen Empires, etc.) - Hundreds of desirable rarities including Wheel of Fortune, Fork, Demonic Tutor, Sol Ring, and much more! http://tinypic.com/r/sbu91l/8http://tinypic.com/r/34gad61/8http://tinypic.com/r/miz2oo/8http://tinypic.com/r/wjyiae/8http://tinypic.com/r/xaqvjc/8http://tinypic.com/r/14vljrk/8White-Grecian Marble Tile 18x18 in.^2: BTC0.18 per case- Two cases for sale (11.25 ft.^2 per case) - Like new; unused - Luxury tile for a luxury, world-class look and feel - Found here: http://www.homedepot.com/p/MS-International-Greecian-White-18-in-x-18-in-Polished-Marble-Floor-and-Wall-Tile-11-25-sq-ft-case-TARACAR18180-38P/204701836?keyword=grecian+marble++18x18- Chicago-area pickup only http://tinypic.com/r/24q97gy/8http://tinypic.com/r/264n81z/8http://tinypic.com/r/2jeabl1/8Rules: - Prices negotiable, but make me an offer I can't refuse and I won't - Shipping available for all items except Drum Kit and Marble Tile - Chicago in-person pickup is available for ALL items (preferred) - Payment due up-front for all shipped items (no escrow) - Accept payment in BTC or cash-equivalent (actually, cash is preferred) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
