Scientific proof that God exists?

[Decksperiment]

A typical BaDICKer response methinks..

Tis almost like, there are indeed those who's answer's or argument's for/against, are all for/against the CATHOLIC education system, NO other religion is included, how very fuckin sad..

[the joint]

...

3)  The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.  

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Perfectly said.

...

"Lomatia tasmanica in Tasmania: the sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old"

"A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea is estimated to be between 12,000 and 200,000 years old. The maximum age is theoretical, as the region it occupies was above water at some point between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago"

There are already organisms on earth that are est. to be far above 6,000 years of age, eliminating the aspect that creation might have happened.

Now you, yourself, are spouting a bunch of unprovable junk... by your own admission. Or do you have a real, working, time viewer?

After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.

Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.

However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be.  If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).

Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole.  Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid.  In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.

So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie?  Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence?   Well, it's plainly not.  To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...to you.  But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible.  Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible.  You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence.  I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.

Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence.  In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism.  Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place.  Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?

On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence.  The key word here is 'consistent.'  Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it.  You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.

Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility.  Those who think it does sound like you.  Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.

You actually fall into the latter category.  Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence.  Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.

But do you know what is totally hilarious?  The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater!

[BADecker]

After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.

Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.

However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be.  If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).

Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole.  Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid.  In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.

So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie?  Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence?   Well, it's plainly not.  To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...to you.  But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible.  Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible.  You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence.  I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.

Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence.  In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism.  Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place.  Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?

On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence.  The key word here is 'consistent.'  Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it.  You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.

Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility.  Those who think it does sound like you.  Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.

You actually fall into the latter category.  Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence.  Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.

But do you know what is totally hilarious?  The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater!

Let me use the shark and the goldfishes in the fish tank.

There is a glass fish tank. It is divided into two parts by a single pane of tough glass. One part holds a school of goldfish. The other part holds a shark.

The shark sees or otherwise recognizes the goldfishes, and the goldfishes similarly see the shark.

The shark naturally wants to eat the goldfishes. It swims full speed at the goldfishes, but is stopped by the pane of glass... even hurts its "nose" when it runs full speed into the glass divider.

After a time of attempting to attack the goldfishes, the shark becomes conditioned to the fact that it can't get to the goldfishes, that it hurts its nose when it tries, so it stops trying. In addition, the goldfishes become conditioned to the fact that the shark can't get to them.

The divider pane of glass is removed, and the shark and the goldfishes swim together for a time. The shark doesn't eat the goldfishes, and the goldfishes aren't afraid of the shark. Their conditioning keeps them apart. However, if the shark accidentally sucks in a goldfish in its natural process of breathing, the conditioning starts to break down.



The machine/Machine-Maker example found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is overwhelming and abundant proof that God exists. When one throw in the fact that scientists are constantly using the scientific method on parts of the universe (albeit mostly parts here on earth) thereby proving the machine-like qualities of the universe, one can easily see how the machine/Machine-Maker analogy not only applies, but is being proven by scientists on a daily basis.

The point of the fish story, above, is, your conditioning simply keeps you from seeing the obvious. Unlike fish, human beings have the ability to reinforce their own conditioning. And that is exactly what you do when you use the idea (be the idea yours or others) that inference can't be used as proof. I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence in the courts is always used correctly. But much of the time it is.

Your conditioning is starting to break down. Why is your thinking conditioning and mine not? Because it is the natural state of mankind to recognize God in the workings and existence of the universe. It is only conditioning that stops some people from recognizing God. The evidence for this is, like the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 link says, the world is full of people who naturally recognize God. That's why we have the religions.



EDIT: Wow! 227 pages!

[the joint]

After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.

Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.

However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be.  If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).

Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole.  Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid.  In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.

So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie?  Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence?   Well, it's plainly not.  To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...to you.  But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible.  Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible.  You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence.  I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.

Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence.  In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism.  Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place.  Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?

On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence.  The key word here is 'consistent.'  Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it.  You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.

Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility.  Those who think it does sound like you.  Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.

You actually fall into the latter category.  Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence.  Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.

But do you know what is totally hilarious?  The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater!

Let me use the shark and the goldfishes in the fish tank.

There is a glass fish tank. It is divided into two parts by a single pane of tough glass. One part holds a school of goldfish. The other part holds a shark.

The shark sees or otherwise recognizes the goldfishes, and the goldfishes similarly see the shark.

