You're still too ignorant to understand the answer, I see.
EDIT: You and
stats should head over to the local tavern together. The tavern patrons and the bartender would get the biggest laugh ever watching you two try to order a couple of drinks.
Maybe whilst at the tavern the entire place could discuss how ignorant you are.
We could even discuss how you believe it is appropriate for children to marry.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1969184You are a twisted individual BADecker.
Interlude:
I don't really think this should pass unobserved, regardless the fact that Badecker calls anyone a troll or not. I've kept talking about the lack of morality on most apologists, but this is a little bit beyond. A creep who pretends to understands science claims that 12, for girls, and 14, for boys, is a good age for marriage. Of course, marriage implies sexual intercourse, it may also allow pregnancy, etc. Nowadays, a big majority of people who get married experience a divorce at a certain time, mostly because we still fail to communicate properly and we make really bad choices being influenced, at many times, by the chemistry of attraction. A simple relationship requires understanding, cohabitation, cooperation, and many other social 'talents' that the human being possesses, a 12 or 14 year old is not even close to behave like that, let alone the fact that such a thing would interact and ruin the beautiful and sincere process of childhood. Of course some religious people, especially christians nowadays, have no problem with having sexual intercourse with a 12 or 14 year old, they actually believe it's right and healthy. We can observe the same behavior on our friend Badecker. I'm not accusing him of molesting children, I am highlighting a lack of morality, or better said, the presence of a specifically religious immorality in his behavior. Check the link and you will see his answer after stats actually asked him 'what the fuck?'. He posted some links (typically of him) of some laws from Massachusetts, as if that would make it right. Conclusion: now we know he is stupid, most probably mentally ill and he also lacks morality, since his morality is 'God given', and as we all know, his God, the 'scientifically' proved one, only gave 10 commandments...child abuse is not part of them. Stay tuned folks, our Badkecker shows his faces with every post.
P.S. He won't ever answer to these accusations, he will just say it's 'trolling or religious talk' and he will try to go around it by claiming that this does not rebut his 'science'.
Well, that's not true. All anyone has to do is rebut the science of cause and effect, entropy, or complexity to show that God doesn't exist. That shouldn't be so hard for you multi-talented trolls. Come on now. Do some rebutting.
Since you can't, you continue to support the proof that God exists. God doesn't really thank you for this. He simply made things so that you can't. He has Himself to pat on the back for blocking you jokers.
Debunked by yourself:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19455088And debunked by me:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19350390https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19357376Also:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19355289 How do you know? You can’t explain the rebuttal that you are talking about. And you don’t have any rebuttal of your own.
How do I know what? How do you know yours is proof? We can keep asking stupid questions like that forever. If you have any questions about my rebuttal or your own, feel free to ask because I will answer any question.
How do you know there is any rebuttal to my own "stuff" in the things that I say? You wouldn't know a rebuttal if it jumped up and bit you in the eyeball.
Science says mine is proof. That's the whole thing that we are talking about, here. Scientific proof, or the rebuttal of it. Of course, nobody should be surprised that you haven't figured that out yet.
I have been asking you to show one rebuttal to the proof that God exists. So far you haven't shown a rebuttal at all. Everything that you have said has so many holes in it that Swiss cheese is a thousand more times more solid.
Nope science doesn't say yours is proof. Rebuttal here:
Debunked by yourself:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19455088And debunked by me:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19350390https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19357376Also:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19355289 Can't write it out, can you? Science proves God exists, and there has been nothing to rebut that fact.
No scientist has ever proven God and there is nothing to rebut that fact.
For cause and effect, entropy, and complexity to exist together like they do in this universe, God is a requirement. This doesn't explain what God is. It only shows that He is powerful beyond any possibility of understanding of His power.
If you don't know what god is you can't say it's a requirement.
Critics of the Modal Cosmological Argument or Argument from Contingency would question whether the universe is in fact contingent. We have no idea whether this universe “had” to exist or not, nor whether it is in fact the only one and not just one of a potentially infinite number of different universes in a “multiverse” for example.
Critics also ask why God should be considered a “requirement” and inexplicably exempted from the argument that everything has a cause. If a God exists to cause the universe then, by the same argument, this God must itself have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unacceptable to most theists. Simply asking "does God have a cause of his existence?” therefore raises as many problems as the cosmological argument solves.
If God is thought not to have, or not to need, a cause of his existence, then his existence would be a counter-example to the initial premise that everything that exists has a cause of its existence! If God or the Prime Mover “just is”, then why can the universe not “just be”? Why is there a need to go a step further back? The widely accepted concept of “Occam’s Razor” suggests that the simplest solution to a problem is always the best, and that additional unnecessary complexity should be avoided.
Even if one accepts that that the universe does in fact have a beginning in time (as the generally accepted Big Bang theory suggests), the Temporal Cosmological Argument does not explain why there could not be more than one first cause/mover, or why the chain could not lead back to several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the universe (potentially leading to several different Gods).
Neither does it explain why the something which is “outside the universe” should be “God” and not some other unknown phenomenon. There is no compelling reason to equate a First Cause with God, and certainly Aristotle did not conceive of his Prime Mover as something that should be worshipped, much less as the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God of later Christian, Jewish and Muslim tradition.
The whole concept of causality and time as we understand it is based entirely on the context of our universe, and so cannot be used to explain the origin of the universe. Causal explanations are functions of natural laws which are themselves products of the universe we exist in, and time itself is just an aspect of the universe. If there is no “time before” the universe, then the whole notion of “cause” ceases to apply and the universe cannot sensibly have a “cause” (as we use and understand the concept). Indeed, perhaps there IS no “cause” of the universe.
Interestingly, at the sub-atomic quantum level, modern science has found that physical events are observed to have no evident cause, and particles appear to pop in and out of existence at random. In the first infinitesimal fraction of a second after the Big Bang singularity, classical physics is known to break down and just such unpredictable and counter-intuitive quantum effects are thought to apply.
