Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

Bothers you, doesn't it Decky, that you don't seem to have any logical response, right? Lots of yammering. But not much logic.

There are lots of things you can do, and lots that you can't do. Believing that some science fiction writings of the past, claiming themselves to be over 64,000 years old, isn't going to make it real.

Faith moves mountains. The point is, who or what has more faith?

The devil tried to out-faith God. But it didn't work. So, how do you think that YOU are going to out-faith God? Have you ever "walked among the fiery stones" with God like Satan did before he became the evil one? The knowledge he acquired from God was exceedingly great. But it was far from sufficient to out-faith God.

Your masonic writings are cute. But they lack the strength to do anything, good or evil.

God's book, the Bible, is the only thing that can save people. And, for the GOOD of all people, the Bible is available to all people. Also, for the good of all people, your masonic writings are available only to a few. Do you know what else is available to all? The whole Word of God, in the form of the universe He spoke into being.

Hey Decky man. It's okay. God created some people for destruction, just to rid Himself of them and their unbelief. It's up to you which way you are taking yourself. But understand, it is you that are taking yourself to your own destruction if you will not turn and accept and follow God.

 

[1715067528]

1715067528

[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.

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

Do I look like I need to look or sound like you?

Judging by your sudden change in linguistic's, I'd say you should question yourself before you judge others

[Decksperiment]

Bothers you, doesn't it Decky, that you don't seem to have any logical response, right? Lots of yammering. But not much logic.

There are lots of things you can do, and lots that you can't do. Believing that some science fiction writings of the past, claiming themselves to be over 64,000 years old, isn't going to make it real.

Faith moves mountains. The point is, who or what has more faith?

The devil tried to out-faith God. But it didn't work. So, how do you think that YOU are going to out-faith God? Have you ever "walked among the fiery stones" with God like Satan did before he became the evil one? The knowledge he acquired from God was exceedingly great. But it was far from sufficient to out-faith God.

Your masonic writings are cute. But they lack the strength to do anything, good or evil.

God's book, the Bible, is the only thing that can save people. And, for the GOOD of all people, the Bible is available to all people. Also, for the good of all people, your masonic writings are available only to a few. Do you know what else is available to all? The whole Word of God, in the form of the universe He spoke into being.

Hey Decky man. It's okay. God created some people for destruction, just to rid Himself of them and their unbelief. It's up to you which way you are taking yourself. But understand, it is you that are taking yourself to your own destruction if you will not turn and accept and follow God.

 

See? In a constant state of judging. I am not masonic, so whatever of masonic/bible I chose to quote, remember it's all based on YOUR trash..turn and accept and follow god? Not as long as you do, for herein lay's YOUR problem..The rest of the world, including me, have heard this trash from day one, and it's done nothing but introduce us to idiots like you that simply cant answer who the TETRAGRAMMATON is in the bible, since although it is masonic, is scourced from which bible is it? I hope your church burns with you inside, and if you'd like to see how I can make that so, using nothing more than the spoken word, just ask.. be warned, my shit works, cause it aint shit, at least, no-where near the crap you spout.. so far, with no need, you have insulted me three times by judging me as whatever you believe I AM, yet cant admit I AM, so why would I follow you and your book?

You were taught the bible to put people off.. just watch n see.. your muslim ruler has a long way to go to get rid of your values before his end of term.. keep in mind your ruler is also of a religion that thinks nothing of blowing people like you up, whilst selling your kids guns and drugs.. I do not need to be saved, for MY SUPERIOR god piss's on you god's grave.. and gives me the wisdom to prove things well beyond your means.. If you cant answer any question I pose to you, kindly keep your judgemental words for someone else until you learn to BE a defender of YOUR cause, which you can only do when you stand up against YOUR followers killing and murdering, poisoning of foodstuffs, and decimation of all livestock, for no fuckin reason, you have yet to see they cannot do this without YOU and YOUR followers say so. Your religion is ruled by masons, as is known and accepted all over the world.. How many masonic grips do you entertain? How many family members are masonic? Why would you think it's ok to judge me, yet pray with those who wont admit god had a son called jesus? You only say what you can think of to save your own fuckin skin, and your realisation your religion is at it's end.. welcome to the new world order, where the 6 remaining religions will all be EASTERN religions, and ALL christians will be wiped out. If this is what it takes to be rid of you, so be it.

