Bitcoin Forum
August 15, 2018, 08:54:48 PM
 News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 Home Help Search Donate Login Register
 Pages: 1 ... 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 [452] 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492
 Author Topic: Scientific proof that God exists?  (Read 801472 times)
ipbitrung01
Member

Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 10

 December 23, 2017, 06:56:50 PM

is already exist. where I do my đất nước, we've say that they exist

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Astargath
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 557

 December 23, 2017, 06:58:39 PM

Name one of the few ones that actually say it.

You forgot about Newton already? He says nothing else in his 3rd law.

From the first 3 google searches:

''Formally stated, Newton's third law is:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.''

''Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A.''

''According to Newton's third law...
For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.''

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html

Perhaps I'm blind but where does it say that everything has a cause?

How dense are you? You don't seem to understand that an action that gets a reaction is a cause that has an effect. If I had a nickle for every bit of science 101 I had to remind you of, I'd be very wealthy.

Sure, things that have a cause have also an effect, the part I'm missing is where it says that EVERYTHING (as you claim) has actually a cause, could you make that clear for me?

 ███████████████████   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ███████████████████BITVEST ║★║ ..BITVEST DICE.HAS BEEN RELEASED! ║★║ ▄████████████████████▄████████████████████████████████▀▀███████████████████░░░░███████████████████▄▄█████████████████▀▀████▀▀█████████████░░░░██░░░░█████████████▄▄████▄▄███████████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀███████░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄██████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████████████████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████████░░▄███▄░░░░███████████▄▄███▀░░░░▄███████████████░░░░░░███████████████░░░░░░░██████████████░░░░░░░░██████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░██████████▀░░█████░░░░████████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄██████████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█████░████▄░███████░░░░███░█████░█████████░░████░░░▀█░██████████░░████░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░ ▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄█████████████░█▀▀▀█░█████████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░█████░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄▀██░████████░███████░█▀ ▄████████████████████▄████████▀▀░░░▀▀██████████▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀████░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀████░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░████░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░████░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░████░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░████░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░████▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░███████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄█████████████▄▄█▄▄████████▀████████████████████▀ ║★║ INVESTOR PLINKO & CASINO GAMES..● PLINKO   |7| SLOTS   (+) ROULETTE   ▼ BIT SPIN   ■ DICE... ║★║ ✔ Rainbot✔ Daily Quests✔ Faucet
Astargath
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 557

 December 23, 2017, 07:00:49 PM

Nothing can be 100% factual so saying that a scientific theory is not 100% factual is like saying nothing, it's not an argument. A scientific theory is the closest we can get to the facts, it is the best science can do for certain things so your argument is just retarded.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

Something cannot be more factual than something else, it's either factual or it's not.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now you can leave.

You said what I am trying to tell you better than I. The dismissal of non-factual things in science, makes the remaining things factual... in science. And that is what we are talking about here. Science law and science theory. Not absolute fact without the slightest evidence against.

Didn't you read the topic title? "Scientific proof that God exists?" How can you miss the word "science" in the topic? Science dismisses "things" as impossible when there are great enough odds against them. That's when we get science law, which is essentially science fact. When there are insufficient odds against them in the understanding of the science community.

Science theory is not science law because there are great enough odds that an opposing science theory can be made.

Will you ever get out of political science talk?

You went on a very long tangent here just to say nothing. My point was simple, there are different things in science, from the descriptions above you can see that a scientific theory is in fact better than a scientific law.
Scientific Theory vs Law
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is understandable, as without having these terms formally defined the English definition logically leads to the misconception. In addition to defining a scientific theory we will define the word theory in English and compare the two definitions. Finally, we will make a case for why the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

