Scientific proof that God exists?

[DieJohnny]

I don't see the difference between people that believe in God and those that are so proud of their faith in science.

One group of people trust Holy men to read tea leaves-- ponder and meet one with another and share their insights-- create holy script that lays forth the foundation and framework for mankind's moral and ethical dilemmas.

The other group of people believe in God. What is the difference?

Faith in science? Well so far cars drive, planes fly, all of them exist thanks to science. The religion on the other hand destroyed everything that had to do with science, hundreds of years ago, people was getting killed for saying the earth was not flat thanks to the religion.

Have you ever heard of Eugenics? Or maybe the Atomic bomb, the Hadron collider.  Yes much faith.

Not to mention the now standard "consensus of opinion" "preponderance of evidence" that has quietly replaced faith in clergy with faith in committees of people supposedly a lot smarter than you.

So you prefer to live thousands of years ago than now? Because of the atomic bomb? People always killed other people, whats your point? You wouldnt even be able to write that comment if it wasnt for science

I love science, God is the greatest scientist of all, it will just take scientists another million years to figure it out.

[BADecker]

Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.

You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.

Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.

Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:

The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

No, proof is "not" a personal thing.  This is you making up a definition of "proof" that is not only different from its actual definition, but is 100% inverse and contrary to the actual definition.

Actual definition of proof implies it is objective, and thus it can be understood independent of personal experience (i.e. it isn't personal).

Your definition of proof states that it is personal, and therefore is *not* objective and *cannot* be understood independent of personal experience.

So, no, proof is not judgmental, nor is it personal.

Why do I bother mentioning this when you will obviously avoid any direct response?  Who knows.  Probably practice for concise explanation during future debates with competent opponents.

Since few (if any) even understand what you say, your talk is not even evidence, much less proof of anything, except to a believer like yourself, that is.

[Buffer Overflow]

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing.

What the hell have I just read??? Nobody is this dumb. Your making this all up and just having a laugh at our expense.

Your trolling. I've been sitting on the fence wondering if your trolling or genuine. This last comment has just cemented my decision.

[Decksperiment]

Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.

You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.

Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.

Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:

The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

BADecker, do not be confused.. You have been continually stealing the OP's light solely for your own selfish reasons, by selectively ignoring better evidence than that which you have provided. The OP asked for scientific proof, not a fuckin bible class. Why come here and argue your case, when as you have just stated, even though it took me to say so, your book is in no way evidence of anything other than the FACT it is a book. Many people have clearly stated that which you regurgitate over and over as if it came from you. You underestimate the intelligence of many people here, and when these people provide better proof than you, you demand that proof, cause your too fuckin brainwashed to even contemplate the fact that many people here are more correct than you. The masonic evidence I provided is FACT, since freemasons are still around today. They cannot speak of it, so you will never recieve any evidence from them, it takes someone who has studied a plethora of books, not just one, to answer any relevant questions. I have clearly read one more book than you.

The closest you will ever come to the truth, is the revelation given upon initiation into CERTAIN societies that will GRANT you the ability to view the dude with that ring on his finger, spoken of by ezekial, who incidently was around the 10th author of the bible BEFORE your moses. You dont even know how to see your entire life is written in that book of yours, cabalistically of course.. you deny your jewish roots. Never mind the maths.

Answer this: If god's chosen people are jewish, where does that leave you? Dumb fuck. Preach all you want, your not only not a jew, your denying a woman a kid. You are a non-productive member of a sad society, that in all honesty, is about to be swept away by the eastern traditions..

Proof is not a judgemental thing, it is reality based, fact or not. Have you ever used an ociloscope, maybe a multimeter? When you have a headache, you take snake poison to take the pain away.. (yes, painkillers evolved from snake venom) where is god in all this?

Nowhere to be seen, for he is not of this world.

Now how the fuck you think your gonna be saved, when by your own admission, folk's here know what a silly cuntin idiot you are for denying ALL and ANY evidence that would be considered by most sane people.

The 'crazy' maths at the start of this thread I provided is found in your book. Yes, it is. If you wanna find god, do the maths. What, you cant count? Cant join the dot's? (<- A MEGA hint - origional fractal's anyone?) You would still deny it all. You are an epic fail. When I provided certain masonic passwords, it was only to show that to an extent, I am more qualified than you to take part in this thread. And that my reasoning is sound, despite my arsehole like way of going about things. You fail to realise, there are more masons than christians, and these people know what I say is true, you, can simply be swept away in a sea that god will never part for you.

