Scientific proof that God exists?

[darkota]

People like BADecker remind me of the Jehovah Witness's going around from door to door, trying to explain fervently and in vain their false beliefs, sad fate.

[1715084377]

1715084377

[1715084377]

1715084377

[BADecker]

Most people who think about it know that the speed of light is a constant. Light travels at the rate of 186,000 miles per second. This, however, has been shown by recent experimentation to be wrong. In fact, the speed of light travels at varying rates at different times. The evidence that this is commonly accepted by scientists lies in the redshift of certain stars and galaxies.

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago if the universe is indeed that old? We don't know. We can guess. We can estimate to some extent. But we don't know for a fact.

In the past, there might have been tremendously great differences between the "constants" that we see now, and what they were in the distant past. How do we know? Because we are finding tiny differences in many so-called constants year by year right now.

The same is true for much of physics. For example, the simple, well-known physics of the operation of stars is being entirely overturned by the electric cosmos findings.

The point is, we can barely measure things that are right under our noses with reasonable accuracy. The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion years old universe is pure speculation. It is based on the idea that the constants that we see now were constants over all time. But they are not.

The Bible on the other hand, was taken from writings that came down from almost the beginning, 6,000 years ago. These writings were sifted through by Moses, a prince of Egypt between 1,500 and 1,600 BC. He wrote the basics of what he found, down, in the first 5 books of what would become the Bible.

The strength of the Bible is way stronger that scientific observations of today.

The age of the current creation is right around 6,000 years. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10706854#msg10706854 to show how the Bible itself can be interpreted showing both, 6,000 for this creation, but time-like additions for the whole timeline of the earth https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10706854#msg10706854.

[darkota]

Just so we’re clear, I’m establishing that that the Bible is inaccurate. Not just inaccurate, but massively inaccurate. There are more examples of course, some which make it clear that the author of the Bible thinks the world is flat, some which make it clear that the author thought the world did not move and then there are more considered examples, such as the value of pi being unknown at the time (surely God would have known it!?!).

So this is my statement, logically derived from the above.

“The Bible is inaccurate – therefore God is fallible – therefore the definition of God is incorrect – therefore God does not exist.”

To add a touch of justification to this, let’s break it down. We know the Bible is inaccurate, in fact the Bible is contradictory within its own pages. The Bible is the only place that defines God, and God is defined as being infallible. The Bible is also stated as being of God’s word (albeit written by man, see below). Seeing as we know the only source that defines the Christian God is inaccurate, and at least part of the definition is inaccurate (infallible), we can not trust the remainder of the definition. Therefore the definition of God in invalid and God does not exist.

There will come arguments from Christians that while God is infallible, and the Bible is the true word of God, the Bible was in fact written by man, who is fallible. This does not hold up when you examine the scale and volume of inaccuracies held within the Bible. I can understand man rounding down the value of pi, for example, but to get the entire creation story wrong is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, given that God is all powerful, he surely would not have left an obviously inaccurate account of his greatest work go to press, or was that just another sign of his fallibility?

I think I’ve made a stronger argument, based on Christian beliefs, for the non existence of God than there ever has been for the existence of such a deity.

Besides the very obvious inconsistencies found in the bible(Which is supposedly the "word of god", the very theory behind god doesn't make sense either. There is a very simple "Omnipotence Paradox" that is currently "unsolvable"(No matter how many false answers you may find people give), it asks that, "  Can god create an object so heavy he can't lift it?". The answer for that is either of these 2:

If yes: then that mean God's power is not absolute and is limited because he can't lift the stone
If no: then that mean God's power is not absolute and is limited because he can't make the stone in the first place


That paradox shows that Omnipotence itself is a logical fallacy aka it is not real. There are also many more paradoxes that exist regarding this.

[darkota]

Most people who think about it know that the speed of light is a constant. Light travels at the rate of 186,000 miles per second. This, however, has been shown by recent experiment to be wrong. In fact, the speed of light travels at varying rates at different times. The evidence that this is commonly accepted by scientists lies in the redshift of certain stars and galaxies.

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago if the universe is indeed that old? We don't know. We can guess. We can estimate to some extent. But we don't know for a fact.

In the past, there might have been tremendously great differences between the "constants" that we see now, and what they were in the distant past. How do we know? Because we are finding tiny differences in many so-called constants year by year right now.

The same is true for much of physics. The simple well-known physics of the operation of stars is being entirely overturned by the electric cosmos findings.

The point is, we can barely measure things that are right under our noses with reasonable accuracy. The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion years old universe is pure speculation. It is based on the idea that the constants that we see now were constants over all time. But they are not.

The Bible on the other hand, was taken from writings that came down from almost the beginning, 6,000 years ago. These writings were sifted through by Moses, a prince of Egypt between 1,500 and 1,600 BC. He wrote the basics of what he found down in the first 5 books of what would become the Bible.

The strength of the Bible is way stronger that scientific observations of today.

The age of the current creation is right around 6,000 years. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10706854#msg10706854 to show how the Bible itself can be interpreted showing both, 6,000 for this creation, but time-like additions for the whole timeline of the earth https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10706854#msg10706854.

Can you face reality at all? The bible is not accurate, it has been rewritten, edited, have things taken out and put in by; The monarchs of england, early christians, the church, and the romans. The bible is not "god's work" simply put. Humans rewrote and edited every portion of the bible. Also, it should do you well to read up on the Eternal Universe theory, which states that the Universe is eternal and has no beginning(Which automatically means the bible's Genesis chapter which talks about creation is 110% false.

Not to mention(I'll tell you again), The Genesis Portion of the bible is believed to be False and/or edited. It says that the universe was created in 6 days. However, back when the bible was supposedly written, there were no 24 hour days. The 24 hour day 365 year calendar is the gregorian calendar and it was made in the 1500s. That by itself means that Genesis is False/Edited.

[BADecker]

Just so we’re clear, I’m establishing that that the Bible is inaccurate. Not just inaccurate, but massively inaccurate. There are more examples of course, some which make it clear that the author of the Bible thinks the world is flat, some which make it clear that the author thought the world did not move and then there are more considered examples, such as the value of pi being unknown at the time (surely God would have known it!?!).

So this is my statement, logically derived from the above.

“The Bible is inaccurate – therefore God is fallible – therefore the definition of God is incorrect – therefore God does not exist.”

To add a touch of justification to this, let’s break it down. We know the Bible is inaccurate, in fact the Bible is contradictory within its own pages. The Bible is the only place that defines God, and God is defined as being infallible. The Bible is also stated as being of God’s word (albeit written by man, see below). Seeing as we know the only source that defines the Christian God is inaccurate, and at least part of the definition is inaccurate (infallible), we can not trust the remainder of the definition. Therefore the definition of God in invalid and God does not exist.

There will come arguments from Christians that while God is infallible, and the Bible is the true word of God, the Bible was in fact written by man, who is fallible. This does not hold up when you examine the scale and volume of inaccuracies held within the Bible. I can understand man rounding down the value of pi, for example, but to get the entire creation story wrong is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, given that God is all powerful, he surely would not have left an obviously inaccurate account of his greatest work go to press, or was that just another sign of his fallibility?

I think I’ve made a stronger argument, based on Christian beliefs, for the non existence of God than there ever has been for the existence of such a deity.

Besides the very obvious inconsistencies found in the bible(Which is supposedly the "word of god", the very theory behind god doesn't make sense either. There is a very simple "Omnipotence Paradox" that is currently "unsolvable"(No matter how many false answers you may find people give), it asks that, "  Can god create an object so heavy he can't lift it?". The answer for that is either of these 2:

If yes: then that mean God's power is not absolute and is limited because he can't lift the stone
If no: then that mean God's power is not absolute and is limited because he can't make the stone in the first place


That paradox shows that Omnipotence itself is a logical fallacy aka it is not real. There are also many more paradoxes that exist regarding this.

