Proof that God exists - page 60. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: bonski on February 12, 2016, 10:35:21 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 10:32:19 PM

Quote from: bonski on February 12, 2016, 10:19:04 PM

try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.

Testimonies are not acceptable forms of evidence for science.

Testimonies are by definition subjective hearsay... It is not possible to prove anything based on testimony alone

Miracles on the other hand, do not exist. Period. End of story. There is no evidence for miracles, and by definition, there cannot ever be any evidence of miracles

Prayer does not work... Try praying for an amputee to regrow their limb... it wont happen...

The Templeton institute did a scientific study on prayer involving 1802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients separated into 3 groups... group 1 and 3 were prayed for by 3 entire churches, while group 2 was not prayed for. Group 3 was also made aware they were being prayed for, but group 1 was unaware... the results were:

Quote

Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). Some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers

Basically, no difference at all between group 1 & 2, while the group which knew hundreds of people were praying for them, died 14.6% more often, and "fared worse than those who did not receive prayers"

Then if that's your opinion we have freedom of speech. I respect your opinion. With God, to believe is to see not to see is to believe.

That is definitely not my "opinion", that is a fact, Jack...

Testimony is often disregarded in Law as hearsay, etc...

Testimony is always disregarded in Science as an untestable claim/opinion...

Science does not and will never accept testimony as evidence

bonski

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 10:32:19 PM

Quote from: bonski on February 12, 2016, 10:19:04 PM

try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.

Testimonies are not acceptable forms of evidence for science.

Testimonies are by definition subjective hearsay... It is not possible to prove anything based on testimony alone

Miracles on the other hand, do not exist. Period. End of story. There is no evidence for miracles, and by definition, there cannot ever be any evidence of miracles

Prayer does not work... Try praying for an amputee to regrow their limb... it wont happen...

The Templeton institute did a scientific study on prayer involving 1802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients separated into 3 groups... group 1 and 3 were prayed for by 3 entire churches, while group 2 was not prayed for. Group 3 was also made aware they were being prayed for, but group 1 was unaware... the results were:

Quote

Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). Some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers

Then if that's your opinion we have freedom of speech. I respect your opinion. With God, to believe is to see not to see is to believe.

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: bonski on February 12, 2016, 10:19:04 PM

try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.

Testimonies are not acceptable forms of evidence for science.

Testimonies are by definition subjective hearsay... It is not possible to prove anything based on testimony alone

Miracles on the other hand, do not exist. Period. End of story. There is no evidence for miracles, and by definition, there cannot ever be any evidence of miracles

Prayer does not work... Try praying for an amputee to regrow their limb... it wont happen...

The Templeton institute did a scientific study on prayer involving 1802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients separated into 3 groups... group 1 and 3 were prayed for by 3 entire churches, while group 2 was not prayed for. Group 3 was also made aware they were being prayed for, but group 1 was unaware... the results were:

Quote

Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). Some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers

Basically, no difference at all between group 1 & 2, while the group which knew hundreds of people were praying for them, died 14.6% more often, and "fared worse than those who did not receive prayers"

bonski

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: craked5 on February 11, 2016, 10:47:40 AM

Quote from: mrflibblehat on February 11, 2016, 10:37:05 AM

Ok ok! Jeez. No need to get mad. There is no God! There. Happy? We're agreed.

Meh? Not getting mad at you.

And my problem is about how BADecker talks and decide arbitrarily that this is truth and this is not...

He has to. He is like a cornered animal. People like that will hang on to their belief regardless of the evidence that completely refutes their claims.

Look at Kurt Wise (PhD in Geology from Harvard) He said that even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture (which it does) , and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence.

That is profound. This virus runs deep in his veins....

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: BADecker on February 12, 2016, 10:01:43 PM

I'll simply continue to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. After all, even in the faulty explanations that they allow, one can find some grains of truth.

How would you define "truth" if you disagree with consensus reality? Wikipedia is basically... consensus reality...

There are even rules against opinionated sections... everything must be factual, not opinion like you seem to think...