[BADecker]

Wow, Decky. You really need to cut back on your meds. Now you're getting hyper. C'mon, breathe, man. Deep breaths. Inhale. Exhale. Little bit at a time. You can do it. You'll make it. Now relax. Close your eyes. Easy does it.

[Decksperiment]

Ps, why ARE all the churches closing, and being replaced by mosque's?

Where are all the nun's? They joined the lesbo porn scene..

Where are all the preist's? Outscourced by who's your daddy.. father

[Decksperiment]

Wow, Decky. You really need to cut back on your meds. Now you're getting hyper. C'mon, breathe, man. Deep breaths. Inhale. Exhale. Little bit at a time. You can do it. You'll make it. Now relax. Close your eyes. Easy does it.

See? You just cant help being wrong. I dont take any medication, and am naturally hyper.. answer the fuckin questions posed, or kindly refrain from thinking you are qualified to reply to me, in fact, keep tae fuck away..


Paedo lover..

[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. 

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.

This is more metaphysics than empirical science.  Quantum phenomena cannot be directly observed because the phenomena occurs at such a scale that light can't even detect it.  Sure, you can conduct some experiments to indirectly learn about quantum reality, but if you're concluding about that which cannot directly be observed, then it really isn't empirical science anymore.   

[Decksperiment]

The fact is science today does nothing but come up with the kinda theories that everyone can understand, but that there is NO proof of, written by a non-mason. FACT. There is NO proof of other universe's barring the FACT we are each an alternative universe at the same time, in the same space, all this fantastical bullshit that does nothing to feed you or I is fuckin useless in the giant scheme of things, for the only people who can get anywhere near whatever is true of these theories are the ones who made it up, then made a toy to make it 'appear' to register as reality.. If the lord is so great, why are 89% of the planet starvin to death?

Why has over 60% of all life been decimated, by those claiming belief in this 'god' that is gonna save us?

When will bible bashers learn, that when they say you will be saved, it means they will not make you a tramp, they will not devide and conqour your family by turning the mother into a field mattress, they will not steal your kid's, or ruin your life. We need saved whilst alive, from a masonic created society known as religion .

Note: masonry claims it is not a religion, despite requiring members to belong to one? This is so they can rule ALL the religions they created, using nothing more than black magic in the guise of the kind of word's coming out of the like's of BADeckers keyboard.. he, like all freemason's, are technically saying, your either with us or your fuckin dead.

TRUE.

[Rassah]

I wonder what Christians will say when we get 3D printers that can print on a molecular level, and allow us to print living things, and even improve on them compared to what nature created. We would literally be using science and technology to improve on "god's own design."

As for "science today does nothing but come up with the kinda theories that everyone can understand, but that there is NO proof of," that's not true. Relativity, time passing at different speeds, and quantum mechanics are used in, or are being taken into consideration when building a lot of electronics, from GPS systems to CPUs, to fiber and wireless communications systems. Without that theoretical science those things wouldn't work. And new theoretical science will let us build even smaller processor, or use new materials and technologies to build things we couldn't before, just because we couldn't compensate for the noise such small scale and fast processing devices have to deal with.

[Lauda]

Bothers you, doesn't it Decky, that you don't seem to have any logical response, right? Lots of yammering. But not much logic.

There are lots of things you can do, and lots that you can't do. Believing that some science fiction writings of the past, claiming themselves to be over 64,000 years old, isn't going to make it real.

Faith moves mountains. The point is, who or what has more faith?

The devil tried to out-faith God. But it didn't work. So, how do you think that YOU are going to out-faith God? Have you ever "walked among the fiery stones" with God like Satan did before he became the evil one? The knowledge he acquired from God was exceedingly great. But it was far from sufficient to out-faith God.

So exactly why do you believe in this ridiculous story, but not the one about Roman, Greek gods?
This is all nonsense. The more detailed the explanation of the whole 'story' is, the more messed up it gets.  

I wonder what Christians will say when we get 3D printers that can print on a molecular level, and allow us to print living things, and even improve on them compared to what nature created. We would literally be using science and technology to improve on "god's own design."

'God wanted it that way'. 

[Decksperiment]

Bothers you, doesn't it Decky, that you don't seem to have any logical response, right? Lots of yammering. But not much logic.

There are lots of things you can do, and lots that you can't do. Believing that some science fiction writings of the past, claiming themselves to be over 64,000 years old, isn't going to make it real.

Faith moves mountains. The point is, who or what has more faith?

