Scientific proof that God exists? - page 150.

IadixDev

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 151

They're tactical

Quote from: Przemax on August 09, 2017, 01:37:33 PM

Quote from: Astargath on August 08, 2017, 07:28:20 AM

I think Przemax is an alt of badecker because the same day he stopped posting here, Przemax started posting here, could be a coincidence but who knows.

Nope Im not a badecker. I have actually talked with him, and he agreed upon my interpretation of a psalm 23. I think that God is everywhere means that we live inside him. Space and the dimensions are a product of magnetism.

The staff of the Lord is the electricity. He can lift people by his electrostatics. The gravity is electric. Whole world is the electric phenomen. His rod of iron is the magnetism.

To know more how pointless it is to meassure God by mathematics, you can find in this youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy00XUn3WqmPCpxiqRFEIyg

I have the impression, that some people like to complicate simple matters. They are the people of Babilon. Bible message is contrary to what those people are doing. Bible is trying to make complicated concept simple.

Here is my article that shows hows the anomy - a concept in sociology, can give another evidence of the existance of God. We are creatures that love meaning. That iss why we speak. And thats why our connection with God is in what we love - meaning, word.

http://therealmatrix.blogi.pl/comments/matrix

I was wondering why people like the concept of world being an illusion or simulation of a sort. Its because of the anomy. People that experience God say there is nothing more real than that experience. So full in meaning. And we are creatures of meaning and values. If we are not filled with those, we feel like some tribals have called - a sickness of souls.

Lot of the concept that you quote from the old testament are actually concepts directly coming from sumerian/egyptian/babylonian culture.

Most of the concept involved in Genesis are completely inspired from summerian/babylonian science of the time, when translated properly from hebrew taking in account historical context.

Need to take in account there was always political struggle in those societies between the tyranic Kings condamned in the bible and scholars who were often pariah or shunned by the Mainstream politics because of being critics of it. The bible is often implicitly quoting directly this wisdom from the scholars, and take the same position as them against the "bad" "tyranic" kings, with mostly the same arguments and rethoric.

There are many example in greece with socrates, plato, Pythagoras, jesus who all got in trouble with rulers of the time because of being critics of it, but there is this same struggle in jew world, and in summerian/babylonian world before.

https://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/

The Two Babylons
or The Papal Worship
Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife

https://philologos.org/__eb-lat/

Book I, Chapter 1
The Jewish World in the Days of Christ
The Jewish Dispersion in the East

Book I, Chapter 2
The Jewish Dispersion in the West
The Hellenists
Origin of Hellenist Literature in the Greek Translation of the Bible
Character of the Septuagint

Book I, Chapter 3
The Old Faith Preparing for the New
Development of Hellenist Theology: The Apocrypha, Aristeas, Aristobulus, and the Pseud-Epigraphic Writings

Book I, Chapter 4
Philo of Alexandria, The Rabbis, and the Gospels
The Final Development of Hellenism in its Relation to Rabbinism
and the Gospel According to St. John

I never really understand the point to replace the so called science, by just another form of sophistic scientism, with even less ground in reality, less review, less experiment, and barely even simpler ..

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: Astargath on August 08, 2017, 07:28:20 AM

I think Przemax is an alt of badecker because the same day he stopped posting here, Przemax started posting here, could be a coincidence but who knows.

Nope Im not a badecker. I have actually talked with him, and he agreed upon my interpretation of a psalm 23. I think that God is everywhere means that we live inside him. Space and the dimensions are a product of magnetism.

The staff of the Lord is the electricity. He can lift people by his electrostatics. The gravity is electric. Whole world is the electric phenomen. His rod of iron is the magnetism.

To know more how pointless it is to meassure God by mathematics, you can find in this youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy00XUn3WqmPCpxiqRFEIyg

I have the impression, that some people like to complicate simple matters. They are the people of Babilon. Bible message is contrary to what those people are doing. Bible is trying to make complicated concept simple.

Here is my article that shows hows the anomy - a concept in sociology, can give another evidence of the existance of God. We are creatures that love meaning. That iss why we speak. And thats why our connection with God is in what we love - meaning, word.

http://therealmatrix.blogi.pl/comments/matrix

I was wondering why people like the concept of world being an illusion or simulation of a sort. Its because of the anomy. People that experience God say there is nothing more real than that experience. So full in meaning. And we are creatures of meaning and values. If we are not filled with those, we feel like some tribals have called - a sickness of souls.

IadixDev

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 151

They're tactical

They dont seem to be the same person

Przemax looks younger and less confident, and more into self questionning than baddecker.

But again who knows, could be an alternate personality, but they dont seem to have same form of expression , and same relation to the bible and religion.

Baddecker also always seem to be against flat earth, Przemax posted about flat earth theory too.

