Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 128. (Read 845582 times)

No I do not. They know a way more than me about mathematical modeling. I know nothing about it, nor I want to know. All I need to know is that modeling on mathematics is usualy wrong in this corrupt world. Lets take for example economic theories based on mathematics. All wrong, and we are in an economic mess. Economic became mathematical modeling as well.

Mathematical modeling is awesome occasion to make money on. Not many people on earth can check you out on it.

You claim that but that doesn't mean it's the true. Maybe you know more than the majority of scientists.

That's interesting questions!!!

The difference between you and me is that you believe in science, and I know science.

Knowing science would inform you that:

evolution is not science
biology makes evolution less probable, not more
geology is not only about the dating of the earth, actualy its mostly have nothing to do with it.
Big bang is just a theory based on mathematics and on constant that one need to believe in. Science is not about believing but experimenting. No experiments there
Age of earth is mostly based on one constant of radioactive uranium degradation speed. Science is not about believing in constants, but being sure. You cannot be sure that constants were constants, especially when it comes to radioactivity. Radioactivity is based on the temperature. Yeah I know you gave me other methods but this one is the most sure because they had used it to date the earth.
Age of the universe. Again it is based on many constants. None of them is proven to be constant other than in their mathematical models. Thats very unconvincing science at best. Many assumptions are made there that could be otherwise. Again its not an experimental science its only mathematics that one need to believe are true. It should not be called science if I am to be honest. Those are just predictive modelling that is called science for no reason what so ever.
For example a star that is suppose to expand away from us having 1 millions light years of distance. To assume it had gone 1 million years is folly because light years is not time but distance. Why not assume it was 1 millions years light of distance 6k years ago at the creation. Now you understand Its just a predictive modeling? I have to believe in big bang to believe your theory of the age of universe. Its circular logic.


Call it what it is - a predictive modeling based on hypothesis.

And no more

You say.. Oh why you are not convinced? Are everyone corrupted? Well... they could be. If something are not entirely proven I have to believe in it. I choose what is most convincing to me. For me the most convincing is what I believe. You believe that humanity is not corrupt. That would be the last thing I would believe in.

The same laws that says how to use slaves, how it's ok to beat them? That morality?
-happiness based on a lie
-good mental health, any evidence for that?
-and what sense is that, to go to heaven to do what?
-I don't know what that means
-Yeah like the free choice of being gay, OOPS, you can't you get killed
-Also usually involved in raping little kids
-Whatever
-Stupid.



I love science, I know science. I just cannot stand crappy science, but when it comes to crappy science if you would dig deeper it has many opponents not just people believing in God.

What science do you love? You don't believe in:

Evolution
Biology
Geology
Big bang
Age of earth
Age of the universe
All the methods for those things
And many more

You love science? XDD

I am actually the one who debunked your ''proof'' several times

Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19455088

And debunked by me: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19350390
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19357376

Also: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19355289

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19666684

Oh sorry I was thinking it was some flat earth stuff and some quotes of laughing from FE and how science knows better. FE is silly, its not biblical and its just wrong.

It could be the magnetic anchoring that is talked about. Magnetic anchoring to set the earth on its place. The question remains open to what it could be anchored to - it could be sun for all I care. Could be anchored with something else (like a palace of God aka heavens) could be a lot of stuff we are not yet aware.

If everything was made of energy, it's foundations should be energetic as well.

You can start reading The Book of Job here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1&version=NIV. The part that you are asking about starts here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38&version=NIV. People from the ancient past had way more knowledge in some areas than we do today.

Could you quote it? Why do you people try to antagonise things? Was that in education somewhere to antagonise? I do not understand why world as a zero sum game. It is really wrong pollution that platonic philosophy had on the world. Bible has nothing to do with Platon. Get over it.

Read the book of job in the bible, this book proves that science is right about the world (the physics of solar system), so the bible have it the other way around. But if we look at this part of the bible (the book of job), it is writen way long ago, when science is not yet a word or been created by humans. The book of job tells us about the foundation of earth before the science did.

You have a mocking language. You say person. If you would say conciousness, or colective unconcioussness (by our psychic experience) that would not be so ridiculous. We had enough of that God-ridiculing language made by Jesuits.

Never did anyone claim that only God can do that. But if we are unto it. Scientist can not even predict the rain patterns. All they do is trace the clouds and observe how they look if they are dark or not.

You know, thats how primitive people were doing this, we have more sensors and stuff but we claim a lot less than we think we know. We can meassure stuff sure...., with 66% accuracy... Its still better than tossing a coin.

I would suggest not being so hot aired about the science nowadays. I know scientism would say - but we try. Ok tell me when you could predict the weather more accuratly.

P.S. I know I overexagerate. Weather patterns are studied a little bit more, but I wouldn't want to be one. Here comes a rainy cloud, it surely gonna rain... and its gone. Frustrating.

Science- study of nature based on fact.
GOD: Supreme Person.

Who do you think made the Storms, Hurricane and Earthquake? Never say man because only a GREAT and Supreme person or GOD can create that! :-) :-) :-)

This topic isn't about religion. It's about science. But you are the one who is continually ignoring science - cause and effect, entropy, and complexity combined - and attempting to turn the topic into a religious one.

Oh that's right! You don't have any free will! It was programmed into nature by cause and effect, that certain electrons and forces (which were the effects of other electrons and forces) would cause you to think and act and post the way you do.

You aren't free to post anything beyond your programming. And we don't have to guess which direction your programming is taking you. All we need to do is look at your previous - silly, I might ad - posts. Almost pure religion with very little science.

Christian spirituality is the basis of :

law (for example is the basis of american constitution and modern constitutions)
morality
scientific enquiry (do not forget the puritan roots of modern science)
happiness
good mental health
a sense in life
rooting out of wrong ideas
is usually protecting free choice
usually is involved in charity
gives people community to belong to
give warmth by calling each other brothers
spiritual life is like a dove on the hearth - make you healtier

and a loooooot more. But the most important is that its not contradicting science at all. You desperatly try to make it contradict. No it does not at all - it had made scientific method. Christianity and science are the best friends. Both loves the truth.

I love science, I know science. I just cannot stand crappy science, but when it comes to crappy science if you would dig deeper it has many opponents not just people believing in God.

No I have not changed the subject. I said science change itself, you said it does not and that is good, then you said it does change and that it is good as well. My point was that the Bible had not such a privilage to adjust itself and yet is not contradictory. My point was purely retoric and you had made argue about it changing the subject.

You are the one changing subjects lol. You didn't address anything in my post, your responses are empty. Where are all the applications of religion?

Reality?  Common sense?

400 pages and no proof your fairy tale exists...

thanks for the post. Very interesting

Says who? Some idiot on the internet that just troll with 2 liners? Yeah.... sure....

btw i do not have any religion. I do not do any rituals. I do believe in one God.

You realize ignorance and religion are synonyms, right?

No educated person believes in fairy tales.

Yes those that remained as science works. Why do fucking oppose science and spirituality? Spirituality was the basis of science you ignorant bastard!

You are so ignorant as one can be........... Is it a joke or what?

Tell me you are kidding. You are the most dogmatic person I have ever met that says that dogmas are bad.............. Thats some joke right? You are not kidding me don't you?

All you guys are doing are changing the subject once in a while and twist the dialogue into different direction. You are a fucking spin doctors. The talk to you is completly pointless. I hope people reading this dialogue will see your dirty tricks.