|
Astargath
|
 |
July 24, 2017, 07:26:04 PM |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been.  Thanks, sirazimuth, for helping to emphasize everything that I said, above. Everything you say is pseudo-science and circular talk, there is nothing to refute because everything you say is self refuted. At least the flat earth people come right out and say that globe earth science is pseudo-science, even though they might use other wording. Come on. Spit it out. Say, "Cause and effect is pseudo-science," if that's what you mean. Say, "Complexity is pseudo-science," and, "Entropy is pseudo-science." Don't beat around the bush all the time. What you say is kinda useless when you keep on beating around the bush like that. Loops and more loops, ''everything has a cause'' ''but god doesn't have a cause'' ''everything has a maker'' ''but god doesn't have a maker'' It's all loops and when you are asked why god doesn't have a maker or a cause you make up explanations for it. You forgot to examine your usage of the word "everything." "Everything" is simply the inclusion of all "things." "Things" pertain to this universe. God is not a "thing," nor is He "everything" or included therein. You said that '' All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes'' So even thoughts have causes yet god doesn't? How did you come to that conclusion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The network tries to produce one block per 10 minutes. It does this by automatically adjusting how difficult it is to produce blocks.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
July 24, 2017, 09:24:32 PM
Last edit: July 24, 2017, 10:06:04 PM by BADecker |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been. Thanks, sirazimuth, for helping to emphasize everything that I said, above. Everything you say is pseudo-science and circular talk, there is nothing to refute because everything you say is self refuted. At least the flat earth people come right out and say that globe earth science is pseudo-science, even though they might use other wording. Come on. Spit it out. Say, "Cause and effect is pseudo-science," if that's what you mean. Say, "Complexity is pseudo-science," and, "Entropy is pseudo-science." Don't beat around the bush all the time. What you say is kinda useless when you keep on beating around the bush like that. Loops and more loops, ''everything has a cause'' ''but god doesn't have a cause'' ''everything has a maker'' ''but god doesn't have a maker'' It's all loops and when you are asked why god doesn't have a maker or a cause you make up explanations for it. You forgot to examine your usage of the word "everything." "Everything" is simply the inclusion of all "things." "Things" pertain to this universe. God is not a "thing," nor is He "everything" or included therein. You said that '' All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes'' So even thoughts have causes yet god doesn't? How did you come to that conclusion Do you see your post that I quoted ^^^ directly above what I am writing here? Well, look at mine, quoted, directly above yours. There is the answer to your question. Does your Mommy still hold your hand to help you cross the street, too? Does she run the water so you can tinkle? What?!?! You're still in diapers? |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 24, 2017, 09:27:17 PM |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been. Thanks, sirazimuth, for helping to emphasize everything that I said, above. Everything you say is pseudo-science and circular talk, there is nothing to refute because everything you say is self refuted. At least the flat earth people come right out and say that globe earth science is pseudo-science, even though they might use other wording. Come on. Spit it out. Say, "Cause and effect is pseudo-science," if that's what you mean. Say, "Complexity is pseudo-science," and, "Entropy is pseudo-science." Don't beat around the bush all the time. What you say is kinda useless when you keep on beating around the bush like that. Loops and more loops, ''everything has a cause'' ''but god doesn't have a cause'' ''everything has a maker'' ''but god doesn't have a maker'' It's all loops and when you are asked why god doesn't have a maker or a cause you make up explanations for it. You forgot to examine your usage of the word "everything." "Everything" is simply the inclusion of all "things." "Things" pertain to this universe. God is not a "thing," nor is He "everything" or included therein. You said that '' All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes'' So even thoughts have causes yet god doesn't? How did you come to that conclusion Do you see your post that I quoted ^^^ directly above what I am writing here? Well, look at the mine, quoted, directly above yours. There is the answer to your question. Does your Mommy still hold your hand to help you cross the street, too? Does she run the water so you can tinkle? What?!?! You're still in diapers? So now you make up things, god is not a thing nor he is everything? Wut? Do you ever use clear language, what is he then? And explain how do you know |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