I can't say that I've personally seen anything on Wikipedia that was not correct and accurate with linked sources, and verified by a simple google search

Holy Jebus! Even the Wikipedia page about Wikipedia has 356 referenced sources!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Accuracy_of_content

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 01:22:50 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 12, 2016, 11:36:14 AM

Quote from: valta4065 on February 12, 2016, 05:57:07 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 04:18:38 AM

Quote from: yenxz on February 12, 2016, 04:07:07 AM

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Quote

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

Quote

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist

P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

Ahah!

For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!! Shocked

Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^

No wonder you like Wikipedia so much. All you have to do is get in there and write whatever nonsense you want, and people think you are a great guy.

You clearly have never tried to edit Wikipedia and "write whatever nonsense you want"...

Why don't you try some day? Go for it! Edit the Evolution page... change it to say Evolution is a big conspiracy and a lie...

Test:
1) If you are even capable of editing the Wikipedia page
2) How long your misinformation stays on Wikipedia

Test your hypothesis (like any scientist would)... fucking do it, don't be a pussy!

I'll simply continue to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. After all, even in the faulty explanations that they allow, one can find some grains of truth.

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: BADecker on February 12, 2016, 11:36:14 AM

Quote from: valta4065 on February 12, 2016, 05:57:07 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 04:18:38 AM

Quote from: yenxz on February 12, 2016, 04:07:07 AM

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Quote

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

Quote

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist

P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

Ahah!

For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!! Shocked

Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^

No wonder you like Wikipedia so much. All you have to do is get in there and write whatever nonsense you want, and people think you are a great guy.

You clearly have never tried to edit Wikipedia and "write whatever nonsense you want"...

Why don't you try some day? Go for it! Edit the Evolution page... change it to say Evolution is a big conspiracy and a lie...

Test:
1) If you are even capable of editing the Wikipedia page
2) How long your misinformation stays on Wikipedia

Test your hypothesis (like any scientist would)... fucking do it, don't be a pussy!

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: mainpmf on February 12, 2016, 05:08:51 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 12, 2016, 04:50:49 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on February 12, 2016, 04:46:09 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 04:18:38 AM

...
P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

The guy is confused by "all these theories". He needs one truth: God exist because it exist.
All science is just theories. Religitards reject all scientific facts and theories that contradict
their "Goat Herding Manual - Adventures of the 1st century herdsman." aka the Bible.

I'm starting to like your posts a lot. You a good buddy, talking all this, but never contradicting the scientific laws that prove God exists.

Cool

Scientific laws you're the only one to explain and interpret this way...

Well, we don't know this for sure... about me, that is. For example. Many people used gravity for a long time before Newton expressed his scientific law of gravity. If you think that Newton was the first one who ever talked about gravity, you are too ignorant to even be posting in any forum.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: valta4065 on February 12, 2016, 05:57:07 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 04:18:38 AM

Quote from: yenxz on February 12, 2016, 04:07:07 AM

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Quote

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

Quote

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist

P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

Ahah!

For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!! Shocked

Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^

No wonder you like Wikipedia so much. All you have to do is get in there and write whatever nonsense you want, and people think you are a great guy.

valta4065

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 04:18:38 AM

Quote from: yenxz on February 12, 2016, 04:07:07 AM

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Quote

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

Quote

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist

P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

Ahah!

For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!! Shocked

Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: BADecker on February 12, 2016, 04:50:49 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on February 12, 2016, 04:46:09 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 04:18:38 AM

...
P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

The guy is confused by "all these theories". He needs one truth: God exist because it exist.
All science is just theories. Religitards reject all scientific facts and theories that contradict
their "Goat Herding Manual - Adventures of the 1st century herdsman." aka the Bible.

I'm starting to like your posts a lot. You a good buddy, talking all this, but never contradicting the scientific laws that prove God exists.

Cool

Scientific laws you're the only one to explain and interpret this way...

