Scientific proof that God exists?

[Vod]

Fuck off, Goy

Dude, I know a "chick" that will work for next to nothing out of desperation.  Her name is Suzi.  Good luck!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=845813.0

[Decksperiment]

Fuck off, Goy

[Decksperiment]

If you'll notice this notice, you'll notice everytime I post a notice that contains evidence of the fact that catholic/protestant/jew's are one and the same, seperate only by seeming.. when secret's are posted, idiot's come and start pumping the thread full of crap in order for the casual reader to easily miss the secrets.. if they only view the main page, they lose track of what they may actually wanna know.. notice how it's only the catholic/protestants/masonic that do this, and no-one else? Read this entire thread for the truth in all my postings.. if it's scientific proof, then it must be the truth, as evidenced by the fact ALL business's, excluding start up's, are members of freemasonry.. and of course, it's only those 'fee' paying mason's that succeed.. the rest are just wannabe's with no knowledge of anything else than their closed mind.. they know nothing of god no matter what they say, because what THEY speak of can be found online.. what I wrote in this thread cant.. spot the plagarist fools with no arguments of their own.

Go on, ask them a question. If they do not answer, it's for fear of the truth I have been posting. Notice athiest's have no trouble with what I write? Notice non-masons have no trouble with it? The only time this thread gets filled with un-related nonsense, is just after whatever I type.. read back and see.. start at the start.. everytime I say something that masons and bible bashers are obligated to keep a secret, they start grouping up and distracting anyone from the truth in the hope you fall for their's.. or just stop you seeing the truth and replace it with fantastical bullshit that they thik is ok.. well, it's not.

For those with eye's to see.. Wink

Am outta this thread, gonna find a decent site where bible bashers are banned.. Including the Goy Vod, I shall now call Goy.. for those in the know..

[Vod]

Fuck off, Goy

Hey, if you actually leave this forum and go to one that doesn't tolerate bible bashers, you'll have my respect.   

[Decksperiment]

Fuck off, Goy.. I changed my mind Goy, decided to let everyone see the catholic version of a 'GOY' catholic

[Vod]

Fuck off, Goy.. I changed my mind Goy, decided to let everyone see the catholic version of a 'GOY' catholic

Cool beans.  Welcome back to the endless debate! 

[Decksperiment]

Fuck off, Goy.

[Vod]

Fuck off, Goy.

Seems I'm on two threads where the intelligence has disappeared.   

[Decksperiment]

Fuck off, Goy.

[Decksperiment]

In this thread alone I have written a book of evidence supporting said 'Evidence', including THE mathematical equations, that can be properly studied reading john dee (007 - mi5) - astrologer to the queen of the times.. you would even go as far as say it is occultism, yet it is from all said sect's book's. Freemasonry, and hence catholic/protestant/jewish faiths are all ACTIVELY succeeding, using their ritual's, in re-creating the dark ages, as witnessed all over the world. You preach for the one god who strangles anyone who gets in the way.. it's your way or no way.. The TETRAGRAMMATON is better than that no?

I mean come on, what more proof do we need than this:

INRI (formula) = Yod Hay Vau Hey = Yaweh. Ja? (this is the three corner pathway of the emerald tablet's of thoth)

Baal = Cananite fertility god. Freemasons are experimenting with turning mankind into heomaphrodite's, they have all the time in the world..  This explains the debauchery that is now accepted by all western religions, and why the east attack it. Sodom and Gomorah anyone?

On = Osirus, or Sirius, also known as ANUBIS, opener of the way.. Represented by the Dog star Sirius, AKA the Sphinx.

I have provided ALL the most important evidence there is at my disposal, in this thread. It can be found online.

And when we all speak the same language, the wall's will come tumbling down.. for then you'll have the proof of what I have written of exclusively in this thread.

And you'll come to learn..

I AM.

Edit:

ALL SEEING.

You know eye exist as one with you all, no ye not your pathway will fall?

Reposting just to make it clear, I do not condone having faith in any catholic/protestant/jewish masonic puppet's having faith in god, the Tetragrammaton, by definition of THEIR book's, this IS the evidence..

Edit:

And when the mathematical maths of 'let he who hath understanding, reckon the number of the beast..' show's you that the light is of fire, you learn the light of truth IS 666, God and Devil are the TETRAGRAMMATON, ie, JaBaalOn. Now you see the light in physical form, in front of your eye's. It's maths are built into every church, synagog, mosque.. wherever they worship their god, they worship THIS FACT.

[Vod]

Reposting just to make it clear, I do not condone having faith in any catholic/protestant/jewish masonic puppet's having faith in god, the Tetragrammaton, by definition of THEIR book's, this IS the evidence..

