Scientific proof that God exists?

[cooldgamer]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.

But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.

I give up... You're obviously way too brainwashed for any logic to change your mind.  If your god is all powerful he could just say 'we cool' and not torture anybody, but instead he makes it a high stakes game where you only win if you believe in something with no evidence, and if you do you can be a horrible person and still make it to heaven.  

There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.

[BADecker]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.

But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.

I give up... You're obviously way too brainwashed for any logic to change your mind.  If your god is all powerful he could just say 'we cool' and not torture anybody, but instead he makes it a high stakes game where you only win if you believe in something with no evidence, and if you do you can be a horrible person and still make it to heaven.  

There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.

Don't you see? The thing that you call "a high stakes game" is God giving us the essence of God.

He can't coerce God any more than you or I can. That's why He doesn't take our freedom to choose away from us, but rather, He upholds it. Yet He offers us as much evidence for Himself as He can, without at the same time removing our freedom to choose as would a god - as He, Himself, has the freedom to choose.

I mean, you can't get much fairer than that.

[the joint]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.

But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.

I give up... You're obviously way too brainwashed for any logic to change your mind.  If your god is all powerful he could just say 'we cool' and not torture anybody, but instead he makes it a high stakes game where you only win if you believe in something with no evidence, and if you do you can be a horrible person and still make it to heaven.  

There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.

It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any.  Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience.

Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience.

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments.  Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion.  Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God.  Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists.  That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter.

[BADecker]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.

But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.

I give up... You're obviously way too brainwashed for any logic to change your mind.  If your god is all powerful he could just say 'we cool' and not torture anybody, but instead he makes it a high stakes game where you only win if you believe in something with no evidence, and if you do you can be a horrible person and still make it to heaven.  

There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.

It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any.  Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience.

Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience.

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments.  Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion.  Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God.  Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists.  That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter.

Yes, but. Through the things written in this thread, some people are going to become stronger believers in God. Hopefully some others will be saved. That makes this thread of ultimate importance.



EDIT: This thread isn't about proving the Christian God, necessarily. The fact that some people can't get away from the idea of a FSM or teapot, simply shows how ingrained in their lives God is!

[the joint]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.

But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.

I give up... You're obviously way too brainwashed for any logic to change your mind.  If your god is all powerful he could just say 'we cool' and not torture anybody, but instead he makes it a high stakes game where you only win if you believe in something with no evidence, and if you do you can be a horrible person and still make it to heaven.  

There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.

It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any.  Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience.

Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience.

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments.  Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion.  Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God.  Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists.  That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter.

Yes, but. Through the things written in this thread, some people are going to become stronger believers in God. Hopefully some others will be saved. That makes this thread of ultimate importance.

You should probably be more concerned about the truthfulness of the information that leads a person to believe one way or another.   If some people become stronger believers in God as a result of this thread, I can tell you that it wasn't because you provided them good reason to do so.  Your arguments and reasoning are horrific.

[BADecker]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.

But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.

I give up... You're obviously way too brainwashed for any logic to change your mind.  If your god is all powerful he could just say 'we cool' and not torture anybody, but instead he makes it a high stakes game where you only win if you believe in something with no evidence, and if you do you can be a horrible person and still make it to heaven.  

There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.

It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any.  Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience.

Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience.

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments.  Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion.  Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God.  Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists.  That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter.

Yes, but. Through the things written in this thread, some people are going to become stronger believers in God. Hopefully some others will be saved. That makes this thread of ultimate importance.

You should probably be more concerned about the truthfulness of the information that leads a person to believe one way or another.   If some people become stronger believers in God as a result of this thread, I can tell you that it wasn't because you provided them good reason to do so.  Your arguments and reasoning are horrific.

I'm sorry that it is detracting from your personal faith. But then again, you sound like you didn't have much faith in the first place... if any. But there are others who have expressed that they are in the faith, even though they may not post a lot here.

However, thanks for the tip. I will try to do better. There isn't much better evidence for God than the machine-like quality of the universe. Machines have makers.

[BADecker]

Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?

Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.

[bl4kjaguar]

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments.  Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion.  Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

The joint, although I agree with what you say, I must take exception to your generalization.

Actually, I have asserted the position that God transcends evidence based on pure reason. These quotes are not exact but are close enough:

There is a mode of being as much transcending Intelligence and Will, as these transcend mechanical motion. Doubtless we are totally unable to imagine any such higher mode of being. But this is not a reason for questioning its existence; it is rather the reverse. The Ultimate Cause cannot in any respect be conceived because it is in every respect greater than can be conceived. And we may therefore rightly refrain from assigning to it any attributes whatever, on the ground that such attributes, derived as they must be from our own natures, are not elevations but degradations.

