Scientific proof that God exists? - page 298.

Joshuar

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

eidoo wallet

Quote from: BADecker on March 20, 2015, 09:09:55 AM

Quote from: the joint on March 20, 2015, 07:57:57 AM

Responding in order:

1) It's not getting the info across. You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

So you're debating!?

Quote

2) This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well. That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility. Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.

Please leave me and "we" out of it. You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

Generally I don't do the "we" thing. But since so many people express the human race as one in their posts, for the sake of brevity and information flow, I have been doing the "we" thing. Now, all of a sudden, you want to leave yourself outside of the human race. Who do you think you are, God (rhetorical)?

Quote

3) The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.

Remember again that:

a) Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b) By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c) Therefore, science cannot ~~cannot~~ conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Thank you for explaining the precise reason that Big Bang, age of the universe, evolution-produces-life, black holes, dark matter and energy, parallel universes, chaos, and quantum anything, are all theories.

The point remains. The evidence expressed at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 is proof that God exists.

I'm thinking that BADecker has been simply trolling the entire time. If you don't understand BADecker, just say so.

The joint is saying that you cannot prove God's existence and vice versa, through science. It is impossible, and he is correct.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: the joint on March 20, 2015, 07:57:57 AM

Responding in order:

1) It's not getting the info across. You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

So you're debating!?

Quote

2) This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well. That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility. Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.

Please leave me and "we" out of it. You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

Generally I don't do the "we" thing. But since so many people express the human race as one in their posts, for the sake of brevity and information flow, I have been doing the "we" thing. Now, all of a sudden, you want to leave yourself outside of the human race. Who do you think you are, God (rhetorical)?

Quote

3) The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.

Remember again that:

a) Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b) By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c) Therefore, science cannot ~~cannot~~ conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Thank you for explaining the precise reason that Big Bang, age of the universe, evolution-produces-life, black holes, dark matter and energy, parallel universes, chaos, and quantum anything, are all theories.

The point remains. The evidence expressed at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 is proof that God exists.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

People should see the truth.. BaDICKer is ATTACKING anyone with the bible, because we think different from him, his assault on the OP's thread has clearly gone beyond trolling, and the only way he could get away with trolling for this length of time, (over 30 posts containing same link, most only need one link) is if he is either an admin, or paid $50 dollar's or more.. but the bible, and god's house, is free, should god exist.. yes, there are rules, and he's broken every one of them.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Sea grass would survive a flood, just like the fish; and bacteria would survive being trapped in stone.

Nice point's though

Joshuar

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

eidoo wallet

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 20, 2015, 08:18:39 AM

Wrong.. the bible has been proven debunked by the FACT That pinus longavea at 5064 years old, and still alive, and hence witness to the FACT the flood did not take place.. and hence the bible is croc.. no? Prove me wrong? No-one on planet earth can, FACT. God has nothing to do with the bible, FACT.

Please, since you, like every other person in the vod scam ring, seem intent on hiding this very MASSIVE fact.. by filling this thread full of un-related bullshit.. Just to hide MY proof.

Cause it takes away their reason for living.. you'd profit more from the donations you'd receive if you sold them a noose, save's them suffering

Edit:

That's no to above, I missed the quote..

Anything else they say is purely to hide my evidence in a thread full of little kiddie left-overs..

And the world knows it..

"Lomatia tasmanica in Tasmania: the sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old"

"A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea is estimated to be between 12,000 and 200,000 years old. The maximum age is theoretical, as the region it occupies was above water at some point between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago"

There are already organisms on earth that are est. to be far above 6,000 years of age, eliminating the aspect that creation might have happened.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Wrong.. the bible has been proven debunked by the FACT That pinus longavea at 5064 years old, and still alive, and hence witness to the FACT the flood did not take place.. and hence the bible is croc.. no? Prove me wrong? No-one on planet earth can, FACT. God has nothing to do with the bible, FACT.

Please, since you, like every other person in the vod scam ring, seem intent on hiding this very MASSIVE fact.. by filling this thread full of un-related bullshit.. Just to hide MY proof.

Cause it takes away their reason for living.. you'd profit more from the donations you'd receive if you sold them a noose, save's them suffering

Edit:

That's no to above, I missed the quote..

Anything else they say is purely to hide my evidence in a thread full of little kiddie left-overs..

And the world knows it..

Ps, the Pinus Longavea is older than stonhenge!!!!

