|
stats
|
 |
June 27, 2017, 07:40:48 AM |
|
Assumptions. All your links do is lead you to assumptions. Been debunked many times. You are the only one to not admit this. That makes you delusional my furry little friend. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every time a block is mined, a certain amount of BTC (called the
subsidy) is created out of thin air and given to the miner. The
subsidy halves every four years and will reach 0 in about 130 years.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 27, 2017, 09:49:23 AM |
|
Actually, my links don't have anything to do with debunking the scientific proof that God exists. You simply say they do. And your links don't debunk the scientific proof that God exists. You simply shove into them a bunch of things, written by others, that you can't explain, yourself. If you want to debunk the scientific proof that God exists, find a point in the proof, explain your debunking point in simple language, and let's take it from there. The scientific proof, again, is: 1. cause and effect, combined with; 2. entropy, combined with; 3. complexity; and the explanation is found here: 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. Certainly if you need more info, you can research beyond the links.  You don't know if everything has a cause, you just simply say that's the case but as I said several times there are physicists that would claim that radioactivity decay doesn't have a cause. Now even if we agree that everything has a cause, the argument of cause and effect stops there. You established that everything has a cause. Now to jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that God did it, it's a leap of faith and you have nothing to back up that claim, sure the universe is complex but that still doesn't prove God made it. Cause and effect act in everything that we see, understand. Arguments against it haven't been substantiated. The links attempt to show you that no matter what the source of cause and effect is, it is God. Let me state several very goofy things to show you what I mean:1. If cause and effect were put into place by a certain microbe, then that certain microbe is God; 2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God; 3. If cause and effect were put into place by a salamander, then the salamander is God; 4. If cause and effect were put into place by big bang, then big bang is God; 5. Whatever put cause and effect into place, that "thing" is God. Get the idea? We don't know what it is that set up cause and effect to work way it works. But whatever did it, it is God. We see this by the ultra-complex way that cause and effect act. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning, so that we can't say that everything always acted this way for no reason we can put our finger on. My links explain this. But you are having so much trouble forcing yourself to understand the stuff in the links because you don't want to, that I see that I have to force you to understand it. The only way that you can NOT understand is to be gone from this and similar threads. The problem with that is that the big bang is not something alive therefore you can't call it god, it is not something that is sentient or aware, it's just a process and the same thing happens with many other possibilities. That's a problem for big bang. Big bang math doesn't account for the complexities of the universe, especially life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul. Since it doesn't account for these things, it is incomplete with regard to reality. BB might be complete regarding itself. But it isn't the way things work in reality. Thank you for pointing out that BB as it theoretically stands can't be God. But if it happened to be the source of cause and effect - cause and effect which produces life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul, and everything else as well - then it would be God. No, it wouldn't. God is supposed to be the creator. The big bang is just a process, it's like calling a tsunami, God. God is supposed to be sentient and aware, not just a process or stardust as you say. Otherwise I don't know what your definition of God is, since you never really explained it. Nobody has come near answering all the questions regarding how BB produced the universe. BB math has barely become strong enough to show that it might exist. The fact that it has been proven possible by lab experimentation actually creating a BB, shows that BB doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the creation of the universe. The point wasn't BB being the "creator." The point was that if BB WAS the creator, then it would be God. Why? Because only God, no matter what he/she/it is, could create the super-complexities of the universe... especially the mind-boggling massive amount of cause and effect that exists all over the place all the time. Why does the universe reflect God? Because we have found no other answer to where this "stuff" of the universe could come from. Why call it God and not simply big bang, when you are calling it God, you are giving it different attributes. Complexity does not require God nor another entity that must be complex. http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/complexity-probability-and-god/ |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 27, 2017, 11:31:16 AM |
|