 ███████████████████   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ███████████████████BITVEST ║★║ ..BITVEST DICE.HAS BEEN RELEASED! ║★║ ▄████████████████████▄████████████████████████████████▀▀███████████████████░░░░███████████████████▄▄█████████████████▀▀████▀▀█████████████░░░░██░░░░█████████████▄▄████▄▄███████████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀███████░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄██████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████████████████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████████░░▄███▄░░░░███████████▄▄███▀░░░░▄███████████████░░░░░░███████████████░░░░░░░██████████████░░░░░░░░██████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░██████████▀░░█████░░░░████████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄██████████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█████░████▄░███████░░░░███░█████░█████████░░████░░░▀█░██████████░░████░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░ ▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄█████████████░█▀▀▀█░█████████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░█████░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄▀██░████████░███████░█▀ ▄████████████████████▄████████▀▀░░░▀▀██████████▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀████░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀████░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░████░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░████░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░████░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░████░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░████▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░███████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄█████████████▄▄█▄▄████████▀████████████████████▀ ║★║ INVESTOR PLINKO & CASINO GAMES..● PLINKO   |7| SLOTS   (+) ROULETTE   ▼ BIT SPIN   ■ DICE... ║★║ ✔ Rainbot✔ Daily Quests✔ Faucet
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1038

 December 23, 2017, 07:09:06 PM

Name one of the few ones that actually say it.

You forgot about Newton already? He says nothing else in his 3rd law.

From the first 3 google searches:

''Formally stated, Newton's third law is:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.''

''Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A.''

''According to Newton's third law...
For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.''

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html

Perhaps I'm blind but where does it say that everything has a cause?

How dense are you? You don't seem to understand that an action that gets a reaction is a cause that has an effect. If I had a nickle for every bit of science 101 I had to remind you of, I'd be very wealthy.

Sure, things that have a cause have also an effect, the part I'm missing is where it says that EVERYTHING (as you claim) has actually a cause, could you make that clear for me?

Answer your own question by finding something that has reached absolute zero.

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1038

 December 23, 2017, 07:21:15 PM

Nothing can be 100% factual so saying that a scientific theory is not 100% factual is like saying nothing, it's not an argument. A scientific theory is the closest we can get to the facts, it is the best science can do for certain things so your argument is just retarded.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

Something cannot be more factual than something else, it's either factual or it's not.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now you can leave.

You said what I am trying to tell you better than I. The dismissal of non-factual things in science, makes the remaining things factual... in science. And that is what we are talking about here. Science law and science theory. Not absolute fact without the slightest evidence against.

Didn't you read the topic title? "Scientific proof that God exists?" How can you miss the word "science" in the topic? Science dismisses "things" as impossible when there are great enough odds against them. That's when we get science law, which is essentially science fact. When there are insufficient odds against them in the understanding of the science community.

Science theory is not science law because there are great enough odds that an opposing science theory can be made.

Will you ever get out of political science talk?

You went on a very long tangent here just to say nothing. My point was simple, there are different things in science, from the descriptions above you can see that a scientific theory is in fact better than a scientific law.
Scientific Theory vs Law
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is understandable, as without having these terms formally defined the English definition logically leads to the misconception. In addition to defining a scientific theory we will define the word theory in English and compare the two definitions. Finally, we will make a case for why the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

Short or long, you don't seem to understand that science uses Quantum to determine what is impossible. Quantum is probability. If something is improbable enough, science say that it is impossible.

Science law IS more sound than science theory. It simply is not free as science theory is. There is no freedom to play in science law. Science theory allows one to play all over the place. That is why science law is more solid than science theory.

The science theory might be the best tool that we have, but revelation from someone who understands is better than science.

Also, the website you listed starts out stating the idea that a "scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory." But a scientific law can be found without using a scientific theory. For example. Something might be an absolute fact observed by millions of people without a scientific application. Then some scientist makes a scientific observation, and the law is made without the theory.

The point is, scientific theory can be rebutted with other scientific theory. A scientific law cannot. When there is no shadow of a doubt that a scientific theory is correct, it becomes a scientific law.

Astargath
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 557

 December 23, 2017, 08:45:30 PM

Nothing can be 100% factual so saying that a scientific theory is not 100% factual is like saying nothing, it's not an argument. A scientific theory is the closest we can get to the facts, it is the best science can do for certain things so your argument is just retarded.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

Something cannot be more factual than something else, it's either factual or it's not.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now you can leave.

You said what I am trying to tell you better than I. The dismissal of non-factual things in science, makes the remaining things factual... in science. And that is what we are talking about here. Science law and science theory. Not absolute fact without the slightest evidence against.