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: af_newbie on February 12, 2016, 04:46:09 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 04:18:38 AM

...
P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

The guy is confused by "all these theories". He needs one truth: God exist because it exist.
All science is just theories. Religitards reject all scientific facts and theories that contradict
their "Goat Herding Manual - Adventures of the 1st century herdsman." aka the Bible.

I'm starting to like your posts a lot. You a good buddy, talking all this, but never contradicting the scientific laws that prove God exists.

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Moloch on February 12, 2016, 04:18:38 AM

Quote from: yenxz on February 12, 2016, 04:07:07 AM

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Quote

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

Quote

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist

P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

It's kinda funny that jokers like you who want to believe that the fiction of science theory is truth don't even understand that you have a religion going in it.

Cool

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: yenxz on February 12, 2016, 04:07:07 AM

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Quote

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

Quote

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist

P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

yenxz

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: eon89 on February 06, 2016, 08:22:02 AM

After long and secular debates about atheism, the need for a separate topic about God's existence has arisen.
There are amongst us a group of people who believe that while there is no proof that God exists, there also is no proof that He doesn't exist.
Please share your argument in a logical manner and abstain from saying things like "I'm right because I'm right".
I know that this, in the end, is a philosophical discussion so only logical are welcome.

even charles darwin was believe that god exist,universe is can't be exist without creator,and some scientist believe that universe is made by God.

craked5

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 529

Quote from: galdur on February 11, 2016, 10:01:25 PM

But today Facebook scientifically proved God does exist with a little blue check mark. I dunno, that's kind of tough to refute.

Facebook?

That's one of the biggest success of the European search institute Grin

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: af_newbie on February 11, 2016, 08:04:55 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 11, 2016, 07:37:42 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 11, 2016, 11:01:55 AM

If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

Quote from: BADecker on February 11, 2016, 04:33:02 PM

In general, I don't make the determination. I simply apply what science has said when they say law or theory.

The problem is... you don't have the first clue what you are talking about...

The theory of evolution cannot become a law... it's not possible... theory is literally the best it gets for evolution... theory is the epitome of science

A law is a completely different concept, and usually requires a mathematical proof (the only "proof" science accepts as objective fact)

Please learn the terminology of science

No point explaining it to him. He only knows what his handlers told him.

People like him convince themselves that God exist, then come up with some pseudo-scientific reasons to justify their belief.

It is the same reaction, as people who make a really bad investment (say by buying a shitty stock), once the stock starts tanking, they will still try to find reasons to justify their original decision. It is the inability to think critically that makes them keep the stock all the way down until it is de-listed.

I suspect the same psychological mechanism is at work here.

PS. Any new scientific discovery is bad news for the GOD stock.

I want to thank you for confirming that science has proven God exists. How are you confirming it? You are confirming it by focusing on me rather than focusing on the three scientific laws:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.

The fact that you can't explain them away, shows that you agree with them. If you didn't agree with them, you would explain them away.

So, thanks again. Makes my job easier.

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Moloch on February 11, 2016, 07:37:42 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 11, 2016, 11:01:55 AM

If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

Quote from: BADecker on February 11, 2016, 04:33:02 PM

In general, I don't make the determination. I simply apply what science has said when they say law or theory.

The problem is... you don't have the first clue what you are talking about...

The theory of evolution cannot become a law... it's not possible... theory is literally the best it gets for evolution... theory is the epitome of science

A law is a completely different concept, and usually requires a mathematical proof (the only "proof" science accepts as objective fact)

Please learn the terminology of science before spewing more bullshit

Well, after all, this was not supposed to be about my or your understanding of terminology.

The point is, science has proven that God exists.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: galdur on February 11, 2016, 10:01:25 PM

But today Facebook scientifically proved God does exist with a little blue check mark. I dunno, that's kind of tough to refute.

Quote from: BADecker on February 12, 2016, 02:01:13 AM

...

In addition, since religion is part of the above posts, there are the vibrations that the religious choirs make when the sing praises to God.

Gravity waves are useless. We may not ever find any more of them.

Topic: Proof that God exists - page 60. (Read 62293 times)