July 24, 2017, 09:31:10 PM |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been. Thanks, sirazimuth, for helping to emphasize everything that I said, above. Everything you say is pseudo-science and circular talk, there is nothing to refute because everything you say is self refuted. At least the flat earth people come right out and say that globe earth science is pseudo-science, even though they might use other wording. Come on. Spit it out. Say, "Cause and effect is pseudo-science," if that's what you mean. Say, "Complexity is pseudo-science," and, "Entropy is pseudo-science." Don't beat around the bush all the time. What you say is kinda useless when you keep on beating around the bush like that. Loops and more loops, ''everything has a cause'' ''but god doesn't have a cause'' ''everything has a maker'' ''but god doesn't have a maker'' It's all loops and when you are asked why god doesn't have a maker or a cause you make up explanations for it. You forgot to examine your usage of the word "everything." "Everything" is simply the inclusion of all "things." "Things" pertain to this universe. God is not a "thing," nor is He "everything" or included therein. You said that '' All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes'' So even thoughts have causes yet god doesn't? How did you come to that conclusion Do you see your post that I quoted ^^^ directly above what I am writing here? Well, look at the mine, quoted, directly above yours. There is the answer to your question. Does your Mommy still hold your hand to help you cross the street, too? Does she run the water so you can tinkle? What?!?! You're still in diapers? So now you make up things, god is not a thing nor he is everything? Wut? Do you ever use clear language, what is he then? And explain how do you know All right. I suppose. One more time. God is the Creator of the universe. See the scientific proof that He 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
|
|
July 24, 2017, 09:37:53 PM
Last edit: July 24, 2017, 09:52:09 PM by Astargath |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been. Thanks, sirazimuth, for helping to emphasize everything that I said, above. Everything you say is pseudo-science and circular talk, there is nothing to refute because everything you say is self refuted. At least the flat earth people come right out and say that globe earth science is pseudo-science, even though they might use other wording. Come on. Spit it out. Say, "Cause and effect is pseudo-science," if that's what you mean. Say, "Complexity is pseudo-science," and, "Entropy is pseudo-science." Don't beat around the bush all the time. What you say is kinda useless when you keep on beating around the bush like that. Loops and more loops, ''everything has a cause'' ''but god doesn't have a cause'' ''everything has a maker'' ''but god doesn't have a maker'' It's all loops and when you are asked why god doesn't have a maker or a cause you make up explanations for it. You forgot to examine your usage of the word "everything." "Everything" is simply the inclusion of all "things." "Things" pertain to this universe. God is not a "thing," nor is He "everything" or included therein. You said that '' All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes'' So even thoughts have causes yet god doesn't? How did you come to that conclusion Do you see your post that I quoted ^^^ directly above what I am writing here? Well, look at the mine, quoted, directly above yours. There is the answer to your question. Does your Mommy still hold your hand to help you cross the street, too? Does she run the water so you can tinkle? What?!?! You're still in diapers? So now you make up things, god is not a thing nor he is everything? Wut? Do you ever use clear language, what is he then? And explain how do you know All right. I suppose. One more time. God is the Creator of the universe. See the scientific proof that He 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. The question was, what is god since we were talking about cause and effect and you said that doesn't apply to god, why can't you answer the question, there is no answer in those links, you never described what god is, please answer the question. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