Didn't you read the topic title? "Scientific proof that God exists?" How can you miss the word "science" in the topic? Science dismisses "things" as impossible when there are great enough odds against them. That's when we get science law, which is essentially science fact. When there are insufficient odds against them in the understanding of the science community.

Science theory is not science law because there are great enough odds that an opposing science theory can be made.

Will you ever get out of political science talk?

You went on a very long tangent here just to say nothing. My point was simple, there are different things in science, from the descriptions above you can see that a scientific theory is in fact better than a scientific law.
Scientific Theory vs Law
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is understandable, as without having these terms formally defined the English definition logically leads to the misconception. In addition to defining a scientific theory we will define the word theory in English and compare the two definitions. Finally, we will make a case for why the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

Short or long, you don't seem to understand that science uses Quantum to determine what is impossible. Quantum is probability. If something is improbable enough, science say that it is impossible.

Science law IS more sound than science theory. It simply is not free as science theory is. There is no freedom to play in science law. Science theory allows one to play all over the place. That is why science law is more solid than science theory.

The science theory might be the best tool that we have, but revelation from someone who understands is better than science.

Also, the website you listed starts out stating the idea that a "scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory." But a scientific law can be found without using a scientific theory. For example. Something might be an absolute fact observed by millions of people without a scientific application. Then some scientist makes a scientific observation, and the law is made without the theory.

The point is, scientific theory can be rebutted with other scientific theory. A scientific law cannot. When there is no shadow of a doubt that a scientific theory is correct, it becomes a scientific law.

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

 ███████████████████   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ███████████████████BITVEST ║★║ ..BITVEST DICE.HAS BEEN RELEASED! ║★║ ▄████████████████████▄████████████████████████████████▀▀███████████████████░░░░███████████████████▄▄█████████████████▀▀████▀▀█████████████░░░░██░░░░█████████████▄▄████▄▄███████████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀███████░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄██████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████████████████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████████░░▄███▄░░░░███████████▄▄███▀░░░░▄███████████████░░░░░░███████████████░░░░░░░██████████████░░░░░░░░██████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░██████████▀░░█████░░░░████████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄██████████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█████░████▄░███████░░░░███░█████░█████████░░████░░░▀█░██████████░░████░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░ ▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄█████████████░█▀▀▀█░█████████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░█████░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄▀██░████████░███████░█▀ ▄████████████████████▄████████▀▀░░░▀▀██████████▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀████░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀████░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░████░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░████░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░████░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░████░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░████▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░███████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄█████████████▄▄█▄▄████████▀████████████████████▀ ║★║ INVESTOR PLINKO & CASINO GAMES..● PLINKO   |7| SLOTS   (+) ROULETTE   ▼ BIT SPIN   ■ DICE... ║★║ ✔ Rainbot✔ Daily Quests✔ Faucet
Newbie

Offline

Activity: 25
Merit: 0

 December 23, 2017, 09:05:07 PM

No one has ever proved that god exist, because it doesn't exist. Science says so.
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1038

 December 23, 2017, 11:38:50 PM

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

A theoretical scientist will like science theory better, because he gets paid for making theory. Anybody else might like science law better, because there is a solid understanding in science law.

Science theory can be refuted by other science theory. Science theory isn't as sound as science law.

I did want to thank you for your little video. It explains exactly the thing that I am talking about. A science theory is not known to be science fact. The video says it over and over, albeit in other words. Even though science theory may be set up with all kinds of facts arranged in a new way, that new arrangement is not known to be fact.

With regard to the scientific proof that God exists, combining the 3 scientific laws, cause and effect, complexity, and entropy, we see that there is no other way for these laws to exist other than something called God. If what you are trying to do is prove that these laws are faulty, this forum isn't really the place to do it.

What about Big Bang, you might say. Big Bang simply works with some of the mathematical laws of the universe, and with other scientific theories. It is not nearly complete, since it assumes evolution theory (maybe without even saying it, and among other theories), which is, again, contradictable. This leaves so many holes in BB theory with regard to reality, that BB theory is simply a play thing.