Need to stop thinking everyone who read the bible is baddecker lol.

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: sirazimuth on August 07, 2017, 08:46:39 PM

Quote from: IadixDev on July 28, 2017, 12:25:46 PM

Quote from: BADecker on July 28, 2017, 03:15:33 AM

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

Cool

Cause and effect can be seen as operation in a space, their actual effect and the logic built on them depend on the nature of space itself, it's what riemann demonstrate

It's funny that you try to take on newton thermodynamics which is for me one of the worst system to understand god

Liebniz or riemann > newton Grin

When getting into the Riemann habilitation theory , it's easy to see all newtonian physics based on euclidian space is actually a sort of mirage

https://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/963A_lieb_rieman.html

Briefly, the significance of Riemann's discovery, is this. Consider the form of algebra introduced to the Seventeenth century by the founder of the "Enlightenment," the atheistic Servite monk, and follower of William of Ockham, Paolo Sarpi. Consider the expression of this in the work of such Sarpi lackeys and followers as Galileo Galilei, Thomas Hobbes, and René Descartes. The proximate source of the Enlightenment forms of algebra, employed by René Descartes, Isaac Newton, and their devotees, is derived from an "Ockhamite" reading of what is most widely recognizable as that modern classroom parody of Euclid's geometry embedded in the mathematics curricula generally, as presented, still, in secondary and higher education during the time of this writer's youth, and earlier.

The fallacies of this algebra, are the starting point of Riemann's dissertation. His point of departure there, is that in the form of algebra derived hereditarily from the work of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, et al.: Discrete events, and their associated movements, are situated within a Cartesian form of idealized space-time. This point has been presented by the present author in numerous earlier locations, but, on pedagogical grounds, it must be stated again here, this time in a choice of setting appropriate to the connection we are exposing, between the ideas of Riemann and his predecessor Leibniz.

Riemann opens his dissertation, with two prefatory observations. First, that, until that time (1854), "from Euclid through Legendre," it was generally presumed that geometry, as well as the principles for constructions in space, was premised upon a priori axiomatic assumptions, whose origins, mutual relations, and justification remained obscure. The second general point of his plan of investigation, which he restates in the conclusion of the dissertation, is that no rational construction of the principles of geometry could be derived from purely mathematical considerations, but only from experience.9 He concludes his dissertation: "We enter the realm of another science, the domain of physics, which the subject of today's occasion [mathematics] does not permit us to enter." Riemann, thus, refutes the presumption on which a Newton devotee, of Prussia's Frederick II, Leonhard Euler, depended absolutely, for the entirety of his attack on Leibniz's Monadology.10

On grounds of the principles of Classical humanist, or cognitive pedagogy,11 the prudent course of action, now, is to reconstruct the conceptions at issue from the initial standpoint of simple, deductive theorem-lattices. This pedagogical approach leads us by the most direct route, to the central issue of Riemann's discovery: the validation of an axiomatic-revolutionary quality of discovery of universal principle, by reason of which we are obliged to construct a new mathematical physics, to supersede that erroneous one previously in vogue. Later, continuing that process of construction, to the point of examining the writer's own original discovery in physical-economy, we identify the cognizable feature of the individual person's mental life, in which we may then locate the significance of Riemann's revolution in mathematical physics.

well dude i gotta congratulate you after you posted this pile of convoluted philosophical rubbish. I read it like 3 times and conclude its just
a big pile of meaningless Alan D Sokal bullshit designed to sound like you are saying something but its all nonsensical
big long words/phrases strung together to be grammatically correct that is gibberish and says nothing. well done my friend!

here ya go----->http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/weinberg.html

Poor BADecker...my favorite trolling buddy! he apparently stopped posting after this....
he probably couldn't figure out wtf you were on about (what a surprise) and got scared away! lol

I think Przemax is an alt of badecker because the same day he stopped posting here, Przemax started posting here, could be a coincidence but who knows.

cortoneycoty347

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

people believe tress an water, air these all are existed by god only. and they can believe god coming soon. so finally people are waiting for god

yolandeandrea85

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

somebody believes god may exist and somebody does not believe. but it completely based on our belief.

IadixDev

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 151

They're tactical

Quote from: sirazimuth on August 07, 2017, 08:46:39 PM

well dude i gotta congratulate you after you posted this pile of convoluted philosophical rubbish. I read it like 3 times and conclude its just
a big pile of meaningless Alan D Sokal bullshit designed to sound like you are saying something but its all nonsensical
big long words/phrases strung together to be grammatically correct that is gibberish and says nothing. well done my friend!

here ya go----->http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/weinberg.html

Poor BADecker...my favorite trolling buddy! he apparently stopped posting after this....
he probably couldn't figure out wtf you were on about (what a surprise) and got scared away! lol

It's very interesting dissertation based on riemann habilitation dissertation

Its sense is very clear lol

Read it more time, or watch the video I posted after, it's not giberish, are you familiar with riemann ?

