Scientific proof that God exists?

[XinXan]

the evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, the evidence at the link is proof that God exists, but the evidence that suggests that God doesn't exist can't hold a candle to the evidence that He does.

That link is simply evidence of you employing logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty repeatedly.

I accept the idea that you have brainwashed yourself into thinking what ever you think about the info in the link. Anybody who can think, who reads through it can see the strong evidence showing that God exists. It is common knowledge brought out into the open. That's all.

So far seems like everybody knows those are fallacies and the only brainwashed person here is you. Im sorry to tell you but you are brainwashed.

Actually, it's a small group of atheists who don't know that God exists. Well, they are welcome to their religion.

Nope, im talking about here in the forum, everyone and i mean literally everyone who has read your ''proof'' said its stupid, even religious people xD...

I would believe that they are few. How many forum members are there? Even if there were thousands, they are few compared with people who believe that God exists, and would understand how He can be proven by the things that I have said at the link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 if they took the time to think them through.

These are not the only points that prove God. One of the very strong points in addition to these that I have not mentioned often is the point of mathematical probability. The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible, especially in the light of the existence of life on earth and all the things associated with life, reveals that God MUST exist, Whatever or Whomever He might be.

When you throw in the the standard entropy we see all around us, along with the fact that try as they might, scientists are not able to start life up from inanimate materials, Whatever God is, He is Supremely Great.

How does mathematical probability show that our universe is impossible? And scientists are actually able to start life from inanimate objects, get your facts right.

[Joshuar]

The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible,

We're here aren't we? Ergo, not impossible.

Why should I even post this? That is exactly what I said, and it is in my post, which part you didn't quote above. In fact, the fact that we are here is the ONLY logic that we have for the possibility that we can exist. Except for our existence, it is impossible that we or the universe does exist according to any knowledge or understanding that we have.

Someday we might gain enough knowledge that we will be able to say truthfully that we understand how we are possible. But we aren't there yet by a long shot.

This makes the idea of the existence of God more probable... God Who is way more "advanced" than we... God Who made us and all things with understanding and knowledge that we don't have. How does He have knowledge that we don't? It is in the definition of the word "God."

Even then, that's wrong. There's no sure way to prove out own existence, the mind is not metaphysical, it is "the body". The brain is the mind, simply put so using the mind as a method to prove your existence is faulty, with use of the senses being completely out of the question(You can answer/think for yourself as to why using one's senses to make claim of their own existence is illogical, schizophrenia, etc etc. We can use reasoning to give support to the notion that we may exist, but we can never declare it a certainty. The idea of God to explain the unknown is an idea of the ignorant as history has shown. When people don't know something, they say god did it until proven otherwise. It's a very stupid argument to make.

[BADecker]

The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible,

We're here aren't we? Ergo, not impossible.

Why should I even post this? That is exactly what I said, and it is in my post, which part you didn't quote above. In fact, the fact that we are here is the ONLY logic that we have for the possibility that we can exist. Except for our existence, it is impossible that we or the universe does exist according to any knowledge or understanding that we have.

Someday we might gain enough knowledge that we will be able to say truthfully that we understand how we are possible. But we aren't there yet by a long shot.

This makes the idea of the existence of God more probable... God Who is way more "advanced" than we... God Who made us and all things with understanding and knowledge that we don't have. How does He have knowledge that we don't? It is in the definition of the word "God."

Even then, that's wrong. There's no sure way to prove out own existence, the mind is not metaphysical, it is "the body". The brain is the mind, simply put so using the mind as a method to prove your existence is faulty, with use of the senses being completely out of the question(You can answer/think for yourself as to why using one's senses to make claim of their own existence is illogical, schizophrenia, etc etc. We can use reasoning to give support to the notion that we may exist, but we can never declare it a certainty. The idea of God to explain the unknown is an idea of the ignorant as history has shown. When people don't know something, they say god did it until proven otherwise. It's a very stupid argument to make.

Why is this that you have said foolish? Because at this stage in the knowledge of mankind, absolutely nobody knows how to make people last alive much more than 100 years. The healthiest of people live not long over 100 years. And the best, most qualified of doctors and scientists don't know how to cause anybody to live even to the young age of 200 or 300 years.