Since evolution theory has so many holes in it that is laughable, BB theory is entirely flawed and useless. Why? Because BB theory is depending on evolution theory to fill in a bunch of gaps regarding life. All this theorizing does is to make money for those who work with it, and to distract "laymen" from reality.

Play with science theory. But do not advertise it. It is a distraction from reality.

Astargath
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 557

 December 23, 2017, 11:51:00 PM

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

A theoretical scientist will like science theory better, because he gets paid for making theory. Anybody else might like science law better, because there is a solid understanding in science law.

Science theory can be refuted by other science theory. Science theory isn't as sound as science law.

I did want to thank you for your little video. It explains exactly the thing that I am talking about. A science theory is not known to be science fact. The video says it over and over, albeit in other words. Even though science theory may be set up with all kinds of facts arranged in a new way, that new arrangement is not known to be fact.

With regard to the scientific proof that God exists, combining the 3 scientific laws, cause and effect, complexity, and entropy, we see that there is no other way for these laws to exist other than something called God. If what you are trying to do is prove that these laws are faulty, this forum isn't really the place to do it.

What about Big Bang, you might say. Big Bang simply works with some of the mathematical laws of the universe, and with other scientific theories. It is not nearly complete, since it assumes evolution theory (maybe without even saying it, and among other theories), which is, again, contradictable. This leaves so many holes in BB theory with regard to reality, that BB theory is simply a play thing.

Since evolution theory has so many holes in it that is laughable, BB theory is entirely flawed and useless. Why? Because BB theory is depending on evolution theory to fill in a bunch of gaps regarding life. All this theorizing does is to make money for those who work with it, and to distract "laymen" from reality.

Play with science theory. But do not advertise it. It is a distraction from reality.

Except for how I debunked them. You ended up resorting to calling the universe a ''machine'' and that all ''machines'' have makers. How do you know all machines have makers?

 ███████████████████   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ███████████████████BITVEST ║★║ ..BITVEST DICE.HAS BEEN RELEASED! ║★║ ▄████████████████████▄████████████████████████████████▀▀███████████████████░░░░███████████████████▄▄█████████████████▀▀████▀▀█████████████░░░░██░░░░█████████████▄▄████▄▄███████████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀███████░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄██████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████████████████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████████░░▄███▄░░░░███████████▄▄███▀░░░░▄███████████████░░░░░░███████████████░░░░░░░██████████████░░░░░░░░██████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░██████████▀░░█████░░░░████████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄██████████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█████░████▄░███████░░░░███░█████░█████████░░████░░░▀█░██████████░░████░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░ ▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄█████████████░█▀▀▀█░█████████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░█████░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄▀██░████████░███████░█▀ ▄████████████████████▄████████▀▀░░░▀▀██████████▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀████░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀████░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░████░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░████░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░████░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░████░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░████▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░███████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄█████████████▄▄█▄▄████████▀████████████████████▀ ║★║ INVESTOR PLINKO & CASINO GAMES..● PLINKO   |7| SLOTS   (+) ROULETTE   ▼ BIT SPIN   ■ DICE... ║★║ ✔ Rainbot✔ Daily Quests✔ Faucet
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1038

 December 24, 2017, 12:15:42 AM

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

A theoretical scientist will like science theory better, because he gets paid for making theory. Anybody else might like science law better, because there is a solid understanding in science law.

Science theory can be refuted by other science theory. Science theory isn't as sound as science law.

I did want to thank you for your little video. It explains exactly the thing that I am talking about. A science theory is not known to be science fact. The video says it over and over, albeit in other words. Even though science theory may be set up with all kinds of facts arranged in a new way, that new arrangement is not known to be fact.

With regard to the scientific proof that God exists, combining the 3 scientific laws, cause and effect, complexity, and entropy, we see that there is no other way for these laws to exist other than something called God. If what you are trying to do is prove that these laws are faulty, this forum isn't really the place to do it.

What about Big Bang, you might say. Big Bang simply works with some of the mathematical laws of the universe, and with other scientific theories. It is not nearly complete, since it assumes evolution theory (maybe without even saying it, and among other theories), which is, again, contradictable. This leaves so many holes in BB theory with regard to reality, that BB theory is simply a play thing.