Edit:

And when the mathematical maths of 'let he who hath understanding, reckon the number of the beast..' show's you that the light is of fire, you learn the light of truth IS 666, God and Devil are the TETRAGRAMMATON, ie, JaBaalOn. Now you see the light in physical form, in front of your eye's. It's maths are built into every church, synagog, mosque.. wherever they worship their god, they worship THIS FACT.

Good one Dick!


 (I know, I know.. fuck off, Goy) 

[Decksperiment]

Your learning, Goy..

Slowley and surely

[Vod]

Your learning, Goy..

Slowley and surely

You're.   

[Decksperiment]

Tellin you to Fuck off, Goy

[Vod]

Fun playing. Gotta go now.   

So BD, how was your night drinking?  Did you dream about the FSM?  Remember that all gods were made in his name.   

[tattooist]

If you'll notice this notice, you'll notice everytime I post a notice that contains evidence of the fact that catholic/protestant/jew's are one and the same, seperate only by seeming.. when secret's are posted, idiot's come and start pumping the thread full of crap in order for the casual reader to easily miss the secrets.. if they only view the main page, they lose track of what they may actually wanna know.. notice how it's only the catholic/protestants/masonic that do this, and no-one else? Read this entire thread for the truth in all my postings.. if it's scientific proof, then it must be the truth, as evidenced by the fact ALL business's, excluding start up's, are members of freemasonry.. and of course, it's only those 'fee' paying mason's that succeed.. the rest are just wannabe's with no knowledge of anything else than their closed mind.. they know nothing of god no matter what they say, because what THEY speak of can be found online.. what I wrote in this thread cant.. spot the plagarist fools with no arguments of their own.

Go on, ask them a question. If they do not answer, it's for fear of the truth I have been posting. Notice athiest's have no trouble with what I write? Notice non-masons have no trouble with it? The only time this thread gets filled with un-related nonsense, is just after whatever I type.. read back and see.. start at the start.. everytime I say something that masons and bible bashers are obligated to keep a secret, they start grouping up and distracting anyone from the truth in the hope you fall for their's.. or just stop you seeing the truth and replace it with fantastical bullshit that they thik is ok.. well, it's not.

For those with eye's to see.. Wink

Am outta this thread, gonna find a decent site where bible bashers are banned..

Before you leave this thread, where can I get membership of said freemasons?

I've had my small business for almost 15 years now but was never invited by them  

[bl4kjaguar]

This question is for BADecker:

Do you want "Biblical" Christianity or Christed Christianity?

[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.

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.

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 [extraterrestrial] 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 [extraterrestrial] 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 [extraterrestrial] 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.

Have I made an enemy of you?

[My Name Was Taken]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.'  Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept.  It simply doesn't work.  Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot.  Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.

So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god?  And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?

The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God.  They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose.  The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.

So yes, it's a bad analogy.  It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground.  You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.

Ah, are you then referring to the existence of "god" vs. the existence of "God?" The former being a concept and the latter being a specific deity, such as the Christian or Muslim or what-have-you? I'm not sure it matters anyway, but if you're referring to the second, the analogy is a match.

Not quite.  You are correct that I'm differentiating between God and god, but the distinction I'm making isn't the same as you suggest.

Specifically, I'm making the following points:

1)  There is a difference between polytheistic and monotheistic gods.  

2)  There is a different standard of proof between polytheistic and monotheistic gods.  Specifically, empirical proof is required for a polytheistic god, but not for a monotheistic one.  Instead, conceptual proof based upon a priori knowledge is required for a monotheistic god; this is not required for a polytheistic god.

3)  The FSM and the teapot constitute invalid counterarguments to the existence of a monotheistic god because they ask the opponent for information that is irrelevant and unnecessary to the existence of a monotheistic god, i.e. they ask for empirical evidence when empirical evidence is in no way required to prove a monotheistic god.

4)  Any counterargument to the existence of a monotheistic god must instead attempt to demonstrate why a monotheistic god is a logical impossibility based upon a priori knowledge.  I have never seen a sound argument of this type before.

This was finally a good explanation of your point. I understand much better now what you are saying.

[BADecker]

This question is for BADecker:

Do you want "Biblical" Christianity or Christed Christianity?

Non-Christed Christianity is, simply, people calling themselves Christians, without really accepting what Christianity is all about.

True Christianity at its base is believing that God is effecting our salvation from death through His Son, Jesus, the Christ. This will happen in the resurrection at the last day. The only real additional thing for the Christian is to live a God-pleasing life, because this will enhance salvation among people when they see the goodness done by the Christians.

The above is what Biblical Christianity is. I want it for myself, and I want it for the whole world. If the whole world had it, the whole world would be an extremely great and wonderful place to live and everybody would be saved.