What does this have to do with the brain being the mind and the other things you said above? Here's what. Like as we don't know enough to keep people alive a mere, piddly, 200 years, because we are so ignorant of how things work, in the same way we are even more ignorant of the operations of brain, mind and consciousness. Nobody knows that the "brain is the mind" for sure. Nobody knows that there absolutely isn't any other mind operation besides that done by the brain. Some scientific investigations themselves are starting to show that there are mind/consciousness operations done outside the brain.

At its core, the scientific method itself may not be something that operates according to the scientific method as it describes itself. This is shown by the fact that we don't know much about mind/consciousness at all. Because of this, the proof for the existence of God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is completely accurate.

Further, just because we have a hard time recognizing God, and an even harder time determining much of anything about Him, doesn't mean that He doesn't see us. For example, when we place an ant colony in between two panes of glass so that we can observe them at work, they don't see us (if they do, they don't understand what they are seeing), but we see them. We watch them do their daily thing. Why would anyone think that God doesn't watch us, that He isn't aware of our every activity, even in far more detail (maybe, complete detail) than we are ourselves?

You are not thinking clearly. But if you are, then you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Why not start your own thread that talks about these issues rather than spam this thread with all your off-topic stuff?

[XinXan]

The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible,

We're here aren't we? Ergo, not impossible.

Why should I even post this? That is exactly what I said, and it is in my post, which part you didn't quote above. In fact, the fact that we are here is the ONLY logic that we have for the possibility that we can exist. Except for our existence, it is impossible that we or the universe does exist according to any knowledge or understanding that we have.

Someday we might gain enough knowledge that we will be able to say truthfully that we understand how we are possible. But we aren't there yet by a long shot.

This makes the idea of the existence of God more probable... God Who is way more "advanced" than we... God Who made us and all things with understanding and knowledge that we don't have. How does He have knowledge that we don't? It is in the definition of the word "God."

Even then, that's wrong. There's no sure way to prove out own existence, the mind is not metaphysical, it is "the body". The brain is the mind, simply put so using the mind as a method to prove your existence is faulty, with use of the senses being completely out of the question(You can answer/think for yourself as to why using one's senses to make claim of their own existence is illogical, schizophrenia, etc etc. We can use reasoning to give support to the notion that we may exist, but we can never declare it a certainty. The idea of God to explain the unknown is an idea of the ignorant as history has shown. When people don't know something, they say god did it until proven otherwise. It's a very stupid argument to make.

Why is this that you have said foolish? Because at this stage in the knowledge of mankind, absolutely nobody knows how to make people last alive much more than 100 years. The healthiest of people live not long over 100 years. And the best, most qualified of doctors and scientists don't know how to cause anybody to live even to the young age of 200 or 300 years.

What does this have to do with the brain being the mind and the other things you said above? Here's what. Like as we don't know enough to keep people alive a mere, piddly, 200 years, because we are so ignorant of how things work, in the same way we are even more ignorant of the operations of brain, mind and consciousness. Nobody knows that the "brain is the mind" for sure. Nobody knows that there absolutely isn't any other mind operation besides that done by the brain. Some scientific investigations themselves are starting to show that there are mind/consciousness operations done outside the brain.

At its core, the scientific method itself may not be something that operates according to the scientific method as it describes itself. This is shown by the fact that we don't know much about mind/consciousness at all. Because of this, the proof for the existence of God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is completely accurate.

Further, just because we have a hard time recognizing God, and an even harder time determining much of anything about Him, doesn't mean that He doesn't see us. For example, when we place an ant colony in between two panes of glass so that we can observe them at work, they don't see us (if they do, they don't understand what they are seeing), but we see them. We watch them do their daily thing. Why would anyone think that God doesn't watch us, that He isn't aware of our every activity, even in far more detail (maybe, complete detail) than we are ourselves?

You are not thinking clearly. But if you are, then you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Why not start your own thread that talks about these issues rather than spam this thread with all your off-topic stuff?

So if no one knos anything of that for sure how can you be so sure about all the things you have been posting so far? You keep posting your fallacy link wich was proven to be full of shit and even religious people dont accept it. Why would anyone think god is watching us? How do you know the ants dont know what they are looking at? You said it yourself, we dont know a lot of things.

[BADecker]

The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible,

We're here aren't we? Ergo, not impossible.

