Scientific proof that God exists?

[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.

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.

You are so comical! I never laughed in this forum so much as I do when reading your posts.

 

[Decksperiment]

Instead of pointing to other links, do you think you could provide what you CLAIM is MASSIVE evidence, based on your last sentence

[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.

You are so comical! I never laughed in this forum so much as I do when reading your posts.

 

Good to see god shines through me with that creative process, far better than the shit you come out with..

[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.

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.

You are so comical! I never laughed in this forum so much as I do when reading your posts.

 

Good to see god shines through me with that creative process, far better than the shit you come out with..

As St. Paul says, whatever the reason, Christ (God) is preached.

[the joint]

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.

Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. The funny thing that is happening as this continues is, God is becoming more of scientific reality, and less of religion.

The problem for religious people when this happens is, they don't have as much room for faith, because the faith space in their minds and souls is taken up by knowing and knowledge - science. Yet God, Himself, says in the Bible (and most of the gods of the other religions indicate or say the same) that you must live by faith.

Too much of the knowledge about God can actually destroy faith... destroy the person who holds the knowledge.

Faith in "science" and faith in God are merging into reality.

You state:     

"Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists."

Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I'm trying to help you out.  You love attacking Science, and I'm sure you would agree the best way to attack Science is to show how it is limited.  The problem of induction is an absolute limit of scientific reasoning.  Reading about and understanding the limits of inductive reasoning will actually give you a rational basis for your claims against science, and you won't sound like a complete moron anymore.

It's your choice: Either concede the superior argument to me in exchange for the best weapon you can add to your arsenal, or you can maintain pride in your ignorance and be left unarmed.

You state: 

"Too much of the knowledge about God can actually destroy faith... destroy the person who holds the knowledge.

Faith in "science" and faith in God are merging into reality."

Faith by definition is a belief in something in the total and absolute lack of evidence.

Science by definition is totally and absolutely concerned with evidence.

[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.

You are so comical! I never laughed in this forum so much as I do when reading your posts.

 

Good to see god shines through me with that creative process, far better than the shit you come out with..

As St. Paul says, whatever the reason, Christ (God) is preached.

See? Bible bashin to the fuckin max, what does your last statement have to do with scientific proof of god? FUCK ALL

[the joint]

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.

Lol says the person who invents definitions to pre-existing words at will and has not provided a single direct response to any question posed to him in over 204 pages of material, to the person who responds directly to virtually point you make, citing references and providing deep, thoughtful responses to all of them.

You're totally right.  There isn't anyone else on Earth other than myself that thinks a dictionary is valid source for defining words of the English vocabulary.

I'll just take our approach and say that everything in the dictionary means the exact opposite.


If you think science is about faith and faith is about evidence, then by logical extension I also assume that you think "bad" means "good,"  "I" means "you," and "God" means "Satan."

Edit:  Oh wait!  I had an epiphany!  The dictionary is obviously a political deception of scientists!   

[BADecker]

You state:     

"Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists."

Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I'm trying to help you out.

...

Thanks for trying to help me out.

People generally don't get that deep into understanding things. They don't understand by pure logic. They let their brain mull things over while they live their daily life, and then they come up with the thing that they feel is proof to them.

You might be able to show people how their mulling-over of the supposed evidence isn't proof, but you would have to get them to sit down and listen. It would seem like a sermon or Bible class to many of them. Some of the people would get it; most wouldn't. And almost all of them would forget it within a few minutes after they left your explanation class.

You happen to be listening to my little explanation here. It is like your explanation class, but from a different "angle." But it seems that you would rather ignore the basic points that I am suggesting. Ir seems that you would rather toss the evidence out the window and not accept it as proof. And that's okay. This world wouldn't be as great as it is if people were forced to believe the evidence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395

Thanks, again, for helping me out.

[Decksperiment]

Allow me:

A good 80% of people who go to church are masons. Masons deny the existance of jesus (CHRIST, No, god is not the christos), and in fact have replaced him with Hiram Abiff. They have a coin in their pocket, a representative of the cross, which has letters all around it. Hiram The Widows Son Sent to King Solomon. Solomon is also an author of the bible. I learnt this in jail when 18 years old. I was also told WHY they deny jesus (NOT TRUE), but if I post that, I wont get any more confirmations of my 'thought's', in particular, those I figure out are true.

These people KNOW what I am trying to show, but BADecker deny's.

How does one feel to know that if 80% of church go'ers deny jesus???

And you think we'll be saved?

Hahaha

[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.

Lol says the person who invents definitions to pre-existing words at will and has not provided a single direct response to any question posed to him in over 204 pages of material, to the person who responds directly to virtually point you make, citing references and providing deep, thoughtful responses to all of them.

You're totally right.  There isn't anyone else on Earth other than myself that thinks a dictionary is valid source for defining words of the English vocabulary.

I'll just take our approach and say that everything in the dictionary means the exact opposite.


If you think science is about faith and faith is about evidence, then by logical extension I also assume that you think "bad" means "good,"  "I" means "you," and "God" means "Satan."

Edit:  Oh wait!  I had an epiphany!  The dictionary is obviously a political deception of scientists!  

The meanings of words have changed over the decades. Some words have been dropped. Some have been added. Most of the time the dictionary makers are listening to the people to see what the new meanings of words are. Often new words and meanings are interjected into society through the media, by politicians... sometimes by scientists.