Actually, my links don't have anything to do with debunking the scientific proof that God exists. You simply say they do. And your links don't debunk the scientific proof that God exists. You simply shove into them a bunch of things, written by others, that you can't explain, yourself. If you want to debunk the scientific proof that God exists, find a point in the proof, explain your debunking point in simple language, and let's take it from there. The scientific proof, again, is: 1. cause and effect, combined with; 2. entropy, combined with; 3. complexity; and the explanation is found here: 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. Certainly if you need more info, you can research beyond the links. You don't know if everything has a cause, you just simply say that's the case but as I said several times there are physicists that would claim that radioactivity decay doesn't have a cause. Now even if we agree that everything has a cause, the argument of cause and effect stops there. You established that everything has a cause. Now to jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that God did it, it's a leap of faith and you have nothing to back up that claim, sure the universe is complex but that still doesn't prove God made it. Cause and effect act in everything that we see, understand. Arguments against it haven't been substantiated. The links attempt to show you that no matter what the source of cause and effect is, it is God. Let me state several very goofy things to show you what I mean:1. If cause and effect were put into place by a certain microbe, then that certain microbe is God; 2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God; 3. If cause and effect were put into place by a salamander, then the salamander is God; 4. If cause and effect were put into place by big bang, then big bang is God; 5. Whatever put cause and effect into place, that "thing" is God. Get the idea? We don't know what it is that set up cause and effect to work way it works. But whatever did it, it is God. We see this by the ultra-complex way that cause and effect act. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning, so that we can't say that everything always acted this way for no reason we can put our finger on. My links explain this. But you are having so much trouble forcing yourself to understand the stuff in the links because you don't want to, that I see that I have to force you to understand it. The only way that you can NOT understand is to be gone from this and similar threads. The problem with that is that the big bang is not something alive therefore you can't call it god, it is not something that is sentient or aware, it's just a process and the same thing happens with many other possibilities. That's a problem for big bang. Big bang math doesn't account for the complexities of the universe, especially life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul. Since it doesn't account for these things, it is incomplete with regard to reality. BB might be complete regarding itself. But it isn't the way things work in reality. Thank you for pointing out that BB as it theoretically stands can't be God. But if it happened to be the source of cause and effect - cause and effect which produces life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul, and everything else as well - then it would be God. No, it wouldn't. God is supposed to be the creator. The big bang is just a process, it's like calling a tsunami, God. God is supposed to be sentient and aware, not just a process or stardust as you say. Otherwise I don't know what your definition of God is, since you never really explained it. Nobody has come near answering all the questions regarding how BB produced the universe. BB math has barely become strong enough to show that it might exist. The fact that it has been proven possible by lab experimentation actually creating a BB, shows that BB doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the creation of the universe. The point wasn't BB being the "creator." The point was that if BB WAS the creator, then it would be God. Why? Because only God, no matter what he/she/it is, could create the super-complexities of the universe... especially the mind-boggling massive amount of cause and effect that exists all over the place all the time. Why does the universe reflect God? Because we have found no other answer to where this "stuff" of the universe could come from. Why call it God and not simply big bang, when you are calling it God, you are giving it different attributes. Complexity does not require God nor another entity that must be complex. http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/complexity-probability-and-god/I would have thought that you could see the answer to your question quite easily. It has to do with confusion. Obviously, God makes His entrance, so to speak, at times with a big bang. If someone wanted to give Him that pet name in his mind, why not? But God is not the BB of science. The BB of science is way too inadequately explained to fit what God would have to be to make the universe. If complexity happened to be great, but did not include mind and identity, we might possibly be able to get away with using some other word than "God." But the "God" connotation is that God is like people in some ways, but greater. As far as comparing complexity with design in some abstract way, there could be some debate about the necessity of having a God. But when comparing the two along with cause and effect, in the universe as it stands, God is a requirement. In the scientific proof for God, one doesn't simply say that God exists or doesn't exist. Rather, one takes what exists and attempts to explain where the whole thing came from. As I said above: 1. If cause and effect were put into place by a certain microbe, then that certain microbe is God;
2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God;
3. If cause and effect were put into place by a salamander, then the salamander is God;
4. If cause and effect were put into place by big bang, then big bang is God;