This maths is gematria, and the fact I mention certain books, is solely for the reader to see the proof for themselves. In practise, by DRAWING the images the maths produce, you become ONE with that which you are trying to prove. The only evidence that comes close to providing proof, is nothing more than the EXPERIENCE gained whilst drawing the true images of the magic square's.. strange huh, how the maths is on a plethora of website's, yet not one single site has the images drawn by hand? Just the maths? Because drawing the square's is akin to creating the image of god, not just the creation, but the actualization of said image, which invoke's ALL other subordinate's to god, and grants whatever they are assigned to do. All I have done, is provide whatever I can to show YOU how wrong you were to use the bible as evidence, which you have done throughout this thread, alienating not only you from many, or many from you, but millions from your society. I mean, who would wanna be saved by you when you cant admit your worshipping a jewish, not christian, diety. Christianity was created by the jews. This was done to make folks believe in one thing, while the jews did another. That 'another' is best viewed in what is classed as a hoax, the protocols of the learned elders of zion. Read that and tell me that's a hoax.

Shame you cant see it's instructions being carried out all over the world, as we speak.

All in the name of YOUR god, no-one else's..

[BADecker]

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing.

What the hell have I just read??? Your making this all up and just having a laugh at our expense.

Your trolling. I've been sitting on the fence wondering if your trolling or genuine. This last comment has just cemented my decision.

Once in a while, in professional debates, the debate winner has loads of evidence, so that one can actually call it real, solid proof. Yet his opponent, who has been beaten hands down, simply will not accept the evidence as proof.

While this doesn't happen often, it does happen. The debate judges might award the debate to the one who has the evidence, but this doesn't force the loser to accept the fact of his loss.

I say this because you seem to have trouble grasping things of deeper thinking that are plainly out in the open. Keep practicing. You can catch on. Taking Gingko Biloba can help.

I suppose, because it is me telling you, you won't even try it (the Gingko). The evidence is that you still haven't changed the "Your" to "You're" like I suggested... just because it was I who suggested it.

[Buffer Overflow]

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

But people that believe in god already are telling you it's BS. So your theory people are getting upset about starting to believe in god, which they did already, explodes in a fireball.

[BADecker]

Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.

You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.

Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.

Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:

The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

BADecker, do not be confused..

Thanks for the exhortation.

You have been continually stealing the OP's light solely for your own selfish reasons, by selectively ignoring better evidence than that which you have provided. The OP asked for scientific proof, not a fuckin bible class.

Where is the Bible class in the evidence I listed as proof? - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ...

[Bardman]

And now I shall explain why the very idea of God is logically flawed so that the entity cannot exist.
First of all, the classic paradox. If God is omnipotent he can create a rock which he cannot carry, but if he cannot carry it he isn’t omnipotent, neither is he omnipotent if he cannot create it. This doesn’t logically disprove his existence but rather that omnipotency is a paradox and a perfect being can’t be paradoxical, because a paradox is imperfect.
Secondly, the paradox of omnipresence. If God is a being he has a body. If he is everywhere, that body cannot exist because a body can only be in a finite place at a given time. It is possible to say that God moves so fast that he could be considered omnipresent, but that doesn’t make him omnipresent. It just means that he moves incredibly fast, and that is not the definition of omnipresence. Also, if he is omnipotent he has to be able to be omnipresent; but he cannot be omnipotent. And if he is perfect he cannot be based on a paradox.
So far, in order to prove God logically, we have to remove the parts that make him a god, and as such he wouldn’t be God.

[Decksperiment]

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing.

What the hell have I just read??? Your making this all up and just having a laugh at our expense.

Your trolling. I've been sitting on the fence wondering if your trolling or genuine. This last comment has just cemented my decision.

Once in a while, in professional debates, the debate winner has loads of evidence, so that one can actually call it real, solid proof. Yet his opponent, who has been beaten hands down, simply will not accept the evidence as proof.

While this doesn't happen often, it does happen. The debate judges might award the debate to the one who has the evidence, but this doesn't force the loser to accept the fact of his loss.

I say this because you seem to have trouble grasping things of deeper thinking that are plainly out in the open. Keep practicing. You can catch on. Taking Gingko Biloba can help.

I suppose, because it is me telling you, you won't even try it (the Gingko). The evidence is that you still haven't changed the "Your" to "You're" like I suggested... just because it was I who suggested it.

Oh, and I'd like to point out another FACT: BADecker is not qualified to tell other people how to spell in english, since america has many different spelling's. He only does this when he lose's an argument. He uses the government's way of speaking down to folks when he's been butfucked..

The correct term for this mis-use of the english language, is confuse and lose, and ya gotta admit, he is one we ALL wanna lose..

[BADecker]

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

But people that believe in god already are telling you it's BS. So your theory people are getting upset about starting to believe in god, which they did already, explodes in a fireball.