July 24, 2017, 09:54:51 PM |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been. Thanks, sirazimuth, for helping to emphasize everything that I said, above. Everything you say is pseudo-science and circular talk, there is nothing to refute because everything you say is self refuted. At least the flat earth people come right out and say that globe earth science is pseudo-science, even though they might use other wording. Come on. Spit it out. Say, "Cause and effect is pseudo-science," if that's what you mean. Say, "Complexity is pseudo-science," and, "Entropy is pseudo-science." Don't beat around the bush all the time. What you say is kinda useless when you keep on beating around the bush like that. Loops and more loops, ''everything has a cause'' ''but god doesn't have a cause'' ''everything has a maker'' ''but god doesn't have a maker'' It's all loops and when you are asked why god doesn't have a maker or a cause you make up explanations for it. You forgot to examine your usage of the word "everything." "Everything" is simply the inclusion of all "things." "Things" pertain to this universe. God is not a "thing," nor is He "everything" or included therein. You said that '' All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes'' So even thoughts have causes yet god doesn't? How did you come to that conclusion Do you see your post that I quoted ^^^ directly above what I am writing here? Well, look at the mine, quoted, directly above yours. There is the answer to your question. Does your Mommy still hold your hand to help you cross the street, too? Does she run the water so you can tinkle? What?!?! You're still in diapers? So now you make up things, god is not a thing nor he is everything? Wut? Do you ever use clear language, what is he then? And explain how do you know All right. I suppose. One more time. God is the Creator of the universe. See the scientific proof that He 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. The question was, what is god since we were talking about cause and effect, why can't you answer the question, there is no answer in those links, you never described what god is, please answer the question. Just for you. I'll answer it again, and I will highlight where I just answered it, above. God is the Creator of the universe. You are really starting to worry me. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 24, 2017, 10:06:20 PM |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been. Thanks, sirazimuth, for helping to emphasize everything that I said, above. Everything you say is pseudo-science and circular talk, there is nothing to refute because everything you say is self refuted. At least the flat earth people come right out and say that globe earth science is pseudo-science, even though they might use other wording. Come on. Spit it out. Say, "Cause and effect is pseudo-science," if that's what you mean. Say, "Complexity is pseudo-science," and, "Entropy is pseudo-science." Don't beat around the bush all the time. What you say is kinda useless when you keep on beating around the bush like that. Loops and more loops, ''everything has a cause'' ''but god doesn't have a cause'' ''everything has a maker'' ''but god doesn't have a maker'' It's all loops and when you are asked why god doesn't have a maker or a cause you make up explanations for it. You forgot to examine your usage of the word "everything." "Everything" is simply the inclusion of all "things." "Things" pertain to this universe. God is not a "thing," nor is He "everything" or included therein. You said that '' All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes'' So even thoughts have causes yet god doesn't? How did you come to that conclusion Do you see your post that I quoted ^^^ directly above what I am writing here? Well, look at the mine, quoted, directly above yours. There is the answer to your question. Does your Mommy still hold your hand to help you cross the street, too? Does she run the water so you can tinkle? What?!?! You're still in diapers? So now you make up things, god is not a thing nor he is everything? Wut? Do you ever use clear language, what is he then? And explain how do you know All right. I suppose. One more time. God is the Creator of the universe. See the scientific proof that He 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. The question was, what is god since we were talking about cause and effect, why can't you answer the question, there is no answer in those links, you never described what god is, please answer the question. Just for you. I'll answer it again, and I will highlight where I just answered it, above. God is the Creator of the universe. You are really starting to worry me. You are claiming that but what is he, is he a human, what is he made of that cause and effect does not apply to him |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
July 24, 2017, 10:19:27 PM |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been. Thanks, sirazimuth, for helping to emphasize everything that I said, above. Everything you say is pseudo-science and circular talk, there is nothing to refute because everything you say is self refuted. At least the flat earth people come right out and say that globe earth science is pseudo-science, even though they might use other wording. Come on. Spit it out. Say, "Cause and effect is pseudo-science," if that's what you mean. Say, "Complexity is pseudo-science," and, "Entropy is pseudo-science." Don't beat around the bush all the time. What you say is kinda useless when you keep on beating around the bush like that. Loops and more loops, ''everything has a cause'' ''but god doesn't have a cause'' ''everything