The fact that mathematical probability shows that a built-up universe such as ours is impossible,
We're here aren't we? Ergo, not impossible.
Why should I even post this? That is exactly what I said, and it is in my post, which part you didn't quote above. In fact, the fact that we are here is the ONLY logic that we have for the possibility that we can exist. Except for our existence, it is impossible that we or the universe does exist according to any knowledge or understanding that we have.
Someday we might gain enough knowledge that we will be able to say truthfully that we understand how we are possible. But we aren't there yet by a long shot.
This makes the idea of the existence of God more probable... God Who is way more "advanced" than we... God Who made us and all things with understanding and knowledge that we don't have. How does He have knowledge that we don't? It is in the definition of the word "God."
Even then, that's wrong. There's no sure way to prove out own existence, the mind is not metaphysical, it is "the body". The brain is the mind, simply put so using the mind as a method to prove your existence is faulty, with use of the senses being completely out of the question(You can answer/think for yourself as to why using one's senses to make claim of their own existence is illogical, schizophrenia, etc etc. We can use reasoning to give support to the notion that we may exist, but we can never declare it a certainty. The idea of God to explain the unknown is an idea of the ignorant as history has shown. When people don't know something, they say god did it until proven otherwise. It's a very stupid argument to make.
Why is this that you have said foolish? Because at this stage in the knowledge of mankind, absolutely nobody knows how to make people last alive much more than 100 years. The healthiest of people live not long over 100 years. And the best, most qualified of doctors and scientists don't know how to cause anybody to live even to the young age of 200 or 300 years.
What does this have to do with the brain being the mind and the other things you said above? Here's what. Like as we don't know enough to keep people alive a mere, piddly, 200 years, because we are so ignorant of how things work, in the same way we are even more ignorant of the operations of brain, mind and consciousness. Nobody knows that the "brain is the mind" for sure. Nobody knows that there absolutely isn't any other mind operation besides that done by the brain. Some scientific investigations themselves are starting to show that there are mind/consciousness operations done outside the brain.
At its core, the scientific method itself may not be something that operates according to the scientific method as it describes itself. This is shown by the fact that we don't know much about mind/consciousness at all. Because of this, the proof for the existence of God at
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 is completely accurate.
Further, just because we have a hard time recognizing God, and an even harder time determining much of anything about Him, doesn't mean that He doesn't see us. For example, when we place an ant colony in between two panes of glass so that we can observe them at work, they don't see us (if they do, they don't understand what they are seeing), but we see them. We watch them do their daily thing. Why would anyone think that God doesn't watch us, that He isn't aware of our every activity, even in far more detail (maybe, complete detail) than we are ourselves?
You are not thinking clearly. But if you are, then you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Why not start your own thread that talks about these issues rather than spam this thread with all your off-topic stuff?
So if no one knos anything of that for sure how can you be so sure about all the things you have been posting so far? You keep posting your fallacy link wich was proven to be full of shit and even religious people dont accept it. Why would anyone think god is watching us? How do you know the ants dont know what they are looking at? You said it yourself, we dont know a lot of things.
Do I have to tell you everything? When are you going to be able to think a little on your own? When are you going to be able to read?
Read the first quoted post at the top of this post. According to our incomplete knowledge of the universe as we have it right now, the universe is impossible to exist... especially through something as simple as modern scientific method. We simply don't have any way for proving out all but a relatively few simple things. The universe is far more complex than we understand. Except for the fact that the universe exists, there is no proof that it exists or can exist.
The little bit of boldness that I have in suggesting things as fact, is simply designed to fit inside of the things that others understand as fact so that we can have conversation. How do you even know that you can ask a question, except that you do it?
Because of how limited we are, and because we can measure some relatively small part of this universe, but not enough to prove it can exist, there must be a Guy we call God Who knows about it all.
How do you manage to ignore the self-evident knowledge that the Universe exists (hint: look, and voila!) and then say our incomplete understanding, the Universe is impossible?
1) Open your eyes. See Universe. Universe exists.
2) If our knowledge is incomplete, you can't conclude "impossibility."
3) Based on the (incomplete) knowledge we do have, the Universe checks out just fine. Our theories/models need to match reality, not the other way around (in your case, you try to cram reality to fit your retarded ideas).
4) Yes, the Scientific Method is simple. So, why don't you understand it?
5) In your previous post, you essentially said the Scientific Method is not the Scientific Method. Slap yourself.
1. All right! Finally we agree on something besides the fact that God exists.
2. Okay, make one. What? You can't? Must be impossible.
3. Now you're calling me a scientist.
4. If I don't, it's because I'm not interested in something else that is flawed.
5. That's right-ish. This is because the scientific method rarely examines the possibility that it is wrong. But don't slap yourself except if you really want to, 'cause you might knock your glasses off.
Well, it only took a couple hundred pages, but you finally made a point-by-point response. I'm shocked, but pleasantly.
1) I'm glad we agree.
2) Make one
what? Your request doesn't follow from what I said, here.
3) Incorrect. Good scientists do not try to cram evidence to fit a theory. If the evidence doesn't fit, a new, better theory is needed. This differs from you in that your evidence doesn't fit your theory, and you don't think that matters.
4) The Scientific Method is not flawed specifically because it blares its limitations. It's perfectly valid. If the Scientific Method did not recognize any limitations, then it would be flawed. But that isn't the case.
5) See #4. To that, I would add that *every* published, scientific article reporting upon quantifiable data does so within a margin of error. The reality is very opposite of your belief in that science can't help but acknowledge its limitations.
To clarify further (because your point #5 is a bit arbitrary), I'm saying that the Scientific Method must acknowledge the possibility that a scientific conclusion is wrong. However, the method itself (not conclusions) is perfectly valid.
Something else you and I both agree upon (that is, when you don't keep changing your mind) is that science is too limited in its exploratory scope to conclude about God. To stand a chance, we need to use something with greater scope, such as philosophy/logic in general.
The problem, however, is that if you want to use general logic to argue for God's existence because it is greater in scope, you must also be aware of the limitations of logic and theorization.
Accordingly, this is why you must understand and obey any and all logical fallacies, a majority of which were referenced to you from the Wiki link. If you commit any such fallacy, you break the rules of logic, thereby rendering your argument illogical.