It's like I said. You need some Gingko so that you can start to recognize things a little. It isn't the people who believe in God that are complaining. Rather, it is the ones who don't believe in God, who are being forced by their natural honesty to believe when they see the evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

[BADecker]

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing.

What the hell have I just read??? Your making this all up and just having a laugh at our expense.

Your trolling. I've been sitting on the fence wondering if your trolling or genuine. This last comment has just cemented my decision.

Once in a while, in professional debates, the debate winner has loads of evidence, so that one can actually call it real, solid proof. Yet his opponent, who has been beaten hands down, simply will not accept the evidence as proof.

While this doesn't happen often, it does happen. The debate judges might award the debate to the one who has the evidence, but this doesn't force the loser to accept the fact of his loss.

I say this because you seem to have trouble grasping things of deeper thinking that are plainly out in the open. Keep practicing. You can catch on. Taking Gingko Biloba can help.

I suppose, because it is me telling you, you won't even try it (the Gingko). The evidence is that you still haven't changed the "Your" to "You're" like I suggested... just because it was I who suggested it.

Oh, and I'd like to point out another FACT: BADecker is not qualified to tell other people how to spell in english, since america has many different spelling's. He only does this when he lose's an argument. He uses the government's way of speaking down to folks when he's been butfucked..

The correct term for this mis-use of the english language, is confuse and lose, and ya gotta admit, he is one we ALL wanna lose..

By the same thinking, Decky ain't qualified to say that I'm not qualified, or is he?

[Bardman]

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

But people that believe in god already are telling you it's BS. So your theory people are getting upset about starting to believe in god, which they did already, explodes in a fireball.

It's like I said. You need some Gingko so that you can start to recognize things a little. It isn't the people who believe in God that are complaining. Rather, it is the ones who don't believe in God, who are being forced by their natural honesty to believe when they see the evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Evidence that god does not exist: Evolution or the age of the earth all have been proven with different methods if you can disprove that i would CONSIDER the existance of god

[Decksperiment]

Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.

You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.

Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.

Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:

The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

BADecker, do not be confused..

Thanks for the exhortation.

You have been continually stealing the OP's light solely for your own selfish reasons, by selectively ignoring better evidence than that which you have provided. The OP asked for scientific proof, not a fuckin bible class.

Where is the Bible class in the evidence I listed as proof? - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ...

You've been continually quoting the bible as if we were supposed to learn from it, and insult folks who react to such lessons.. you've been doing it from the start.. this is why I choose to troll you, to remind you of what an arse you have been since the OP started this thread.

Again, you have ignored all other evidence, and if you come across something that smacks you in the face, you come out with the confuse and lose scenario, and move onto your next victim. Away and become a productive member of the human race, have a kid, so you can experience first hand, YOUR creative process.. oh, I forgot, you think that pubes your cock.

[BADecker]

And now I shall explain why the very idea of God is logically flawed so that the entity cannot exist.
First of all, the classic paradox. If God is omnipotent he can create a rock which he cannot carry, but if he cannot carry it he isn’t omnipotent, neither is he omnipotent if he cannot create it. This doesn’t logically disprove his existence but rather that omnipotency is a paradox and a perfect being can’t be paradoxical, because a paradox is imperfect.

Did you miss https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10743095#msg10743095 ?

Secondly, the paradox of omnipresence. If God is a being he has a body. If he is everywhere, that body cannot exist because a body can only be in a finite place at a given time. It is possible to say that God moves so fast that he could be considered omnipresent, but that doesn’t make him omnipresent. It just means that he moves incredibly fast, and that is not the definition of omnipresence. Also, if he is omnipotent he has to be able to be omnipresent; but he cannot be omnipotent. And if he is perfect he cannot be based on a paradox.
So far, in order to prove God logically, we have to remove the parts that make him a god, and as such he wouldn’t be God.

Empty space (outer space) exists throughout the universe, even between the parts of the atoms. It is a body. If it doesn't exist, The universe doesn't exist.

"With God nothing shall be impossible." So, if "nothing" is impossible, perhaps the body of empty space is what God is, and He holds it all.

[Decksperiment]

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing.

What the hell have I just read??? Your making this all up and just having a laugh at our expense.

Your trolling. I've been sitting on the fence wondering if your trolling or genuine. This last comment has just cemented my decision.

Once in a while, in professional debates, the debate winner has loads of evidence, so that one can actually call it real, solid proof. Yet his opponent, who has been beaten hands down, simply will not accept the evidence as proof.

While this doesn't happen often, it does happen. The debate judges might award the debate to the one who has the evidence, but this doesn't force the loser to accept the fact of his loss.