The shark naturally wants to eat the goldfishes. It swims full speed at the goldfishes, but is stopped by the pane of glass... even hurts its "nose" when it runs full speed into the glass divider.

After a time of attempting to attack the goldfishes, the shark becomes conditioned to the fact that it can't get to the goldfishes, that it hurts its nose when it tries, so it stops trying. In addition, the goldfishes become conditioned to the fact that the shark can't get to them.

The divider pane of glass is removed, and the shark and the goldfishes swim together for a time. The shark doesn't eat the goldfishes, and the goldfishes aren't afraid of the shark. Their conditioning keeps them apart. However, if the shark accidentally sucks in a goldfish in its natural process of breathing, the conditioning starts to break down.



The machine/Machine-Maker example found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is overwhelming and abundant proof that God exists. When one throw in the fact that scientists are constantly using the scientific method on parts of the universe (albeit mostly parts here on earth) thereby proving the machine-like qualities of the universe, one can easily see how the machine/Machine-Maker analogy not only applies, but is being proven by scientists on a daily basis.

The point of the fish story, above, is, your conditioning simply keeps you from seeing the obvious. Unlike fish, human beings have the ability to reinforce their own conditioning. And that is exactly what you do when you use the idea (be the idea yours or others) that inference can't be used as proof. I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence in the courts is always used correctly. But much of the time it is.

Your conditioning is starting to break down. Why is your thinking conditioning and mine not? Because it is the natural state of mankind to recognize God in the workings and existence of the universe. It is only conditioning that stops some people from recognizing God. The evidence for this is, like the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 link says, the world is full of people who naturally recognize God. That's why we have the religions.



EDIT: Wow! 227 pages!

Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel.

As if I don't believe in God or something.

Was that post in response to me?  There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post. 

Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it?

[BADecker]

After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.

Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.

However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be.  If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).

Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole.  Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid.  In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.

So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie?  Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence?   Well, it's plainly not.  To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...to you.  But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible.  Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible.  You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence.  I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.

Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence.  In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism.  Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place.  Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?

On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence.  The key word here is 'consistent.'  Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it.  You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.

Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility.  Those who think it does sound like you.  Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.

You actually fall into the latter category.  Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence.  Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.

But do you know what is totally hilarious?  The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater!

Let me use the shark and the goldfishes in the fish tank.

There is a glass fish tank. It is divided into two parts by a single pane of tough glass. One part holds a school of goldfish. The other part holds a shark.

The shark sees or otherwise recognizes the goldfishes, and the goldfishes similarly see the shark.

The shark naturally wants to eat the goldfishes. It swims full speed at the goldfishes, but is stopped by the pane of glass... even hurts its "nose" when it runs full speed into the glass divider.

After a time of attempting to attack the goldfishes, the shark becomes conditioned to the fact that it can't get to the goldfishes, that it hurts its nose when it tries, so it stops trying. In addition, the goldfishes become conditioned to the fact that the shark can't get to them.

The divider pane of glass is removed, and the shark and the goldfishes swim together for a time. The shark doesn't eat the goldfishes, and the goldfishes aren't afraid of the shark. Their conditioning keeps them apart. However, if the shark accidentally sucks in a goldfish in its natural process of breathing, the conditioning starts to break down.



The machine/Machine-Maker example found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is overwhelming and abundant proof that God exists. When one throw in the fact that scientists are constantly using the scientific method on parts of the universe (albeit mostly parts here on earth) thereby proving the machine-like qualities of the universe, one can easily see how the machine/Machine-Maker analogy not only applies, but is being proven by scientists on a daily basis.

The point of the fish story, above, is, your conditioning simply keeps you from seeing the obvious. Unlike fish, human beings have the ability to reinforce their own conditioning. And that is exactly what you do when you use the idea (be the idea yours or others) that inference can't be used as proof. I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence in the courts is always used correctly. But much of the time it is.

Your conditioning is starting to break down. Why is your thinking conditioning and mine not? Because it is the natural state of mankind to recognize God in the workings and existence of the universe. It is only conditioning that stops some people from recognizing God. The evidence for this is, like the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 link says, the world is full of people who naturally recognize God. That's why we have the religions.



EDIT: Wow! 227 pages!

Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel.

As if I don't believe in God or something.

Was that post in response to me?  There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post.  

Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it?