Why should I even post this? That is exactly what I said, and it is in my post, which part you didn't quote above. In fact, the fact that we are here is the ONLY logic that we have for the possibility that we can exist. Except for our existence, it is impossible that we or the universe does exist according to any knowledge or understanding that we have.

Someday we might gain enough knowledge that we will be able to say truthfully that we understand how we are possible. But we aren't there yet by a long shot.

This makes the idea of the existence of God more probable... God Who is way more "advanced" than we... God Who made us and all things with understanding and knowledge that we don't have. How does He have knowledge that we don't? It is in the definition of the word "God."

Even then, that's wrong. There's no sure way to prove out own existence, the mind is not metaphysical, it is "the body". The brain is the mind, simply put so using the mind as a method to prove your existence is faulty, with use of the senses being completely out of the question(You can answer/think for yourself as to why using one's senses to make claim of their own existence is illogical, schizophrenia, etc etc. We can use reasoning to give support to the notion that we may exist, but we can never declare it a certainty. The idea of God to explain the unknown is an idea of the ignorant as history has shown. When people don't know something, they say god did it until proven otherwise. It's a very stupid argument to make.

Why is this that you have said foolish? Because at this stage in the knowledge of mankind, absolutely nobody knows how to make people last alive much more than 100 years. The healthiest of people live not long over 100 years. And the best, most qualified of doctors and scientists don't know how to cause anybody to live even to the young age of 200 or 300 years.

What does this have to do with the brain being the mind and the other things you said above? Here's what. Like as we don't know enough to keep people alive a mere, piddly, 200 years, because we are so ignorant of how things work, in the same way we are even more ignorant of the operations of brain, mind and consciousness. Nobody knows that the "brain is the mind" for sure. Nobody knows that there absolutely isn't any other mind operation besides that done by the brain. Some scientific investigations themselves are starting to show that there are mind/consciousness operations done outside the brain.

At its core, the scientific method itself may not be something that operates according to the scientific method as it describes itself. This is shown by the fact that we don't know much about mind/consciousness at all. Because of this, the proof for the existence of God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is completely accurate.

Further, just because we have a hard time recognizing God, and an even harder time determining much of anything about Him, doesn't mean that He doesn't see us. For example, when we place an ant colony in between two panes of glass so that we can observe them at work, they don't see us (if they do, they don't understand what they are seeing), but we see them. We watch them do their daily thing. Why would anyone think that God doesn't watch us, that He isn't aware of our every activity, even in far more detail (maybe, complete detail) than we are ourselves?

You are not thinking clearly. But if you are, then you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Why not start your own thread that talks about these issues rather than spam this thread with all your off-topic stuff?

So if no one knos anything of that for sure how can you be so sure about all the things you have been posting so far? You keep posting your fallacy link wich was proven to be full of shit and even religious people dont accept it. Why would anyone think god is watching us? How do you know the ants dont know what they are looking at? You said it yourself, we dont know a lot of things.

Do I have to tell you everything? When are you going to be able to think a little on your own? When are you going to be able to read?

Read the first quoted post at the top of this post. According to our incomplete knowledge of the universe as we have it right now, the universe is impossible to exist... especially through something as simple as modern scientific method. We simply don't have any way for proving out all but a relatively few simple things. The universe is far more complex than we understand. Except for the fact that the universe exists, there is no proof that it exists or can exist.

The little bit of boldness that I have in suggesting things as fact, is simply designed to fit inside of the things that others understand as fact so that we can have conversation. How do you even know that you can ask a question, except that you do it?

Because of how limited we are, and because we can measure some relatively small part of this universe, but not enough to prove it can exist, there must be a Guy we call God Who knows about it all.

[Gimpeline]

So translated. Because you dont know how science work, therefor God excist

[coric]

BADecker, are you honest and brave enough to tell us the name of the church you follow? I would think the extreme extent of science denial beyond "young earth creationism" would put et at the extreme end of even US fundamentalism, but the assertion of gnosis seems odd.

[the joint]

The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible,

We're here aren't we? Ergo, not impossible.

Why should I even post this? That is exactly what I said, and it is in my post, which part you didn't quote above. In fact, the fact that we are here is the ONLY logic that we have for the possibility that we can exist. Except for our existence, it is impossible that we or the universe does exist according to any knowledge or understanding that we have.