Riemann is one of greatest mathematician of all times

If you understand the implication of Riemann on euclidian logic, mixed with liebniz view of optimal universe based on reason, it has very deep meaning.

Another version

https://networkologies.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/manifoldness-spacetime-as-hypernetwork-with-leibniz-whitehead-and-riemann/

networkologies

Online Home of Christopher Vitale, Associate Professor of Media Studies, The Graduate Program in Media Studies, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY
What might it mean to look at space and time as networks? Historically, a networkological approach to time and space naturally finds one of its forefathers in Leibniz, but first its worth getting a sense of what he is reacting against. The early modern period is one of enormous flux as far as theories of space are concerned, both in terms of the establishment of space as a metric, measurable, and absolute domain (primarilly via Descartes invention of analytic/coordinate geometry), but also in terms of the parallel and complementary notion that this metrically determined sense of space and time governs the realm of things (res extensa, radically distinct from the non-metric realm of res cogitans). The Cartesian mind-body split and the notion of space (and with it the moving metric of time) as a metric is indissociable from the assumptions which make the Newtonian spatial project possible – a distinct observer, the progress of a spatialized, linear, uni-directional time, etc. This tradition, which starts with Descartes, is further formalized by Netwon, reaches its apotheosis in Kant, and is based upon a split of the world into subjective and objective, one which continues to haunt the pretensions to ‘objectivity’ in much of contemporary empirical science.

In contrast, the counter-tradition which Leibniz represents does not separate mind and body in the radical sense pursued by the Cartesians. For Leibniz, mind and matter are, to use a term employed by Deleuze, ‘enfolded’ in each other, two sides of the same great origami-like structure we call existence. Furthermore, perception is not something limited to rational beings – all parts of the universe, due to their possession of a ‘perspective’ on the universe, present an opening onto the entirety of all that exists, in both space and time, in nuce, so to speak, that is, in miniature. For in fact, were not all space and time the way it is, any given spacetime location or entity wouldn’t be what it is either. The whole is present, virtually and differently, in the parts.

This is something which he builds up from a Leibnizian approach to the cosmos, and which also provides a foundation for the often maligned ‘mereological’ aspects of the penultimate sections of Process and Reality. These sections, in which he shows the manner in which points, lines, and planes are in fact abstractions from the more complex entities we see in the world, works to show how the very notions of geometry, which many view as primary and foundational to any approach to spacetime, are in fact abstract derivatives thereof. This section, almost inpenetrable without having read Whitehead’s works leading up to Process and Reality (such as On the Concept of Nature and An Enquiry Concerning the Conditions of Natural Knowledge), are a reworking of his notion, developed in these earlier works, of what he calls ‘extensive abstraction’. Here we see his argument, sketched in much clearer terms, that the mathematical models of space and time that we inherit from Newton and Descartes are in fact convenient and socially useful abstractions from the primary way in which we experience the world, which is that of moving, flexible, continually reconfiguring spacetime. And in fact, we all know this anyway – we often say things, when driving a car, for example, such as ‘oh, I need to make a left in like 5 minutes’. Space and time are naturally cojoined, and it is the abstractions of our modes of knowledge that separate them, leading to a situation which then needs to be overcome if we are to understand existence a bit more clearly.

While working to dissolve the distinctions between space and time, Leibniz and Whitehead also dissolve the related boundaries between mind and matter within an ontology that knows only events. If mind and matter are not fully separate, but rather two aspects of the same thing (namely, events), then the need to firmly separate the objective world of rigid, geometrical extension from the subjective world of potentially erring impressions, ceases to be a pressing matter for the establishment of scientific enquiry. And we have seen this with the rise of the ‘subjective’ seeming elements in quantum physics and relativity. What matters is not what ‘really’ happens to some impossible objective observer, but rather, what appears to happen from the perspective of the observer in question. And rather than these appearances be deemed ‘less real’, in line with a Newtonian/Cartesian approach to the world, rather, all these appearances are equally real. This is precisely why Bergson, another descendent of Leibniz, refers to all that exists as ‘an image’ – the universe has many images of events, each themselves events, none of which are more or less real than others.

But this creates some difficulties, for how can we describe the unfolding of this change, if the order of events – that which is usually used to ‘tell’ time – is itself no longer stable? Whitehead’s term to describe change is thus not linked to time (which for him presupposes perspective and its limitations), but rather, what he calls the ‘creative advance’ of the universe. This advance is the sum totals of the changes and/in the ‘times’ of the events of which the universe is composed. Such a notion spatializes time as much as it temporalizes space, while providing a spur to the thought of change beyond standard conceptions of space and time.

