|
Astargath
|
 |
June 20, 2017, 03:23:27 PM |
|
You can't "prove" scientifically that God exists because that would require him to be physical, visible. He is outside of his creation, although he can and has entered into it.
You can't know that. You can say the same about the flying spaghetti monster instead of God and boom there you have it, now the flying spaghetti monster is the creator and you will never be able to prove it or disprove it because he lives outside time and space and its not physical.  Now you are bringing religion into it. The FSM isn't shown by science proof at all. Probability the scientific proof that God exists leaves open the idea that God might be the FSM. That is the failure of scientists in their observations, so far. We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like. ''We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like.'' Circular reference |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a common myth that Bitcoin is ruled by a majority of miners. This is not true. Bitcoin miners "vote" on the ordering of transactions, but that's all they do. They can't vote to change the network rules.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
krampus854
|
|
June 20, 2017, 03:54:46 PM |
|
Here is something interesting. It is also possible what most think is God, was actually ancient aliens. Look up the wiki article on Ancient Astronaut theory and how certain events in the bible could've been weapons of mass destruction from aliens.
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 20, 2017, 05:34:50 PM |
|
You can't "prove" scientifically that God exists because that would require him to be physical, visible. He is outside of his creation, although he can and has entered into it.
You can't know that. You can say the same about the flying spaghetti monster instead of God and boom there you have it, now the flying spaghetti monster is the creator and you will never be able to prove it or disprove it because he lives outside time and space and its not physical. Now you are bringing religion into it. The FSM isn't shown by science proof at all. Probability the scientific proof that God exists leaves open the idea that God might be the FSM. That is the failure of scientists in their observations, so far. We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like. ''We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like.'' Circular reference Not a reference at all, since God has been scientifically proven to exist: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 20, 2017, 05:43:40 PM |
|
You can't "prove" scientifically that God exists because that would require him to be physical, visible. He is outside of his creation, although he can and has entered into it.
You can't know that. You can say the same about the flying spaghetti monster instead of God and boom there you have it, now the flying spaghetti monster is the creator and you will never be able to prove it or disprove it because he lives outside time and space and its not physical. Now you are bringing religion into it. The FSM isn't shown by science proof at all. Probability the scientific proof that God exists leaves open the idea that God might be the FSM. That is the failure of scientists in their observations, so far. We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like. ''We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like.'' Circular reference Not a reference at all, since God has been scientifically proven to exist: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 And this new one that you ignored, of course  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684 |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 20, 2017, 06:03:42 PM |
|
It's only your misunderstanding and fad faith that suggests that the proof for God has been debunked. Get write in here. Write the debunking out yourself. If you don't, you are showing you don't have any. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 20, 2017, 06:11:28 PM |
|
It's only your misunderstanding and fad faith that suggests that the proof for God has been debunked. Get write in here. Write the debunking out yourself. If you don't, you are showing you don't have any. Sure, your argument is based on cause and effect that you keep mentioning every single thread. Even if everything has a cause (which we dont know) your argument fails to prove what the first cause is since it provides no evidence for it. You say it's god but it could very easily be something else or gods or multiple causes or the universe may not even have a cause or maybe a multi verse exists. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 20, 2017, 06:32:07 PM |
|
It's only your misunderstanding and fad faith that suggests that the proof for God has been debunked. Get write in here. Write the debunking out yourself. If you don't, you are showing you don't have any. Sure, your argument is based on cause and effect that you keep mentioning every single thread. Even if everything has a cause (which we dont know) your argument fails to prove what the first cause is since it provides no evidence for it. You say it's god but it could very easily be something else or gods or multiple causes or the universe may not even have a cause or maybe a multi verse exists. Cause and effect is so extremely overwhelming in everything that we see, that science has made it a scientific law and principle... one of the basic laws and principles. The thing that would be opposite of cause and effect, would be pure random. Study pure random to see that there is no example of it anywhere, and that such a thing is impossible in an ordered universe such as ours. We are so extremely limited in our understanding about much of anything, that it is very difficult to see what God is made up of. If it takes thousands of angels to "build" the universe, then thousands of angels, combined, are God. If it takes a wisp of stardust to make the universe, then that stardust is God. If the holes in big bang theory were ever filled, then BB might be shown to be God. Not that I want to get into religion here, but the Bible talks about the Holy Trinity (without using the word Trinity). God is made up of 3 Persons in one God. The Revelation talks about the Seven Spirits of God (Sevenfold spirit of God). The thing I am talking about is God, not what He is made out of. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 20, 2017, 07:00:48 PM |