I agree. This is a good form of self-conditioning reinforcement.

[Joshuar]

When I first came here, I'd thought I'd get actual replies from actual, educated christians trying to prove their belief in god through logical means. Instead, what I got was a clueless troll who chose to re-paste the same link containing arguments against god, while uselessly trying to pass them off as arguments for god, and all along standing strong in it's incorrect statements. Nevertheless, I am sorely disappointed.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=635960.msg10829465#msg10829465

[BADecker]

It is a double too-bad for you, then. Because Christianity is based in the Bible, especially the New Testament. And it is the non-acceptance of the machine-like nature of the universe that is part of the explanation in the N.T. that St. Paul uses to show why some people won't accept the existence of God.

My explanations of it at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are directed at the more sophisticated thinking of the modern-scientist type of person, that is prevalent today.

By all means, go to the Bible and read it and study it. It is only the Word of God, the Bible, that can stir the heart for the thing that the Bible is all about, the saving of souls, and the saving of bodies in the resurrection.

[Joshuar]

It is a double too-bad for you, then. Because Christianity is based in the Bible, especially the New Testament. And it is the non-acceptance of the machine-like nature of the universe that is part of the explanation in the N.T. that St. Paul uses to show why some people won't accept the existence of God.

My explanations of it at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are directed at the more sophisticated thinking of the modern-scientist type of person, that is prevalent today.

By all means, go to the Bible and read it and study it. It is only the Word of God, the Bible, that can stir the heart for the thing that the Bible is all about, the saving of souls, and the saving of bodies in the resurrection.

I have shown you why your "explanations" are incorrect and are a support for why god doesn't exist. It's puzzling as to why you firmly believe that they are "proofs" for god, doesn't make any sense at all...

Oh I've studied the bible, it's far from the word of god as you put it. My child can write far better a story than what the bible gives to explain things.

[Decksperiment]

Dunno if this is the right thread, ffs, dae they know ken, the age o aquarius is what jesus meant when he said what I am you will become?

I ask due to.. Who da mastaaaaaaaaa?

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Dont take it on faith.. Listen to the treeeeeeeeeeeeee's!!!!

Help's you breath more easily..

Check mate theists. He is not even trying to disprove the sequoia age because he cant

Well, checkmate to the bible, not theists.

Rest in (smaller) peice's.. bitcoin. users.

[Decksperiment]

We aitheist's.. yes, I've chose my team.. For I clearly know of a god you would never speak i'll of.. wankers.. you know who I mean..

Don say I neva eva warned ya..

The most dangerous thing on the planet is a preist with the knowledge of war.. Good ole U S A
- thought it was god.. sadley..

A forced religion is doomed to fialure.. njoi ur civil war.. and yer fuckin guns.. ye deserve them back..

[Decksperiment]

Britain follows next, followed by the queens rule, the colonies.. canada's the third.. I wont go the forth as a rule..

[hughsjack]

if god exists, whats up with Leucochloridium paradoxum, Ampulex compressa, Cymothoa exigua, Loa loa, Dracunculus, Cordyceps fungi, Wolbachia, Vandellia cirrhosa, Toxoplasma gondii and Sacculina. Just google it. and as Stephen Fry says if god exists he is “utterly evil, capricious and monstrous”

I would say: ‘bone cancer in children? What’s that about?

I don't know about this stuff (highlighted) that I am aware of. Perhaps I will look it up someday. I DO, on occasion, take cordyceps as a nutritional supplement.

I don't know much about bone canser in children or adults. If I did, I would have spelled the word correctly.

If you are trying to ask me why there are problems in the world, the real fast, simple answer is this. God, for His own purposes and for our glory and best benefit gave us free will. Our first ancestors, Adam and Eve, used their free will to listen to the devil rather than to God. The result was spiritual imperfection in at least the world, if not the whole universe, and genetic imperfection in themselves and all who inherit their genes. The imperfection wasn't God's doing. It was theirs. However, if we were perfect right this instant, would that stop us from making mistakes that would throw us right back into the same problems that we have now?



EDIT: I enjoy your handle. 

Cordyceps is a genus of ascomycete fungi. All Cordyceps species are endoparasitoids, parasitic mainly on insects and other arthropods.

http://www.shopnutritionworld.com/ns/DisplayMonograph.asp?storeID=1B2A47EF9731466BB1103CF3C7B87AF0&DocID=bottomline-cordyceps
"Cordyceps sinensis is a fungus that naturally grows on the back of caterpillars. The Cordyceps fungus replaces the caterpillar tissue, eventually growing on the top of the caterpillar. The remaining structures of the caterpillar along with the fungus are dried and sold as the dietary supplement cordyceps."

