Scientific proof that God exists?

[(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.

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

It's not called the tree of sin. Subtract the devil from the equation for the moment and what are you left with? A god that prefers us to remain ignorant. The devil did nothing but pose the question, "Why remain ignorant?", to which there is no good answer.

[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.

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.   

I want to learn, Oh Wise One.

Care you point out one misunderstanding of mine and explain why it is wrong?  Just one.

[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.

It's not called the tree of sin. Subtract the devil from the equation for the moment and what are you left with? A god that prefers us to remain ignorant. The devil did nothing but pose the question, "Why remain ignorant?", to which there is no good answer.

To God, knowledge is like grokking (you know, like from Robert Heinlein's novel Stranger in a Strange Land). So, guess what knowledge God didn't want us to grok? The exact stuff that we are grokking right now, the knowledge of good and evil. I complain, and I hear a bunch of complaints against God. The complaints come about because we don't like grokking good and evil, the thing we are doing because Adam and Eve listened to the snake rather than to God.

I don't know that I would like to be relieved of the knowledge of good and evil in this world as it is now. But if it were a perfect world (or near enough, like in the Garden), I would much rather remain in ignorance like God wished for us, than have the grokking of good and evil.

[BADecker]

I want to learn, Oh Wise One.

Care you point out one misunderstanding of mine and explain why it is wrong?  Just one.

Okay. I'll enlighten you with the one piece of knowledge that you apparently don't have. This is that you don't need any enlightening from me other than this.

Comprendo?

[nsimmons]

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i

I think I threw up in my mouth...

[BADecker]

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i

I think I threw up in my mouth...

You mean you're not sure? What, did you swallow it back down? I saw a guy do that with peaches once. I don't think he liked the idea. I think he was just being polite to the rest of us at the table.

 

EDIT: Wow! 201.

[the joint]

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i

I think I threw up in my mouth...

You mean you're not sure? What, did you swallow it back down? I saw a guy do that with peaches once. I don't think he liked the idea. I think he was just being polite to the rest of us at the table.

 

EDIT: Wow! 201.

No, he's right to throw up.  You asked an invalid question.  Light isn't constrained by time, so your question is literally inapplicable.

The speed of light is a constant regardless of an observer's velocity, location, or a change in both.  Regardless of whether I'm stationary or moving towards the speed of light, the speed of light will appear the same in both cases.  Even if I'm going 99.9999% the speed of light, light would still appear to be going as fast as if I were stationary.

Furthermore, when we move or change location, our "time-frame" changes relative to everyone else.  This is empirically verifiable.  The faster you move, the slower you age relative to those who aren't moving.  If you take two atomic clocks set to identical times and leave one stationary on the ground the other travels around Earth in a space shuttle, at the end of the flight you will notice that the once-similar clocks are now different.  The clock that was on board the space shuttle will appear to have slowed down in time, and in fact it did relative to the stationary clock.

We experience time due to perceived changes in our relative spacetime location.  The word "spacetime" exists because they are inseparable -- space is a function of time, and time is a function of space.  Because changes in spacetime location are relative to the speed of light, we can conclude that light is transcendent of locality and whatever swathe of spacetime we happen to inhabit.

Phrased another way, your questions don't make sense because "2000 years ago"  isn't the same for everyone.  If you're moving at near the speed of light, 2000 years for you could be thousands or millions of years for me.  In contrast, 2000 years for me could be a few seconds to you if you're moving at near light speed.

Stop making crap up when you don't know what you're talking about.

[BADecker]

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i

I think I threw up in my mouth...

You mean you're not sure? What, did you swallow it back down? I saw a guy do that with peaches once. I don't think he liked the idea. I think he was just being polite to the rest of us at the table.

 

EDIT: Wow! 201.

No, he's right to throw up.  You asked an invalid question.  Light isn't constrained by time, so your question is literally inapplicable.

The speed of light is a constant regardless of an observer's velocity, location, or a change in both.  Regardless of whether I'm stationary or moving towards the speed of light, the speed of light will appear the same in both cases.  Even if I'm going 99.9999% the speed of light, light would still appear to be going as fast as if I were stationary.

Furthermore, when we move or change location, our "time-frame" changes relative to everyone else.  This is empirically verifiable.  The faster you move, the slower you age relative to those who aren't moving.  If you take two atomic clocks set to identical times and leave one stationary on the ground the other travels around Earth in a space shuttle, at the end of the flight you will notice that the once-similar clocks are now different.  The clock that was on board the space shuttle will appear to have slowed down in time, and in fact it did relative to the stationary clock.

We experience time due to perceived changes in our relative spacetime location.  The word "spacetime" exists because they are inseparable -- space is a function of time, and time is a function of space.  Because changes in spacetime location are relative to the speed of light, we can conclude that light is transcendent of locality and whatever swathe of spacetime we happen to inhabit.