Since evolution theory has so many holes in it that is laughable, BB theory is entirely flawed and useless. Why? Because BB theory is depending on evolution theory to fill in a bunch of gaps regarding life. All this theorizing does is to make money for those who work with it, and to distract "laymen" from reality.

Play with science theory. But do not advertise it. It is a distraction from reality.

Except for how I debunked them. You ended up resorting to calling the universe a ''machine'' and that all ''machines'' have makers. How do you know all machines have makers?

In the same way that you don't know that there are machines that don't have makers.

However, in the vastness of the machine world, the evidence that all machines have makers is so great, that you would have a difficult time finding a machine without a maker.

I'll help you. There is that ancient Greek machine that turns out to be the oldest computer in the world - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html - that was found on an ancient Greek galleon. Just because it was found there, on a sunken Greek galleon, doesn't mean we know that it had a maker. But try to tell that to any scientist, and they will laugh you right into a funny farm.

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1038

 December 24, 2017, 12:23:40 AM

Even if God didn't exist, super programmers need one.

Inside the First Church of Artificial Intelligence

Dressed Silicon Valley-casual in jeans and flanked by a PR rep rather than cloaked acolytes, the engineer known for self-driving cars—and triggering a notorious lawsuit—could be unveiling his latest startup instead of laying the foundations for a new religion. But he is doing just that. Artificial intelligence has already inspired billion-dollar companies, far-reaching research programs, and scenarios of both transcendence and doom. Now Levandowski is creating its first church.

Mark Harris is a freelance journalist reporting on technology from Seattle.

The new religion of artificial intelligence is called Way of the Future. It represents an unlikely next act for the Silicon Valley robotics wunderkind at the center of a high-stakes legal battle between Uber and Waymo, Alphabet's autonomous-vehicle company.

xxlouisxx
Member

Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 10

 December 24, 2017, 03:20:32 AM

God exists, no one can verify the accuracy. But in the world there is a lot of scientific evidence that God exists
Vod
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 1632

Licking my boob since 1970

 December 24, 2017, 05:01:51 AM

But in the world there is a lot of scientific evidence that God exists

Badecker claims to have some, but he won't share it with anyone else.  :/

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)
\$\$ Our donation wallet information \$\$
Astargath
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 557

 December 24, 2017, 10:07:12 AM

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

A theoretical scientist will like science theory better, because he gets paid for making theory. Anybody else might like science law better, because there is a solid understanding in science law.

Science theory can be refuted by other science theory. Science theory isn't as sound as science law.

I did want to thank you for your little video. It explains exactly the thing that I am talking about. A science theory is not known to be science fact. The video says it over and over, albeit in other words. Even though science theory may be set up with all kinds of facts arranged in a new way, that new arrangement is not known to be fact.

With regard to the scientific proof that God exists, combining the 3 scientific laws, cause and effect, complexity, and entropy, we see that there is no other way for these laws to exist other than something called God. If what you are trying to do is prove that these laws are faulty, this forum isn't really the place to do it.

What about Big Bang, you might say. Big Bang simply works with some of the mathematical laws of the universe, and with other scientific theories. It is not nearly complete, since it assumes evolution theory (maybe without even saying it, and among other theories), which is, again, contradictable. This leaves so many holes in BB theory with regard to reality, that BB theory is simply a play thing.

Since evolution theory has so many holes in it that is laughable, BB theory is entirely flawed and useless. Why? Because BB theory is depending on evolution theory to fill in a bunch of gaps regarding life. All this theorizing does is to make money for those who work with it, and to distract "laymen" from reality.

Play with science theory. But do not advertise it. It is a distraction from reality.

Except for how I debunked them. You ended up resorting to calling the universe a ''machine'' and that all ''machines'' have makers. How do you know all machines have makers?

In the same way that you don't know that there are machines that don't have makers.

However, in the vastness of the machine world, the evidence that all machines have makers is so great, that you would have a difficult time finding a machine without a maker.

I'll help you. There is that ancient Greek machine that turns out to be the oldest computer in the world - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html - that was found on an ancient Greek galleon. Just because it was found there, on a sunken Greek galleon, doesn't mean we know that it had a maker. But try to tell that to any scientist, and they will laugh you right into a funny farm.