Nice nutritional supplement! 


All the highlighted stuff is vicious parasites, there are insects whose entire life cycle is to drill into the child's eyes and eat them from the inside. nice work your GOD made creating everything. I will not kneel before your god.

[calme]

They say that you just know in your heart. I guess my heart is just braindead then, b/c my heart just pumps blood. And my brain believes what there is proof of and no more than considers what there is not proof of.

[BADecker]

if god exists, whats up with Leucochloridium paradoxum, Ampulex compressa, Cymothoa exigua, Loa loa, Dracunculus, Cordyceps fungi, Wolbachia, Vandellia cirrhosa, Toxoplasma gondii and Sacculina. Just google it. and as Stephen Fry says if god exists he is “utterly evil, capricious and monstrous”

I would say: ‘bone cancer in children? What’s that about?

I don't know about this stuff (highlighted) that I am aware of. Perhaps I will look it up someday. I DO, on occasion, take cordyceps as a nutritional supplement.

I don't know much about bone canser in children or adults. If I did, I would have spelled the word correctly.

If you are trying to ask me why there are problems in the world, the real fast, simple answer is this. God, for His own purposes and for our glory and best benefit gave us free will. Our first ancestors, Adam and Eve, used their free will to listen to the devil rather than to God. The result was spiritual imperfection in at least the world, if not the whole universe, and genetic imperfection in themselves and all who inherit their genes. The imperfection wasn't God's doing. It was theirs. However, if we were perfect right this instant, would that stop us from making mistakes that would throw us right back into the same problems that we have now?



EDIT: I enjoy your handle. 

Cordyceps is a genus of ascomycete fungi. All Cordyceps species are endoparasitoids, parasitic mainly on insects and other arthropods.

http://www.shopnutritionworld.com/ns/DisplayMonograph.asp?storeID=1B2A47EF9731466BB1103CF3C7B87AF0&DocID=bottomline-cordyceps
"Cordyceps sinensis is a fungus that naturally grows on the back of caterpillars. The Cordyceps fungus replaces the caterpillar tissue, eventually growing on the top of the caterpillar. The remaining structures of the caterpillar along with the fungus are dried and sold as the dietary supplement cordyceps."

Nice nutritional supplement! 


All the highlighted stuff is vicious parasites, there are insects whose entire life cycle is to drill into the child's eyes and eat them from the inside. nice work your GOD made creating everything. I will not kneel before your god.

The practical point is, who is stronger? you or God?

I'm happy that you are sticking to your convictions. It is wonderful to see someone who has enogh guts to stand up to God. But it is kinda foolish, 'cause God will win.

[BADecker]

It is a double too-bad for you, then. Because Christianity is based in the Bible, especially the New Testament. And it is the non-acceptance of the machine-like nature of the universe that is part of the explanation in the N.T. that St. Paul uses to show why some people won't accept the existence of God.

My explanations of it at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are directed at the more sophisticated thinking of the modern-scientist type of person, that is prevalent today.

By all means, go to the Bible and read it and study it. It is only the Word of God, the Bible, that can stir the heart for the thing that the Bible is all about, the saving of souls, and the saving of bodies in the resurrection.

I have shown you why your "explanations" are incorrect and are a support for why god doesn't exist. It's puzzling as to why you firmly believe that they are "proofs" for god, doesn't make any sense at all...

Oh I've studied the bible, it's far from the word of god as you put it. My child can write far better a story than what the bible gives to explain things.

I have shown you why the evidences expressed at kjsehr89wy5h803u5-9i3w80ye458tywuory588w745
 are proofs that God exists.

I totally accept that you have the right and ability to believe the things you believe.

[the joint]

After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.

Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.

However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be.  If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).

Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole.  Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid.  In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.

So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie?  Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence?   Well, it's plainly not.  To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...to you.  But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible.  Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible.  You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence.  I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.

Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence.  In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism.  Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place.  Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?

On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence.  The key word here is 'consistent.'  Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it.  You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.

Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility.  Those who think it does sound like you.  Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.

You actually fall into the latter category.  Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence.  Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.

