Why do you keep on resisting the knowledge that God exists when it has been proven to you, when you can prove it to yourself?
If you have proof of god then you have lost your faith in god. You cannot have proof and faith at the same time. Why are you insisting people lose their faith in existence of god? As I explained to you the last time you said this, faith doesn't have to be blind faith. For example, if you hold up your closed hand and say, "I have a folded up $5 dollar bill in my closed hand," some people have faith that you are telling the truth. Others think that you are lying. Those who have faith that you are holding a $5, can see your hand and you for a fact. So, they can have faith that the $5 might be there, 'cause they don't know you very well. Others who know you better, can see that you are there, and that you are holding up your hand (facts), but because they know you, they know that there is great probability that you are lying. Thus they have faith that there is NOT a $5 in your hand. Wake up and see that God really DOES exist so that you can go the next step and see the good that He is all about... FOR YOU.
What next step? There is no next step. Besides the above, you can't read very well, can you. Too much meth, right? Destroyed your abilities to think straight, right?  Well thanks for pointing out that having faith in something doesnt mean it exists. You are making arguments against yourself now. The only argument that I am making is the one that I am not making any arguments except the argument that I am not making any arguments. You want proof for the existence of God? Read the stuff at this link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.  Already proven that everything there is just a bunch of fallacies, hell even when you tried to defend yourself you did it with another fallacy. No. The only thing proven is that you can SAY a bunch of stuff about things being not proven. Nope i actually even gave you the definitions and the wikipedia page, i dont know what else do you want Its like someone insulted someone else, i tell him he is insulting, he says he is not, i give him the definiton of an insult and he keeps saying he is not insulting, thats pretty much you right now. Now you are getting really far out. Anybody can write things into Wikipedia. And you want to call that proof? The things that I express at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are self-evident evidences that prove the existence of God. All you need do is think them out. "Self-evident evidences" is a contradiction. The definition of "self-evident" means that no evidence is needed to know it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. |
|
|
|
The list isn't complete. Maybe, but it has all your fallacies in it If the list had the biggest fallacy of all, it wouldn't be worthy anything... even though it isn't worth much as it is. The biggest fallacy? Itself. You dont know what to say anymore seems, and you are just posting a bunch of nonsense, too bad you cant keep posting your link full of fallacies anymore, you gotta find something else to spam now. If you say my stuff at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is fallacies, there are only two reasons for it: 1. You are simply against the truth; 2. You are against the truth and aren't smart enough to think your way through it, or probably even out of a wet paper bag. Here, you are committing the logical fallacy of "false dichotomy" by claiming there are only two options when in fact there are others. This fallacy is explicitly listed among the others as shown here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies |
|
|
|
Y'all wish you had my chrome extension  Sometimes I, too, wish I had an chrome extension that cut off th |
|
|
|
In my opinion, I'm glad someone is doing the job Vod's doing, taking on the unenviable position of calling out scammers at the first sign of trouble.
Cheers, Vod.
not factually accurate. he has a track history of false positives and bias(ignoring known scammers) You're never going to have a foolproof, self-policing community. Especially here. Vod's aggressive style works more than it hurts in my opinion. I'm not saying false positives are good, but his ratio seems to be pretty great, and his general intentions are good. Call me skeptical, but while I assume that I am capable of being responsible for myself, I don't assume the same for many others here. Vod says what I think many of us wish we could say, but don't because of the blowback we might be afraid of. I'm sure that Vod never wants to make a false accusation as he wouldn't gain anything by doing so. Furthermore, the majority of the community seems to support him. Each person is obviously going to form their own opinion, but if Vod's actions were truly egregious, the community at large would have exiled him a long time ago. We know what happens to those who are unquestionably frivolous with their accusations -- their rep falls, and falls hard and fast. Look at the moron who left me 15 negative feedback remarks in a single day. |
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, I'm glad someone is doing the job Vod's doing, taking on the unenviable position of calling out scammers at the first sign of trouble.