You really need to get your nose out of the books once in awhile, so that you can see that things change, even words. (Now I suppose you are going to pick on my usage of "awhile" rather than "a while.")

[the joint]

You state:     

"Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists."

Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I'm trying to help you out.

...

Thanks for trying to help me out.

People generally don't get that deep into understanding things. They don't understand by pure logic. They let their brain mull things over while they live their daily life, and then they come up with the thing that they feel is proof to them.

You might be able to show people how their mulling-over of the supposed evidence isn't proof, but you would have to get them to sit down and listen. It would seem like a sermon or Bible class to many of them. Some of the people would get it; most wouldn't. And almost all of them would forget it within a few minutes after they left your explanation class.

You happen to be listening to my little explanation here. It is like your explanation class, but from a different "angle." But it seems that you would rather ignore the basic points that I am suggesting. Ir seems that you would rather toss the evidence out the window and not accept it as proof. And that's okay. This world wouldn't be as great as it is if people were forced to believe the evidence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395

Thanks, again, for helping me out.

So, I assume then you have clicked the link I provided, read and learned about the 'problem of induction,' and then concluded it was wrong so as to continue on with your point of view.

Here's another chance for you point out my fallacy:  Can you tell me what the 'problem of induction' and explain why it isn't applicable to you?

[Decksperiment]

Yeah yeah yeah, change the fuckin subject, take that pussy joint somewhere else, we aint here to discuss a language written where I live, not some far off, very distant country with a dialect for war..

Edit: Proof a dictionary cannot be used to define the english language:

Define the word TETRAGRAMMATON

What, it's not in the dictionary?

How's that for a wild guess?

[BADecker]

You state:     

"Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists."

Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I'm trying to help you out.

...

Thanks for trying to help me out.

People generally don't get that deep into understanding things. They don't understand by pure logic. They let their brain mull things over while they live their daily life, and then they come up with the thing that they feel is proof to them.

You might be able to show people how their mulling-over of the supposed evidence isn't proof, but you would have to get them to sit down and listen. It would seem like a sermon or Bible class to many of them. Some of the people would get it; most wouldn't. And almost all of them would forget it within a few minutes after they left your explanation class.

You happen to be listening to my little explanation here. It is like your explanation class, but from a different "angle." But it seems that you would rather ignore the basic points that I am suggesting. Ir seems that you would rather toss the evidence out the window and not accept it as proof. And that's okay. This world wouldn't be as great as it is if people were forced to believe the evidence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395

Thanks, again, for helping me out.

So, I assume then you have clicked the link I provided, read and learned about the 'problem of induction,' and then concluded it was wrong so as to continue on with your point of view.

Here's another chance for you point out my fallacy:  Can you tell me what the 'problem of induction' and explain why it isn't applicable to you?

You mean in an electrical transformer, right? It's resistance. That's why they have superconductors.

[Decksperiment]

BADecker, you must be getting desperate for someone to change the subject.. please, entertain me, explain why you would hold open the door of your church for those who deny jesus, and will never say his name, even in a prayer, at ANYONES funeral?

Keep in mind you are against devil worship..

[galdur]

You believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

And you don't understand why I have doubts?

--Mike Rivero

[Decksperiment]

See BADecker? More witness's to the fact your god is a jew. You cannot be saved, so pleease, go get laid, honestly, you'll love it as much as she'll love you.. till the next challenge (a priest) comes along.. she'll well be off with him

[BADecker]

You believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

And you don't understand why I have doubts?

--Mike Rivero

Everyone has doubts, even the best of believers. The idea is to gain some faith and do away with the doubts. Start here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

[the joint]

You state:    

"Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists."

Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I'm trying to help you out.

...

Thanks for trying to help me out.

People generally don't get that deep into understanding things. They don't understand by pure logic. They let their brain mull things over while they live their daily life, and then they come up with the thing that they feel is proof to them.

You might be able to show people how their mulling-over of the supposed evidence isn't proof, but you would have to get them to sit down and listen. It would seem like a sermon or Bible class to many of them. Some of the people would get it; most wouldn't. And almost all of them would forget it within a few minutes after they left your explanation class.

You happen to be listening to my little explanation here. It is like your explanation class, but from a different "angle." But it seems that you would rather ignore the basic points that I am suggesting. Ir seems that you would rather toss the evidence out the window and not accept it as proof. And that's okay. This world wouldn't be as great as it is if people were forced to believe the evidence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395

Thanks, again, for helping me out.

So, I assume then you have clicked the link I provided, read and learned about the 'problem of induction,' and then concluded it was wrong so as to continue on with your point of view.

Here's another chance for you point out my fallacy:  Can you tell me what the 'problem of induction' and explain why it isn't applicable to you?

You mean in an electrical transformer, right? It's resistance. That's why they have superconductors.

 

Lol Jesus tap-dancing Christ!  

Haha thanks for making it obvious you never read my references.

Lol an electrical transformer...resistance...superconductors.  Please, PLEASE tell me that was a joke.

The problem of induction is about the limits of inductive reasoning, you idiot!

[galdur]

Have another pearl on me from Mike.

If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.

Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades. The religion of Abraham would have stayed unified, rather than split up into Christianity, Judaism, Sunni, and Shi'ite over what amounts to a bunch of soap opera arguments.

But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.

The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods which could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist.



Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ATHEISM/inquisition.php#ixzz3UCkn2sq1

[Decksperiment]

Because the universe is a mental construct..