Because jesus, a human, went to stonehenge, and yes, there is a record of his two visit's there Wink

Joshuar

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

eidoo wallet

Quote from: the joint on March 20, 2015, 07:57:57 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 06:12:57 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 19, 2015, 03:18:19 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on March 19, 2015, 12:50:41 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 19, 2015, 09:00:19 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 05:13:32 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 19, 2015, 04:55:29 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 04:52:45 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 19, 2015, 04:25:53 AM

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say.

Quote

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html:

Quote

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Quote

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm.

Quote

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense.

Quote

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God.

The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists.

Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily.

A couple questions:

1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof?

2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty? Why or why not?

Depends. He can change the definitions around to suit the situation. That way he gives the illusion his arguments have substance.

I know, he butchers and tortures the English language repeatedly. This is basically me experimenting with various approaches to see if he responds differently to any of them.

There's a part of me that likes to believe that 'nobody' who is capable of living on their own is that stupid, and that he knows when he signs off his account that he's dead wrong on so many things, but simply can't admit it because he's already invested so much time and energy trying to cast a certain impression (i.e. that he's super-duper smart and nobody except him understands the awesomeness of his logic...you know, because faith and stuff).

It's called getting the info across.

When I make mistakes, I am only acting like everyone else. At least I am willing to admit that we make mistakes.

One area that I am not making very many, if any, mistakes in is, the evidences at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 that prove that God exists. The scientist in the joint should be able to recognize this.

Responding in order:

1) It's not getting the info across. You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

2) This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well. That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility. Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.

Please leave me and "we" out of it. You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

3) The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.

Remember again that:

a) Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b) By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c) Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Perfectly said.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 06:12:57 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 19, 2015, 03:18:19 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on March 19, 2015, 12:50:41 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 19, 2015, 09:00:19 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 05:13:32 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 19, 2015, 04:55:29 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 04:52:45 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 19, 2015, 04:25:53 AM

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say.

Quote

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html:

Quote

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Quote

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm.

Quote

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense.

Quote

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God.

The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists.

Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily.

A couple questions:

1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof?

2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty? Why or why not?

Depends. He can change the definitions around to suit the situation. That way he gives the illusion his arguments have substance.

I know, he butchers and tortures the English language repeatedly. This is basically me experimenting with various approaches to see if he responds differently to any of them.

There's a part of me that likes to believe that 'nobody' who is capable of living on their own is that stupid, and that he knows when he signs off his account that he's dead wrong on so many things, but simply can't admit it because he's already invested so much time and energy trying to cast a certain impression (i.e. that he's super-duper smart and nobody except him understands the awesomeness of his logic...you know, because faith and stuff).

It's called getting the info across.

When I make mistakes, I am only acting like everyone else. At least I am willing to admit that we make mistakes.

One area that I am not making very many, if any, mistakes in is, the evidences at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 that prove that God exists. The scientist in the joint should be able to recognize this.

Responding in order:

1) It's not getting the info across. You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

2) This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well. That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility. Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.

Please leave me and "we" out of it. You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

3) The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.

Remember again that:

a) Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b) By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c) Therefore, science cannot ~~cannot~~ conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

By not believing you are god, he cannot exist.. the christian god is not THE god YOU should be.. but YOU cant be, because YOU think Science is seperate from YOU. YOU are your world, and your diety, HE/SHE is what you make YOU out to be.. Tis not a question of self 'image' actualization, but self actualisation of the diety you are, that those who know you, KNOW you are..

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

What happens when the pope dies? Up pope's another alias of VOD, YOYO, (forever goin up n down on pole's) and the highness BADIcker...

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on March 20, 2015, 05:02:08 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 06:12:57 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 19, 2015, 03:18:19 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on March 19, 2015, 12:50:41 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 19, 2015, 09:00:19 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 05:13:32 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 19, 2015, 04:55:29 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 04:52:45 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 19, 2015, 04:25:53 AM

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say.

Quote

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html:

Quote

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Quote

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm.

Quote

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense.

Quote

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God.

The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists.

Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily.

A couple questions:

1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof?

2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty? Why or why not?

Depends. He can change the definitions around to suit the situation. That way he gives the illusion his arguments have substance.

I know, he butchers and tortures the English language repeatedly. This is basically me experimenting with various approaches to see if he responds differently to any of them.

There's a part of me that likes to believe that 'nobody' who is capable of living on their own is that stupid, and that he knows when he signs off his account that he's dead wrong on so many things, but simply can't admit it because he's already invested so much time and energy trying to cast a certain impression (i.e. that he's super-duper smart and nobody except him understands the awesomeness of his logic...you know, because faith and stuff).