Cheers, Vod.
|
|
|
|
So then according to your logic, the devil has some power over god, since he created destruction. And also, you contradicted yourself, again, you said earlier that God created nature which you believe to be supernatural. The definition of destruction is: the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired. That can pertain to death, disease, etc, all of which are apart of nature. But, you said the devil created destruction not god, but then you earlier said that god created nature...Which one is it? You're basically putting the devil in the bible on parity with god in the bible. Wow, are you really this clueless? Besides that, have you honestly even read the bible to which you mindlessly believe in? The god in the bible has destroyed more innocent people than Satan did. Yes read that again, the god in the bible has killed more innocent people than the devil in the bible. He's killed innocent children, old women, old men, young men, animals, but not young women, he left them to get raped. Face it, he's an evil god. Your own words are hurting your nonsensical argument. Read this and go through your dear bible, http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.htmlYou are completely mistaken. What God? You seem to believe that God exists after all. Since you believe He exists, why don't you start some new threads regarding His attributes and the way things work, so that people can find out all about Him? That way we can save this thread for what it asks, scientific proof that God exists, as I have at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallaciesYou can find them all. This makes me smile lol |
|
|
|
I'm going to leave this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallaciesA fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. Next time BADecker says a bunch of nonsense and then posts a link to something he doesn't understand, just refer him to this list. It will surely contain all information necessary to prove him wrong. BADecker, if you're reading this, understand that you haven't proven anything unless you avoid every single one of these fallacies without exception. And that's the bare minimum requirement |
|
|
|
Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist. Oh, "nature" is entirely "supernatural" now? No. It isn't. Nature is natural specifically because it isn't supernatural. You should've taken my earlier suggestion and just reduce all your vocabulary to one word, and just repeat that word over and over. It really doesn't matter what that word is or what it means because you're just going to have it mean whatever you want it to mean. You're going on ignore for a while. You make my eyes bleed. You are finally starting to understand that the only understanding of why things exist, and the only proof for their existence, is the fact that they do exist. We have no other proof. This means, that as far as our understanding goes, all of nature is supernatural. This points at the existence of God more than ever. Even Descartes would frown at what I just read(And he was wrong in his philosophy/for assuming that the mind is automatically metaphysical, but wont get into that). What you've said makes no sense, at all, you're claiming that something exists because you can see/hear/taste it with your five senses, all of which may be misleading you causing you to believe that these things exist when they don't(Your perception of things), matter itself might not even exist, so you cannot prove your own existence by just looking at something at saying it exists,(This is basic philosophy. ) Ever heard of Schizophrenia where those with it can see things that aren't really there? You should really look it up. All proof for anything is based on the fact that the elements of that proof exist. So, if you attempt to prove that those elements of proof exist, you need other elements of proof to prove them. But what about those elements of proof? How far do you have to go before you get to some elements that are so foundational that they don't need proof of existence. So far, the only two things that we can possibly come up with are God and the supernatural.
Wait actually no, let's go with what you said. So god created disease, he created deformities, he created all those negative things that are around in the world today(And to which you classify as "supernatural"), but you consider him a good god? Quite clearly that means he is an evil one. Thanks for proving yourself wrong BADecker, again.