Someday we might gain enough knowledge that we will be able to say truthfully that we understand how we are possible. But we aren't there yet by a long shot.

This makes the idea of the existence of God more probable... God Who is way more "advanced" than we... God Who made us and all things with understanding and knowledge that we don't have. How does He have knowledge that we don't? It is in the definition of the word "God."

Even then, that's wrong. There's no sure way to prove out own existence, the mind is not metaphysical, it is "the body". The brain is the mind, simply put so using the mind as a method to prove your existence is faulty, with use of the senses being completely out of the question(You can answer/think for yourself as to why using one's senses to make claim of their own existence is illogical, schizophrenia, etc etc. We can use reasoning to give support to the notion that we may exist, but we can never declare it a certainty. The idea of God to explain the unknown is an idea of the ignorant as history has shown. When people don't know something, they say god did it until proven otherwise. It's a very stupid argument to make.

Why is this that you have said foolish? Because at this stage in the knowledge of mankind, absolutely nobody knows how to make people last alive much more than 100 years. The healthiest of people live not long over 100 years. And the best, most qualified of doctors and scientists don't know how to cause anybody to live even to the young age of 200 or 300 years.

What does this have to do with the brain being the mind and the other things you said above? Here's what. Like as we don't know enough to keep people alive a mere, piddly, 200 years, because we are so ignorant of how things work, in the same way we are even more ignorant of the operations of brain, mind and consciousness. Nobody knows that the "brain is the mind" for sure. Nobody knows that there absolutely isn't any other mind operation besides that done by the brain. Some scientific investigations themselves are starting to show that there are mind/consciousness operations done outside the brain.

At its core, the scientific method itself may not be something that operates according to the scientific method as it describes itself. This is shown by the fact that we don't know much about mind/consciousness at all. Because of this, the proof for the existence of God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is completely accurate.

Further, just because we have a hard time recognizing God, and an even harder time determining much of anything about Him, doesn't mean that He doesn't see us. For example, when we place an ant colony in between two panes of glass so that we can observe them at work, they don't see us (if they do, they don't understand what they are seeing), but we see them. We watch them do their daily thing. Why would anyone think that God doesn't watch us, that He isn't aware of our every activity, even in far more detail (maybe, complete detail) than we are ourselves?

You are not thinking clearly. But if you are, then you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Why not start your own thread that talks about these issues rather than spam this thread with all your off-topic stuff?

So if no one knos anything of that for sure how can you be so sure about all the things you have been posting so far? You keep posting your fallacy link wich was proven to be full of shit and even religious people dont accept it. Why would anyone think god is watching us? How do you know the ants dont know what they are looking at? You said it yourself, we dont know a lot of things.

Do I have to tell you everything? When are you going to be able to think a little on your own? When are you going to be able to read?

Read the first quoted post at the top of this post. According to our incomplete knowledge of the universe as we have it right now, the universe is impossible to exist... especially through something as simple as modern scientific method. We simply don't have any way for proving out all but a relatively few simple things. The universe is far more complex than we understand. Except for the fact that the universe exists, there is no proof that it exists or can exist.

The little bit of boldness that I have in suggesting things as fact, is simply designed to fit inside of the things that others understand as fact so that we can have conversation. How do you even know that you can ask a question, except that you do it?

Because of how limited we are, and because we can measure some relatively small part of this universe, but not enough to prove it can exist, there must be a Guy we call God Who knows about it all.

How do you manage to ignore the self-evident knowledge that the Universe exists (hint: look, and voila!) and then say our incomplete understanding, the Universe is impossible?

1) Open your eyes.  See Universe. Universe exists.

2) If our knowledge is incomplete, you can't conclude "impossibility."

3) Based on the (incomplete) knowledge we do have, the Universe checks out just fine.  Our theories/models need to match reality, not the other way around (in your case, you try to cram reality to fit your retarded ideas).

4) Yes, the Scientific Method is simple.  So, why don't you understand it?

5) In your previous post, you essentially said the Scientific Method is not the Scientific Method.  Slap yourself.

[BADecker]

The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible,

We're here aren't we? Ergo, not impossible.

Why should I even post this? That is exactly what I said, and it is in my post, which part you didn't quote above. In fact, the fact that we are here is the ONLY logic that we have for the possibility that we can exist. Except for our existence, it is impossible that we or the universe does exist according to any knowledge or understanding that we have.