This is the same argument as ''everything is designed'' which I already debunked. You told me to look for the definition of machine: ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Now if the universe can be a machine, then so can a volcano, for example. Now how do you know a volcano has a maker? We don't. We only know ''machines'' have makers because those makers are humans, all the machines that have makers are humans, that doesn't prove god or that all machines have makers, it only proves, in any case, that all machines have human makers.

 ███████████████████   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ███████████████████BITVEST ║★║ ..BITVEST DICE.HAS BEEN RELEASED! ║★║ ▄████████████████████▄████████████████████████████████▀▀███████████████████░░░░███████████████████▄▄█████████████████▀▀████▀▀█████████████░░░░██░░░░█████████████▄▄████▄▄███████████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀███████░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄██████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████████████████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████████░░▄███▄░░░░███████████▄▄███▀░░░░▄███████████████░░░░░░███████████████░░░░░░░██████████████░░░░░░░░██████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░██████████▀░░█████░░░░████████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄██████████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█████░████▄░███████░░░░███░█████░█████████░░████░░░▀█░██████████░░████░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░ ▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄█████████████░█▀▀▀█░█████████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░█████░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄▀██░████████░███████░█▀ ▄████████████████████▄████████▀▀░░░▀▀██████████▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀████░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀████░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░████░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░████░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░████░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░████░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░████▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░███████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄█████████████▄▄█▄▄████████▀████████████████████▀ ║★║ INVESTOR PLINKO & CASINO GAMES..● PLINKO   |7| SLOTS   (+) ROULETTE   ▼ BIT SPIN   ■ DICE... ║★║ ✔ Rainbot✔ Daily Quests✔ Faucet
weeks65
Member

Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 10

 December 24, 2017, 10:17:27 AM

There is strong evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular history and in the Bible. Probably the greatest evidence that Jesus has existed is literally true that thousands of Christians in the last century, including twelve disciples, were ready to give their lives as human beings. martyrdom for Jesus Christ. Humans will die for what they believe to be the truth, but no one dies for what they know is deceit.

Astargath
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 557

 December 24, 2017, 12:03:18 PM

There is strong evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular history and in the Bible. Probably the greatest evidence that Jesus has existed is literally true that thousands of Christians in the last century, including twelve disciples, were ready to give their lives as human beings. martyrdom for Jesus Christ. Humans will die for what they believe to be the truth, but no one dies for what they know is deceit.

Then all the other religions are also true and their gods are also true. Muslims are willing to die (and they suicide currently) for their god, so allah beats jesus christ by your own logic.
''Humans will die for what they believe to be the truth'' Believe is the key word. There is no evidence that jesus christ existed, maybe as a person but not as a god. What history book talks about jesus and his miracles?

 ███████████████████   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ███████████████████BITVEST ║★║ ..BITVEST DICE.HAS BEEN RELEASED! ║★║ ▄████████████████████▄████████████████████████████████▀▀███████████████████░░░░███████████████████▄▄█████████████████▀▀████▀▀█████████████░░░░██░░░░█████████████▄▄████▄▄███████████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀███████░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄██████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████████████████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████████░░▄███▄░░░░███████████▄▄███▀░░░░▄███████████████░░░░░░███████████████░░░░░░░██████████████░░░░░░░░██████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░██████████▀░░█████░░░░████████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄██████████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█████░████▄░███████░░░░███░█████░█████████░░████░░░▀█░██████████░░████░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░ ▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄█████████████░█▀▀▀█░█████████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░█████░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄▀██░████████░███████░█▀ ▄████████████████████▄████████▀▀░░░▀▀██████████▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀████░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀████░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░████░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░████░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░████░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░████░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░████▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░███████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄█████████████▄▄█▄▄████████▀████████████████████▀ ║★║ INVESTOR PLINKO & CASINO GAMES..● PLINKO   |7| SLOTS   (+) ROULETTE   ▼ BIT SPIN   ■ DICE... ║★║ ✔ Rainbot✔ Daily Quests✔ Faucet
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1038

 December 24, 2017, 12:36:04 PM

In the same way that you don't know that there are machines that don't have makers.