5. Whatever put cause and effect into place, that "thing" is God. Those are simply a few lines to get the point across. The point is that whatever made the universe as it now stands, fits the definition of "God." |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 27, 2017, 05:36:29 PM |
|
Actually, my links don't have anything to do with debunking the scientific proof that God exists. You simply say they do. And your links don't debunk the scientific proof that God exists. You simply shove into them a bunch of things, written by others, that you can't explain, yourself. If you want to debunk the scientific proof that God exists, find a point in the proof, explain your debunking point in simple language, and let's take it from there. The scientific proof, again, is: 1. cause and effect, combined with; 2. entropy, combined with; 3. complexity; and the explanation is found here: 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. Certainly if you need more info, you can research beyond the links. You don't know if everything has a cause, you just simply say that's the case but as I said several times there are physicists that would claim that radioactivity decay doesn't have a cause. Now even if we agree that everything has a cause, the argument of cause and effect stops there. You established that everything has a cause. Now to jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that God did it, it's a leap of faith and you have nothing to back up that claim, sure the universe is complex but that still doesn't prove God made it. Cause and effect act in everything that we see, understand. Arguments against it haven't been substantiated. The links attempt to show you that no matter what the source of cause and effect is, it is God. Let me state several very goofy things to show you what I mean:1. If cause and effect were put into place by a certain microbe, then that certain microbe is God; 2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God; 3. If cause and effect were put into place by a salamander, then the salamander is God; 4. If cause and effect were put into place by big bang, then big bang is God; 5. Whatever put cause and effect into place, that "thing" is God. Get the idea? We don't know what it is that set up cause and effect to work way it works. But whatever did it, it is God. We see this by the ultra-complex way that cause and effect act. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning, so that we can't say that everything always acted this way for no reason we can put our finger on. My links explain this. But you are having so much trouble forcing yourself to understand the stuff in the links because you don't want to, that I see that I have to force you to understand it. The only way that you can NOT understand is to be gone from this and similar threads. The problem with that is that the big bang is not something alive therefore you can't call it god, it is not something that is sentient or aware, it's just a process and the same thing happens with many other possibilities. That's a problem for big bang. Big bang math doesn't account for the complexities of the universe, especially life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul. Since it doesn't account for these things, it is incomplete with regard to reality. BB might be complete regarding itself. But it isn't the way things work in reality. Thank you for pointing out that BB as it theoretically stands can't be God. But if it happened to be the source of cause and effect - cause and effect which produces life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul, and everything else as well - then it would be God. No, it wouldn't. God is supposed to be the creator. The big bang is just a process, it's like calling a tsunami, God. God is supposed to be sentient and aware, not just a process or stardust as you say. Otherwise I don't know what your definition of God is, since you never really explained it. Nobody has come near answering all the questions regarding how BB produced the universe. BB math has barely become strong enough to show that it might exist. The fact that it has been proven possible by lab experimentation actually creating a BB, shows that BB doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the creation of the universe. The point wasn't BB being the "creator." The point was that if BB WAS the creator, then it would be God. Why? Because only God, no matter what he/she/it is, could create the super-complexities of the universe... especially the mind-boggling massive amount of cause and effect that exists all over the place all the time. Why does the universe reflect God? Because we have found no other answer to where this "stuff" of the universe could come from. Why call it God and not simply big bang, when you are calling it God, you are giving it different attributes. Complexity does not require God nor another entity that must be complex. http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/complexity-probability-and-god/I would have thought that you could see the answer to your question quite easily. It has to do with confusion. Obviously, God makes His entrance, so to speak, at times with a big bang. If someone wanted to give Him that pet name in his mind, why not? But God is not the BB of science. The BB of science is way too inadequately explained to fit what God would have to be to make the universe. If complexity happened to be great, but did not include mind and identity, we might possibly be able to get away with using some other word than "God." But the "God" connotation is that God is like people in some ways, but greater. As far as comparing complexity with design in some abstract way, there could be some debate about the necessity of having a God. But when comparing the two along with cause and effect, in the universe as it stands, God is a requirement. In the scientific proof for God, one doesn't simply say that God exists or doesn't exist. Rather, one takes what exists and attempts to explain where the whole thing came from. As I said above: 1. If cause and effect were put into place by a certain microbe, then that certain microbe is God;