Someday we might gain enough knowledge that we will be able to say truthfully that we understand how we are possible. But we aren't there yet by a long shot.

This makes the idea of the existence of God more probable... God Who is way more "advanced" than we... God Who made us and all things with understanding and knowledge that we don't have. How does He have knowledge that we don't? It is in the definition of the word "God."

Even then, that's wrong. There's no sure way to prove out own existence, the mind is not metaphysical, it is "the body". The brain is the mind, simply put so using the mind as a method to prove your existence is faulty, with use of the senses being completely out of the question(You can answer/think for yourself as to why using one's senses to make claim of their own existence is illogical, schizophrenia, etc etc. We can use reasoning to give support to the notion that we may exist, but we can never declare it a certainty. The idea of God to explain the unknown is an idea of the ignorant as history has shown. When people don't know something, they say god did it until proven otherwise. It's a very stupid argument to make.

Why is this that you have said foolish? Because at this stage in the knowledge of mankind, absolutely nobody knows how to make people last alive much more than 100 years. The healthiest of people live not long over 100 years. And the best, most qualified of doctors and scientists don't know how to cause anybody to live even to the young age of 200 or 300 years.

What does this have to do with the brain being the mind and the other things you said above? Here's what. Like as we don't know enough to keep people alive a mere, piddly, 200 years, because we are so ignorant of how things work, in the same way we are even more ignorant of the operations of brain, mind and consciousness. Nobody knows that the "brain is the mind" for sure. Nobody knows that there absolutely isn't any other mind operation besides that done by the brain. Some scientific investigations themselves are starting to show that there are mind/consciousness operations done outside the brain.

At its core, the scientific method itself may not be something that operates according to the scientific method as it describes itself. This is shown by the fact that we don't know much about mind/consciousness at all. Because of this, the proof for the existence of God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is completely accurate.

Further, just because we have a hard time recognizing God, and an even harder time determining much of anything about Him, doesn't mean that He doesn't see us. For example, when we place an ant colony in between two panes of glass so that we can observe them at work, they don't see us (if they do, they don't understand what they are seeing), but we see them. We watch them do their daily thing. Why would anyone think that God doesn't watch us, that He isn't aware of our every activity, even in far more detail (maybe, complete detail) than we are ourselves?

You are not thinking clearly. But if you are, then you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Why not start your own thread that talks about these issues rather than spam this thread with all your off-topic stuff?

So if no one knos anything of that for sure how can you be so sure about all the things you have been posting so far? You keep posting your fallacy link wich was proven to be full of shit and even religious people dont accept it. Why would anyone think god is watching us? How do you know the ants dont know what they are looking at? You said it yourself, we dont know a lot of things.

Do I have to tell you everything? When are you going to be able to think a little on your own? When are you going to be able to read?

Read the first quoted post at the top of this post. According to our incomplete knowledge of the universe as we have it right now, the universe is impossible to exist... especially through something as simple as modern scientific method. We simply don't have any way for proving out all but a relatively few simple things. The universe is far more complex than we understand. Except for the fact that the universe exists, there is no proof that it exists or can exist.

The little bit of boldness that I have in suggesting things as fact, is simply designed to fit inside of the things that others understand as fact so that we can have conversation. How do you even know that you can ask a question, except that you do it?

Because of how limited we are, and because we can measure some relatively small part of this universe, but not enough to prove it can exist, there must be a Guy we call God Who knows about it all.

How do you manage to ignore the self-evident knowledge that the Universe exists (hint: look, and voila!) and then say our incomplete understanding, the Universe is impossible?

1) Open your eyes.  See Universe. Universe exists.

2) If our knowledge is incomplete, you can't conclude "impossibility."

3) Based on the (incomplete) knowledge we do have, the Universe checks out just fine.  Our theories/models need to match reality, not the other way around (in your case, you try to cram reality to fit your retarded ideas).

4) Yes, the Scientific Method is simple.  So, why don't you understand it?

5) In your previous post, you essentially said the Scientific Method is not the Scientific Method.  Slap yourself.