However, in the vastness of the machine world, the evidence that all machines have makers is so great, that you would have a difficult time finding a machine without a maker.

I'll help you. There is that ancient Greek machine that turns out to be the oldest computer in the world - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html - that was found on an ancient Greek galleon. Just because it was found there, on a sunken Greek galleon, doesn't mean we know that it had a maker. But try to tell that to any scientist, and they will laugh you right into a funny farm.

This is the same argument as ''everything is designed'' which I already debunked. You told me to look for the definition of machine: ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Now if the universe can be a machine, then so can a volcano, for example. Now how do you know a volcano has a maker? We don't. We only know ''machines'' have makers because those makers are humans, all the machines that have makers are humans, that doesn't prove god or that all machines have makers, it only proves, in any case, that all machines have human makers.

Consider AI. It is a machine made by mankind. Yet it can teach itself to play chess better than a human, even in ways that a human can't match. Our crude AI isn't really alive, doesn't really have sentience. Yet it acts in ways that seem uncontrolled... at least as far as we are concerned. But the work that it does is not controlled directly.

AI is a machine made up of many smaller machines, doing work that is not controlled by us directly - not even entirely understood by us. Yet the Master Machine Maker understands every, last erg of energy and force in a volcano, via cause and effect. He set it up. He also understands every last working of our AI. None of this means that He has to focus on all of it all the time, with the essence of His "I AM."

You have in no way debunked the idea that everything is designed. What you are doing is debunki9ng yourself. Soon you will be gone forever... if you do not change and take hold of the offering of eternal life from God.

Astargath
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 557

 December 24, 2017, 12:47:14 PM

In the same way that you don't know that there are machines that don't have makers.

However, in the vastness of the machine world, the evidence that all machines have makers is so great, that you would have a difficult time finding a machine without a maker.

I'll help you. There is that ancient Greek machine that turns out to be the oldest computer in the world - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html - that was found on an ancient Greek galleon. Just because it was found there, on a sunken Greek galleon, doesn't mean we know that it had a maker. But try to tell that to any scientist, and they will laugh you right into a funny farm.

This is the same argument as ''everything is designed'' which I already debunked. You told me to look for the definition of machine: ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Now if the universe can be a machine, then so can a volcano, for example. Now how do you know a volcano has a maker? We don't. We only know ''machines'' have makers because those makers are humans, all the machines that have makers are humans, that doesn't prove god or that all machines have makers, it only proves, in any case, that all machines have human makers.

Consider AI. It is a machine made by mankind. Yet it can teach itself to play chess better than a human, even in ways that a human can't match. Our crude AI isn't really alive, doesn't really have sentience. Yet it acts in ways that seem uncontrolled... at least as far as we are concerned. But the work that it does is not controlled directly.

AI is a machine made up of many smaller machines, doing work that is not controlled by us directly - not even entirely understood by us. Yet the Master Machine Maker understands every, last erg of energy and force in a volcano, via cause and effect. He set it up. He also understands every last working of our AI. None of this means that He has to focus on all of it all the time, with the essence of His "I AM."

You have in no way debunked the idea that everything is designed. What you are doing is debunki9ng yourself. Soon you will be gone forever... if you do not change and take hold of the offering of eternal life from God.

You didn't answer at all here. I asked you how do you know that everything is designed or made by a sentient being. Yes we know our machines are designed by us, obviously just like we know a watch or a chair is designed by humans because nature does not produce such things. You are claiming that trees, rocks, planets, everything is designed by something else, my question is, how do you know?