This supposed paradox is human, limited thinking. God did it by creating His Son, Jesus, Who was entirely God just as His Father is entirely God and the Holy Spirit is entirely God. Yet they are 3 distinct individuals who are not 3 Gods, but one God. God can do it because He is God.

The Rock that God couldn't lift was Jesus, because the Father couldn't lift Him. Yet the Rock lifted because He lifted Himself. Thus, God couldn't lift, but at the same time He did. Now, the Holy Spirit exists so that, with Him, those of us who are willing, can lift ourselves to the state of "Godness" through Him, the Holy Spirit God. But, we can't do it if we reject God. Why not? No strength without Godness.

[darkota]

Just so we’re clear, I’m establishing that that the Bible is inaccurate. Not just inaccurate, but massively inaccurate. There are more examples of course, some which make it clear that the author of the Bible thinks the world is flat, some which make it clear that the author thought the world did not move and then there are more considered examples, such as the value of pi being unknown at the time (surely God would have known it!?!).

So this is my statement, logically derived from the above.

“The Bible is inaccurate – therefore God is fallible – therefore the definition of God is incorrect – therefore God does not exist.”

To add a touch of justification to this, let’s break it down. We know the Bible is inaccurate, in fact the Bible is contradictory within its own pages. The Bible is the only place that defines God, and God is defined as being infallible. The Bible is also stated as being of God’s word (albeit written by man, see below). Seeing as we know the only source that defines the Christian God is inaccurate, and at least part of the definition is inaccurate (infallible), we can not trust the remainder of the definition. Therefore the definition of God in invalid and God does not exist.

There will come arguments from Christians that while God is infallible, and the Bible is the true word of God, the Bible was in fact written by man, who is fallible. This does not hold up when you examine the scale and volume of inaccuracies held within the Bible. I can understand man rounding down the value of pi, for example, but to get the entire creation story wrong is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, given that God is all powerful, he surely would not have left an obviously inaccurate account of his greatest work go to press, or was that just another sign of his fallibility?

I think I’ve made a stronger argument, based on Christian beliefs, for the non existence of God than there ever has been for the existence of such a deity.

Besides the very obvious inconsistencies found in the bible(Which is supposedly the "word of god", the very theory behind god doesn't make sense either. There is a very simple "Omnipotence Paradox" that is currently "unsolvable"(No matter how many false answers you may find people give), it asks that, "  Can god create an object so heavy he can't lift it?". The answer for that is either of these 2:

If yes: then that mean God's power is not absolute and is limited because he can't lift the stone
If no: then that mean God's power is not absolute and is limited because he can't make the stone in the first place


That paradox shows that Omnipotence itself is a logical fallacy aka it is not real. There are also many more paradoxes that exist regarding this.

This supposed paradox is human, limited thinking. God did it by creating His Son, Jesus, Who was entirely God just as His Father is entirely God and the Holy Spirit is entirely God. Yet they are 3 distinct individuals who are not 3 Gods, but one God. God can do it because He is God.

The Rock that God couldn't lift was Jesus, because the Father couldn't lift Him. Yet the Rock lifted because He lifted Himself. Thus, God couldn't lift, but at the same time He did. Now, the Holy Spirit exists so that, with Him, those of us who are willing, can lift ourselves to the state of "Godness" through Him, the Holy Spirit God. But, we can't do it if we reject God. Why not? No strength without Godness.

So, your response shows that you can't argue against logic, and you resort to the usual nonsense, "Because Jesus is God's son etc etc". Thanks for clearing that up.

I honestly think you're just trolling...If you're actually serious, then Wow.

[Decksperiment]

God say's, I think I need a kid, so without permission, rapes mary, who was dumped by joseph, after he thought she went behind his back.. she obviously did no?

[BADecker]

Most people who think about it know that the speed of light is a constant. Light travels at the rate of 186,000 miles per second. This, however, has been shown by recent experiment to be wrong. In fact, the speed of light travels at varying rates at different times. The evidence that this is commonly accepted by scientists lies in the redshift of certain stars and galaxies.

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago if the universe is indeed that old? We don't know. We can guess. We can estimate to some extent. But we don't know for a fact.

In the past, there might have been tremendously great differences between the "constants" that we see now, and what they were in the distant past. How do we know? Because we are finding tiny differences in many so-called constants year by year right now.

The same is true for much of physics. The simple well-known physics of the operation of stars is being entirely overturned by the electric cosmos findings.

The point is, we can barely measure things that are right under our noses with reasonable accuracy. The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion years old universe is pure speculation. It is based on the idea that the constants that we see now were constants over all time. But they are not.

The Bible on the other hand, was taken from writings that came down from almost the beginning, 6,000 years ago. These writings were sifted through by Moses, a prince of Egypt between 1,500 and 1,600 BC. He wrote the basics of what he found down in the first 5 books of what would become the Bible.

The strength of the Bible is way stronger that scientific observations of today.

The age of the current creation is right around 6,000 years. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10706854#msg10706854 to show how the Bible itself can be interpreted showing both, 6,000 for this creation, but time-like additions for the whole timeline of the earth https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10706854#msg10706854.

Can you face reality at all? The bible is not accurate, it has been rewritten, edited, have things taken out and put in by; The monarchs of england, early christians, the church, and the romans. The bible is not "god's work" simply put. Humans rewrote and edited every portion of the bible. Also, it should do you well to read up on the Eternal Universe theory, which states that the Universe is eternal and has no beginning(Which automatically means the bible's Genesis chapter which talks about creation is 110% false.

Not to mention(I'll tell you again), The Genesis Portion of the bible is believed to be False and/or edited. It says that the universe was created in 6 days. However, back when the bible was supposedly written, there were no 24 hour days. The 24 hour day 365 year calendar is the gregorian calendar and it was made in the 1500s. That by itself means that Genesis is False/Edited.

Lack of a certain, specific calendar, doesn't negate the elements that were later used to make up the calendar. But, let's take a look at the idea for a moment. If things are as you state, then certainly the idea of 13 to 14 billion years of universe history is simply preposterous.

Many books have been written. Consider the Book of Mormon, for example. The Book of Mormon has many places where uncredited phrases and quotes from the Bible are used in it. This doesn't make it a changed or corrupted Bible. It is simply a book that has some Bible in it.

Rabbi Uri Harel found that the Old Testament of the Bible in its original language is very exact, and has been handed down almost exactly as it had originally been written. In fact, there are only 12 tiny places where the O.T. is not clearly understood. And these places are so small that they don't change the meaning of surrounding areas.

Google and Youtube search on "Uri Harel."

[BADecker]

Just so we’re clear, I’m establishing that that the Bible is inaccurate. Not just inaccurate, but massively inaccurate. There are more examples of course, some which make it clear that the author of the Bible thinks the world is flat, some which make it clear that the author thought the world did not move and then there are more considered examples, such as the value of pi being unknown at the time (surely God would have known it!?!).

So this is my statement, logically derived from the above.

“The Bible is inaccurate – therefore God is fallible – therefore the definition of God is incorrect – therefore God does not exist.”

To add a touch of justification to this, let’s break it down. We know the Bible is inaccurate, in fact the Bible is contradictory within its own pages. The Bible is the only place that defines God, and God is defined as being infallible. The Bible is also stated as being of God’s word (albeit written by man, see below). Seeing as we know the only source that defines the Christian God is inaccurate, and at least part of the definition is inaccurate (infallible), we can not trust the remainder of the definition. Therefore the definition of God in invalid and God does not exist.