This becomes a bit clearer by getting a sense of what is really at stake, mathematically, with the notion of spacetime. The events of which the creatively advancing manifold is composed are thus times as much as spaces, in that the only distinction between time and space is, if we are being mathematical, nothing more than the speed of light squared. That is, space takes a certain amount of time to cross at this ‘top speed’, while time going at top speed indicates a certain amount of space. Time and space are strictly convertible, at least numerically, with only a minus sign and a conversion factor, a multiplier, between the numbers that describe one, and those that describe another. But does that mean they are two different ways of describing the ‘same’ thing?

This one also super cool !

http://wlym.com/antidummies/part59.html

Riemann for Anti-Dummies Part 59
Think Infinitesimal by Bruce Director

"It is well known that scientific physics has existed only since the invention of the differential calculus," stated Bernhard Riemann in his introduction to his late 1854 lecture series posthumously published under the title, "Partial Differential Equations and their Applications to Physical Questions". For most of his listeners, Riemann's statement would have been fairly straight forward, for they understood the physical significance of Leibniz's calculus as it had percolated over the preceding sesquicentury through the work of Kaestner and Gauss. A far different condition exists, however, for most of today's readers, whose education has been dominated by the empiricism of the Leibniz-hating Euler, Cauchy and Russell. While such victims might find the formal content of Riemann's statement agreeable, its true intention would be as obscure to them as the Gospel of John and Epistles of Paul are to Karl Rove and his legions of true believers.

The empiricist will not understand Riemann's statement, for the simple reason that what he associates with the words "differential calculus" is a completely different idea than what Riemann and Leibniz had in mind. To the victim of today's empiricist-dominated educational system, the infinitesimal calculus concerns only a set of rules for mathematical formalism. But to the scientist, the infinitesimal calculus is a kind of Socratic dialogue, through which man transcends the limitations of sense-perception and discovers those universal principles that govern all physical action.

The empiricist rejects Leibniz's notion, because he accepts Aristotle's doctrine that "physics concerns only objects of sense", whereas Plato, Cusa, Leibniz and Riemann emphasized, physics concerns objects of {thought}. These thought-objects, or "Geistesmassen" as Riemann called them, refer to the universal principles which {cause} the objects of sense to behave the way they are perceived to behave. Not being directly accessible to the senses, such principles appear to come from "outside" the visible world. However, a great mistake is made if one concludes from this, as the sophists do, that these principles come from outside the universe itself. In fact, these principles, being universal, are acting everywhere, at all times, and in every "infinitesimal" interval of action, osculating the objects of sense as if tangent to the visible domain.

It is this relationship between the observed motions of the objects of sense, and the universal principles acting everywhere on them, that Leibniz's differential calculus is designed to express. Through it, a universal principle, as it is seen and unseen, is enfolded into a single thought, showing us what is known, and indicating to us what is yet to be discovered. A scientist who turns away, under Aristotle's, Sarpi's, or Russell's, influence, from these objects of thought, to objects of mere sense, is acting as if his own mind has ceased to exist, which, in fact, it has.

Just as Riemann correctly asserts, that scientific physics began with the invention of the differential calculus, it can be justly stated that the differential calculus began with Cusa's excommunication of Aristotle from science. While it is true that some of the methods of Leibniz's calculus were beginning to develop in the work of Archytas and Archimedes, this development was arrested when Aristotle's doctrines became hegemonic in European culture, following the murder of Archimedes by the Romans. Cusa reversed this disaster and reoriented European science away from its obsession with objects of sense, and back to the Pythagorean/Socratic focus on the idea.

Cusa insisted that perception is not caused by sensible things, but that things are sensible because the mind has the power to sense. In turn, the mind is able to sense, because it possesses a still higher faculty of rationality; and it is able to rationalize because it possesses a still higher faculty of intellect; and it is able to intellectualize because man is created in the infinitesimal image of God.

That the cognitive capacity of the mind was the real target of the oligarchy's attack on Leibniz's calculus, was confessed to a popular audience by Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins in their English language 1941 book, {What is Mathematics}:

"...the very foundations of the calculus were long obscured by an unwillingness to recognize the exclusive right of the limit concept as the source of the new methods. Neither Newton nor Leibniz coudl bring himself to such a clear-cut attitude, simple as it appears to us now that the limit concept has been completely clarified. Their example dominated more than a century of mathematical development during which the subject was shrouded by talk of `infinitely small quantities', `differentials',`ultimate ratios' etc. {the reluctance with which these concepts were finally abandoned was deeply rooted in the philosophical attitude of the time and in the very nature of the human mind}" (emphasis added, poor punctuation in the original bmd.).