2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God;
3. If cause and effect were put into place by a salamander, then the salamander is God;
4. If cause and effect were put into place by big bang, then big bang is God;
5. Whatever put cause and effect into place, that "thing" is God. Those are simply a few lines to get the point across. The point is that whatever made the universe as it now stands, fits the definition of "God." But that would not match your belief that the real god is the god from the bible, the god from the bible can't be zeus or any other. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 27, 2017, 06:46:06 PM |
|
Actually, my links don't have anything to do with debunking the scientific proof that God exists. You simply say they do. And your links don't debunk the scientific proof that God exists. You simply shove into them a bunch of things, written by others, that you can't explain, yourself. If you want to debunk the scientific proof that God exists, find a point in the proof, explain your debunking point in simple language, and let's take it from there. The scientific proof, again, is: 1. cause and effect, combined with; 2. entropy, combined with; 3. complexity; and the explanation is found here: 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. Certainly if you need more info, you can research beyond the links. You don't know if everything has a cause, you just simply say that's the case but as I said several times there are physicists that would claim that radioactivity decay doesn't have a cause. Now even if we agree that everything has a cause, the argument of cause and effect stops there. You established that everything has a cause. Now to jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that God did it, it's a leap of faith and you have nothing to back up that claim, sure the universe is complex but that still doesn't prove God made it. Cause and effect act in everything that we see, understand. Arguments against it haven't been substantiated. The links attempt to show you that no matter what the source of cause and effect is, it is God. Let me state several very goofy things to show you what I mean:1. If cause and effect were put into place by a certain microbe, then that certain microbe is God; 2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God; 3. If cause and effect were put into place by a salamander, then the salamander is God; 4. If cause and effect were put into place by big bang, then big bang is God; 5. Whatever put cause and effect into place, that "thing" is God. Get the idea? We don't know what it is that set up cause and effect to work way it works. But whatever did it, it is God. We see this by the ultra-complex way that cause and effect act. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning, so that we can't say that everything always acted this way for no reason we can put our finger on. My links explain this. But you are having so much trouble forcing yourself to understand the stuff in the links because you don't want to, that I see that I have to force you to understand it. The only way that you can NOT understand is to be gone from this and similar threads. The problem with that is that the big bang is not something alive therefore you can't call it god, it is not something that is sentient or aware, it's just a process and the same thing happens with many other possibilities. That's a problem for big bang. Big bang math doesn't account for the complexities of the universe, especially life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul. Since it doesn't account for these things, it is incomplete with regard to reality. BB might be complete regarding itself. But it isn't the way things work in reality. Thank you for pointing out that BB as it theoretically stands can't be God. But if it happened to be the source of cause and effect - cause and effect which produces life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul, and everything else as well - then it would be God. No, it wouldn't. God is supposed to be the creator. The big bang is just a process, it's like calling a tsunami, God. God is supposed to be sentient and aware, not just a process or stardust as you say. Otherwise I don't know what your definition of God is, since you never really explained it. Nobody has come near answering all the questions regarding how BB produced the universe. BB math has barely become strong enough to show that it might exist. The fact that it has been proven possible by lab experimentation actually creating a BB, shows that BB doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the creation of the universe. The point wasn't BB being the "creator." The point was that if BB WAS the creator, then it would be God. Why? Because only God, no matter what he/she/it is, could create the super-complexities of the universe... especially the mind-boggling massive amount of cause and effect that exists all over the place all the time. Why does the universe reflect God? Because we have found no other answer to where this "stuff" of the universe could come from. Why call it God and not simply big bang, when you are calling it God, you are giving it different attributes. Complexity does not require God nor another entity that must be complex. http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/complexity-probability-and-god/I would have thought that you could see the answer to your question