|
It's only your misunderstanding and fad faith that suggests that the proof for God has been debunked. Get write in here. Write the debunking out yourself. If you don't, you are showing you don't have any. Sure, your argument is based on cause and effect that you keep mentioning every single thread. Even if everything has a cause (which we dont know) your argument fails to prove what the first cause is since it provides no evidence for it. You say it's god but it could very easily be something else or gods or multiple causes or the universe may not even have a cause or maybe a multi verse exists. Cause and effect is so extremely overwhelming in everything that we see, that science has made it a scientific law and principle... one of the basic laws and principles. The thing that would be opposite of cause and effect, would be pure random. Study pure random to see that there is no example of it anywhere, and that such a thing is impossible in an ordered universe such as ours. We are so extremely limited in our understanding about much of anything, that it is very difficult to see what God is made up of. If it takes thousands of angels to "build" the universe, then thousands of angels, combined, are God. If it takes a wisp of stardust to make the universe, then that stardust is God. If the holes in big bang theory were ever filled, then BB might be shown to be God. Not that I want to get into religion here, but the Bible talks about the Holy Trinity (without using the word Trinity). God is made up of 3 Persons in one God. The Revelation talks about the Seven Spirits of God (Sevenfold spirit of God). The thing I am talking about is God, not what He is made out of. So a wisp of stardust is god. Horace, you definitely have a new episode here |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 20, 2017, 10:26:38 PM |
|
It's only your misunderstanding and fad faith that suggests that the proof for God has been debunked. Get write in here. Write the debunking out yourself. If you don't, you are showing you don't have any. Sure, your argument is based on cause and effect that you keep mentioning every single thread. Even if everything has a cause (which we dont know) your argument fails to prove what the first cause is since it provides no evidence for it. You say it's god but it could very easily be something else or gods or multiple causes or the universe may not even have a cause or maybe a multi verse exists. Cause and effect is so extremely overwhelming in everything that we see, that science has made it a scientific law and principle... one of the basic laws and principles. The thing that would be opposite of cause and effect, would be pure random. Study pure random to see that there is no example of it anywhere, and that such a thing is impossible in an ordered universe such as ours. We are so extremely limited in our understanding about much of anything, that it is very difficult to see what God is made up of. If it takes thousands of angels to "build" the universe, then thousands of angels, combined, are God. If it takes a wisp of stardust to make the universe, then that stardust is God. If the holes in big bang theory were ever filled, then BB might be shown to be God. Not that I want to get into religion here, but the Bible talks about the Holy Trinity (without using the word Trinity). God is made up of 3 Persons in one God. The Revelation talks about the Seven Spirits of God (Sevenfold spirit of God). The thing I am talking about is God, not what He is made out of. So a wisp of stardust is god. Horace, you definitely have a new episode here And that ^^^ entirely proves your lack of good faith in this topic. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 20, 2017, 11:17:09 PM |
|
It's only your misunderstanding and fad faith that suggests that the proof for God has been debunked. Get write in here. Write the debunking out yourself. If you don't, you are showing you don't have any. Sure, your argument is based on cause and effect that you keep mentioning every single thread. Even if everything has a cause (which we dont know) your argument fails to prove what the first cause is since it provides no evidence for it. You say it's god but it could very easily be something else or gods or multiple causes or the universe may not even have a cause or maybe a multi verse exists. Cause and effect is so extremely overwhelming in everything that we see, that science has made it a scientific law and principle... one of the basic laws and principles. The thing that would be opposite of cause and effect, would be pure random. Study pure random to see that there is no example of it anywhere, and that such a thing is impossible in an ordered universe such as ours. We are so extremely limited in our understanding about much of anything, that it is very difficult to see what God is made up of. If it takes thousands of angels to "build" the universe, then thousands of angels, combined, are God. If it takes a wisp of stardust to make the universe, then that stardust is God. If the holes in big bang theory were ever filled, then BB might be shown to be God. Not that I want to get into religion here, but the Bible talks about the Holy Trinity (without using the word Trinity). God is made up of 3 Persons in one God. The Revelation talks about the Seven Spirits of God (Sevenfold spirit of God). The thing I am talking about is God, not what He is made out of. So a wisp of stardust is god. Horace, you definitely have a new episode here And that ^^^ entirely proves your lack of good faith in this topic. Why are you bringing religion into this? This is scientific proof for god and yet no one has presented any good scientific proof to prove god. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 20, 2017, 11:30:04 PM |