Phrased another way, your questions don't make sense because "2000 years ago"  isn't the same for everyone.  If you're moving at near the speed of light, 2000 years for you could be thousands or millions of years for me.  In contrast, 2000 years for me could be a few seconds to you if you're moving at near light speed.

Stop making crap up when you don't know what you're talking about.

I still don't get what any of this has to do with throwing up...

[the joint]

I want to learn, Oh Wise One.

Care you point out one misunderstanding of mine and explain why it is wrong?  Just one.

Okay. I'll enlighten you with the one piece of knowledge that you apparently don't have. This is that you don't need any enlightening from me other than this.

Comprendo?

Other than what?

Dude, I'm not a wizard.  I can't read your mind and I have no idea what the hell you're saying.  Sounding like a Panda Express fortune cookie is cryptically stupid.  You are fantastic at saying tons of nothing.

Literally dozens of posts and dozens of requests for you to find just one single example of fallacy, and you haven't.  Not once.  

Because you can't...because you don't know how.

I'm going to guess your response:

"It's not your fault.  If you read the Bible you'll understand everything I've been talking about.  Don't blame yourself for being misled by the deception of science.  When you die, you might see the light and learn that it's everything that science says it isn't.

See how easy it is to be you?  Just say a bunch of unsupported garbage, act like you're super smart because only you know what the "good" definitions are, and completely ignore any and every opportunity to say something with some kind of rational basis supporting it.

Pretty spot on, eh?

[the joint]

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i

I think I threw up in my mouth...

You mean you're not sure? What, did you swallow it back down? I saw a guy do that with peaches once. I don't think he liked the idea. I think he was just being polite to the rest of us at the table.

 

EDIT: Wow! 201.

No, he's right to throw up.  You asked an invalid question.  Light isn't constrained by time, so your question is literally inapplicable.

The speed of light is a constant regardless of an observer's velocity, location, or a change in both.  Regardless of whether I'm stationary or moving towards the speed of light, the speed of light will appear the same in both cases.  Even if I'm going 99.9999% the speed of light, light would still appear to be going as fast as if I were stationary.

Furthermore, when we move or change location, our "time-frame" changes relative to everyone else.  This is empirically verifiable.  The faster you move, the slower you age relative to those who aren't moving.  If you take two atomic clocks set to identical times and leave one stationary on the ground the other travels around Earth in a space shuttle, at the end of the flight you will notice that the once-similar clocks are now different.  The clock that was on board the space shuttle will appear to have slowed down in time, and in fact it did relative to the stationary clock.

We experience time due to perceived changes in our relative spacetime location.  The word "spacetime" exists because they are inseparable -- space is a function of time, and time is a function of space.  Because changes in spacetime location are relative to the speed of light, we can conclude that light is transcendent of locality and whatever swathe of spacetime we happen to inhabit.

Phrased another way, your questions don't make sense because "2000 years ago"  isn't the same for everyone.  If you're moving at near the speed of light, 2000 years for you could be thousands or millions of years for me.  In contrast, 2000 years for me could be a few seconds to you if you're moving at near light speed.

Stop making crap up when you don't know what you're talking about.

I still don't get what any of this has to do with throwing up...

At this point, I'd be surprised if you even know what throwing-up is.

Edit:  Oh, it also totally throws a kink in the 6,000 year-old Earth theory.  For someone now traveling at near light speed for a certain duration, to that person, 6,000 years ago to us is now for him..  Conversely, 6,000 years for that person might be, oh, say about 14 billion years for us, i.e. the extrapolated age of the universe based upon its observed rate of expansion from our locality.  

[BADecker]

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i

I think I threw up in my mouth...

You mean you're not sure? What, did you swallow it back down? I saw a guy do that with peaches once. I don't think he liked the idea. I think he was just being polite to the rest of us at the table.

 

EDIT: Wow! 201.

No, he's right to throw up.  You asked an invalid question.  Light isn't constrained by time, so your question is literally inapplicable.

The speed of light is a constant regardless of an observer's velocity, location, or a change in both.  Regardless of whether I'm stationary or moving towards the speed of light, the speed of light will appear the same in both cases.  Even if I'm going 99.9999% the speed of light, light would still appear to be going as fast as if I were stationary.

Furthermore, when we move or change location, our "time-frame" changes relative to everyone else.  This is empirically verifiable.  The faster you move, the slower you age relative to those who aren't moving.  If you take two atomic clocks set to identical times and leave one stationary on the ground the other travels around Earth in a space shuttle, at the end of the flight you will notice that the once-similar clocks are now different.  The clock that was on board the space shuttle will appear to have slowed down in time, and in fact it did relative to the stationary clock.