There will come arguments from Christians that while God is infallible, and the Bible is the true word of God, the Bible was in fact written by man, who is fallible. This does not hold up when you examine the scale and volume of inaccuracies held within the Bible. I can understand man rounding down the value of pi, for example, but to get the entire creation story wrong is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, given that God is all powerful, he surely would not have left an obviously inaccurate account of his greatest work go to press, or was that just another sign of his fallibility?

I think I’ve made a stronger argument, based on Christian beliefs, for the non existence of God than there ever has been for the existence of such a deity.

Besides the very obvious inconsistencies found in the bible(Which is supposedly the "word of god", the very theory behind god doesn't make sense either. There is a very simple "Omnipotence Paradox" that is currently "unsolvable"(No matter how many false answers you may find people give), it asks that, "  Can god create an object so heavy he can't lift it?". The answer for that is either of these 2:

If yes: then that mean God's power is not absolute and is limited because he can't lift the stone
If no: then that mean God's power is not absolute and is limited because he can't make the stone in the first place


That paradox shows that Omnipotence itself is a logical fallacy aka it is not real. There are also many more paradoxes that exist regarding this.

This supposed paradox is human, limited thinking. God did it by creating His Son, Jesus, Who was entirely God just as His Father is entirely God and the Holy Spirit is entirely God. Yet they are 3 distinct individuals who are not 3 Gods, but one God. God can do it because He is God.

The Rock that God couldn't lift was Jesus, because the Father couldn't lift Him. Yet the Rock lifted because He lifted Himself. Thus, God couldn't lift, but at the same time He did. Now, the Holy Spirit exists so that, with Him, those of us who are willing, can lift ourselves to the state of "Godness" through Him, the Holy Spirit God. But, we can't do it if we reject God. Why not? No strength without Godness.

So, your response shows that you can't argue against logic, and you resort to the usual nonsense, "Because Jesus is God's son etc etc". Thanks for clearing that up.

I honestly think you're just trolling...If you're actually serious, then Wow.

(Wow! We are at 200 pages.)

I used to think that you were simply against the idea of God's existence for some reason. After reviewing some of your posts, I am beginning to think that you have a general thinking problem.

[Decksperiment]

Surely having a thinking problem is better than thinking YOU know, I mean, all you've done is quote endlessly from the biggest fantasy book ever concieved.. and you believe it.. well the rest of us dont, and wish you would fuck off and die, you maggot infested shite spouter

[BADecker]

Surely having a thinking problem is better than thinking YOU know, I mean, all you've done is quote endlessly from the biggest fantasy book ever concieved.. and you believe it.. well the rest of us dont, and wish you would fuck off and die, you maggot infested shite spouter

You are so cute. Thanks. I could almost  you. And if you were a woman, I would.

[the joint]

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, all I do is talk about science. I don't mention religion at all. Yet, all your responses following that post up to this one, talk about religion. Is science such a religion to all of you, that if someone comes along with science that doesn't limit itself to the way you religiously look at science, then he is really talking religion rather than science?

The point is becoming clearer. You simply aren't interested in the truth. All along I thought you people were scientifically minded people. Now it turns out that you are religiously minded people, and you have your own, little brand of science that is your religion.

How interesting you are. You are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in real science. All you are interested in is your brand of thinking that looks like science, but really isn't. You kids really have a weird religion.



EDIT: The post by the joint, directly above this post, isn't included in my little rant in this post.

Poorly.  You talk about Science poorly.  I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane.  You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue.  For example, you've continuously called Science a religion.  It's not.  Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate.  When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.

People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions.  The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.  

If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.

Edit:  And thanks lol

There are all kinds of people who, if you used the strict scientific method with them, they wouldn't have a clue as to what you were talking about. This is because the term "science" has taken on new meaning among the masses. People even call their electric range in their kitchen, science.

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, what definitions have I invented? That's why I have the dictionary definitions listed... just to show that the definitions are not mine. However, that isn't what you are posting against me about. What you are really posting against me about is the fact that you can actually use the sientific method in the link I listed to prove God. And, I explain it so that an average, non-scientific type of person, can understand it as well.

I may not have used terminology exactly the same way that a pure scientist would for explaining some science project wherein he used strict scientific method speech. But if I or you did such, the people would really be all mixed up. I am speaking their language.

Note:  I would appreciate a thoughtful response.  I went through the trouble to cite and reference specific examples to help you understand, which took a bit of time.  The only reason I did it is that, on a few rare occasions, you have demonstrated some capacity for intellectual open-mindedness.  The result of that open-mindedness was a few decent posts of yours that were made decent simply because you were asking more questions instead of continuing to make ridiculous, nonsensical arguments, and being ignorantly proud of how right you think they were/are.

1)  Science has "not" taken on new meaning among the masses.  Among the stupid, maybe.  Among the educated, no.  

2)  That's pretty amazing that you think you can use the Scientific Method to prove God, because it's a logical impossibility.  This is the proof in the pudding that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Science. Science is an inductive method of knowledge acquisition.  By definition, no inductive method has or could ever have the capacity to conclude about something so Universal.  

Any single time that you have ever said there is physical evidence and proof for God, you are necessarily wrong 100% of the time.  This can't be debated, it's a logical rule.  Sorry, try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

3)  You are in no way speaking the language of a scientist, because point #2 demonstrates you don't even understand how data turns into theory.  And, the reality is backwards of what you stated.  People are "all mixed up" precisely because you aren't speaking anyone's language.  You toss out words that everybody else already knows and can understand just fine.  You take those words, butcher them to death, extract some weird meaning that not only makes it impossible for anyone else to understand what you're saying, but renders your ideas completing meaningless to everyone else except you.

Stop pretending you know anything about Science.  You don't, and that's because you don't know the real definition of it, and therefore you can't distinguish between what is scientific and what isn't.  



Edit: Oh, about that link you posted.  Yeah, I saw that.  Good job for referencing definitions for consensus.  I mean that, because that's something you should do....

...but then you went ahead and said something along the lines of, "Oh look! The data I have fits definition #1!"   And definition #1 of "proof" was: "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

And in no way did your data actually constitute proof of anything according to definition #1.  The so-called "evidence" that you think proves God is so insufficient that it could never say anything about God one way or the other.  

That's where an understanding of logic and sound inference comes into play, but you don't have that. There is not a single shred of physical evidence for God's existence, and that's because it's theoretically impossible for there to ever be any.

I pretty much disagree with what you are saying here, because pretty much all you are doing is saying that you disagree with what I am saying.

Dude, this isn't just a matter of disagreement.  There is no opinion here.  I "disagree" with what you are saying in the same way I would "disagree" if you said that 2+2=5.  

2+2=4 because of the rules of math.  If you say 2+2=5, I would disagree because you are provably wrong.

The same applies when you say "I have proof or evidence of God!"  I disagree not because it's some mere opinion, but because it is simply a logical impossibility.  Drawing conclusions from a set of evidence is an inductive process, and it is absolutely impossible for you to arrive at a definitive conclusion for God in this manner.

Now, maybe in your head you can come up with some weird set of rules which might lead you to conclude that 2+2=5.  But, those are your rules, not the rules of actual mathematics.  It's completely meaningless to everyone else if they don't know what your weird rules are.

Similarly, when you start making up terms and definitions for words like "science" or "logical" or "proof," your arguments become completely meaningless and invalid in the same way that 2+2=5 is invalid.  

You might wonder why I think you're making up terms and definitions for words like "science," "logical," and proof."  Great, because I'll tell you.



1) You have made up many definitions for "Science," which is evident in previous posts when you state things like:

Modern science...looks like it is one of the weakest religions for salvation,

or

Science fact is simple science that can be proved by chemical or electrical reactions, and such...Science fiction that is often called science fact are things like Big Bang Theory or Evolution Theory or even Chaos Theory. This kind of science is theory, because it isn't known to be fact. If it were known to be fact, it would be called "law," not "theory."