The empiricist sees objects in motion and imagines them to move in a space that is as empty as he believes his own mind to be. A scientist envisions a manifold of universal physical principles, embodied as animated objects of thought that enliven the objects before his eyes. To the former, change is an annoying inconvenience that disrupts his ultimately futile attempts to maintain his accepted axiomatic-formal structure. To the latter, change is the happy indicator of the moving effect of universal principles acting, universally, yet differently, at all infinitesimal intervals of time and space.

http://lymcanada.org/riemman-for-anti-dummies/

This is real science Grin

If that doesnt prove many of the key point about fundementals of god existence as portrayed in new testament, I dont know what will lol

I dont know why baddecker doesnt post anymore, maybe he is banned, maybe he realized newton is bull crap, that his c&e theory based on thermodynamics is illusion, and he is investigation the real maths with Leibniz and riemann more in tune with god belief Grin

Newton is at best bogus metaphysics.

Descartes as long as he stay in philosophy he is ok, but his whole system of mechanics based on separation of mind and matter with pineal gland & all is beyond bogus.

Riemann is still the best so far Grin

but relativity totally discard the Leibniz part which is too bad, need some new form of geometry and math and conception of space to accomodate all fields of science.

kacrut

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

I really doubt there is any scientific proof to describe god existence

Drnice

sr. member

Activity: 616

Merit: 251

Quote from: Daniel91 on August 13, 2014, 09:27:51 AM

What do you think?
Please share your opinion about this article.

101 Proofs For God

A growing list of common sense Proofs for God.

Proof for God, #65 Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam

Genetic scientists seem to be in general agreement that we are all descendants of one woman and one man. This research was fairly recent, starting about 1978. They, of course, do not believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, but their conclusions are getting closer and closer.

In case you have not heard about this, it makes very interesting reading. But I think it raises a number of profound challenges to the Theory of Evolution.

The scientists base the above conclusions on the known facts of human reproduction, specifically on properties of the sperm and egg. .....
Full article read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/65-mitochondial-eve-and-y-chromosome.html

You don't need to have a proof to know that God exist, "The earth is the Lord and the fullness thereof". Nature is supposed to tell you that God exist, and put everything science away.

sirazimuth

legendary

Activity: 3388

Merit: 3514

born once atheist

Quote from: IadixDev on July 28, 2017, 12:25:46 PM

Quote from: BADecker on July 28, 2017, 03:15:33 AM

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

Cool

Cause and effect can be seen as operation in a space, their actual effect and the logic built on them depend on the nature of space itself, it's what riemann demonstrate

It's funny that you try to take on newton thermodynamics which is for me one of the worst system to understand god

Liebniz or riemann > newton Grin

When getting into the Riemann habilitation theory , it's easy to see all newtonian physics based on euclidian space is actually a sort of mirage

https://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/963A_lieb_rieman.html

Briefly, the significance of Riemann's discovery, is this. Consider the form of algebra introduced to the Seventeenth century by the founder of the "Enlightenment," the atheistic Servite monk, and follower of William of Ockham, Paolo Sarpi. Consider the expression of this in the work of such Sarpi lackeys and followers as Galileo Galilei, Thomas Hobbes, and René Descartes. The proximate source of the Enlightenment forms of algebra, employed by René Descartes, Isaac Newton, and their devotees, is derived from an "Ockhamite" reading of what is most widely recognizable as that modern classroom parody of Euclid's geometry embedded in the mathematics curricula generally, as presented, still, in secondary and higher education during the time of this writer's youth, and earlier.

The fallacies of this algebra, are the starting point of Riemann's dissertation. His point of departure there, is that in the form of algebra derived hereditarily from the work of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, et al.: Discrete events, and their associated movements, are situated within a Cartesian form of idealized space-time. This point has been presented by the present author in numerous earlier locations, but, on pedagogical grounds, it must be stated again here, this time in a choice of setting appropriate to the connection we are exposing, between the ideas of Riemann and his predecessor Leibniz.

Riemann opens his dissertation, with two prefatory observations. First, that, until that time (1854), "from Euclid through Legendre," it was generally presumed that geometry, as well as the principles for constructions in space, was premised upon a priori axiomatic assumptions, whose origins, mutual relations, and justification remained obscure. The second general point of his plan of investigation, which he restates in the conclusion of the dissertation, is that no rational construction of the principles of geometry could be derived from purely mathematical considerations, but only from experience.9 He concludes his dissertation: "We enter the realm of another science, the domain of physics, which the subject of today's occasion [mathematics] does not permit us to enter." Riemann, thus, refutes the presumption on which a Newton devotee, of Prussia's Frederick II, Leonhard Euler, depended absolutely, for the entirety of his attack on Leibniz's Monadology.10