|
So a wisp of stardust is god. Horace, you definitely have a new episode here
And that ^^^ entirely proves your lack of good faith in this topic. Why are you bringing religion into this? This is scientific proof for god and yet no one has presented any good scientific proof to prove god. Now you tell us that you have a religion of bad faith. The reason it fits this topic is to show folks that most (if not all) of what you say is designed to downplay the fact that God exists, while you, yourself, know that He does exist. Knowing such will strengthen the understanding that people have, that the things you say can't be trusted. Right on topic. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 20, 2017, 11:36:14 PM |
|
So a wisp of stardust is god. Horace, you definitely have a new episode here
And that ^^^ entirely proves your lack of good faith in this topic. Why are you bringing religion into this? This is scientific proof for god and yet no one has presented any good scientific proof to prove god. Now you tell us that you have a religion of bad faith. The reason it fits this topic is to show folks that most (if not all) of what you say is designed to downplay the fact that God exists, while you, yourself, know that He does exist. Knowing such will strengthen the understanding that people have, that the things you say can't be trusted. Right on topic. As I said, 353 pages and still no one has been able to provide any scientific evidence for the existence of God. Hopefully people will realize that god doesn't exist and religion is poison. The only thing that works is science. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 21, 2017, 01:37:40 AM |
|
So a wisp of stardust is god. Horace, you definitely have a new episode here
And that ^^^ entirely proves your lack of good faith in this topic. Why are you bringing religion into this? This is scientific proof for god and yet no one has presented any good scientific proof to prove god. Now you tell us that you have a religion of bad faith. The reason it fits this topic is to show folks that most (if not all) of what you say is designed to downplay the fact that God exists, while you, yourself, know that He does exist. Knowing such will strengthen the understanding that people have, that the things you say can't be trusted. Right on topic. As I said, 353 pages and still no one has been able to provide any scientific evidence for the existence of God. Hopefully people will realize that god doesn't exist and religion is poison. The only thing that works is science. Nobody is force to accept proof for much of anything. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Check out the proof for the fact that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 21, 2017, 08:34:45 AM |
|
Sci-fi. When you look the whole thing over, and compare the writings, it is all based on non-facts. The links you provide show it right within themselves. And you can find rebuttals to the things in the links, by simply reading the things that are said there, and finding the circular references. |
|
|
|
lipcoins
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
June 21, 2017, 12:04:47 PM |
|
NONE WHATSOFUCKINGEVER !  |
|
|
|
|
|
S3cco
|
|
June 21, 2017, 04:47:14 PM |
|
NONE WHATSOFUCKINGEVER ! Best answer, so far...  |
|
|
|
iron talon
Member
Offline
Activity: 118
Merit: 100
|
|
June 22, 2017, 12:31:24 AM |
|
Animals, Technology, Nature, Plants, Seeds and Foods. These are the scientific measures of existent of the God.
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 22, 2017, 01:24:28 AM |
|
Sci-fi. When you look the whole thing over, and compare the writings, it is all based on non-facts. The links you provide show it right within themselves. And you can find rebuttals to the things in the links, by simply reading the things that are said there, and finding the circular references. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I can find rebuttals right in the stuff in my links. Perhaps I can find circular references there. I am kinda smart in a way. It just might be that I can find these things there. But you can't. How do we know? Here's how. You are adamantly against the things that I say. You are so much against them, that you are against me just for saying them. You show this in your posts. What does this mean? Here's what. If you could find any rebuttals against the proof that God exists, as expressed in my links, you would show them. You would get right into my wording, and show a rebuttal and how it is a rebuttal. You wouldn't sit around rebutting ME. You would rebut the proof that God exists. You blab all kinds of things against me and how "goofy" I am to suggest that there is proof for God. You attempt to rebut me, as a person, in all kinds of ways. But you can't seem to find a rebuttal for the scientific proof that God exists. BECAUSE IF YOU COULD, YOU WOULD POST IT. And if I rebutted what you posted, you would rebut my rebuttal to you. But you don't do this. You can't. Because science proves that God exists, just as I explain, and in many other ways. This means that the only rebuttal you have is to SAY that you have rebuttal. And SAYING alone doesn't rebut anything. In fact it strengthens the thing it is trying to rebut. God exists, and you are helping to strengthen it as fact in the minds of the readers, simply by not rebutting the proof, yet saying that there is rebuttal. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 22, 2017, 08:43:57 AM |
|