Again quoting Spencer:
"our minds are utterly unable to form even an approach to a conception of that which underlies all phenomena because of the incompetency of the Conditioned to grasp the Unconditioned".

However, I then turned around and showed this thread evidence for one of the core messages of spirituality--reincarnation:

aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

I showed that the survival hypothesis is the simplest explanation for these events; that is a separate conversation, but maybe it is important to have it in this thread because it could elucidate the nature of life and God.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9491770#msg9491770

[the joint]

Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?

Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.

You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning?  Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so.

The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method.  You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker).  But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable.  There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion.  So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning.

This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument.  In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion.

[the joint]

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments.  Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion.  Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

The joint, although I agree with what you say, I must take exception to your generalization.

Actually, I have asserted the position that God transcends evidence based on pure reason. These quotes are not exact but are close enough:

There is a mode of being as much transcending Intelligence and Will, as these transcend mechanical motion. Doubtless we are totally unable to imagine any such higher mode of being. But this is not a reason for questioning its existence; it is rather the reverse. The Ultimate Cause cannot in any respect be conceived because it is in every respect greater than can be conceived. And we may therefore rightly refrain from assigning to it any attributes whatever, on the ground that such attributes, derived as they must be from our own natures, are not elevations but degradations.

Again quoting Spencer:
"our minds are utterly unable to form even an approach to a conception of that which underlies all phenomena because of the incompetency of the Conditioned to grasp the Unconditioned".

However, I then turned around and showed this thread evidence for one of the core messages of spirituality--reincarnation:

aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

I showed that the survival hypothesis is the simplest explanation for these events; that is a separate conversation, but maybe it is important to have it in this thread because it could elucidate the nature of life and God.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9491770#msg9491770

Fair enough This is a much more appropriate context for the topic of this debate.

[BADecker]

Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?

Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.

You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning?  Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so.

The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method.  You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker).  But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable.  There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion.  So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning.

This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument.  In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion.

The fact that you have a sort of fancy way of saying that you don't believe the evidence makes me feel a bit better.

You see, if someone came up to me and literally proved that the God I have been believing in for years was a complete and total lie, I would feel bad. And I sympathize with all those poor folks who are seeing how they can prove it to themselves that probably, almost for a fact, God exists, when, here for these last many years, they have trained themselves to feel comfortable in life by ignoring God. It pains me that they have pain, same kind of pain I would have if my God were proven false.

So, you are making me feel better by providing them a way so that their pain is relieved some... if they read your post, that is.

Thank you for posting.

[the joint]

Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?

Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.

You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning?  Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so.

The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method.  You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker).  But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable.  There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion.  So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning.

This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument.  In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion.

The fact that you have a sort of fancy way of saying that you don't believe the evidence makes me feel a bit better.

You see, if someone came up to me and literally proved that the God I have been believing in for years was a complete and total lie, I would feel bad. And I sympathize with all those poor folks who are seeing how they can prove it to themselves that probably, almost for a fact, God exists, when, here for these last many years, they have trained themselves to feel comfortable in life by ignoring God. It pains me that they have pain, same kind of pain I would have if my God were proven false.

So, you are making me feel better by providing them a way so that their pain is relieved some... if they read your post, that is.

Thank you for posting.

It's not that I "don't believe the evidence," but rather it's that there cannot possibly be evidence that proves the existence of God.  It is a true statement to say there is no evidence that proves God, but again, this doesn't matter because evidence was never the requirement.  Neither the atheist nor the theist should argue against/for the existence of god by citing evidence because neither.

Evidence simply means "that which is apparent,"  and the scientific method is a sound way to make sense of that sense of that evidence.  You can't deny that the scientific method is a good method, but what you need to understand is that the scientific method simply has limitations, and it's only concerned about things that are observable.  This isn't bad at all, and in fact in this regard the scientific method is a perfect method.  There is absolutely nothing about it that can be improved.  It's scope simply isn't intended to explore something as comprehensive as God, and so it can't, nor does it try.

My advice is to appreciate science for what it is and all the amazing technologies it brings us, as well as a better understanding of specific events and processes as they unfold in the Universe.  Religion contributes nothing in the way of technological development and an understanding of specific physical, chemical, and biological processes whereas science is perfectly suited for the task. 