On grounds of the principles of Classical humanist, or cognitive pedagogy,11 the prudent course of action, now, is to reconstruct the conceptions at issue from the initial standpoint of simple, deductive theorem-lattices. This pedagogical approach leads us by the most direct route, to the central issue of Riemann's discovery: the validation of an axiomatic-revolutionary quality of discovery of universal principle, by reason of which we are obliged to construct a new mathematical physics, to supersede that erroneous one previously in vogue. Later, continuing that process of construction, to the point of examining the writer's own original discovery in physical-economy, we identify the cognizable feature of the individual person's mental life, in which we may then locate the significance of Riemann's revolution in mathematical physics.

well dude i gotta congratulate you after you posted this pile of convoluted philosophical rubbish. I read it like 3 times and conclude its just
a big pile of meaningless Alan D Sokal bullshit designed to sound like you are saying something but its all nonsensical
big long words/phrases strung together to be grammatically correct that is gibberish and says nothing. well done my friend!

here ya go----->http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/weinberg.html

Poor BADecker...my favorite trolling buddy! he apparently stopped posting after this....
he probably couldn't figure out wtf you were on about (what a surprise) and got scared away! lol

IadixDev

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 151

They're tactical

Quote from: Astargath on August 07, 2017, 04:25:09 PM

Quote from: Przemax on August 06, 2017, 05:39:57 AM

Quote

For withoutforth [shall be shut] hounds, and witches, and unchaste men, and man-quellers, and serving to idols, and each that loveth and maketh lying.

Which of those am I for the vengance of God to be put on me? Do I love lies? No. Am I a witch? No I hate alchemy. Am I unchasted man? I don't know. I have not adultered. Maybe in the mind. I feel bad about it in my mind. Am I a man-queller? Not that I know of. Maybe unknowingly. What can I do not to be?

By the way I know Im sinful, and I repent everything, and have my hopes and sins to be forgiven. If i will not be forgiven, I will still still think its just and rightous.

Where have I done away with the words of the revelation? Would you finally want to prove anything and not just worthless accusations?

Even if I am to be punished. Fine. It's not a reason to decieve others.

P.S I am not sure if it was 2000 years or less. I would say it was less. I have not enough evidences for it. But "phantom ages" phenomen seems to suggest a lot of middle ages was a historical fraud.

Quote

You also have no reason to believe god actually exists in the first place. ''God had said he is uncappable to lie. So... why should I assume he lied? '' Why would you assume he exists at all or that he doesn't lie because he said so?

Maybe I have reasons. Do you have reasons not to believe it? I love the message - thats enough.

If by reason you mean evidences, yeah I have evidences. I had wrote about them in this topic.

Quote

God is shapeless and weightless so you can't verify him with measuring tapes or weighing scale.

Yes. That is why its only provable by proving the validity of his words and prophesies.

You forgot to write your Cool

at the end

You forgot to get your glasses too ..

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: Przemax on August 06, 2017, 05:39:57 AM

Quote

For withoutforth [shall be shut] hounds, and witches, and unchaste men, and man-quellers, and serving to idols, and each that loveth and maketh lying.

Which of those am I for the vengance of God to be put on me? Do I love lies? No. Am I a witch? No I hate alchemy. Am I unchasted man? I don't know. I have not adultered. Maybe in the mind. I feel bad about it in my mind. Am I a man-queller? Not that I know of. Maybe unknowingly. What can I do not to be?

By the way I know Im sinful, and I repent everything, and have my hopes and sins to be forgiven. If i will not be forgiven, I will still still think its just and rightous.

Where have I done away with the words of the revelation? Would you finally want to prove anything and not just worthless accusations?

Even if I am to be punished. Fine. It's not a reason to decieve others.

P.S I am not sure if it was 2000 years or less. I would say it was less. I have not enough evidences for it. But "phantom ages" phenomen seems to suggest a lot of middle ages was a historical fraud.

Quote

You also have no reason to believe god actually exists in the first place. ''God had said he is uncappable to lie. So... why should I assume he lied? '' Why would you assume he exists at all or that he doesn't lie because he said so?

Maybe I have reasons. Do you have reasons not to believe it? I love the message - thats enough.

If by reason you mean evidences, yeah I have evidences. I had wrote about them in this topic.

Quote

God is shapeless and weightless so you can't verify him with measuring tapes or weighing scale.

Yes. That is why its only provable by proving the validity of his words and prophesies.

You forgot to write your Cool

at the end

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: keyrun on August 06, 2017, 05:12:41 AM

God is shapeless and weightless so you can't verify him with measuring tapes or weighing scale.

Then how do you know he is those things?

IadixDev

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 151

They're tactical

Im curious why you think humanism is opposed to survival ?