The devil tried to out-faith God. But it didn't work. So, how do you think that YOU are going to out-faith God? Have you ever "walked among the fiery stones" with God like Satan did before he became the evil one? The knowledge he acquired from God was exceedingly great. But it was far from sufficient to out-faith God.

Your masonic writings are cute. But they lack the strength to do anything, good or evil.

God's book, the Bible, is the only thing that can save people. And, for the GOOD of all people, the Bible is available to all people. Also, for the good of all people, your masonic writings are available only to a few. Do you know what else is available to all? The whole Word of God, in the form of the universe He spoke into being.

Hey Decky man. It's okay. God created some people for destruction, just to rid Himself of them and their unbelief. It's up to you which way you are taking yourself. But understand, it is you that are taking yourself to your own destruction if you will not turn and accept and follow God.

 

I think it's about time you got a taste of serious education with regard's to such matter's, and I'll start by using each paragraph.

1. The only thing bothering me is your blindness to the fact god is 'writing' the evidence before your eye's, but you know it's me, yet you claim god is everything, and hence, everyone, but deny what 'god' is showing you. This is not a claim by me to say I AM god, but a point noted by most. Twist it how you want. This is what your rulers do after all isnt it? Now your not allowed to feed the homeless. Churches are closing, and we want rid of you. Oh, and everything I say is born of logic, and very provable.

2. The book of enoch is your bibles beginning's. I did point out to you, that YOUR book is science fiction. The book of enoch is as relevant to me today as your bible. And like you, I only take from it what I need to embarrass someone, say, like you? To say the beginnings of freemasonry is science fiction, by claiming the book of enoch is, is to say half of what you wrote earlier was nothing more than the raving's of a lunatic, by claiming the book of enoch is a book of science fiction. To me it is just another interesting book with points your stupid cuntin book never thought of, probably because when the bible was written, it was already decided to keep freemasonry a secret, for fear of the likes of freemasonry ALMOST being wiped out by the church in the 13th century, at roslin chapel, and subsequently banning the devil's chord c, d, and f#, (for practice's more befitting of beastiality.. again, hidden in the guise of 'gay') - since then, freemasonry did not just come back, they infiltrated every org we know, and are to late to do anything about it, this is why I stand by my claim that if we dont chose this 'masonic' god, ie, the one your on about, we will be better off dead. The interesting concept with regards to the book of enoch, is it does indeed prove the pyramid's are obver 64.000 year's old. And did indeed have what IS the rite's of mithras. This you can go read yourself. It is freemasonry's CLAIM, that it is THEY who held these rite's, that made me realise, if this is true, and their password's are from the bible, then we have a problem. Lets see if you can figure it out.. Take an everburning lamp.. test how long it will burn for.. take note of material's used..
Since one of them is brass..?? Now go find the earliest proof, or evidence of an ever burning lamp.. Ask yourself.. how old is it? Because if we believe your book, then freemasonry is only 2000 years old, and hence have no valid claim to the rite's of mithras, based on the fact their password's, are ALL from your book.. It is clear I know so called masonic 'secret's'.. you are now made privy to one of them. I actually believe you intentionally push my button's in order for me to provide you said secret's without too much work on your behalf.. just keep in mind, once you know OF the tetragrammaton, or any masonic password's you were not already initiated into, when you are asked if you know any other password's and lie in order to propgress, you will indeed progress.. the papers will just say you got robbed by a junkie, and died in said robbery.

3. Understanding the universe is a mental process can do more than move mountains. And faith cant drive a jcb while it moves however many mountain's you want moved. But a decent wage help's.

4. God does not require faith. You do. I do not, for it's already clear I see the universe as a mental process, and hence know the cause of the effect's, and effect's of the cause..

5. Quote: Your masonic writings are cute. But they lack the strength to do anything, good or evil.
   My reply: I have not written any masonic material that I can claim as my own, but to claim my writing's have no strength to do good or evil is absurd.. I got you replying have I not? Question is, are you good or evil? It took a blind man to tell me I have'nt got a bad bone in my body, despite the external appearance.. How can a blind man see what you cant? He had no eye's. Now here I have faith in this old man, for he spoke the truth, and made me feel GOOD. Unlike you ya twat.