Sci-fi. When you look the whole thing over, and compare the writings, it is all based on non-facts. The links you provide show it right within themselves. And you can find rebuttals to the things in the links, by simply reading the things that are said there, and finding the circular references. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I can find rebuttals right in the stuff in my links. Perhaps I can find circular references there. I am kinda smart in a way. It just might be that I can find these things there. But you can't. How do we know? Here's how. You are adamantly against the things that I say. You are so much against them, that you are against me just for saying them. You show this in your posts. What does this mean? Here's what. If you could find any rebuttals against the proof that God exists, as expressed in my links, you would show them. You would get right into my wording, and show a rebuttal and how it is a rebuttal. You wouldn't sit around rebutting ME. You would rebut the proof that God exists. You blab all kinds of things against me and how "goofy" I am to suggest that there is proof for God. You attempt to rebut me, as a person, in all kinds of ways. But you can't seem to find a rebuttal for the scientific proof that God exists. BECAUSE IF YOU COULD, YOU WOULD POST IT. And if I rebutted what you posted, you would rebut my rebuttal to you. But you don't do this. You can't. Because science proves that God exists, just as I explain, and in many other ways. This means that the only rebuttal you have is to SAY that you have rebuttal. And SAYING alone doesn't rebut anything. In fact it strengthens the thing it is trying to rebut. God exists, and you are helping to strengthen it as fact in the minds of the readers, simply by not rebutting the proof, yet saying that there is rebuttal. Here is where you mess up in the things that you say. God is not KNOWN TO BE fact. It might be fact. But so far nobody KNOWS that it is fact. Since god has been proven over and over to not be possible, god is a hoax and religion is just another brainwashing tool. |
|
|
|
Horacewoodwood
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
https://primedice.com/?c=WINFREEBTC
|
|
June 22, 2017, 11:40:29 AM |
|
Sci-fi. When you look the whole thing over, and compare the writings, it is all based on non-facts. The links you provide show it right within themselves. And you can find rebuttals to the things in the links, by simply reading the things that are said there, and finding the circular references. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I can find rebuttals right in the stuff in my links. Perhaps I can find circular references there. I am kinda smart in a way. It just might be that I can find these things there. But you can't. How do we know? Here's how. You are adamantly against the things that I say. You are so much against them, that you are against me just for saying them. You show this in your posts. What does this mean? Here's what. If you could find any rebuttals against the proof that God exists, as expressed in my links, you would show them. You would get right into my wording, and show a rebuttal and how it is a rebuttal. You wouldn't sit around rebutting ME. You would rebut the proof that God exists. You blab all kinds of things against me and how "goofy" I am to suggest that there is proof for God. You attempt to rebut me, as a person, in all kinds of ways. But you can't seem to find a rebuttal for the scientific proof that God exists. BECAUSE IF YOU COULD, YOU WOULD POST IT. And if I rebutted what you posted, you would rebut my rebuttal to you. But you don't do this. You can't. Because science proves that God exists, just as I explain, and in many other ways. This means that the only rebuttal you have is to SAY that you have rebuttal. And SAYING alone doesn't rebut anything. In fact it strengthens the thing it is trying to rebut. God exists, and you are helping to strengthen it as fact in the minds of the readers, simply by not rebutting the proof, yet saying that there is rebuttal. Welcome back folks, to episode 22 that proves our Badecker is as stupid as possible, 'The apologistic crybaby and his downfall'. Although we've had enough material by now, we got very short on the 'humor' part simply because Badecker repeats himself and never comes up with something new. The only thing that gradually increases is his level of stupidity...it's just a scientific thing, he would never get it. He still missuses terms like 'stardust', he 100% does not know what is the difference between cosmic dust and stardust, but it's not the first time. He still bitches about people talking about religion, as if God would be part of science, not religion. He still bitches about people not rebutting his shit links although almost everyone did and he never responded properly, he just kept re-posting the links and acting like a 3 year old by saying 'no, that's not true, I am right'. He also bitches about people rebutting him as a person and that proves that he is not capable of observing that I am the one rebutting him and the claim that he knows any science at all. The reason why I do it is the same: rebutted his links, he kept acting like a kid and doing some nasty propaganda, so the next step is proving that the guy that posts those links is a stupid, idiotic, brainwashed, hypocrite, mentally ill monkey. It's not a hard job either, any sane person could prove that Badecker is indeed stupid. Even religious people would say the same thing, because he does not make any sense and he can;t make any sense, that is the only reason he only posts the same links over and over again and when it comes to having some scientific debate over it, he can't say anything else besides that, or if he does, the second he speaks he spews out some really stupid shit, like that moment when he debunked himself. He just went in a loop where he bitches, he re-posts, he says something retarded and goes back to bitching, re-posting, and so on. If no scientist could not prove God in absolutely any way until now, the probability of a bitching, narrow minded idiot who knows nothing about science to 'scientifically' prove God, and exactly that God, is actually lower than the probability of God existing. That is why my proof is needed, whether the retard likes it or not. And the episodes will continue until number 100. Stay tuned folks, we're still here! |
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
PRIMEDICE The Premier Bitcoin Gambling Experience - Most Trusted & Popular Bitcoin Game @Primedice
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