I say this because you seem to have trouble grasping things of deeper thinking that are plainly out in the open. Keep practicing. You can catch on. Taking Gingko Biloba can help.

I suppose, because it is me telling you, you won't even try it (the Gingko). The evidence is that you still haven't changed the "Your" to "You're" like I suggested... just because it was I who suggested it.

Oh, and I'd like to point out another FACT: BADecker is not qualified to tell other people how to spell in english, since america has many different spelling's. He only does this when he lose's an argument. He uses the government's way of speaking down to folks when he's been butfucked..

The correct term for this mis-use of the english language, is confuse and lose, and ya gotta admit, he is one we ALL wanna lose..

By the same thinking, Decky ain't qualified to say that I'm not qualified, or is he?

Mair qualified in this department than you'll ever know.. And I probably have more (albeit reluctant) support than you for trying to prove god's existance.. note here I say god's existance, not YOUR god, who is clearly so fuckin evil, your the only one left suckin his balls and kissin his ass..

[BADecker]

You've been continually quoting the bible as if we were supposed to learn from it, and insult folks who react to such lessons.. you've been doing it from the start.. this is why I choose to troll you, to remind you of what an arse you have been since the OP started this thread.

Again, you have ignored all other evidence, and if you come across something that smacks you in the face, you come out with the confuse and lose scenario, and move onto your next victim. Away and become a productive member of the human race, have a kid, so you can experience first hand, YOUR creative process.. oh, I forgot, you think that pubes your cock.

This is sooooooo like you. When you can't show how and where I have been blatantly quoting the Bible, you start talking about annal sex.

[BADecker]

Mair qualified in this department than you'll ever know.. And I probably have more (albeit reluctant) support than you for trying to prove god's existance.. note here I say god's existance, not YOUR god, who is clearly so fuckin evil, your the only one left suckin his balls and kissin his ass..

My God would NEVER use the foul language you are moving yourself into, again. Been drinking?

[Decksperiment]

You've been continually quoting the bible as if we were supposed to learn from it, and insult folks who react to such lessons.. you've been doing it from the start.. this is why I choose to troll you, to remind you of what an arse you have been since the OP started this thread.

Again, you have ignored all other evidence, and if you come across something that smacks you in the face, you come out with the confuse and lose scenario, and move onto your next victim. Away and become a productive member of the human race, have a kid, so you can experience first hand, YOUR creative process.. oh, I forgot, you think that pubes your cock.

This is sooooooo like you. When you can't show how and where I have been blatantly quoting the Bible, you start talking about annal sex.

Dude, your that fuckin stupid you dont realise many people will read this ENTIRE thread, and know what it is YOU ask me to provide? I'm not you, I dont confuse and lose, and dont do external links, unless I deem it necessary, with regards to you, there is no fuckin point. Read from the start, and try grasp why folks KNOW you are are so full of shit. The crap you come out with is of biblical proportions, and you expect folks to BELIEVE you? Get it? WE DONT.

Your too lazy to use your cock, and are obviously scared of a decent fanny, who the fuck will ever take your side?

If you dont have a bitch someone else wants, your useless. Wake up.

[Decksperiment]

Mair qualified in this department than you'll ever know.. And I probably have more (albeit reluctant) support than you for trying to prove god's existance.. note here I say god's existance, not YOUR god, who is clearly so fuckin evil, your the only one left suckin his balls and kissin his ass..

My God would NEVER use the foul language you are moving yourself into, again. Been drinking?

No, just saying what needs to be said, and fuck your god, tell him am gonna kill him if I ever get the chance

[BADecker]

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

But people that believe in god already are telling you it's BS. So your theory people are getting upset about starting to believe in god, which they did already, explodes in a fireball.

It's like I said. You need some Gingko so that you can start to recognize things a little. It isn't the people who believe in God that are complaining. Rather, it is the ones who don't believe in God, who are being forced by their natural honesty to believe when they see the evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Evidence that god does not exist: Evolution or the age of the earth all have been proven with different methods if you can disprove that i would CONSIDER the existance of god

You are wrong about this.

Even a plausible form of constant evolution for the universe hasn't been proven. Pieces of it have. But there are still so many holes in the theory, that one can't say for sure that it COULD have happened.

IF someone DID happen to come up with a plausible, possible evolution flow - one that didn't have any holes in it - that would only be the little start. Why? Because there are too many variables and potential variables that could have happened in the past to say for a fact that evolution really DID bring things into being without God. We would need a time viewer, and a lot of time to view, to observe for sure that evolution is what happened.

God, on the other hand, is proven out by the massive evidence shown here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.