[Decksperiment]

It's one thing to sit there sayin I'm 'attacking' a certain god, but another to realise my attacks are on those idiot's who allow their own kindred to steal faith, and hope, using charity, by praying on those who HAD faith (in themselves till you lot turned up), Hope (judging by you and your fellow followers, the rest will need it..) and charity (which you lot have clearly stolen from the heart's and mind's of men (and woman) by expecting us to pray to an external diety who's son clearly state's WE ARE. This is why the christian/catholic/protestant god will not answer any christian prayer. Their lot is provided by those they keep in power, those who claim to believe in god, but kill EVERY SINGLE DAY. They invade countries and medicate babies with drug's never tested. They invade and destroy everything they can so YOU cunt's can get a job, note the poor are expected to starve? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your bible bashin country it is now illegal to feed the homeless? Correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone imprisoned is sterilised? This is the bible's follower's actions, no-one else's, and if you dont agree, you know your charitable status is suddenly null and void.. when your old gran decides to cross the road, it's not faith in god you need, or hope someone will help her, or a charitable mood from someone who knows nothing of what charity now truely represent's, the evil spreading across the land. This is the product of the bible, and I hope that if god exists, he wipes your kind from the anuls of history. Why? Because suddenly you blame it all on man.
When in fact, none of this would be able to take place if we got rid of those who worship the TETRAGRAMMATON, Ie, BADecker.. what are you doing about your books followers commiting murder everyday? Nothing. What are you doing about saving anyone when all you do is sit and wait for my next sentence in the HOPE I'm charitable enough to follow YOUR faith? Your faith is in a book, NOT the god you keep talking about, as proved by the FACT you are bettered by a single man, a human being who knows that when jesus said I AM, he was on his own. If he had anyone that knew what the fuck he was talking about, or cared for anyone else, he'd have used the plural, ie, WE ARE.. you go take a good read of a book that is mathematically perfect with no spelling mistakes, no numerical error's, and tell me that not one of the thousand's of scribes, actually made a mathematical error in said book.

You never thought of that.. all those spelling mistake's, al;l those remix's through the ages, but the maths is retained? I would suggest you take a page out that book, stick it to your forehead, look in the mirror, then say I AM.

For only then will you realise you are not, for I AM.

Edit: S'funny how the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he does not exist, yet no-one asks for proof of the devil. Because we know he is god. This is the TETRAGRAMMATON of the bible, that very book that is what, 2000 years old? Well, here's a spanner in the works of truth, which as we know shall prevail:

The right's of mithras, claimed by freemasonry to BE freemasonry proves that the characters in the bible are ALL over 64.000 years old, based on one undeniable fact. All freemason passwords are from YOUR book, and have NOT been changed since, lol, god knows when. And if the masons did indeed carry out the rite's of mithras (as is in the book of enoch) then the bible itself must be older than 64.000 years at least.
Evidence? Ask a mason a password.. shall I mention the first artificer in metal's as proof? You know nowt.

Brass is only 2000 years old? HAHHAHA

[Lauda]

When in fact, none of this would be able to take place if we got rid of those who worship the TETRAGRAMMATON, Ie, BADecker.. what are you doing about your books followers commiting murder everyday? Nothing.

Edit: S'funny how the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he does not exist, yet no-one asks for proof of the devil. Because we know he is god. This is the TETRAGRAMMATON of the bible, that very book that is what, 2000 years old? Well, here's a spanner in the works of truth, which as we know shall prevail:

The right's of mithras, claimed by freemasonry to BE freemasonry proves that the characters in the bible are ALL over 64.000 years old, based on one undeniable fact. All freemason passwords are from YOUR book, and have NOT been changed since, lol, god knows when. And if the masons did indeed carry out the rite's of mithras (as is in the book of enoch) then the bible itself must be older than 64.000 years at least.
Evidence? Ask a mason a password.. shall I mention the first artificer in metal's as proof? You know nowt.

Brass is only 2000 years old? HAHHAHA

Yeah, you said some nice things. But if you go through this thread, there is no reasoning with such persons, or with him specific.
Blind followers will stay blind no matter what, from the looks of it.
Believing in God is one thing, believing the church and the Bible is another.

[Decksperiment]

Lol, seems he is the bibles judge, despite the quote, dont judge, lest ye be judged.. all I read is his flaming anyone, (if it's not me) that goes against his view of thing's, but will he admit he's judging me based on my higher intelligence regarding said matter's? NO. Because he's too blind to realise, he aint goin to be saved, he's gonna be sent back to the cave from whence he came, solely because he is not just judge, but executioner.. sittin there thinkin I even view myself as perfect, when in fact, it's him that thinks he's so perfect in his knowledge of bullshit.. it would'nt be so bad if he produced something that came from an external scource other than his own follower's, ya know, like my own..? He's forever quoting freemasons, nearly every link he has posted is a direct link to freemasonry, not his own particular cult, and this I find very strange indeed..The guy's so up himself, he deserve's wing's.. just to learn that no matter how many time's he flap's them, he'll never get as high as me.. for every step upward's he takes, I'll create a mountain on top of the one the step's were built on, just so he can see that WE ARE, he aint, as neither am I, and that until WE accept WE ARE, then people like him will keep speaking drivel until he realise's (is this possible) there wont be ANY saving, for by his own WORK, he promotes masonic links MORE than his own book.. shall I tell him of his use of the internet, in itself, demand's www (latin for 666) for every address he visit's? What? They took the 666 out of the internet? Nah, all they did was encode it in the browser's we all use, so you all forget what I just said