has a maker'' ''but god doesn't have a maker'' It's all loops and when you are asked why god doesn't have a maker or a cause you make up explanations for it. You forgot to examine your usage of the word "everything." "Everything" is simply the inclusion of all "things." "Things" pertain to this universe. God is not a "thing," nor is He "everything" or included therein. You said that '' All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes'' So even thoughts have causes yet god doesn't? How did you come to that conclusion Do you see your post that I quoted ^^^ directly above what I am writing here? Well, look at the mine, quoted, directly above yours. There is the answer to your question. Does your Mommy still hold your hand to help you cross the street, too? Does she run the water so you can tinkle? What?!?! You're still in diapers? So now you make up things, god is not a thing nor he is everything? Wut? Do you ever use clear language, what is he then? And explain how do you know All right. I suppose. One more time. God is the Creator of the universe. See the scientific proof that He 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. The question was, what is god since we were talking about cause and effect, why can't you answer the question, there is no answer in those links, you never described what god is, please answer the question. Just for you. I'll answer it again, and I will highlight where I just answered it, above. God is the Creator of the universe. You are really starting to worry me. You are claiming that but what is he, is he a human, what is he made of that cause and effect does not apply to him How in the world many times do I have to say this? Can't you research it? After all, you aren't going to be satisfied with what I tell you, are you? You asked again, what is he. And it's like I just told you twice, directly above. But I'll do it again. Hope you don't mind if I copy and paste. God is the Creator of the universe.Now, if you want more details, study the Bible. Even studying the stuff in my links, above, will explain a little about Him. What are you? Well, you are a human being. You are a poster of posts in this forum. Funny farm candidate. There might be a bunch of general answers about what you are. Go hire somebody to tear you apart molecule by molecule and register every last piece of blood, bone, tissue, etc. Then get back here and tell us what you are. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
July 24, 2017, 10:22:16 PM |
|
hypothesize a god who plays an important role in the universe. assume that god has specific attributes that should provide
objective evidence for his existence. look for such evidence with an open mind. if such evidence found, conclude that god may exist.
if such objective evidence is not found conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a god with these properties does not exist.so some
people believe god can exist at the same time some people may not believe god does not exist.these all are based on our opinions.
What people BELIEVE doesn't have anything to do with the existence of God. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
July 24, 2017, 10:33:30 PM |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been. Thanks, sirazimuth, for helping to emphasize everything that I said, above. Everything you say is pseudo-science and circular talk, there is nothing to refute because everything you say is self refuted. At least the flat earth people come right out and say that globe earth science is pseudo-science, even though they might use other wording. Come on. Spit it out. Say, "Cause and effect is pseudo-science," if that's what you mean. Say, "Complexity is pseudo-science," and, "Entropy is pseudo-science." Don't beat around the bush all the time. What you say is kinda useless when you keep on beating around the bush like that. Loops and more loops, ''everything has a cause'' ''but god doesn't have a cause'' ''everything has a maker'' ''but god doesn't have a maker'' It's all loops and when you are asked why god doesn't have a maker or a cause you make up explanations for it. You forgot to examine your usage of the word "everything." "Everything" is simply the inclusion of all "things." "Things" pertain to this universe. God is not a "thing," nor is He "everything" or included therein. You said that '' All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes'' So even thoughts have causes yet god doesn't? How did you come to that conclusion Do you see your post that I quoted ^^^ directly above what I am writing here? Well, look at the mine, quoted, directly above yours. There is the answer to your question. Does your Mommy still hold your hand to help you cross the street, too? Does she run the water so you can tinkle? What?!?! You're still in diapers? So now you make up things, god is not a thing nor he is everything? Wut? Do you ever use clear language, what is he then? And explain how do you know All right. I suppose. One more time. God is the Creator of the universe. See the scientific