1. All right! Finally we agree on something besides the fact that God exists.

2. Okay, make one. What? You can't? Must be impossible.

3. Now you're calling me a scientist.

4. If I don't, it's because I'm not interested in something else that is flawed.

5. That's right-ish. This is because the scientific method rarely examines the possibility that it is wrong. But don't slap yourself except if you really want to, 'cause you might knock your glasses off.

 

[Joshuar]

The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible,

We're here aren't we? Ergo, not impossible.

Why should I even post this? That is exactly what I said, and it is in my post, which part you didn't quote above. In fact, the fact that we are here is the ONLY logic that we have for the possibility that we can exist. Except for our existence, it is impossible that we or the universe does exist according to any knowledge or understanding that we have.

Someday we might gain enough knowledge that we will be able to say truthfully that we understand how we are possible. But we aren't there yet by a long shot.

This makes the idea of the existence of God more probable... God Who is way more "advanced" than we... God Who made us and all things with understanding and knowledge that we don't have. How does He have knowledge that we don't? It is in the definition of the word "God."

Even then, that's wrong. There's no sure way to prove out own existence, the mind is not metaphysical, it is "the body". The brain is the mind, simply put so using the mind as a method to prove your existence is faulty, with use of the senses being completely out of the question(You can answer/think for yourself as to why using one's senses to make claim of their own existence is illogical, schizophrenia, etc etc. We can use reasoning to give support to the notion that we may exist, but we can never declare it a certainty. The idea of God to explain the unknown is an idea of the ignorant as history has shown. When people don't know something, they say god did it until proven otherwise. It's a very stupid argument to make.

Why is this that you have said foolish? Because at this stage in the knowledge of mankind, absolutely nobody knows how to make people last alive much more than 100 years. The healthiest of people live not long over 100 years. And the best, most qualified of doctors and scientists don't know how to cause anybody to live even to the young age of 200 or 300 years.

What does this have to do with the brain being the mind and the other things you said above? Here's what. Like as we don't know enough to keep people alive a mere, piddly, 200 years, because we are so ignorant of how things work, in the same way we are even more ignorant of the operations of brain, mind and consciousness. Nobody knows that the "brain is the mind" for sure. Nobody knows that there absolutely isn't any other mind operation besides that done by the brain. Some scientific investigations themselves are starting to show that there are mind/consciousness operations done outside the brain.

At its core, the scientific method itself may not be something that operates according to the scientific method as it describes itself. This is shown by the fact that we don't know much about mind/consciousness at all. Because of this, the proof for the existence of God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is completely accurate.

Further, just because we have a hard time recognizing God, and an even harder time determining much of anything about Him, doesn't mean that He doesn't see us. For example, when we place an ant colony in between two panes of glass so that we can observe them at work, they don't see us (if they do, they don't understand what they are seeing), but we see them. We watch them do their daily thing. Why would anyone think that God doesn't watch us, that He isn't aware of our every activity, even in far more detail (maybe, complete detail) than we are ourselves?

You are not thinking clearly. But if you are, then you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Why not start your own thread that talks about these issues rather than spam this thread with all your off-topic stuff?

What exactly does that long essay filled with nonsense have to do with my post above it? You're not making any sense. Please just go sit under a rock and contemplate, troll.

[the joint]

The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible,

We're here aren't we? Ergo, not impossible.

Why should I even post this? That is exactly what I said, and it is in my post, which part you didn't quote above. In fact, the fact that we are here is the ONLY logic that we have for the possibility that we can exist. Except for our existence, it is impossible that we or the universe does exist according to any knowledge or understanding that we have.

Someday we might gain enough knowledge that we will be able to say truthfully that we understand how we are possible. But we aren't there yet by a long shot.

This makes the idea of the existence of God more probable... God Who is way more "advanced" than we... God Who made us and all things with understanding and knowledge that we don't have. How does He have knowledge that we don't? It is in the definition of the word "God."

Even then, that's wrong. There's no sure way to prove out own existence, the mind is not metaphysical, it is "the body". The brain is the mind, simply put so using the mind as a method to prove your existence is faulty, with use of the senses being completely out of the question(You can answer/think for yourself as to why using one's senses to make claim of their own existence is illogical, schizophrenia, etc etc. We can use reasoning to give support to the notion that we may exist, but we can never declare it a certainty. The idea of God to explain the unknown is an idea of the ignorant as history has shown. When people don't know something, they say god did it until proven otherwise. It's a very stupid argument to make.