Seem more complex than this to me

Even plato said republic need guardians, athena is also a fighter at times

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena

Athene (/əˈθiːniː/; Ionic: Ἀθήνη, Athēnē), often given the epithet Pallas (/ˈpæləs/; Παλλὰς), is the goddess of wisdom, craft, and war[2] in ancient Greek religion and mythology. In later times, Athena was syncretized with the Roman goddess Minerva.[3] Athena was portrayed as having a calm temperament, and moving slowly to anger. She was believed to only fight for just causes and never fight without a purpose.[4]

That is a graver matter, and there, my friend, the modern interpreters of Homer may, I think, assist in explaining the view of the ancients. For most of these in their explanations of the poet, assert that he meant by Athena "mind" [νoῦς, noũs] and "intelligence" [διάνoια, diánoia], and the maker of names appears to have had a singular notion about her; and indeed calls her by a still higher title, "divine intelligence" [θεoῦ νόησις, theoũ nóēsis], as though he would say: This is she who has the mind of God [ἁ θεoνόα, a theonóa). Perhaps, however, the name Theonoe may mean "she who knows divine things" [τὰ θεῖα νooῦσα, ta theia noousa] better than others. Nor shall we be far wrong in supposing that the author of it wished to identify this Goddess with moral intelligence [εν έθει νόεσιν, en éthei nóesin], and therefore gave her the name Etheonoe; which, however, either he or his successors have altered into what they thought a nicer form, and called her Athena.

— Plato, Cratylus 407b

Thus, Plato believed that Athena's name was derived from Greek Ἀθεoνόα, Atheonóa—which the later Greeks rationalised as from the deity's (θεός, theós) mind (νoῦς, noũs). Other Greek authors[who?] attempted to derive natural symbols from the etymological roots of Athena's names to be aether, air, earth, and moon.[20]

qwik2learn

hero member

Activity: 636

Merit: 505

Quote from: Przemax on August 04, 2017, 01:00:33 PM

Quote from: qwik2learn on August 04, 2017, 12:54:49 PM

Quote from: Astargath on August 04, 2017, 05:25:59 AM

Quote from: qwik2learn on August 03, 2017, 09:30:46 PM

Quote from: Astargath on August 03, 2017, 06:21:03 AM

Quote from: qwik2learn on August 02, 2017, 12:54:52 PM

Quote from: Astargath on August 02, 2017, 06:15:11 AM

Quote from: qwik2learn on August 02, 2017, 03:14:54 AM

Listen up, Astargath!

Quote from: qwik2learn on July 26, 2017, 11:58:09 AM

You are posting but not doing research, that is not how these discussions work! Do your homework before you claim to know something, otherwise you are only promoting an opinion, I will now show you why your opinion is unreasonable by proving that your claims are unreliable.

Most magicians when they do this kind of thing, well you know that it’s all a show, however in Guy Bavli’s case he tells everyone it is real.

You gave me no reference to the specific tests so you did not even bother to do any work to make sure your opinion about these tests was accurate. You did not conduct a scientific criticism so I will naturally reject your unfounded claims about this phenomenon.
How is it that a mentalist can produce such a distinct and obviously mysterious illusion that also has a unique signature on the EEG? You don't have a clue about how your simple explanation applies in practice? How is Occam's Razor supposed to explain a phenomenon like that without TK? Why is it that the "fake/fraud/illusion" explanation quickly falls apart when faced with having to explain the mountains of evidence already posted here?

40 cases: http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
EEG of telekinesis in action: http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/
Find the telekinesis video on your own: http://googl.com/#q=telekinesis+superhumans

I mean we already discussed the 40 cases link and they were all bullshit and debunked so from there on I just didn't really care about what you had to say. I will say it again, where are the applications if all those things you claim are real, where are the applications?

Besides not addressing case #1 at all,
You brought up mostly invalid points for the 40 cases, you obviously failed to consider the totality of the evidence and instead focused on prejudices like "the researcher believes in GOD, so he is not reliable". You still hold to the fallacy that survival has been ruled out, you thereby avoid giving a complete account of the evidence. What good is science if you are expecting an outcome and will ignore the results if they do not meet those expectations?

You never replied to my questions about your burden of proof:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19336271

You think that you have no burden of proof in this discussion, that is why you never make an ADEQUATE rebuttal. All the other atheists who argued with me have stopped responding too.

Because it is a huge problem if the researchers already believe in that. How many times did christians claim to find the noah's ark and it turned out to be false? It is the same with them and since there is no concrete evidence a part from eye witnesses and stories there is no point in believing any of it. There are ton of stories about ton of ''paranormal'' phenomena but there is never concrete evidence, just stories. There is no point in believing any of it and I don't gain anything by believing on it either, I don't know what you are getting from it.

These tests are not stories, they are scientific observations. A measurement of the power of mind.

It is claimed to be a test but if it really was a scientific test, don't you think we would already hear about this all the time? Don't you think scientists would have applied that to something? Why do you think virtually all scientists do not believe in that kind of stuff if it really was proved to be true? You think they purposely say it's false?