quite easily. It has to do with confusion. Obviously, God makes His entrance, so to speak, at times with a big bang. If someone wanted to give Him that pet name in his mind, why not? But God is not the BB of science. The BB of science is way too inadequately explained to fit what God would have to be to make the universe. If complexity happened to be great, but did not include mind and identity, we might possibly be able to get away with using some other word than "God." But the "God" connotation is that God is like people in some ways, but greater. As far as comparing complexity with design in some abstract way, there could be some debate about the necessity of having a God. But when comparing the two along with cause and effect, in the universe as it stands, God is a requirement. In the scientific proof for God, one doesn't simply say that God exists or doesn't exist. Rather, one takes what exists and attempts to explain where the whole thing came from. As I said above: 1. If cause and effect were put into place by a certain microbe, then that certain microbe is God;
2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God;
3. If cause and effect were put into place by a salamander, then the salamander is God;
4. If cause and effect were put into place by big bang, then big bang is God;
5. Whatever put cause and effect into place, that "thing" is God. Those are simply a few lines to get the point across. The point is that whatever made the universe as it now stands, fits the definition of "God." But that would not match your belief that the real god is the god from the bible, the god from the bible can't be zeus or any other. But it does match the little bit science knows about God. And since this is a science thread, that's the reason we are talking in ways that science, limited as it is, can understand. Of course, we could scientifically show that the Bible is fact. But that is for a different topic, although "starts" towards doing so may have been made in some of the posts in this thread. |
|
|
|
JofryTheKing
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 518
Merit: 250
Fast, Smart, Trustworthy
|
|
June 27, 2017, 09:19:55 PM |
|
I just can not understand. What other proofs of God do you need to have in the scientific plan? This is not provable at all and I do not understand how it can be proved. Is there a god and how much religion is there in society. It already depends purely on everyone from what he believes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 28, 2017, 10:12:55 AM |
|
Actually, my links don't have anything to do with debunking the scientific proof that God exists. You simply say they do. And your links don't debunk the scientific proof that God exists. You simply shove into them a bunch of things, written by others, that you can't explain, yourself. If you want to debunk the scientific proof that God exists, find a point in the proof, explain your debunking point in simple language, and let's take it from there. The scientific proof, again, is: 1. cause and effect, combined with; 2. entropy, combined with; 3. complexity; and the explanation is found here: 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. Certainly if you need more info, you can research beyond the links. You don't know if everything has a cause, you just simply say that's the case but as I said several times there are physicists that would claim that radioactivity decay doesn't have a cause. Now even if we agree that everything has a cause, the argument of cause and effect stops there. You established that everything has a cause. Now to jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that God did it, it's a leap of faith and you have nothing to back up that claim, sure the universe is complex but that still doesn't prove God made it. Cause and effect act in everything that we see, understand. Arguments against it haven't been substantiated. The links attempt to show you that no matter what the source of cause and effect is, it is God. Let me state several very goofy things to show you what I mean:1. If cause and effect were put into place by a certain microbe, then that certain microbe is God; 2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God; 3. If cause and effect were put into place by a salamander, then the salamander is God; 4. If cause and effect were put into place by big bang, then big bang is God; 5. Whatever put cause and effect into place, that "thing" is God. Get the idea? We don't know what it is that set up cause and effect to work way it works. But whatever did it, it is God. We see this by the ultra-complex way that cause and effect act. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning, so that we can't say that everything always acted this way for no reason we can put our finger on. My links explain this. But you are having so much trouble forcing yourself to understand the stuff in the links because you don't want to, that I see that I have to force you to understand it. The only way that you can NOT understand is to be gone from this and similar threads. The problem with that is that the big bang is not something alive therefore you can't call it god, it is not something that is sentient or aware, it's just a process and the same thing happens with many other possibilities. That's a problem for big bang. Big bang math doesn't account for the complexities of the universe, especially life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul. Since it doesn't account for these things, it is incomplete with regard to reality. BB might be complete regarding itself. But it isn't the way things work in reality. Thank you for pointing out that BB as it theoretically stands can't be God. But if it happened to be the source of cause and effect - cause