No dude.  Modern science is neither a religion, nor does it have anything to do with "salvation" whatsoever.  And 'hell no,' dude, the 2nd quotation is just absolutely ridiculous.  The science "fact" and "fiction" you mention both follow from the exact same general process from which all scientific theories are formed, i.e. conclusions are inferred from evidence.  If more evidence arises that doesn't fit the current explanation, the scientific method specifically instructs us to reformulate our original theory and keep testing it to see if it breaks.  There are no "hurt feelings" in Science, and its method necessitates that we ditch current theory to account for new evidence.  Nothing to do with religion or salvation at all.

And by the way, Chaos Theory is predominantly a purely mathematical discipline, not a scientific one.  Yes, there are some applications of Chaos Theory in a few scientific sub-disciplines, but Chaos Theory is primarily founded upon mathematics, not science (i.e science pulls Chaos Theory applications from mathematics, not vice-versa).



2) You have made up definitions for "logical" when you say things like:

Cause and effect is good, sound, scientific logic

or

The next step is to look at the evidences to determine the most logical thing to have faith in.

Reading through your posts in this thread literally gives me a headache because of all the cringing I do.  Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining in the same way a bad car crash is entertaining, and maybe that's why I keep responding to you.

Logic is logic.  That's it.  The scientific method utilizes a subset of pre-existing logical rules to create an internally-valid method for exploration.  Saying something like you did in the first quote is just words on a page that have no actual meaning.  Cause and effect is about actions and reactions, or stimulus and response.  Logic consists of the valid rules of cognition.  You are, somehow, equating the two, and accordingly I have no idea what the hell you mean.  

So, the first quote here isn't even a coherent sentence.  Don't believe me?  Okay, I'll prove it to you.  Let's insert an actual cause-and-effect reaction in the sentence and see if the sentence still makes sense:

"Stepping on the gas pedal in 'drive' makes your car go is good, sound, scientific logic."

...the hell? It isn't even grammatically correct.  Maybe it looks correct to you, but stepping on a gas pedal is not the "strict principles of validity," which is the crux of the actual definition of logic

Now, maybe you intended to say that logical, scientific methodology can be applied to explore cause-and-effect relationships (or something similar, like, "It is logical to press on the gas pedal in 'drive' to make your car go"), but that isn't at all what you actually said.  When you change meanings of terms, we don't know what the hell you're talking about, because according to the actual definitions of things your statements are literally incoherent.

And, as far as the 2nd quote goes, faith is by definition a belief in the total absence of evidence!

Check it out, here is the actual definition of faith:  

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:   trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms:   mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms:   religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Yep, you read it correctly.  Definition #1 doesn't speak to evidence or proof at all.  Definition #2, which does, specifically negates both evidence (i.e. spirit is non-physical and incapable of being evidenced) and proof. Accordingly, your 2nd quote makes no sense.  If you think you can use evidence to support faith, you can't. By definition, it would no longer be "faith" if evidence supports your convictions.



3) You have made up definitions for "proof" like when you say "God always existed. This universe, and the dimensions that are part of it, these are the things that have a beginning...Cause and effect, combined with the complexity of the universe, along with the entropy therein, prove the second."

The things you listed do not in any way constitute proof that God has always existed.  Not even close.  There is absolutely nothing about what you said that directly implicates God whatsoever.  Nothing.  It is simply illogical to consider it as proof.  How do I know?  Because you are breaking the rules of logic, such as committing this logical fallacy:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29



4) And, my personal favorite, you also make up definitions for "atheism."  Check it out.  You said this:

 Atheism is a religion because, to suggest that there is no god, one needs to completely ignore the tremendous quantity of evidences that I have pointed out in my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Here is the actual definition of atheism:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms:   nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
"atheism was not freely discussed in his community"

You see the emboldened phrases?  This is why you are a terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE, debater.  You changed the definition of atheism into something that is 100% the inverse of the actual definition.  That is, "irreligion" is completely inverse to your claim that "atheism is a religion."

Accordingly, there is no debate necessary.  Your arguments are provably stupid right off the bat, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[Decksperiment]

Surely having a thinking problem is better than thinking YOU know, I mean, all you've done is quote endlessly from the biggest fantasy book ever concieved.. and you believe it.. well the rest of us dont, and wish you would fuck off and die, you maggot infested shite spouter

You are so cute. Thanks. I could almost  you. And if you were a woman, I would.

You are too scared to touch a woman you dimwitted virgin, away get laid..

[BerndBrot]

Edit: Oh my bad. After reading a few pages it's evident that the thread is only still alive because BADecker is practicing discussion/trolling skills. You owe me a few minutes of my life dude.

[BADecker]

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, all I do is talk about science. I don't mention religion at all. Yet, all your responses following that post up to this one, talk about religion. Is science such a religion to all of you, that if someone comes along with science that doesn't limit itself to the way you religiously look at science, then he is really talking religion rather than science?

The point is becoming clearer. You simply aren't interested in the truth. All along I thought you people were scientifically minded people. Now it turns out that you are religiously minded people, and you have your own, little brand of science that is your religion.

How interesting you are. You are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in real science. All you are interested in is your brand of thinking that looks like science, but really isn't. You kids really have a weird religion.



EDIT: The post by the joint, directly above this post, isn't included in my little rant in this post.

Poorly.  You talk about Science poorly.  I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane.  You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue.  For example, you've continuously called Science a religion.  It's not.  Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate.  When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.

People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions.  The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.  

If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.

Edit:  And thanks lol

There are all kinds of people who, if you used the strict scientific method with them, they wouldn't have a clue as to what you were talking about. This is because the term "science" has taken on new meaning among the masses. People even call their electric range in their kitchen, science.

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, what definitions have I invented? That's why I have the dictionary definitions listed... just to show that the definitions are not mine. However, that isn't what you are posting against me about. What you are really posting against me about is the fact that you can actually use the sientific method in the link I listed to prove God. And, I explain it so that an average, non-scientific type of person, can understand it as well.

I may not have used terminology exactly the same way that a pure scientist would for explaining some science project wherein he used strict scientific method speech. But if I or you did such, the people would really be all mixed up. I am speaking their language.

Note:  I would appreciate a thoughtful response.  I went through the trouble to cite and reference specific examples to help you understand, which took a bit of time.  The only reason I did it is that, on a few rare occasions, you have demonstrated some capacity for intellectual open-mindedness.  The result of that open-mindedness was a few decent posts of yours that were made decent simply because you were asking more questions instead of continuing to make ridiculous, nonsensical arguments, and being ignorantly proud of how right you think they were/are.

1)  Science has "not" taken on new meaning among the masses.  Among the stupid, maybe.  Among the educated, no.  

2)  That's pretty amazing that you think you can use the Scientific Method to prove God, because it's a logical impossibility.  This is the proof in the pudding that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Science. Science is an inductive method of knowledge acquisition.  By definition, no inductive method has or could ever have the capacity to conclude about something so Universal.  

Any single time that you have ever said there is physical evidence and proof for God, you are necessarily wrong 100% of the time.  This can't be debated, it's a logical rule.  Sorry, try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

3)  You are in no way speaking the language of a scientist, because point #2 demonstrates you don't even understand how data turns into theory.  And, the reality is backwards of what you stated.  People are "all mixed up" precisely because you aren't speaking anyone's language.  You toss out words that everybody else already knows and can understand just fine.  You take those words, butcher them to death, extract some weird meaning that not only makes it impossible for anyone else to understand what you're saying, but renders your ideas completing meaningless to everyone else except you.

Stop pretending you know anything about Science.  You don't, and that's because you don't know the real definition of it, and therefore you can't distinguish between what is scientific and what isn't.  