But do you know what is totally hilarious?  The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater!

Let me use the shark and the goldfishes in the fish tank.

There is a glass fish tank. It is divided into two parts by a single pane of tough glass. One part holds a school of goldfish. The other part holds a shark.

The shark sees or otherwise recognizes the goldfishes, and the goldfishes similarly see the shark.

The shark naturally wants to eat the goldfishes. It swims full speed at the goldfishes, but is stopped by the pane of glass... even hurts its "nose" when it runs full speed into the glass divider.

After a time of attempting to attack the goldfishes, the shark becomes conditioned to the fact that it can't get to the goldfishes, that it hurts its nose when it tries, so it stops trying. In addition, the goldfishes become conditioned to the fact that the shark can't get to them.

The divider pane of glass is removed, and the shark and the goldfishes swim together for a time. The shark doesn't eat the goldfishes, and the goldfishes aren't afraid of the shark. Their conditioning keeps them apart. However, if the shark accidentally sucks in a goldfish in its natural process of breathing, the conditioning starts to break down.



The machine/Machine-Maker example found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is overwhelming and abundant proof that God exists. When one throw in the fact that scientists are constantly using the scientific method on parts of the universe (albeit mostly parts here on earth) thereby proving the machine-like qualities of the universe, one can easily see how the machine/Machine-Maker analogy not only applies, but is being proven by scientists on a daily basis.

The point of the fish story, above, is, your conditioning simply keeps you from seeing the obvious. Unlike fish, human beings have the ability to reinforce their own conditioning. And that is exactly what you do when you use the idea (be the idea yours or others) that inference can't be used as proof. I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence in the courts is always used correctly. But much of the time it is.

Your conditioning is starting to break down. Why is your thinking conditioning and mine not? Because it is the natural state of mankind to recognize God in the workings and existence of the universe. It is only conditioning that stops some people from recognizing God. The evidence for this is, like the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 link says, the world is full of people who naturally recognize God. That's why we have the religions.



EDIT: Wow! 227 pages!

Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel.

As if I don't believe in God or something.

Was that post in response to me?  There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post.  

Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it?

I agree. This is a good form of self-conditioning reinforcement.

You agree with what?

Again, who are you responding to?  I didn't even claim anything, so what are you agreeing with?

Is there someone standing behind me you keep talking to?

[BADecker]

Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel.

As if I don't believe in God or something.

Was that post in response to me?  There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post.  

Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it?

I agree. This is a good form of self-conditioning reinforcement.

You agree with what?

Again, who are you responding to?  I didn't even claim anything, so what are you agreeing with?

Is there someone standing behind me you keep talking to?

Sorry you are having a bad day. Perhaps things will turn around for you later if they haven't already.

[Joshuar]

I concluded, there's no point in responding to this thread. BADecker is clearly trolling with the countless inaccuracies and faulty, opinionated "information" he presents. If he isn't trolling... phew may his "god" have mercy on his uneducated soul.

[BADecker]

Looks like you believe in God... some.

What's the matter. You jealous that you couldn't figure out any proof for or against God like the Bible proof, which my proof at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is simply an extension of?

Well, better luck next time. You do believe in luck, don't you?

[bl4kjaguar]

Scientific Evidence for the Afterlife

Therefore, a skeptic can disprove the existence of spirits and the afterlife by giving adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence said to demonstrate their existence.

This shouldn't be a problem. Most skeptics claim to believe only what is proved.

The theory of the afterlife has passed tests that could falsify it, and therefore it is supported by empirical evidence, which is to say, belief in the afterlife is scientific.

What happens to this thread when I introduce this evidence?

I have not heard any adequate rebuttals from skeptics to the Scientific Evidence for the Afterlife that I have presented. This shows me that the truth is out there but people will simply NOT bother to read it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10583921#msg10583921
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10536444#msg10536444

The second link will link you to peer-reviewed scientific evidence explaining the "machine" concept that BADecker is discussing; however, none of these sources even use the word "machine".

To summarize: skeptics should read moar!

The nearly universal structure of the genetic code and the handedness of proteins and nucleic acids is preserved in horizontal gene transfer and attests to a universal ancestor. Nevertheless, horizontal gene transfer has substantially erased the record of the earliest genetic sequences. This means that the earliest branches of the tree are not
knowable.

Bonus Link (mentions "machines" just once): http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho33.htm