and effect which produces life, human intelligence, the human brain, the emotion, the spirit and soul, and everything else as well - then it would be God. No, it wouldn't. God is supposed to be the creator. The big bang is just a process, it's like calling a tsunami, God. God is supposed to be sentient and aware, not just a process or stardust as you say. Otherwise I don't know what your definition of God is, since you never really explained it. Nobody has come near answering all the questions regarding how BB produced the universe. BB math has barely become strong enough to show that it might exist. The fact that it has been proven possible by lab experimentation actually creating a BB, shows that BB doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the creation of the universe. The point wasn't BB being the "creator." The point was that if BB WAS the creator, then it would be God. Why? Because only God, no matter what he/she/it is, could create the super-complexities of the universe... especially the mind-boggling massive amount of cause and effect that exists all over the place all the time. Why does the universe reflect God? Because we have found no other answer to where this "stuff" of the universe could come from. Why call it God and not simply big bang, when you are calling it God, you are giving it different attributes. Complexity does not require God nor another entity that must be complex. http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/complexity-probability-and-god/I would have thought that you could see the answer to your question quite easily. It has to do with confusion. Obviously, God makes His entrance, so to speak, at times with a big bang. If someone wanted to give Him that pet name in his mind, why not? But God is not the BB of science. The BB of science is way too inadequately explained to fit what God would have to be to make the universe. If complexity happened to be great, but did not include mind and identity, we might possibly be able to get away with using some other word than "God." But the "God" connotation is that God is like people in some ways, but greater. As far as comparing complexity with design in some abstract way, there could be some debate about the necessity of having a God. But when comparing the two along with cause and effect, in the universe as it stands, God is a requirement. In the scientific proof for God, one doesn't simply say that God exists or doesn't exist. Rather, one takes what exists and attempts to explain where the whole thing came from. As I said above: 1. If cause and effect were put into place by a certain microbe, then that certain microbe is God;
2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God;
3. If cause and effect were put into place by a salamander, then the salamander is God;
4. If cause and effect were put into place by big bang, then big bang is God;
5. Whatever put cause and effect into place, that "thing" is God. Those are simply a few lines to get the point across. The point is that whatever made the universe as it now stands, fits the definition of "God." But that would not match your belief that the real god is the god from the bible, the god from the bible can't be zeus or any other. But it does match the little bit science knows about God. And since this is a science thread, that's the reason we are talking in ways that science, limited as it is, can understand. Of course, we could scientifically show that the Bible is fact. But that is for a different topic, although "starts" towards doing so may have been made in some of the posts in this thread. If the bible is a fact then God can't be Zeus or any of the other things you said so your logic is a bit confusing here. You claim that God is anything that created the universe but at the same time God is the God from the bible?? |
|
|
|
coins4masses
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
June 28, 2017, 11:40:11 AM |
|
NONE WHATSOFUCKINGEVER !  EXACTLY! Too sad that the world is full of deluded people who hope for the afterlife instead of living it to the fullest while they're on this planet... |
|
|
|
|
|
stats
|
|
June 28, 2017, 01:10:48 PM |
|
If your crappy links were in fact proof of your god, pretty sure that everyone would know this as it would have been made public a long time ago. As your links are not quoted by a single other person aside from yourself.... Your links = FAIL |
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 29, 2017, 02:28:56 AM |
|
If your crappy links were in fact proof of your god, pretty sure that everyone would know this as it would have been made public a long time ago. As your links are not quoted by a single other person aside from yourself.... Your links = FAIL That's wherein your problem lies. It is your problem, and the problem of most people. But the scientific establishment loves it when people have your problem. What is your problem? You don't understand much of everything. And you can easily be subverted to lies. And it happens right out in the open for you and your kind. And science people love it when it happens. Because it is more profit for them. You are the kind of person who would stand out in the rain and say it is not raining. Why would you say it? Because the high priests of your science religion suggested it to you. Learn to think a little, and you might see a whole lot of things you miss. |
|
|
|
nice3
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
June 29, 2017, 04:12:49 AM |
|
I believe he is there. Just around us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
konco_kenthel
|
|
June 29, 2017, 08:19:00 AM |
|
The scientific evidence of God in my opinion that there is a change of time that is morning, noon, night other than that also the sea and mountains.