proof that He 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. The question was, what is god since we were talking about cause and effect, why can't you answer the question, there is no answer in those links, you never described what god is, please answer the question. Just for you. I'll answer it again, and I will highlight where I just answered it, above. God is the Creator of the universe. You are really starting to worry me. You are claiming that but what is he, is he a human, what is he made of that cause and effect does not apply to him How in the world many times do I have to say this? Can't you research it? After all, you aren't going to be satisfied with what I tell you, are you? You asked again, what is he. And it's like I just told you twice, directly above. But I'll do it again. Hope you don't mind if I copy and paste. God is the Creator of the universe.Now, if you want more details, study the Bible. Even studying the stuff in my links, above, will explain a little about Him. What are you? Well, you are a human being. You are a poster of posts in this forum. Funny farm candidate. There might be a bunch of general answers about what you are. Go hire somebody to tear you apart molecule by molecule and register every last piece of blood, bone, tissue, etc. Then get back here and tell us what you are. Hey, man. Don't really do that - hire somebody to tear you apart molecule by molecule. Nobody wants you to die. And that is what would happen if you did this. I was simply using it as and example to show what we would have to do with God to find out what He was made from. Please! Don't harm yourself. (  ) |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 24, 2017, 10:46:57 PM
Last edit: July 24, 2017, 11:14:44 PM by Astargath |
|
You can't even answer a simple question, what is he made of that cause and effect doesn't apply to him. You can't answer that, just pathetic. Why doesn't cause and effect apply to god then, maybe you can answer that.
|
|
|
|
|
qwik2learn
|
|
July 24, 2017, 11:25:46 PM |
|
Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. While I don't necessarily accept the things you say, I haven't investigated them. But... There are several jokers on who appear in threads like this one, who claim to support science, yet believe opposite the science. They don't have rebuttals to science, yet they won't accept it. Personally, I don't know whether they are trolls, or are simply, staunchly in favor of their religion, and don't even recognize it as religion, but call it science. It's about time that the science community wakes up and reports the truth right out in the open... that they don't really know much of anything. After all, the science theorists aren't the ones doing most of the new science work. It is the experimenters and the engineers doing it. Then the theorists adjust their theories according to what the engineers find that reality is. Those troll-like jokers simply stick with the old theories of the theorists rather than accepting new findings, and the thing that reality has always been. I have seen atheists adjust their worldviews based on the evidence, but not in this thread! If the atheists and pseudoskeptics in this thread had anything substantial to say about this evidence, they would have said it already. Instead of offering reasoned rebuttals, they use troll tactics. Instead of investigating the evidence they claim that anything related to spirituality is impossible. |
|
|
|
|
Judia verde
Member
Offline
Activity: 86
Merit: 10
|
|
July 24, 2017, 11:31:11 PM |
|
God? Oh my god!!!! I'm scientific. Of course I support the theory of evolution. Thanks you Darwin, you are my God.
|
|
|
|
|
qwik2learn
|
|
July 24, 2017, 11:34:00 PM |
|
You can't even answer a simple question, what is he made of that cause and effect doesn't apply to him. You can't answer that, just pathetic. Why doesn't cause and effect apply to god then, maybe you can answer that.
I can definitely point you in the right direction if you are confused about causation: I can ask a similar question: what came before the universe? Why something instead of nothing? All theories regarding the origin of the universe imply self-existence, so all theories are literally inconceivable. Read Herbert Spencer's First Principles to learn more. |
|
|
|
|
lolingera
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 574
Merit: 100
ZUFLO and only ZUFLO
|
|
July 24, 2017, 11:36:25 PM |
|
god can not exist, it is anything that is missing, so if it is not missing it is not god ... nhhh ... but i work as a secular god and i am now confused .... do i miss to civilisation, or why can't i put myself in my definition of the god .... uf
probably i am trying to cheat the definition ... to be the secular god who is not missing ... sneak to the history, or so ....omg ... i have nobody to double cross so i do it to myself .. lol
|
|
|
|
|
qwik2learn
|
|
July 24, 2017, 11:40:08 PM |
|
God? Oh my god!!!! I'm scientific. Of course I support the theory of evolution. Thanks you Darwin, you are my God.