A famous paper recently showed that the claimed results of most scientific studies are simply false:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
So why should we BLINDLY trust mainstream opinion of scientists (an opinion based in ignorance)? Stick to hard evidence and you will be fine. I have disclosed the evidence, so anyone who doubts it can debate the facts with me.
In my opinion, the scientists who reject survival are also wrong, but the brightest scientists like Wallace did find evidence and cocncluded that survival is real.

Im not on the subject. What if its real? Is the experiment falsifiable? If not, thats a doubtful science at best.

Are the experiments repeatable? If not, its hard to call it science actually.

And what if you are right. How does that proves God? It proves the existance of spirits not God per se.

See for yourself the numerous experiments and repeated observations I pointed out in my posts.
Then realize that all rational atheists are humanists; humanism is opposed to the survival hypothesis but survival is the most likely answer to the evidence. The conclusion is that atheist humanists are wrong.

IadixDev

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 151

They're tactical

Quote from: DimaPechka on August 06, 2017, 06:55:33 AM

Have u ever hear about theory of simulation for the world? I believe in it)

This imply a form of superior intelligence at play in the universe. The only claim that would come on top of this to get to belief in god as in the bible is that this simulation is intelligible to human mind.

IadixDev

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 151

They're tactical

Quote from: Przemax on August 06, 2017, 05:39:57 AM

Quote

For withoutforth [shall be shut] hounds, and witches, and unchaste men, and man-quellers, and serving to idols, and each that loveth and maketh lying.

Which of those am I for the vengance of God to be put on me? Do I love lies? No. Am I a witch? No I hate alchemy. Am I unchasted man? I don't know. I have not adultered. Maybe in the mind. I feel bad about it in my mind. Am I a man-queller? Not that I know of. Maybe unknowingly. What can I do not to be?

By the way I know Im sinful, and I repent everything, and have my hopes and sins to be forgiven. If i will not be forgiven, I will still still think its just and rightous.

There is no man who has never sined

( maybe except jesus)

As long as you try not to sin, and try to be aware of what constitute a sin, there is not much more you can do

http://biblehub.com/niv/john/8.htm

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

No one is born with enlightment Wink

If you know that you maybe dont know, that you remain on path of discovery of things you think you might not know i guess there is not much more that can be expected

Alchemy is not witchraft though. To the Blind all things looks dark.

IadixDev

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 151

They're tactical

Quote from: keyrun on August 06, 2017, 05:12:41 AM

God is shapeless and weightless so you can't verify him with measuring tapes or weighing scale.

This shouldn't be an obstacle

Science is not about measuring scales or weight.

"Energy" doesnt have shape or weight, it's still the main subject of study of natural science

The main problem of "science" is the carthesian impulse who started to remove mind from the subject or study, or with Gallileo when they started to get into science as things that can be demonstrated objectively, thus removing the scientist from the equation.

But since the 19th when behaviorism, psychology and physiology started to get re introduced as object of science, it reintroduce concept that were previously subject of religion into science.

With neurosciences now they have to reintroduce the scientist in the equation.

Science is more about understanding the unseen order between events, through the study of mathematics , finding the elegant harmony of natural order, than measuring weight or shape of things.

DimaPechka

jr. member

Activity: 57

Merit: 10

Have u ever hear about theory of simulation for the world? I believe in it)

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote

For withoutforth [shall be shut] hounds, and witches, and unchaste men, and man-quellers, and serving to idols, and each that loveth and maketh lying.

Which of those am I for the vengance of God to be put on me? Do I love lies? No. Am I a witch? No I hate alchemy. Am I unchasted man? I don't know. I have not adultered. Maybe in the mind. I feel bad about it in my mind. Am I a man-queller? Not that I know of. Maybe unknowingly. What can I do not to be?

By the way I know Im sinful, and I repent everything, and have my hopes and sins to be forgiven. If i will not be forgiven, I will still still think its just and rightous.

Where have I done away with the words of the revelation? Would you finally want to prove anything and not just worthless accusations?

Even if I am to be punished. Fine. It's not a reason to decieve others.

P.S I am not sure if it was 2000 years or less. I would say it was less. I have not enough evidences for it. But "phantom ages" phenomen seems to suggest a lot of middle ages was a historical fraud.

Quote

You also have no reason to believe god actually exists in the first place. ''God had said he is uncappable to lie. So... why should I assume he lied? '' Why would you assume he exists at all or that he doesn't lie because he said so?

Maybe I have reasons. Do you have reasons not to believe it? I love the message - thats enough.

If by reason you mean evidences, yeah I have evidences. I had wrote about them in this topic.

Quote

God is shapeless and weightless so you can't verify him with measuring tapes or weighing scale.

Yes. That is why its only provable by proving the validity of his words and prophesies.

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 150. (Read 845809 times)