We experience time due to perceived changes in our relative spacetime location.  The word "spacetime" exists because they are inseparable -- space is a function of time, and time is a function of space.  Because changes in spacetime location are relative to the speed of light, we can conclude that light is transcendent of locality and whatever swathe of spacetime we happen to inhabit.

Phrased another way, your questions don't make sense because "2000 years ago"  isn't the same for everyone.  If you're moving at near the speed of light, 2000 years for you could be thousands or millions of years for me.  In contrast, 2000 years for me could be a few seconds to you if you're moving at near light speed.

Stop making crap up when you don't know what you're talking about.

I still don't get what any of this has to do with throwing up...

At this point, I'd be surprised if you even know what throwing-up is.

Edit:  Oh, it also totally throws a kink in the 6,000 year-old Earth theory.  For someone now traveling at near light speed for a certain duration, to that person, 6,000 years ago to us is now for him..  Conversely, 6,000 years for that person might be, oh, say about 14 billion years for us, i.e. the extrapolated age of the universe based upon its observed rate of expansion from our locality.  

Coming from you, that means... almost nothing. Oh wait. I used that line already, here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10630423#msg10630423.

Oh, I know. I've figured you out at last. You are a sleeper troll... smart enough to look scientifically good, and well-trained in the language so that you can twist things around.

Gotchya.



EDIT: Did you ever think of applying to here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985841.0 ?

[the joint]

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i

I think I threw up in my mouth...

You mean you're not sure? What, did you swallow it back down? I saw a guy do that with peaches once. I don't think he liked the idea. I think he was just being polite to the rest of us at the table.

 

EDIT: Wow! 201.

No, he's right to throw up.  You asked an invalid question.  Light isn't constrained by time, so your question is literally inapplicable.

The speed of light is a constant regardless of an observer's velocity, location, or a change in both.  Regardless of whether I'm stationary or moving towards the speed of light, the speed of light will appear the same in both cases.  Even if I'm going 99.9999% the speed of light, light would still appear to be going as fast as if I were stationary.

Furthermore, when we move or change location, our "time-frame" changes relative to everyone else.  This is empirically verifiable.  The faster you move, the slower you age relative to those who aren't moving.  If you take two atomic clocks set to identical times and leave one stationary on the ground the other travels around Earth in a space shuttle, at the end of the flight you will notice that the once-similar clocks are now different.  The clock that was on board the space shuttle will appear to have slowed down in time, and in fact it did relative to the stationary clock.

We experience time due to perceived changes in our relative spacetime location.  The word "spacetime" exists because they are inseparable -- space is a function of time, and time is a function of space.  Because changes in spacetime location are relative to the speed of light, we can conclude that light is transcendent of locality and whatever swathe of spacetime we happen to inhabit.

Phrased another way, your questions don't make sense because "2000 years ago"  isn't the same for everyone.  If you're moving at near the speed of light, 2000 years for you could be thousands or millions of years for me.  In contrast, 2000 years for me could be a few seconds to you if you're moving at near light speed.

Stop making crap up when you don't know what you're talking about.

I still don't get what any of this has to do with throwing up...

At this point, I'd be surprised if you even know what throwing-up is.

Edit:  Oh, it also totally throws a kink in the 6,000 year-old Earth theory.  For someone now traveling at near light speed for a certain duration, to that person, 6,000 years ago to us is now for him..  Conversely, 6,000 years for that person might be, oh, say about 14 billion years for us, i.e. the extrapolated age of the universe based upon its observed rate of expansion from our locality.  

Coming from you, that means... almost nothing. Oh wait. I used that line already, here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10630423#msg10630423.

Oh, I know. I've figured you out at last. You are a sleeper troll... smart enough to look scientifically good, and well-trained in the language so that you can twist things around.

Gotchya.



EDIT: Did you ever think of applying to here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985841.0 ?

Twisting "what" around?  Example?

Oh, right.  You're never going to tell me.

Because you can't.  Because you don't know how.

[Buffer Overflow]

Using genealogy, we can roughly estimate the age of the earth, as stated by the Bible, to be 6500 years. The very top estimate would be close to 10,000 years, but that’s a stretch. Science has proven that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has shown us this, and has remained consistent with lunar and terrestrial samples. In other words, we haven’t just tested this once in one situation, it’s been extensively tested. This isn’t a guess, or a hunch, there’s a substantial amount of evidence to back this up.

Unfortunately some people are so stubborn that they can keep themselves from believing the evidence even if it jumps up and bites them in the left eye.
BADecker will be along shortly to give us an actual real life example of such behaviour.

See, told yeah he'd give us a good demonstration.

[Astargath]

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.