Edit: Oh, about that link you posted.  Yeah, I saw that.  Good job for referencing definitions for consensus.  I mean that, because that's something you should do....

...but then you went ahead and said something along the lines of, "Oh look! The data I have fits definition #1!"   And definition #1 of "proof" was: "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

And in no way did your data actually constitute proof of anything according to definition #1.  The so-called "evidence" that you think proves God is so insufficient that it could never say anything about God one way or the other.  

That's where an understanding of logic and sound inference comes into play, but you don't have that. There is not a single shred of physical evidence for God's existence, and that's because it's theoretically impossible for there to ever be any.

I pretty much disagree with what you are saying here, because pretty much all you are doing is saying that you disagree with what I am saying.

Dude, this isn't just a matter of disagreement.  There is no opinion here.  I "disagree" with what you are saying in the same way I would "disagree" if you said that 2+2=5.  

2+2=4 because of the rules of math.  If you say 2+2=5, I would disagree because you are provably wrong.

The same applies when you say "I have proof or evidence of God!"  I disagree not because it's some mere opinion, but because it is simply a logical impossibility.  Drawing conclusions from a set of evidence is an inductive process, and it is absolutely impossible for you to arrive at a definitive conclusion for God in this manner.

Now, maybe in your head you can come up with some weird set of rules which might lead you to conclude that 2+2=5.  But, those are your rules, not the rules of actual mathematics.  It's completely meaningless to everyone else if they don't know what your weird rules are.

Similarly, when you start making up terms and definitions for words like "science" or "logical" or "proof," your arguments become completely meaningless and invalid in the same way that 2+2=5 is invalid.  

You might wonder why I think you're making up terms and definitions for words like "science," "logical," and proof."  Great, because I'll tell you.



1) You have made up many definitions for "Science," which is evident in previous posts when you state things like:

Modern science...looks like it is one of the weakest religions for salvation,

or

Science fact is simple science that can be proved by chemical or electrical reactions, and such...Science fiction that is often called science fact are things like Big Bang Theory or Evolution Theory or even Chaos Theory. This kind of science is theory, because it isn't known to be fact. If it were known to be fact, it would be called "law," not "theory."

No dude.  Modern science is neither a religion, nor does it have anything to do with "salvation" whatsoever.  And 'hell no,' dude, the 2nd quotation is just absolutely ridiculous.  The science "fact" and "fiction" you mention both follow from the exact same general process from which all scientific theories are formed, i.e. conclusions are inferred from evidence.  If more evidence arises that doesn't fit the current explanation, the scientific method specifically instructs us to reformulate our original theory and keep testing it to see if it breaks.  There are no "hurt feelings" in Science, and its method necessitates that we ditch current theory to account for new evidence.  Nothing to do with religion or salvation at all.

And by the way, Chaos Theory is predominantly a purely mathematical discipline, not a scientific one.  Yes, there are some applications of Chaos Theory in a few scientific sub-disciplines, but Chaos Theory is primarily founded upon mathematics, not science (i.e science pulls Chaos Theory applications from mathematics, not vice-versa).



2) You have made up definitions for "logical" when you say things like:

Cause and effect is good, sound, scientific logic

or

The next step is to look at the evidences to determine the most logical thing to have faith in.

Reading through your posts in this thread literally gives me a headache because of all the cringing I do.  Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining in the same way a bad car crash is entertaining, and maybe that's why I keep responding to you.

Logic is logic.  That's it.  The scientific method utilizes a subset of pre-existing logical rules to create an internally-valid method for exploration.  Saying something like you did in the first quote is just words on a page that have no actual meaning.  Cause and effect is about actions and reactions, or stimulus and response.  Logic consists of the valid rules of cognition.  You are, somehow, equating the two, and accordingly I have no idea what the hell you mean.  

So, the first quote here isn't even a coherent sentence.  Don't believe me?  Okay, I'll prove it to you.  Let's insert an actual cause-and-effect reaction in the sentence and see if the sentence still makes sense:

"Stepping on the gas pedal in 'drive' makes your car go is good, sound, scientific logic."

...the hell? It isn't even grammatically correct.  Maybe it looks correct to you, but stepping on a gas pedal is not the "strict principles of validity," which is the crux of the actual definition of logic

Now, maybe you intended to say that logical, scientific methodology can be applied to explore cause-and-effect relationships (or something similar, like, "It is logical to press on the gas pedal in 'drive' to make your car go"), but that isn't at all what you actually said.  When you change meanings of terms, we don't know what the hell you're talking about, because according to the actual definitions of things your statements are literally incoherent.

And, as far as the 2nd quote goes, faith is by definition a belief in the total absence of evidence!

Check it out, here is the actual definition of faith:  

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:   trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms:   mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms:   religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Yep, you read it correctly.  Definition #1 doesn't speak to evidence or proof at all.  Definition #2, which does, specifically negates both evidence (i.e. spirit is non-physical and incapable of being evidenced) and proof. Accordingly, your 2nd quote makes no sense.  If you think you can use evidence to support faith, you can't. By definition, it would no longer be "faith" if evidence supports your convictions.



3) You have made up definitions for "proof" like when you say "God always existed. This universe, and the dimensions that are part of it, these are the things that have a beginning...Cause and effect, combined with the complexity of the universe, along with the entropy therein, prove the second."

The things you listed do not in any way constitute proof that God has always existed.  Not even close.  There is absolutely nothing about what you said that directly implicates God whatsoever.  Nothing.  It is simply illogical to consider it as proof.  How do I know?  Because you are breaking the rules of logic, such as committing this logical fallacy:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29



4) And, my personal favorite, you also make up definitions for "atheism."  Check it out.  You said this:

 Atheism is a religion because, to suggest that there is no god, one needs to completely ignore the tremendous quantity of evidences that I have pointed out in my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Here is the actual definition of atheism:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms:   nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
"atheism was not freely discussed in his community"

You see the emboldened phrases?  This is why you are a terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE, debater.  You changed the definition of atheism into something that is 100% the inverse of the actual definition.  That is, "irreligion" is completely inverse to your claim that "atheism is a religion."

Accordingly, there is no debate necessary.  Your arguments are provably stupid right off the bat, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Come, come. Certainly you have seen and heard that decades ago it was proven that 2+2= a little more than 4, 2+2=4, and 2+2= a little less than 4?

The reason that no debate is necessary is that it, simply, is not necessary. The reason that it won't do any good is that you are debating from a standpoint of ignorance and denial.

[BADecker]

Surely having a thinking problem is better than thinking YOU know, I mean, all you've done is quote endlessly from the biggest fantasy book ever concieved.. and you believe it.. well the rest of us dont, and wish you would fuck off and die, you maggot infested shite spouter

You are so cute. Thanks. I could almost  you. And if you were a woman, I would.

You are too scared to touch a woman you dimwitted virgin, away get laid..

Hey buddy, the Law of God requires a person to marry the one who he lays with. Why would anyone want the drama of marriage? But, there are a whole lot of more or less honorable people who marry the one they lay with, even though they don't know that the Law of God says that they should.

You're okay. If you make it to Heaven, you certainly are okay. If you don't make it, let's try to keep your sinning down in this life, by saying you are okay, so that you don't get all upset and sin more. Why should we drum up more sins for you to be punished for in Hell?

[the joint]

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, all I do is talk about science. I don't mention religion at all. Yet, all your responses following that post up to this one, talk about religion. Is science such a religion to all of you, that if someone comes along with science that doesn't limit itself to the way you religiously look at science, then he is really talking religion rather than science?

The point is becoming clearer. You simply aren't interested in the truth. All along I thought you people were scientifically minded people. Now it turns out that you are religiously minded people, and you have your own, little brand of science that is your religion.