Many of the greatest scientific minds believed in GOD. Darwin also doubted human reason was reliable if it evolved through natural selection. This is a key point in the argument that materialism is not a rational philosophy. If you cannot trust human reason, then it is irrational to believe anything, including materialism. It is significant that Darwin's beliefs on this subject undermine materialism because Darwin's theory of natural selection was one of the most important ideas that led to materialism and philosophical naturalism being adopted by most scientists. When you consider that Darwin believed natural laws were designed, and he did not trust human reason if it arose through natural selection, you begin to see that exploiting Darwinian theory as foundation of materialism is a huge scam. https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_darwin |
|
|
|
|
|
qwik2learn
|
|
July 25, 2017, 04:56:13 AM |
|
We would be justified in believing that an inexplicable event is the work of god only if we were justified in believing that a natural explanation of it would never be found. But we can never be justified in believing that, because we can't predict what the future will bring. We can't rule out the possibility that a natural explanation will be found, no matter how incredible the event. When faced with an inexplicable event, it is always more rational to look for a natural cause than to attribute it to something supernatural. Appealing to the supernatural does not increase our understanding. It simply masks the fact that we do not yet understand.
What's more, any supposed miracle could be the result of a superadvanced technology rather than a supernatural being. Arthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So the seemingly inexplicable events that many attribute to god could simply be the work of advanced aliens. Erik von Däniken argues as much in his book Chariots of the Gods, where he claims that the wheel that Ezekiel saw in the sky was really a UFO. Explanations that appeal to advanced aliens are actually superior to explanations that appeal to supernatural beings because they are simpler and more conservative -- they do not postulate any nonphysical substances and they do not presuppose the falsity of any natural laws. If astronomers feel the need to join a church, they would do better to join the First Church of Space Aliens than the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang. I recommend studying Phoenix Journals to find out the natural explanation for what really happened and clarification on many subjects--the fact is that this Grandmother managed to write a 200-page book EVERY 3 WEEKS FOR YEARS, hundreds of books in total. How was this prodigious output, covering such a wide range of topics, possible? Please do not be too quick to reject the truthful answer, that she scribed DIRECTLY for our Heavenly Father, exactly as stated. There probably has NEVER been a scribe so well connected — including all of the great ones acknowledged in all of the holy books. This site is the official source of the written records of the evolution of God’s Plan for the New Millennium, from the beginning of the new calendar count in 1987 to the present. http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.comYour “enemy” as to “space aliens” are now all landlocked to your orbiting system. YOU HAVE NO ENEMIES AMONG THE BROTHERHOOD IN SPACE (COSMOS). YOU DO HAVE ENEMIES IN YOUR “SPACES” BUT THEY ARE VERY EARTH-ORIENTED AND ORIGINATED. All of this is explained in depth in the writings—this message is for identification of myself and my coworkers who bring information and assistance at this time of evolution. |
|
|
|
|
lolingera
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 574
Merit: 100
ZUFLO and only ZUFLO
|
|
July 25, 2017, 06:13:05 AM |
|
in broadest sense of the term "god" is definitely defined by me as: "god is anything that is missing"
and we are then in problem of how to introduce a secular god to the civilization and use its zillion
as a definition is also a kind of rule, well, then we have the solution: "exemption that confirms the rule"
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
July 25, 2017, 07:19:29 AM |
|
in broadest sense of the term "god" is definitely defined by me as: "god is anything that is missing"
and we are then in problem of how to introduce a secular god to the civilization and use its zillion
as a definition is also a kind of rule, well, then we have the solution: "exemption that confirms the rule"
Car keys? |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 25, 2017, 10:00:13 AM |
|
As you can see, badecker, the religious nut cannot answer the question about why god is not affected by cause and effect yet again showing how he doesn't know anything, he just posts the links that he probably didn't even write and repeats it over and over because he can't think for himself. This is what religion does to you, it brainwashes you and it makes you stupid, religious people cannot critically think, it's sad.
|
|
|
|
|