Why is this that you have said foolish? Because at this stage in the knowledge of mankind, absolutely nobody knows how to make people last alive much more than 100 years. The healthiest of people live not long over 100 years. And the best, most qualified of doctors and scientists don't know how to cause anybody to live even to the young age of 200 or 300 years.

What does this have to do with the brain being the mind and the other things you said above? Here's what. Like as we don't know enough to keep people alive a mere, piddly, 200 years, because we are so ignorant of how things work, in the same way we are even more ignorant of the operations of brain, mind and consciousness. Nobody knows that the "brain is the mind" for sure. Nobody knows that there absolutely isn't any other mind operation besides that done by the brain. Some scientific investigations themselves are starting to show that there are mind/consciousness operations done outside the brain.

At its core, the scientific method itself may not be something that operates according to the scientific method as it describes itself. This is shown by the fact that we don't know much about mind/consciousness at all. Because of this, the proof for the existence of God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is completely accurate.

Further, just because we have a hard time recognizing God, and an even harder time determining much of anything about Him, doesn't mean that He doesn't see us. For example, when we place an ant colony in between two panes of glass so that we can observe them at work, they don't see us (if they do, they don't understand what they are seeing), but we see them. We watch them do their daily thing. Why would anyone think that God doesn't watch us, that He isn't aware of our every activity, even in far more detail (maybe, complete detail) than we are ourselves?

You are not thinking clearly. But if you are, then you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Why not start your own thread that talks about these issues rather than spam this thread with all your off-topic stuff?

So if no one knos anything of that for sure how can you be so sure about all the things you have been posting so far? You keep posting your fallacy link wich was proven to be full of shit and even religious people dont accept it. Why would anyone think god is watching us? How do you know the ants dont know what they are looking at? You said it yourself, we dont know a lot of things.

Do I have to tell you everything? When are you going to be able to think a little on your own? When are you going to be able to read?

Read the first quoted post at the top of this post. According to our incomplete knowledge of the universe as we have it right now, the universe is impossible to exist... especially through something as simple as modern scientific method. We simply don't have any way for proving out all but a relatively few simple things. The universe is far more complex than we understand. Except for the fact that the universe exists, there is no proof that it exists or can exist.

The little bit of boldness that I have in suggesting things as fact, is simply designed to fit inside of the things that others understand as fact so that we can have conversation. How do you even know that you can ask a question, except that you do it?

Because of how limited we are, and because we can measure some relatively small part of this universe, but not enough to prove it can exist, there must be a Guy we call God Who knows about it all.

How do you manage to ignore the self-evident knowledge that the Universe exists (hint: look, and voila!) and then say our incomplete understanding, the Universe is impossible?

1) Open your eyes.  See Universe. Universe exists.

2) If our knowledge is incomplete, you can't conclude "impossibility."

3) Based on the (incomplete) knowledge we do have, the Universe checks out just fine.  Our theories/models need to match reality, not the other way around (in your case, you try to cram reality to fit your retarded ideas).

4) Yes, the Scientific Method is simple.  So, why don't you understand it?

5) In your previous post, you essentially said the Scientific Method is not the Scientific Method.  Slap yourself.

1. All right! Finally we agree on something besides the fact that God exists.

2. Okay, make one. What? You can't? Must be impossible.

3. Now you're calling me a scientist.

4. If I don't, it's because I'm not interested in something else that is flawed.

5. That's right-ish. This is because the scientific method rarely examines the possibility that it is wrong. But don't slap yourself except if you really want to, 'cause you might knock your glasses off.

 

Well, it only took a couple hundred pages, but you finally made a point-by-point response.  I'm shocked, but pleasantly.

1) I'm glad we agree.

2) Make one what? Your request doesn't follow from what I said, here.  

3) Incorrect.  Good scientists do not try to cram evidence to fit a theory.  If the evidence doesn't fit, a new, better theory is needed.  This differs from you in that your evidence doesn't fit your theory, and you don't think that matters.

4) The Scientific Method is not flawed specifically because it blares its limitations.  It's perfectly valid.  If the Scientific Method did not recognize any limitations, then it would be flawed.  But that isn't the case.