How interesting you are. You are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in real science. All you are interested in is your brand of thinking that looks like science, but really isn't. You kids really have a weird religion.



EDIT: The post by the joint, directly above this post, isn't included in my little rant in this post.

Poorly.  You talk about Science poorly.  I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane.  You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue.  For example, you've continuously called Science a religion.  It's not.  Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate.  When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.

People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions.  The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.  

If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.

Edit:  And thanks lol

There are all kinds of people who, if you used the strict scientific method with them, they wouldn't have a clue as to what you were talking about. This is because the term "science" has taken on new meaning among the masses. People even call their electric range in their kitchen, science.

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, what definitions have I invented? That's why I have the dictionary definitions listed... just to show that the definitions are not mine. However, that isn't what you are posting against me about. What you are really posting against me about is the fact that you can actually use the sientific method in the link I listed to prove God. And, I explain it so that an average, non-scientific type of person, can understand it as well.

I may not have used terminology exactly the same way that a pure scientist would for explaining some science project wherein he used strict scientific method speech. But if I or you did such, the people would really be all mixed up. I am speaking their language.

Note:  I would appreciate a thoughtful response.  I went through the trouble to cite and reference specific examples to help you understand, which took a bit of time.  The only reason I did it is that, on a few rare occasions, you have demonstrated some capacity for intellectual open-mindedness.  The result of that open-mindedness was a few decent posts of yours that were made decent simply because you were asking more questions instead of continuing to make ridiculous, nonsensical arguments, and being ignorantly proud of how right you think they were/are.

1)  Science has "not" taken on new meaning among the masses.  Among the stupid, maybe.  Among the educated, no.  

2)  That's pretty amazing that you think you can use the Scientific Method to prove God, because it's a logical impossibility.  This is the proof in the pudding that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Science. Science is an inductive method of knowledge acquisition.  By definition, no inductive method has or could ever have the capacity to conclude about something so Universal.  

Any single time that you have ever said there is physical evidence and proof for God, you are necessarily wrong 100% of the time.  This can't be debated, it's a logical rule.  Sorry, try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

3)  You are in no way speaking the language of a scientist, because point #2 demonstrates you don't even understand how data turns into theory.  And, the reality is backwards of what you stated.  People are "all mixed up" precisely because you aren't speaking anyone's language.  You toss out words that everybody else already knows and can understand just fine.  You take those words, butcher them to death, extract some weird meaning that not only makes it impossible for anyone else to understand what you're saying, but renders your ideas completing meaningless to everyone else except you.

Stop pretending you know anything about Science.  You don't, and that's because you don't know the real definition of it, and therefore you can't distinguish between what is scientific and what isn't.  



Edit: Oh, about that link you posted.  Yeah, I saw that.  Good job for referencing definitions for consensus.  I mean that, because that's something you should do....

...but then you went ahead and said something along the lines of, "Oh look! The data I have fits definition #1!"   And definition #1 of "proof" was: "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

And in no way did your data actually constitute proof of anything according to definition #1.  The so-called "evidence" that you think proves God is so insufficient that it could never say anything about God one way or the other.  

That's where an understanding of logic and sound inference comes into play, but you don't have that. There is not a single shred of physical evidence for God's existence, and that's because it's theoretically impossible for there to ever be any.

I pretty much disagree with what you are saying here, because pretty much all you are doing is saying that you disagree with what I am saying.

Dude, this isn't just a matter of disagreement.  There is no opinion here.  I "disagree" with what you are saying in the same way I would "disagree" if you said that 2+2=5.  

2+2=4 because of the rules of math.  If you say 2+2=5, I would disagree because you are provably wrong.

The same applies when you say "I have proof or evidence of God!"  I disagree not because it's some mere opinion, but because it is simply a logical impossibility.  Drawing conclusions from a set of evidence is an inductive process, and it is absolutely impossible for you to arrive at a definitive conclusion for God in this manner.

Now, maybe in your head you can come up with some weird set of rules which might lead you to conclude that 2+2=5.  But, those are your rules, not the rules of actual mathematics.  It's completely meaningless to everyone else if they don't know what your weird rules are.

Similarly, when you start making up terms and definitions for words like "science" or "logical" or "proof," your arguments become completely meaningless and invalid in the same way that 2+2=5 is invalid.  

You might wonder why I think you're making up terms and definitions for words like "science," "logical," and proof."  Great, because I'll tell you.



1) You have made up many definitions for "Science," which is evident in previous posts when you state things like:

Modern science...looks like it is one of the weakest religions for salvation,

or

Science fact is simple science that can be proved by chemical or electrical reactions, and such...Science fiction that is often called science fact are things like Big Bang Theory or Evolution Theory or even Chaos Theory. This kind of science is theory, because it isn't known to be fact. If it were known to be fact, it would be called "law," not "theory."

No dude.  Modern science is neither a religion, nor does it have anything to do with "salvation" whatsoever.  And 'hell no,' dude, the 2nd quotation is just absolutely ridiculous.  The science "fact" and "fiction" you mention both follow from the exact same general process from which all scientific theories are formed, i.e. conclusions are inferred from evidence.  If more evidence arises that doesn't fit the current explanation, the scientific method specifically instructs us to reformulate our original theory and keep testing it to see if it breaks.  There are no "hurt feelings" in Science, and its method necessitates that we ditch current theory to account for new evidence.  Nothing to do with religion or salvation at all.

And by the way, Chaos Theory is predominantly a purely mathematical discipline, not a scientific one.  Yes, there are some applications of Chaos Theory in a few scientific sub-disciplines, but Chaos Theory is primarily founded upon mathematics, not science (i.e science pulls Chaos Theory applications from mathematics, not vice-versa).



2) You have made up definitions for "logical" when you say things like:

Cause and effect is good, sound, scientific logic

or

The next step is to look at the evidences to determine the most logical thing to have faith in.

Reading through your posts in this thread literally gives me a headache because of all the cringing I do.  Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining in the same way a bad car crash is entertaining, and maybe that's why I keep responding to you.

Logic is logic.  That's it.  The scientific method utilizes a subset of pre-existing logical rules to create an internally-valid method for exploration.  Saying something like you did in the first quote is just words on a page that have no actual meaning.  Cause and effect is about actions and reactions, or stimulus and response.  Logic consists of the valid rules of cognition.  You are, somehow, equating the two, and accordingly I have no idea what the hell you mean.  

So, the first quote here isn't even a coherent sentence.  Don't believe me?  Okay, I'll prove it to you.  Let's insert an actual cause-and-effect reaction in the sentence and see if the sentence still makes sense:

"Stepping on the gas pedal in 'drive' makes your car go is good, sound, scientific logic."

...the hell? It isn't even grammatically correct.  Maybe it looks correct to you, but stepping on a gas pedal is not the "strict principles of validity," which is the crux of the actual definition of logic

Now, maybe you intended to say that logical, scientific methodology can be applied to explore cause-and-effect relationships (or something similar, like, "It is logical to press on the gas pedal in 'drive' to make your car go"), but that isn't at all what you actually said.  When you change meanings of terms, we don't know what the hell you're talking about, because according to the actual definitions of things your statements are literally incoherent.

And, as far as the 2nd quote goes, faith is by definition a belief in the total absence of evidence!

Check it out, here is the actual definition of faith:  

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:   trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms:   mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms:   religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Yep, you read it correctly.  Definition #1 doesn't speak to evidence or proof at all.  Definition #2, which does, specifically negates both evidence (i.e. spirit is non-physical and incapable of being evidenced) and proof. Accordingly, your 2nd quote makes no sense.  If you think you can use evidence to support faith, you can't. By definition, it would no longer be "faith" if evidence supports your convictions.