God created many elements, all of them good, but some that could be manipulated into evil if someone had a mind to do such. God's enemy, the devil (a formerly good angel who corrupted himself), did exactly that. In his desire to create something, he created the only thing that was not created by God... destruction. That's why his name is Destroyer in the Revelation in the Bible. Not true. Things that hinder another living organism such as a disease, has no "good" elements to it, and god created that disease as you say, which is why your god is an evil god. Innocent children, people, die from diseases and ailments everyday, you said it yourself, god created everything right? So then he created these diseases that lead to the deaths of innocent millions every year. What a good god you have (sarcasm). I could agree with you that disease has no good (but it might have some good that we are not aware of). Since I didn't say that God created disease, why are you trying to say that I essentially said that God is evil? (Thank you for agreeing with me that God exists. People need to know that God exists so that they have reason to seek Him for their salvation.) So you continue contradicting yourself. You said this: This means, that as far as our understanding goes, all of nature is supernatural. This points at the existence of God more than ever.You also claimed that God made the supernatural, so that means god made disease, etc. That means god is an evil god, get it? You keep contradicting yourself, it's almost as if you're clueless on the topic at hand and you're just pulling out random mumbo jumbo to write down.(You are) For quite some time now, I've been under the suspicion that BADecker is a goldfish. |
|
|
|
Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist. Oh, "nature" is entirely "supernatural" now? No. It isn't. Nature is natural specifically because it isn't supernatural. You should've taken my earlier suggestion and just reduce all your vocabulary to one word, and just repeat that word over and over. It really doesn't matter what that word is or what it means because you're just going to have it mean whatever you want it to mean. You're going on ignore for a while. You make my eyes bleed. |
|
|
|
So anything that you dont like you call it off-topic, well thats one way to handle it
Lol. This entire thread is offtopic. BADecker was proven wrong 100+ pages ago. He just posts so his priest won't kick him out of the cult. Each member needs to try and convert so many souls each week. Now you are doing it. Rather than show any evidence for or against God like BADecker shows for God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, you attempt to badmouth him. This is a Biblical argument - off-topic - except for the last paragraph at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html where the author expresses that he believes God exists: One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later. Not sure what this has to do with proving the existence of God, except that, as a widely-held religion, Christianity (along with many of the other religions) is strong evidence that God exists, simply because this many people believe that He does. Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist. Number 2 is wrong, "2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now." Doctors in hospitals all over the place can't explain why some people get well overnight, and others die for no known reason. Thus, miracles are not proven to NOT exist, and seem to. Since miracles can exist, so can God. Number 3 is questionable, "3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely." Simply because consciousness seems to disappear as the brain deteriorates, doesn't mean that the elements of consciousness dissipate at the same time. In other words, consciousness may easily be held outside of the brain, and simply uses the brain for operating, just like you use your computer to get your post up on the forum. This leaves lots of room for the possibility that God exists, and doesn't prove He doesn't. Number 4 is wrong, "4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World," because in most of the big evil, wars, there are opponents. And the same is true for lots of the little evil - fights between people one way or another. Number 4 simply brings to light the evidence that God has an opponent who is evil. The religions often call the evil one the devil. Number 5 doesn't really even fit, "5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World," since, while I and others haven't debunked evolution at all, we have shown that there are so many holes in the evolutionary process as we know it, that there is no way to show that evolution produces anything other than a variety of changes, if that. In addition, even if science could come up with a viable evolutionary inanimate-to-life process, there is no way to tell if that is what really happened, because there are too many unknown variables that could have happened in the past. This shows the likelihood that God created it all. Number 6 is just goofy, "6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden," because it doesn't take into account the idea of a loving God giving our human machine bodies, and the whole of nature that supports us. There is no way to get anything like what we have in our bodies and nature if it hadn't been given to us. We enjoy life. It is a gift from Wherever. Because that "Wherever" is as great as it is, it fits the definition for the word "God." Number 7 is inconclusive, "7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right," because it doesn't take into account the religious ideas of an enemy fighting against God and man. Number 7 is a religious argument that suggests that the author has examined and expresses all the possibility of why a "God" would or would not do something. Thus, the author is holding himself/herself up as God, by expressing that he/she knows enough about this to conclude that God doesn't exist. Thus, the author is self-contradictory, as well. Number 8 is completely wrong, "8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause," because, even though the Big Bang might have been shown to be plausible, there are too many variables that could have existed in the distant past to absolutely KNOW that Big Bang is what happened for real. In addition, electric cosmos theory is proving far more practical than popular cosmological theory - http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Thus, the idea of the Great First Cause stands stronger than ever. Number 9 is not even in the race, "9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force," because the odds are the fundamental thing that shows that the universe as we know it can't exist without a Great Something to have guided it all. Quantum math shows that there are countless probabilities behind everything, and in every direction. When quantum thinking is applied to the dimensions, dimensions that might be infinite but that we recognize only less than 30 of, the absolute NEED for something like God makes itself apparent. Number 10 is wrong, "10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design," because the author is admitting intelligent design. Even if it is nature that is the Intelligent Designer, nobody gets design without a designer. This points to the existence of God more than ever. This is a mishmash of ideas that are at times religious, and at times on-topic. Some of these ideas overlap with what is written above.