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 29, 2017, 09:30:57 AM |
|
If your crappy links were in fact proof of your god, pretty sure that everyone would know this as it would have been made public a long time ago. As your links are not quoted by a single other person aside from yourself.... Your links = FAIL That's wherein your problem lies. It is your problem, and the problem of most people. But the scientific establishment loves it when people have your problem. What is your problem? You don't understand much of everything. And you can easily be subverted to lies. And it happens right out in the open for you and your kind. And science people love it when it happens. Because it is more profit for them. You are the kind of person who would stand out in the rain and say it is not raining. Why would you say it? Because the high priests of your science religion suggested it to you. Learn to think a little, and you might see a whole lot of things you miss. Said the guy who believes adam and eve were the first humans, snakes talk, miracles exist and that God is all powerful and all knowing yet he fails several times in the bible. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 29, 2017, 10:41:22 PM |
|
If your crappy links were in fact proof of your god, pretty sure that everyone would know this as it would have been made public a long time ago. As your links are not quoted by a single other person aside from yourself.... Your links = FAIL That's wherein your problem lies. It is your problem, and the problem of most people. But the scientific establishment loves it when people have your problem. What is your problem? You don't understand much of everything. And you can easily be subverted to lies. And it happens right out in the open for you and your kind. And science people love it when it happens. Because it is more profit for them. You are the kind of person who would stand out in the rain and say it is not raining. Why would you say it? Because the high priests of your science religion suggested it to you. Learn to think a little, and you might see a whole lot of things you miss. Said the guy who believes adam and eve were the first humans, snakes talk, miracles exist and that God is all powerful and all knowing yet he fails several times in the bible. What's the matter? Finding out that science actually proves that God exists? And you don't like it when somebody rubs your nose in it, so you go into religion and badmouthing, right? You know what this does, don't you? It actually strengthens the understanding that God exists. So, in spite of your attempted badmouthing (which is backfiring on you), thanks for your help. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 30, 2017, 12:49:22 AM |
|
If your crappy links were in fact proof of your god, pretty sure that everyone would know this as it would have been made public a long time ago. As your links are not quoted by a single other person aside from yourself.... Your links = FAIL That's wherein your problem lies. It is your problem, and the problem of most people. But the scientific establishment loves it when people have your problem. What is your problem? You don't understand much of everything. And you can easily be subverted to lies. And it happens right out in the open for you and your kind. And science people love it when it happens. Because it is more profit for them. You are the kind of person who would stand out in the rain and say it is not raining. Why would you say it? Because the high priests of your science religion suggested it to you. Learn to think a little, and you might see a whole lot of things you miss. Said the guy who believes adam and eve were the first humans, snakes talk, miracles exist and that God is all powerful and all knowing yet he fails several times in the bible. What's the matter? Finding out that science actually proves that God exists? And you don't like it when somebody rubs your nose in it, so you go into religion and badmouthing, right? You know what this does, don't you? It actually strengthens the understanding that God exists. So, in spite of your attempted badmouthing (which is backfiring on you), thanks for your help. You haven't explained this tho ''If the bible is a fact then God can't be Zeus or any of the other things you said so your logic is a bit confusing here. You claim that God is anything that created the universe but at the same time God is the God from the bible??'' |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 30, 2017, 08:41:42 AM |
|
You haven't explained this tho ''If the bible is a fact then God can't be Zeus or any of the other things you said so your logic is a bit confusing here. You claim that God is anything that created the universe but at the same time God is the God from the bible??''
Now that you understand that God created the universe, you also understand that He exists. Just because I haven't explained something to you, doesn't necessarily mean I haven't explained it. However, thank you for looking to me as an authority. I was just wondering. When you claim that I claimed something, are you trying to refresh my memory? Or are you making a false claim? Are you trying to deceive yourself into believing something? You are a person, right? You have an identity. You are you, right? The things that you do and say in life might affect others, but they mostly affect you. Now that you understand that God exists, seek Him. Contact him with your mind and identity. He is open to answering your questions. But ask Him with a sincere heart rather than trying to deceive, like you constantly try to deceive yourself into thinking that you can deceive other people. Since God rules through cause and effect, He understands all your deception. Contact Him through prayer, for real. He is listening for you. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 30, 2017, 08:50:37 AM |
|
'
You haven't explained this tho ''If the bible is a fact then God can't be Zeus or any of the other things you said so your logic is a bit confusing here. You claim that God is anything that created the universe but at the same time God is the God from the bible??''