Comon BADecker, why do you use the mark of the beast every single day, yet think you can save me?

Would you like me to save you from your lack of any sense?

[Decksperiment]

Hey BADecker.. Gotcha!!

[Decksperiment]

When in fact, none of this would be able to take place if we got rid of those who worship the TETRAGRAMMATON, Ie, BADecker.. what are you doing about your books followers commiting murder everyday? Nothing.

Edit: S'funny how the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he does not exist, yet no-one asks for proof of the devil. Because we know he is god. This is the TETRAGRAMMATON of the bible, that very book that is what, 2000 years old? Well, here's a spanner in the works of truth, which as we know shall prevail:

The right's of mithras, claimed by freemasonry to BE freemasonry proves that the characters in the bible are ALL over 64.000 years old, based on one undeniable fact. All freemason passwords are from YOUR book, and have NOT been changed since, lol, god knows when. And if the masons did indeed carry out the rite's of mithras (as is in the book of enoch) then the bible itself must be older than 64.000 years at least.
Evidence? Ask a mason a password.. shall I mention the first artificer in metal's as proof? You know nowt.

Brass is only 2000 years old? HAHHAHA

Yeah, you said some nice things. But if you go through this thread, there is no reasoning with such persons, or with him specific.
Blind followers will stay blind no matter what, from the looks of it.
Believing in God is one thing, believing the church and the Bible is another.

+1 for your last sentence

[username18333]

Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?

Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.

You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning?  Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so.

The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method.  You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker).  But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable.  There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion.  So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning.

This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument.  In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion.

The fact that you have a sort of fancy way of saying that you don't believe the evidence makes me feel a bit better.

You see, if someone came up to me and literally proved that the God I have been believing in for years was a complete and total lie, I would feel bad. And I sympathize with all those poor folks who are seeing how they can prove it to themselves that probably, almost for a fact, God exists, when, here for these last many years, they have trained themselves to feel comfortable in life by ignoring God. It pains me that they have pain, same kind of pain I would have if my God were proven false.

So, you are making me feel better by providing them a way so that their pain is relieved some... if they read your post, that is.

Thank you for posting.

It's not that I "don't believe the evidence," but rather it's that there cannot possibly be evidence that proves the existence of God.  It is a true statement to say there is no evidence that proves God, but again, this doesn't matter because evidence was never the requirement.  Neither the atheist nor the theist should argue against/for the existence of god by citing evidence because neither.

Evidence simply means "that which is apparent,"  and the scientific method is a sound way to make sense of that sense of that evidence.  You can't deny that the scientific method is a good method, but what you need to understand is that the scientific method simply has limitations, and it's only concerned about things that are observable.  This isn't bad at all, and in fact in this regard the scientific method is a perfect method.  There is absolutely nothing about it that can be improved.  It's scope simply isn't intended to explore something as comprehensive as God, and so it can't, nor does it try.

My advice is to appreciate science for what it is and all the amazing technologies it brings us, as well as a better understanding of specific events and processes as they unfold in the Universe.  Religion contributes nothing in the way of technological development and an understanding of specific physical, chemical, and biological processes whereas science is perfectly suited for the task. 

According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for position and momentum. The uncertainty principle played an important role in many discussions on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, in particular in discussions on the consistency of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, the interpretation endorsed by the founding fathers Heisenberg and Bohr.

Science and, thus, the scientific method "[isn't] only concerned about things that are observable."

Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.

To the contrary, it would seem science primarily seeks to realize its knowledge of nothing.

[Decksperiment]

Thats as fucked up as sayin we dont exist, despite the FACT we do. Y can all fill others heads with everything from the bible to quantum physics, if the animals aint interested, we should take a leaf from their book.

[username18333]

Thats as fucked up as sayin we dont exist, despite the FACT we do. Y can all fill others heads with everything from the bible to quantum physics, if the animals aint interested, we should take a leaf from their book.

Have you considered the possibility of your being born into an ignorance well?