There you go
No, there YOU go. Here's a perfect example of your ridiculous thinking: You say: ... as a widely-held religion, Christianity (along with many of the other religions) is strong evidence that God exists, simply because this many people believe that He does. Not at all. There's a logical fallacy about this exact form of reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populumIn no way does the fact that more people believe in something make it more true. Not at all. Not even close. In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." |
|
|
|
I was curious if you realized that you implicated Genesis as "all mistake."
I wouldn't mind if you explained it to me. However, I am rather impatient. Please do it in as few words as possible. Thanks. Sure. First you say: ...Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Then I point out: ...the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham. Therefore: - If the Quran is "all mistake," and... - If the Quran and Bible are initially identical... - Then the Bible is initially "all mistake" (because it is initially identical to the Quran which you dscribed as "all mistake") Thanks, again. Actually, the reverse is true. Even if the beginning of Quran were exactly the same as the beginning of Genesis, the fact that the Quran is against the idea of Jesus salvation for all people, makes the Quran complete imperfection. Beyond this, it makes the Quran a book of blasphemy and hypocrisy. Why? In Genesis, after the first sin in the Garden, God who walked in the Garden in His form as Jesus with the first two people, promised the Messiah. The whole Bible, including Genesis, is there for the salvation of people through Jesus salvation. Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews say is prophesied about by Moses and other prophets, even though many Jews don't accept Him as such. Since the Quran promises Heaven (salvation) by personal works righteousness, if it has a mixture of Messiah salvation along with works righteousness salvation, it is mixed-up and self-contradictory. You should be telling this to yourself, not to me. If the reverse is true, then why did you say the opposite earlier? Look, you contradicted yourself earlier and now you're disagreeing with what you had said. Don't tell me "actually, the reverse is true" when the reverse is completely false based upon your earlier words. All you're doing is essentially claiming you are right no matter what position you take or what you say. It's not my fault you can't keep your thoughts organized. What does anything you say have to do with anything? The point is, if you are on-topic with all this, you are barely so. Get a life, and get on-topic like I am with my https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 information, instead of all this rambling. Now, of course, I am only suggesting. Far be it from me to even attempt to order you. Nobody is more off-topic than you. You are the Jesus of off-topic. In >200 pages, not once have you demonstrated the ability to provide support for your beliefs. In >200 pages, despite dozens of specific requests from myself and others, not once have you challenged any of our rebuttals. We give you point-by-point responses which obliterate your arguments beyond all doubt, and every single time without fail, you ignore them. When you ignore them, you are the one that goes off topic. Not once have you managed to prove yourself correct, and not once have you managed to prove someone else incorrect. When you "debate" in this thread, nobody else is ever involved. You contradict yourself so frequently that you are your only opponent. It's absurdly pathetic when there's only one person involved in a debate, and he still manages to lose (i.e. against himself). Honestly, you would be a better debater if you were unconscious. |
|
|
|
I was curious if you realized that you implicated Genesis as "all mistake."
I wouldn't mind if you explained it to me. However, I am rather impatient. Please do it in as few words as possible. Thanks. Sure. First you say: ...Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Then I point out: ...the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham. Therefore: - If the Quran is "all mistake," and... - If the Quran and Bible are initially identical... - Then the Bible is initially "all mistake" (because it is initially identical to the Quran which you dscribed as "all mistake") Thanks, again. Actually, the reverse is true. Even if the beginning of Quran were exactly the same as the beginning of Genesis, the fact that the Quran is against the idea of Jesus salvation for all people, makes the Quran complete imperfection. Beyond this, it makes the Quran a book of blasphemy and hypocrisy. Why? In Genesis, after the first sin in the Garden, God who walked in the Garden in His form as Jesus with the first two people, promised the Messiah. The whole Bible, including Genesis, is there for the salvation of people through Jesus salvation. Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews say is prophesied about by Moses and other prophets, even though many Jews don't accept Him as such. Since the Quran promises Heaven (salvation) by personal works righteousness, if it has a mixture of Messiah salvation along with works righteousness salvation, it is mixed-up and self-contradictory. You should be telling this to yourself, not to me. If the reverse is true, then why did you say the opposite earlier? Look, you contradicted yourself earlier and now you're disagreeing with what you had said. Don't tell me "actually, the reverse is true" when the reverse is completely false based upon your earlier words. All you're doing is essentially claiming you are right no matter what position you take or what you say. It's not my fault you can't keep your thoughts organized. |
|
|
|
I was curious if you realized that you implicated Genesis as "all mistake."