5) See #4.  To that, I would add that *every* published, scientific article reporting upon quantifiable data does so within a margin of error.  The reality is very opposite of your belief in that science can't help but acknowledge its limitations.  

To clarify further (because your point #5 is a bit arbitrary), I'm saying that the Scientific Method must acknowledge the possibility that a scientific conclusion is wrong.  However, the method itself (not conclusions) is perfectly valid.

Something else you and I both agree upon (that is, when you don't keep changing your mind) is that science is too limited in its exploratory scope to conclude about God.  To stand a chance, we need to use something with greater scope, such as philosophy/logic in general.

The problem, however, is that if you want to use general logic to argue for God's existence because it is greater in scope, you must also be aware of the limitations of logic and theorization.

Accordingly, this is why you must understand and obey any and all logical fallacies, a majority of which were referenced to you from the Wiki link.  If you commit any such fallacy, you break the rules of logic, thereby rendering your argument illogical.

[username18333]

the exact principles of scientific proof for many things

(Red colorization mine.)

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

[(oYo)]

Happy Good Friday everyone!

[GannickusX]

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

The problem with badecker is that he uses arguments like: Well the gravity theory is just a theory or we dont know how gravity originates therefore god exists. Well its true that scientists dont know exactly how gravity originates or why exists but we do know how it works, we know exactly how it works and we use it for a variety of things.

[BADecker]

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

[the joint]

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

Yes, nature is mathematical.

The existence of nature is only recognized and described through mathematics.  Any theory about *anything* is a mathematical construct.  Without a mathematical theory describing its existence, nature cannot be asserted to exist (i.e. the theory "nature exists" is a mathematical construct).

We "discover" -- or perhaps better, we "uncover" -- the physical laws of the Universe, and we formulate theoretical (i.e. mathematical) models about their operations.  The physical laws cannot be asserted  or confirmed to exist without a mathematical model describing them.

Any understanding of *anything* natural is a mathematical understanding of it.

[BADecker]

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

Yes, nature is mathematical.

The existence of nature is only recognized and described through mathematics.  Any theory about *anything* is a mathematical construct.  Without a mathematical theory describing its existence, nature cannot be asserted to exist (i.e. the theory "nature exists" is a mathematical construct).

We "discover" -- or perhaps better, we "uncover" -- the physical laws of the Universe, and we formulate theoretical (i.e. mathematical) models about their operations.  The physical laws cannot be asserted  or confirmed to exist without a mathematical model describing them.

Any understanding of *anything* natural is a mathematical understanding of it.

Nature is absolutely NOT mathematical. Nature is simply of a condition and state that mathematics can be applied to it.

[the joint]

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

Yes, nature is mathematical.

The existence of nature is only recognized and described through mathematics.  Any theory about *anything* is a mathematical construct.  Without a mathematical theory describing its existence, nature cannot be asserted to exist (i.e. the theory "nature exists" is a mathematical construct).

We "discover" -- or perhaps better, we "uncover" -- the physical laws of the Universe, and we formulate theoretical (i.e. mathematical) models about their operations.  The physical laws cannot be asserted  or confirmed to exist without a mathematical model describing them.

Any understanding of *anything* natural is a mathematical understanding of it.

Nature is absolutely NOT mathematical. Nature is simply of a condition and state that mathematics can be applied to it.

Your assertion/theory that "nature is simply of a condition and state that mathematics can be applied to..." is ascribing nature with inherent mathematical properties.

This is irrefutable.  Any claim you could possibly make to the contrary only reinforces this claim.  Any time you say "nature is [something]" or "nature is [not something]" then you are ascribing mathematical properties to it.  It's completely unavoidable.

[BADecker]

[…]

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

(Red colorization mine.)


1.

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

2. Mathematics, like the variables of the expression 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐², "exists in nature" (BADecker) insofar as consciousness exists in nature.

Except that we don't know for a fact that the consciousness is NOT a extra universal construct, and that the brain is simply learning how to work with something outside the universe.

"Universe" implies everything. Because of this, extra-universal is something that we cannot even begin to comprehend.

[username18333]

Except that we don't know for a fact that the consciousness is NOT a extra universal construct, and that the brain is simply learning how to work with something outside the universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

1. Perception doesn’t provide for “know[ing] for a fact” (BADecker).

2. Did you look over the linked article, “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to be Conscious”‽