If this is your evidence and proof of the earth being 6.000 years there is absolutly no point in keep arguing with you, im sorry friend you are just stupid, not trying to be offensive but someone that keeps denying the hundreds of proofa and methods to determinate the earth's age is just stupid. DUNING KRUGER EFFECT LADIES AND GENTLEMANS

[the joint]

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.

Correct, debating against faith is futile because the total lack of evidence supporting the belief leaves you with nothing solid to debate against.

But, it is also futile to debate Intelligent Design with anyone who demands physical evidence for an Intelligent Designer.  It is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to ever be any.

This is because of the following:

Premise 1:  Empiricism can only explore and conclude upon what's observed (axiomatic).
Premise 2:  An intelligent designer cannot possibly be observed (axiomatic).
Therefore:  Empiricism cannot explore and conclude upon an Intelligent Designer (logical deduction from true premises)

Further explanation and support of premises:

1)  Premise #1 is axiomatically true because the definition of Empiricism is "the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience."

2)  Premise #2 is axiomatically true because a total lack of constraint (i.e. infinite) is the defining characteristic of an intelligent designer.
By "defining characteristic," I mean that being infinite and totally lacking constraint is the only criteria by which it can be distinguished from all other real phenomena that is necessarily constrained.

3)  The conclusion follows from the premises because, since Empiricism can only explore that which is constrained so as to be distinguishable to the senses, and because an Intelligent Designer necessarily and totally lacks any constraint, it follows that Empiricism cannot explore Intelligent Design (and thus obviously can't soundly comment upon it one way or another).

So, even if you assume an Intelligent Designer exists right off the bat, it is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be any physical evidence for one. 

It is simply a bad, invalid argument to conclude it is silly to believe in an Intelligent Designer due to a lack of physical evidence.

[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.

Correct, debating against faith is futile because the total lack of evidence supporting the belief leaves you with nothing solid to debate against.

But, it is also futile to debate Intelligent Design with anyone who demands physical evidence for an Intelligent Designer.  It is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to ever be any.

This is because of the following:

Premise 1:  Empiricism can only explore and conclude upon what's observed (axiomatic).
Premise 2:  An intelligent designer cannot possibly be observed (axiomatic).
Therefore:  Empiricism cannot explore and conclude upon an Intelligent Designer (logical deduction from true premises)

Further explanation and support of premises:

1)  Premise #1 is axiomatically true because the definition of Empiricism is "the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience."

2)  Premise #2 is axiomatically true because a total lack of constraint (i.e. infinite) is the defining characteristic of an intelligent designer.
By "defining characteristic," I mean that being infinite and totally lacking constraint is the only criteria by which it can be distinguished from all other real phenomena that is necessarily constrained.

3)  The conclusion follows from the premises because, since Empiricism can only explore that which is constrained so as to be distinguishable to the senses, and because an Intelligent Designer necessarily and totally lacks any constraint, it follows that Empiricism cannot explore Intelligent Design (and thus obviously can't soundly comment upon it one way or another).

So, even if you assume an Intelligent Designer exists right off the bat, it is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be any physical evidence for one. 

It is simply a bad, invalid argument to conclude it is silly to believe in an Intelligent Designer due to a lack of physical evidence.

Of course, when you don't look at or talk about the physical evidence, then there isn't any in your discussion. Yet, the physical evidence has been shown right here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

[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.

If this is your evidence and proof of the earth being 6.000 years there is absolutly no point in keep arguing with you, im sorry friend you are just stupid, not trying to be offensive but someone that keeps denying the hundreds of proofa and methods to determinate the earth's age is just stupid. DUNING KRUGER EFFECT LADIES AND GENTLEMANS

This is the little tip of it. The evidence that the Bible is truth and has strength lies in the fact that it is an impossible to exist book. The history of how it came about, the various authors, the tradition that Israel holds regarding the O.T., the tradition that the miracles are truth, and many other items, not the least of which are all the fulfilled prophesies, show that the Bible is great, beyond understanding, and beyond being able to exist by any means that we understand. Since this is true, the Bible has greater strength than all the hypothetical scientific extrapolations about the age of the earth and universe.

[Decksperiment]

BADecker, FFS, its a book! Made of dead tree's.. and since you throw out every other peice of evidence there is, then why are you even writing in this thread? AAh, you like stealing the OP's light..

[BADecker]

Twisting "what" around?  Example?

Oh, right.  You're never going to tell me.

Because you can't.  Because you don't know how.

You forgot the part about how you wouldn't accept it, simply because you don't want to accept it. Otherwise you would at least acknowledge the things that I have shown in this post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, even if you didn't acknowledge my non-scientific explanations. Since you won't even acknowledge them, even though you say you believe that God exists, your appearance to others is hypocritical, even if you know in your heart that you aren't.

[Decksperiment]

99% of BADeckers posts are nothing but crap, he clearly cannot provide this evidence, because he is a virgin.