I wouldn't mind if you explained it to me. However, I am rather impatient. Please do it in as few words as possible. Thanks. Sure. First you say: ...Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Then I point out: ...the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham. Therefore: - If the Quran is "all mistake," and... - If the Quran and Bible are initially identical... - Then the Bible is initially "all mistake" (because it is initially identical to the Quran which you dscribed as "all mistake") |
|
|
|
|
It was obvious nearly a year before Mt. Gox officially closed shop that they were having problems. Anyone who didn't recognize the obvious signs and get out quick was either greedy or a fool.
Death and taxes are a certainty, sure, but so are the greedy and the foolish. People should have known long ago not to go near anything Garza touches.
|
|
|
|
BADecker having a desperate swipe at the Quran now. Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself.  Extremely difficult if not impossible to find mistake in Quran. Why? Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Quran, the perfect mistake. No mistakes in it. It all mistake. And he conveniently ignores that the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham. Just tryin' to get me to say something, eh? Why? After all, you know the Quran didn't even exist until more than 500 years after the Bible declared itself to be the all-time Word of God, up to and including the end of our universe in the lake of fire, and the beginning of the new universe that God is creating. The only way that my info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 doesn't prove the existence of God, is a future thing. When this universe is gone, it won't be remembered or brought to mind by anybody, not even God (although He could dredge it up if He really wanted). That's the only way my stuff won't be evidence that proves the existence of God. I was curious if you realized that you implicated Genesis as "all mistake." |
|
|
|
BADecker having a desperate swipe at the Quran now. Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself. Extremely difficult if not impossible to find mistake in Quran. Why? Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Quran, the perfect mistake. No mistakes in it. It all mistake. And he conveniently ignores that the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham. |
|
|
|
How do you intend to prove they do exist? 1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website. 5) I will see if you can adequately explain the actual observations that were recorded in Eisenbeiss on AECES top 40. I think this is the most powerful case, and your explanation for it is inadequate. You do not provide an adequate reason to reject the evidence, and so you do not disprove the conclusion (from parsimony) that the source was communicating factual information that had "survived" death. I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!! Hey, leave me out of this one. I didn't make any claims about "souls," nor did I implicate any based upon my claims of Intelligent Design. You did not engage with the survival hypothesis. Just like Joshuar did not provide adequate reason. But I didn't make any claim about souls. No claim means there is nothing for you to make a counterclaim against. I can't be accused of not refuting a certain point in a debate I wasn't participating in. |
|
|
|
if the "God theory" was the accepted theory for the creation of the Universe, we'd still have to find out where God came from as well.
As must we find out what created the big bang? What then created that? What then created that? Either way, something has always been there, don't pass God off as impossible. The same rule you put Him under also goes for everything. The universe is something greater than we can understand. We believe all things must have a start and an end, but this cannot be applied for the universe. How was time created then? When/how did it all start? There are greater things we as humans just can't comprehend. A concept even greater than time must exist. I can comprehend this just fine. Asking something like "when was time created?" is simply a nonsense question. Paradoxes like these are necessarily self-resolving. We already know time is a relative function. If you're thinking about time as purely linear, you're doing it wrong. Let me give you a hint: Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy. |
|
|
|
How do you intend to prove they do exist? 1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website. 5) I will see if you can adequately explain the actual observations that were recorded in Eisenbeiss on AECES top 40. I think this is the most powerful case, and your explanation for it is inadequate. You do not provide an adequate reason to reject the evidence, and so you do not disprove the conclusion (from parsimony) that the source was communicating factual information that had "survived" death. I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!! Hey, leave me out of this one. I didn't make any claims about "souls," nor did I implicate any based upon my claims of Intelligent Design. |
|
|
|
...But only those who are on God's side will let themselves believe these undeniable facts...
Wrong already. I'm on God's side, i.e. I believe in God. So much for your use of "only." Two God-believing people: 1) BADecker, and 2) The Joint. Two completely different perspectives: 1) BADecker's incorrect reasoning, and 2) the joint's correct reasoning. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