Now that you understand that God created the universe, you also understand that He exists. Just because I haven't explained something to you, doesn't necessarily mean I haven't explained it. However, thank you for looking to me as an authority. I was just wondering. When you claim that I claimed something, are you trying to refresh my memory? Or are you making a false claim? Are you trying to deceive yourself into believing something? You are a person, right? You have an identity. You are you, right? The things that you do and say in life might affect others, but they mostly affect you. Now that you understand that God exists, seek Him. Contact him with your mind and identity. He is open to answering your questions. But ask Him with a sincere heart rather than trying to deceive, like you constantly try to deceive yourself into thinking that you can deceive other people. Since God rules through cause and effect, He understands all your deception. Contact Him through prayer, for real. He is listening for you. ''2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God;'' ''If the bible is a fact then God can't be Zeus or any of the other things you said so your logic is a bit confusing here. You claim that God is anything that created the universe but at the same time God is the God from the bible??'' |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
June 30, 2017, 08:54:31 AM |
|
'
You haven't explained this tho ''If the bible is a fact then God can't be Zeus or any of the other things you said so your logic is a bit confusing here. You claim that God is anything that created the universe but at the same time God is the God from the bible??''
Now that you understand that God created the universe, you also understand that He exists. Just because I haven't explained something to you, doesn't necessarily mean I haven't explained it. However, thank you for looking to me as an authority. I was just wondering. When you claim that I claimed something, are you trying to refresh my memory? Or are you making a false claim? Are you trying to deceive yourself into believing something? You are a person, right? You have an identity. You are you, right? The things that you do and say in life might affect others, but they mostly affect you. Now that you understand that God exists, seek Him. Contact him with your mind and identity. He is open to answering your questions. But ask Him with a sincere heart rather than trying to deceive, like you constantly try to deceive yourself into thinking that you can deceive other people. Since God rules through cause and effect, He understands all your deception. Contact Him through prayer, for real. He is listening for you. ''2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God;'' ''If the bible is a fact then God can't be Zeus or any of the other things you said so your logic is a bit confusing here. You claim that God is anything that created the universe but at the same time God is the God from the bible??'' But this thread is about scientific proof for the existence of God. Are you suggesting that science has proof for the existence of Zeus as well? |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
June 30, 2017, 08:56:38 AM |
|
'
You haven't explained this tho ''If the bible is a fact then God can't be Zeus or any of the other things you said so your logic is a bit confusing here. You claim that God is anything that created the universe but at the same time God is the God from the bible??''
Now that you understand that God created the universe, you also understand that He exists. Just because I haven't explained something to you, doesn't necessarily mean I haven't explained it. However, thank you for looking to me as an authority. I was just wondering. When you claim that I claimed something, are you trying to refresh my memory? Or are you making a false claim? Are you trying to deceive yourself into believing something? You are a person, right? You have an identity. You are you, right? The things that you do and say in life might affect others, but they mostly affect you. Now that you understand that God exists, seek Him. Contact him with your mind and identity. He is open to answering your questions. But ask Him with a sincere heart rather than trying to deceive, like you constantly try to deceive yourself into thinking that you can deceive other people. Since God rules through cause and effect, He understands all your deception. Contact Him through prayer, for real. He is listening for you. ''2. If cause and effect were put into place by Zeus, then Zeus is God;'' ''If the bible is a fact then God can't be Zeus or any of the other things you said so your logic is a bit confusing here. You claim that God is anything that created the universe but at the same time God is the God from the bible??'' But this thread is about scientific proof for the existence of God. Are you suggesting that science has proof for the existence of Zeus as well? So you have no answer to my question and you keep ignoring it? You claimed that if cause and effect were put in place by Zeus, then zeus is god. If that was the case then you can't say the bible is true, it's simple logic that you obviously are ignoring because I made you look bad again rofl |
|
|
|
|