 ███████████████████   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ███████████████████BITVEST ║★║ ..BITVEST DICE.HAS BEEN RELEASED! ║★║ ▄████████████████████▄████████████████████████████████▀▀███████████████████░░░░███████████████████▄▄█████████████████▀▀████▀▀█████████████░░░░██░░░░█████████████▄▄████▄▄███████████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀███████░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄██████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████████████████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████████░░▄███▄░░░░███████████▄▄███▀░░░░▄███████████████░░░░░░███████████████░░░░░░░██████████████░░░░░░░░██████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████████████████████████████▀████████████████████▀ ▄████████████████████▄███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░██████████▀░░█████░░░░████████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄██████████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█████░████▄░███████░░░░███░█████░█████████░░████░░░▀█░██████████░░████░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░▀██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░ ▄████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄█████████████░█▀▀▀█░█████████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░█████░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄▀██░████████░███████░█▀ ▄████████████████████▄████████▀▀░░░▀▀██████████▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀████░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀████░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░████░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░████░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░████░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░████░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░████▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░███████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄█████████████▄▄█▄▄████████▀████████████████████▀ ║★║ INVESTOR PLINKO & CASINO GAMES..● PLINKO   |7| SLOTS   (+) ROULETTE   ▼ BIT SPIN   ■ DICE... ║★║ ✔ Rainbot✔ Daily Quests✔ Faucet
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1038

 December 24, 2017, 12:48:09 PM

But in the world there is a lot of scientific evidence that God exists

Badecker claims to have some, but he won't share it with anyone else.  :/

In my above, previous post, I talk about AI. The makers of AI don't quite understand how AI works. I don't follow it, and neither do you. We all do what we can do and work where we can work.

The fact that we can't understand AI is not a bad thing. It is simply the way we are. Some of us understand some things better than others of us. This is not a thing that makes any of us better or worse than any other of us. It's simply the way we are.

We need to work and think with the abilities that we have. You might have great political science abilities. You might not be so good at figuring the physical sciences. Because of this, you have strong faith in living, just to get along in life, since you don't seem to understand much of the way things work.

Faith is exactly the thing that God is looking for in a person. You could become a great person for the Lord. Turn, now, and accept Him, and become a mighty one for the Lord... and He will reward you greatly for the work you do for Him. Your position in the afterlife could be a high one if you work for Him in powerful ways. Think of it. Everlasting greatness in the hereafter.

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1038

 December 24, 2017, 12:55:58 PM

In the same way that you don't know that there are machines that don't have makers.

However, in the vastness of the machine world, the evidence that all machines have makers is so great, that you would have a difficult time finding a machine without a maker.

I'll help you. There is that ancient Greek machine that turns out to be the oldest computer in the world - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html - that was found on an ancient Greek galleon. Just because it was found there, on a sunken Greek galleon, doesn't mean we know that it had a maker. But try to tell that to any scientist, and they will laugh you right into a funny farm.

This is the same argument as ''everything is designed'' which I already debunked. You told me to look for the definition of machine: ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Now if the universe can be a machine, then so can a volcano, for example. Now how do you know a volcano has a maker? We don't. We only know ''machines'' have makers because those makers are humans, all the machines that have makers are humans, that doesn't prove god or that all machines have makers, it only proves, in any case, that all machines have human makers.

Consider AI. It is a machine made by mankind. Yet it can teach itself to play chess better than a human, even in ways that a human can't match. Our crude AI isn't really alive, doesn't really have sentience. Yet it acts in ways that seem uncontrolled... at least as far as we are concerned. But the work that it does is not controlled directly.

AI is a machine made up of many smaller machines, doing work that is not controlled by us directly - not even entirely understood by us. Yet the Master Machine Maker understands every, last erg of energy and force in a volcano, via cause and effect. He set it up. He also understands every last working of our AI. None of this means that He has to focus on all of it all the time, with the essence of His "I AM."

You have in no way debunked the idea that everything is designed. What you are doing is debunki9ng yourself. Soon you will be gone forever... if you do not change and take hold of the offering of eternal life from God.

You didn't answer at all here. I asked you how do you know that everything is designed or made by a sentient being. Yes we know our machines are designed by us, obviously just like we know a watch or a chair is designed by humans because nature does not produce such things. You are claiming that trees, rocks, planets, everything is designed by something else, my question is, how do you know?

Did you forget the complexity already? Our examples of machine making show us that the weaker thinkers among us don't really design the more complex machines. Yet all the machines and "levers" that we make come from nature and examples in nature. Nature, being full of machines that are way more complex than the machines of man, were made by Someone way smarter and more capable than man.

Machines and their complexity and the greatness/intelligence of those who make them is one of the greatest examples that God exists.

Perhaps you fit into my previous post along with VOD.

 Pages: 1 ... 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 [452] 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492