3) You have made up definitions for "proof" like when you say "God always existed. This universe, and the dimensions that are part of it, these are the things that have a beginning...Cause and effect, combined with the complexity of the universe, along with the entropy therein, prove the second."

The things you listed do not in any way constitute proof that God has always existed.  Not even close.  There is absolutely nothing about what you said that directly implicates God whatsoever.  Nothing.  It is simply illogical to consider it as proof.  How do I know?  Because you are breaking the rules of logic, such as committing this logical fallacy:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29



4) And, my personal favorite, you also make up definitions for "atheism."  Check it out.  You said this:

 Atheism is a religion because, to suggest that there is no god, one needs to completely ignore the tremendous quantity of evidences that I have pointed out in my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Here is the actual definition of atheism:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms:   nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
"atheism was not freely discussed in his community"

You see the emboldened phrases?  This is why you are a terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE, debater.  You changed the definition of atheism into something that is 100% the inverse of the actual definition.  That is, "irreligion" is completely inverse to your claim that "atheism is a religion."

Accordingly, there is no debate necessary.  Your arguments are provably stupid right off the bat, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Come, come. Certainly you have seen and heard that decades ago it was proven that 2+2= a little more than 4, 2+2=4, and 2+2= a little less than 4?

The reason that no debate is necessary is that it, simply, is not necessary. The reason that it won't do any good is that you are debating from a standpoint of ignorance and denial.

Are you a goldfish?   How many times do I need to tell you that I believe in God, too?  The only difference between us is that I can provide a good reason for my belief, and you cannot.

First, I must say I'm completely disappointed by your response. I spent a good amount of time siphoning through your posts and then connecting them to reliable outside resources (like a dictionary).

Second -- and this follows from the first -- you have the most remarkable selective reading skills I've ever seen.  My lengthy post responded point-by-point to virtually every consideration of yours, just as I always do with every post.  All of that content, and you focus on 2+2=not-4?  Are you kidding me?  Could you have possibly missed the point any more than you already did.

By the way, no, in Base 10 addition, 2+2 is always 4.  Stop lying to yourself that you actually know any of this.

Third, from ignorance and denial?  I'm utterly speechless.  You obviously didn't read anything.  Not a single thing.

Point to one thing...ANYthing I said in my response to you, and correct my mistakes.  Show me where and how I'm wrong.  I know you can't.  Every time I've asked you to respond to specific point, you have never done so.  I'm guessing because that's due to your inability to do so.

So, can you specifically tell me where I'm "ignorant" in my last post?  I would appreciate it.

[BADecker]

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, all I do is talk about science. I don't mention religion at all. Yet, all your responses following that post up to this one, talk about religion. Is science such a religion to all of you, that if someone comes along with science that doesn't limit itself to the way you religiously look at science, then he is really talking religion rather than science?

The point is becoming clearer. You simply aren't interested in the truth. All along I thought you people were scientifically minded people. Now it turns out that you are religiously minded people, and you have your own, little brand of science that is your religion.

How interesting you are. You are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in real science. All you are interested in is your brand of thinking that looks like science, but really isn't. You kids really have a weird religion.



EDIT: The post by the joint, directly above this post, isn't included in my little rant in this post.

Poorly.  You talk about Science poorly.  I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane.  You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue.  For example, you've continuously called Science a religion.  It's not.  Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate.  When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.

People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions.  The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.  

If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.

Edit:  And thanks lol

There are all kinds of people who, if you used the strict scientific method with them, they wouldn't have a clue as to what you were talking about. This is because the term "science" has taken on new meaning among the masses. People even call their electric range in their kitchen, science.

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, what definitions have I invented? That's why I have the dictionary definitions listed... just to show that the definitions are not mine. However, that isn't what you are posting against me about. What you are really posting against me about is the fact that you can actually use the sientific method in the link I listed to prove God. And, I explain it so that an average, non-scientific type of person, can understand it as well.

I may not have used terminology exactly the same way that a pure scientist would for explaining some science project wherein he used strict scientific method speech. But if I or you did such, the people would really be all mixed up. I am speaking their language.

Note:  I would appreciate a thoughtful response.  I went through the trouble to cite and reference specific examples to help you understand, which took a bit of time.  The only reason I did it is that, on a few rare occasions, you have demonstrated some capacity for intellectual open-mindedness.  The result of that open-mindedness was a few decent posts of yours that were made decent simply because you were asking more questions instead of continuing to make ridiculous, nonsensical arguments, and being ignorantly proud of how right you think they were/are.

1)  Science has "not" taken on new meaning among the masses.  Among the stupid, maybe.  Among the educated, no.  

2)  That's pretty amazing that you think you can use the Scientific Method to prove God, because it's a logical impossibility.  This is the proof in the pudding that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Science. Science is an inductive method of knowledge acquisition.  By definition, no inductive method has or could ever have the capacity to conclude about something so Universal.  

Any single time that you have ever said there is physical evidence and proof for God, you are necessarily wrong 100% of the time.  This can't be debated, it's a logical rule.  Sorry, try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

3)  You are in no way speaking the language of a scientist, because point #2 demonstrates you don't even understand how data turns into theory.  And, the reality is backwards of what you stated.  People are "all mixed up" precisely because you aren't speaking anyone's language.  You toss out words that everybody else already knows and can understand just fine.  You take those words, butcher them to death, extract some weird meaning that not only makes it impossible for anyone else to understand what you're saying, but renders your ideas completing meaningless to everyone else except you.

Stop pretending you know anything about Science.  You don't, and that's because you don't know the real definition of it, and therefore you can't distinguish between what is scientific and what isn't.  



Edit: Oh, about that link you posted.  Yeah, I saw that.  Good job for referencing definitions for consensus.  I mean that, because that's something you should do....

...but then you went ahead and said something along the lines of, "Oh look! The data I have fits definition #1!"   And definition #1 of "proof" was: "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

And in no way did your data actually constitute proof of anything according to definition #1.  The so-called "evidence" that you think proves God is so insufficient that it could never say anything about God one way or the other.  

That's where an understanding of logic and sound inference comes into play, but you don't have that. There is not a single shred of physical evidence for God's existence, and that's because it's theoretically impossible for there to ever be any.

I pretty much disagree with what you are saying here, because pretty much all you are doing is saying that you disagree with what I am saying.

Dude, this isn't just a matter of disagreement.  There is no opinion here.  I "disagree" with what you are saying in the same way I would "disagree" if you said that 2+2=5.  

2+2=4 because of the rules of math.  If you say 2+2=5, I would disagree because you are provably wrong.

The same applies when you say "I have proof or evidence of God!"  I disagree not because it's some mere opinion, but because it is simply a logical impossibility.  Drawing conclusions from a set of evidence is an inductive process, and it is absolutely impossible for you to arrive at a definitive conclusion for God in this manner.

Now, maybe in your head you can come up with some weird set of rules which might lead you to conclude that 2+2=5.  But, those are your rules, not the rules of actual mathematics.  It's completely meaningless to everyone else if they don't know what your weird rules are.

Similarly, when you start making up terms and definitions for words like "science" or "logical" or "proof," your arguments become completely meaningless and invalid in the same way that 2+2=5 is invalid.  

You might wonder why I think you're making up terms and definitions for words like "science," "logical," and proof."  Great, because I'll tell you.



1) You have made up many definitions for "Science," which is evident in previous posts when you state things like:

Modern science...looks like it is one of the weakest religions for salvation,

or

Science fact is simple science that can be proved by chemical or electrical reactions, and such...Science fiction that is often called science fact are things like Big Bang Theory or Evolution Theory or even Chaos Theory. This kind of science is theory, because it isn't known to be fact. If it were known to be fact, it would be called "law," not "theory."