6. Do not LIE. God has no books.. You have a book written by a plethora of men that hide's a mathematical equation, if not all of them. This book has been re-written so many times, one must beg the question of how the maths has remained after so many remix's, with not one single error.. This is why numerology exists, not to count the stars or how old we are, but the origional stenography used to hide this fact, and they hid it so well in a pile of shite, all you got were flies who have yet to realise, what goes into the storehouse must come out. This explains your tendency to talk shit. Notice I started this thread with the maths? you dont seem to argue the fact that I HAVE reckoned the number of the beast, AND learnt it is the light of the sun. Are you gonna call me a liar when I say I have mathematical proof that god and the devil are the TETRAGRAMMATON? The two are one, one and the same. GOD is 666. Look at all those rulers running the countries of the earth.. they like to appear as god-fearing, but behind the scene's, do you really think they 'make love' to their wive's? No, they fuck them. Just dont let the kiddies know they are a result of being fucked, not by god, but the milk man.

7. Yeah, god created some for destruction. I am heralding in the age of Aquarius, as an Aquarian, my 'GOD' given right, is to destroy the myth's built up by the ruling religious club, that of freemasonry, and when that goes, are you gonna build a church that masons are not welcome in? No. Because you think you can save the devil, me, should I save god?

Would you like to see the actual proof that god and the devil are one and the same 'entity'?

Yes or no?

[username18333]

. . .

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.

This is more metaphysics than empirical science.  Quantum phenomena cannot be directly observed because the phenomena occurs at such a scale that light can't even detect it.  Sure, you can conduct some experiments to indirectly learn about quantum reality, but if you're concluding about that which cannot directly be observed, then it really isn't empirical science anymore.  

Though he may speak to that same reality which you so readily envisage, you would seem to think one blind a heretic.

[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?

Do I look like I need to look or sound like you?

Judging by your sudden change in linguistic's, I'd say you should question yourself before you judge others

Your reply does not answer the question posed to you.

[Decksperiment]

I'm not here to talk to you, sorry, did you say something? Did it actually help a kid know how to grow food? Then your requests mean nothing to me. Can,or are you willing to get this planet back on track? Then dont think I'm qualified to answer you.

[username18333]

I'm not here to talk to you, sorry, did you say something? Did it actually help a kid know how to grow food? Then your requests mean nothing to me. Can,or are you willing to get this planet back on track? Then dont think I'm qualified to answer you.

The "ren as returning to li" implicated by your gerund, "get this planet back on track," would be no more useful therein than this; indeed, it would prove lesser so for its regression.

[the joint]

. . .

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.

This is more metaphysics than empirical science.  Quantum phenomena cannot be directly observed because the phenomena occurs at such a scale that light can't even detect it.  Sure, you can conduct some experiments to indirectly learn about quantum reality, but if you're concluding about that which cannot directly be observed, then it really isn't empirical science anymore.  

Though he may speak to that same reality which you so readily envisage, you would seem to think one blind a heretic.

I think it's heracy to state one knows nothing, cannot know anything, cannot be proven wise, or any similar claim.  Inasmuch as logic is self-contained, we can use it reflexively to soundly identify the limits of theorization.  If we abide by those limitations and play by the rules, we can arrive at conclusions that are as sound as we could ever hope for them to be.

[Decksperiment]

fuckin 'eck.. if this was a thread about morals and standards, fair enough, but it's a search for scientific proof of god, in which heated debate, pure hate, fake love, and those who think to guide is to kill them if they dont.. fuckin loonieeeeees......

[Decksperiment]

The catholics and protestant bible bashers just figured out they follow the freemasonic god!! JaBaalOn = Yod Hey Vau Hey = Ja, Baal, the cananite fertility god who demanded child sacrifice, (hence the rite's of mithras), and On, = Osirius.. To understand this IS to understand the truth of the TETRAGRAMMATON!!!!

This is why I say the bible is a watered down version of shit you lot just would'nt understand, or at least one of you would have brought it up, unless you KNEW not to.


You still dont see there is a mastery in dropping a zero when necessary, never mind knowing the overall shape of things at all do ya?

[Vod]

I'm comin for you for real mate, I guarantee that you have made so many enemies in this forum already that it wont be too long before I'm posting your details all over the place.. feel free to do same.. am no a keyboard coward like you.. just look at how you walk in on other peoples lives and fuck it up? I'm the cunt that will do you for real.

It's been almost two months dick.... where are my details?

I thought you were the cunt that would do me for real...   

[Decksperiment]

Shh.. it's all in the timing

Remember..


I AM


Watch the truth, it's comin..