No dude.  Modern science is neither a religion, nor does it have anything to do with "salvation" whatsoever.  And 'hell no,' dude, the 2nd quotation is just absolutely ridiculous.  The science "fact" and "fiction" you mention both follow from the exact same general process from which all scientific theories are formed, i.e. conclusions are inferred from evidence.  If more evidence arises that doesn't fit the current explanation, the scientific method specifically instructs us to reformulate our original theory and keep testing it to see if it breaks.  There are no "hurt feelings" in Science, and its method necessitates that we ditch current theory to account for new evidence.  Nothing to do with religion or salvation at all.

And by the way, Chaos Theory is predominantly a purely mathematical discipline, not a scientific one.  Yes, there are some applications of Chaos Theory in a few scientific sub-disciplines, but Chaos Theory is primarily founded upon mathematics, not science (i.e science pulls Chaos Theory applications from mathematics, not vice-versa).



2) You have made up definitions for "logical" when you say things like:

Cause and effect is good, sound, scientific logic

or

The next step is to look at the evidences to determine the most logical thing to have faith in.

Reading through your posts in this thread literally gives me a headache because of all the cringing I do.  Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining in the same way a bad car crash is entertaining, and maybe that's why I keep responding to you.

Logic is logic.  That's it.  The scientific method utilizes a subset of pre-existing logical rules to create an internally-valid method for exploration.  Saying something like you did in the first quote is just words on a page that have no actual meaning.  Cause and effect is about actions and reactions, or stimulus and response.  Logic consists of the valid rules of cognition.  You are, somehow, equating the two, and accordingly I have no idea what the hell you mean.  

So, the first quote here isn't even a coherent sentence.  Don't believe me?  Okay, I'll prove it to you.  Let's insert an actual cause-and-effect reaction in the sentence and see if the sentence still makes sense:

"Stepping on the gas pedal in 'drive' makes your car go is good, sound, scientific logic."

...the hell? It isn't even grammatically correct.  Maybe it looks correct to you, but stepping on a gas pedal is not the "strict principles of validity," which is the crux of the actual definition of logic

Now, maybe you intended to say that logical, scientific methodology can be applied to explore cause-and-effect relationships (or something similar, like, "It is logical to press on the gas pedal in 'drive' to make your car go"), but that isn't at all what you actually said.  When you change meanings of terms, we don't know what the hell you're talking about, because according to the actual definitions of things your statements are literally incoherent.

And, as far as the 2nd quote goes, faith is by definition a belief in the total absence of evidence!

Check it out, here is the actual definition of faith:  

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:   trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms:   mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms:   religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Yep, you read it correctly.  Definition #1 doesn't speak to evidence or proof at all.  Definition #2, which does, specifically negates both evidence (i.e. spirit is non-physical and incapable of being evidenced) and proof. Accordingly, your 2nd quote makes no sense.  If you think you can use evidence to support faith, you can't. By definition, it would no longer be "faith" if evidence supports your convictions.



3) You have made up definitions for "proof" like when you say "God always existed. This universe, and the dimensions that are part of it, these are the things that have a beginning...Cause and effect, combined with the complexity of the universe, along with the entropy therein, prove the second."

The things you listed do not in any way constitute proof that God has always existed.  Not even close.  There is absolutely nothing about what you said that directly implicates God whatsoever.  Nothing.  It is simply illogical to consider it as proof.  How do I know?  Because you are breaking the rules of logic, such as committing this logical fallacy:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29



4) And, my personal favorite, you also make up definitions for "atheism."  Check it out.  You said this:

 Atheism is a religion because, to suggest that there is no god, one needs to completely ignore the tremendous quantity of evidences that I have pointed out in my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Here is the actual definition of atheism:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms:   nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
"atheism was not freely discussed in his community"

You see the emboldened phrases?  This is why you are a terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE, debater.  You changed the definition of atheism into something that is 100% the inverse of the actual definition.  That is, "irreligion" is completely inverse to your claim that "atheism is a religion."

Accordingly, there is no debate necessary.  Your arguments are provably stupid right off the bat, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Come, come. Certainly you have seen and heard that decades ago it was proven that 2+2= a little more than 4, 2+2=4, and 2+2= a little less than 4?

The reason that no debate is necessary is that it, simply, is not necessary. The reason that it won't do any good is that you are debating from a standpoint of ignorance and denial.

Are you a goldfish?   How many times do I need to tell you that I believe in God, too?  The only difference between us is that I can provide a good reason for my belief, and you cannot.

First, I must say I'm completely disappointed by your response. I spent a good amount of time siphoning through your posts and then connecting them to reliable outside resources (like a dictionary).

Second -- and this follows from the first -- you have the most remarkable selective reading skills I've ever seen.  My lengthy post responded point-by-point to virtually every consideration of yours, just as I always do with every post.  All of that content, and you focus on 2+2=not-4?  Are you kidding me?  Could you have possibly missed the point any more than you already did.

By the way, no, in Base 10 addition, 2+2 is always 4.  Stop lying to yourself that you actually know any of this.

Third, from ignorance and denial?  I'm utterly speechless.  You obviously didn't read anything.  Not a single thing.

Point to one thing...ANYthing I said in my response to you, and correct my mistakes.  Show me where and how I'm wrong.  I know you can't.  Every time I've asked you to respond to specific point, you have never done so.  I'm guessing because that's due to your inability to do so.

So, can you specifically tell me where I'm "ignorant" in my last post?  I would appreciate it.

Okay, okay. Let me say it this way. You are either very old and very skilled in the scientific method. Or you are reasonably young (teens) and highly intelligent, having studied under someone who is elderly and highly skilled. Either way, I don't have the kind of debating skills that I would need to debate you, be it lack of I.Q, or lack of experience, or both.

Because of this, I hang onto faith, which is the thing that we all need to hang onto, because none of us is smart enough, has enough I.Q. or experience, to see into the depths of what exists.

Since you are such an adept into the things that you understand, there is no need to debate or argue with you. Thanks, however, for whatever of your responses you are expressing simply because you want to correct me for my own good. Again, I say thank you for that.



EDIT: In addition, my guess is that you are either in a wheelchair, or are some other way physically handicapped. However, you seem to have very good typing skills, meaning that you are not a quadriplegic. But I may be wrong about the quadriplegic part, because you could have a friend or employee who does you typing for you. Or maybe you are Stephen Hawking.

Other people generally are not in the mood for constantly tearing deeper and deeper into conversations, looking for the absolute best definitions for all the words and phrases used, and the best applications for them.

Since you appear to be that way, I wish you all the best in finding someone like you so that you can go on into ever increasing mental tirades and verbal (written) invectives, with the absolut pleasure that they seem to provide for you.

EDIT2: Did I write "absolut." I misspelled. Sometimes I forget that you are "the joint," and I get into alcohol - Absolut.   

[(oYo)]

What is the 'original sin'? Answer: The quest for knowledge. Understanding this is paramount to understanding why having the god debate with anyone of faith is ultimately futile. (And, so I will beat this dead horse once again to make the point.)The quest for knowledge is undeniably what science (and atheism) is all about and it is thereby in direct support of the 'original sin', which is why fundamentalists adamantly oppose it, since it is faith in god, rather than knowledge of god, that is required of believers to believe in something for which there can never be any scientific proof.

[BADecker]

What is the 'original sin'? Answer: The quest for knowledge. Understanding this is paramount to understanding why having the god debate with anyone of faith is ultimately futile. (And, so I will beat this dead horse once again to make the point.)The quest for knowledge is undeniably what science (and atheism) is all about and it is thereby in direct support of the 'original sin', which is why fundamentalists adamantly oppose it, since it is faith in god, rather than knowledge of god, that is required of believers to believe in something for which there can never be any scientific proof.

Actually, the original sin was trusting the devil for knowledge rather than trusting God for it.