It's called getting the info across.

I call it deliberately misleading people.
Telling people you have proof when you don't is not "getting the info across", it's just lying.

At last.. another member not afraid to see the end of the bad United State's of Arseholes, never mind them canadian wankers.. the catholic ones of course..

What does canada have in common with the irish.. the irish got fucked by the catholic preist's.. the canadians got fucked by Vod, Oyo, and lest we forget, the pope BADicker..

Catholic's of course Wink

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 19, 2015, 09:29:04 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on March 14, 2015, 02:17:49 AM

Quote from: GannickusX on March 14, 2015, 02:05:24 AM

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 13, 2015, 10:49:51 PM

Dont take it on faith.. Listen to the treeeeeeeeeeeeee's!!!!

Help's you breath more easily..

Check mate theists. He is not even trying to disprove the sequoia age because he cant

Well, checkmate to the bible, not theists.

Best thing said in this thread since it started..

Play it again sam..

Play it again sam.. humphrey bogart.. stop hijackin daniel's thread wi yer shit, and go to your true home, the fuckin nursery..

Edit: This is meant for Vod/Oyo, and the pope BADicker..

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 06:12:57 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 19, 2015, 03:18:19 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on March 19, 2015, 12:50:41 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 19, 2015, 09:00:19 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 05:13:32 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 19, 2015, 04:55:29 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 19, 2015, 04:52:45 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 19, 2015, 04:25:53 AM

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say.

Quote

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html:

Quote

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Quote

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm.

Quote

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense.

Quote

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God.

The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists.

Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily.

A couple questions:

1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof?

2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty? Why or why not?

Depends. He can change the definitions around to suit the situation. That way he gives the illusion his arguments have substance.

I know, he butchers and tortures the English language repeatedly. This is basically me experimenting with various approaches to see if he responds differently to any of them.

There's a part of me that likes to believe that 'nobody' who is capable of living on their own is that stupid, and that he knows when he signs off his account that he's dead wrong on so many things, but simply can't admit it because he's already invested so much time and energy trying to cast a certain impression (i.e. that he's super-duper smart and nobody except him understands the awesomeness of his logic...you know, because faith and stuff).

It's called getting the info across.

I call it deliberately misleading people.
Telling people you have proof when you don't is not "getting the info across", it's just lying.

XinXan

hero member

Activity: 1064

Merit: 505

Quote from: BADecker on March 20, 2015, 02:09:35 AM

Quote from: XinXan on March 20, 2015, 01:11:13 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 20, 2015, 01:07:25 AM

Now notice how he starts talking about someone named Sam out of the blue. He doesn't capitalize the name Sam. And he doesn't explain who Sam is.

Please be patient with him. Have mercy on him. Even, maybe, if you're a religions sort, pray for him.

In this thread people may not agree that god exists or not but we all agree that you have no idea what you are talking about 99% of the times

Since you are unwilling to accept the proven fact found here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395, that God DOES indeed exist, how are you going to understand what I am talking about? Since I accept the proven fact that God exists, I certainly know what I am talking about. But it is starting to become evident that you won't know even what you are talking about until you accept the evidence at the link which proves God exists, if then.

So far seems no one accepts your proofs, not even religious people, doesnt that make you think?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: XinXan on March 20, 2015, 01:11:13 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 20, 2015, 01:07:25 AM

Now notice how he starts talking about someone named Sam out of the blue. He doesn't capitalize the name Sam. And he doesn't explain who Sam is.

Please be patient with him. Have mercy on him. Even, maybe, if you're a religions sort, pray for him.

In this thread people may not agree that god exists or not but we all agree that you have no idea what you are talking about 99% of the times

Since you are unwilling to accept the proven fact found here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395, that God DOES indeed exist, how are you going to understand what I am talking about? Since I accept the proven fact that God exists, I certainly know what I am talking about. But it is starting to become evident that you won't know even what you are talking about until you accept the evidence at the link which proves God exists, if then.

XinXan

hero member

Activity: 1064

Merit: 505

Quote from: BADecker on March 20, 2015, 01:07:25 AM

Now notice how he starts talking about someone named Sam out of the blue. He doesn't capitalize the name Sam. And he doesn't explain who Sam is.

Please be patient with him. Have mercy on him. Even, maybe, if you're a religions sort, pray for him.

In this thread people may not agree that god exists or not but we all agree that you have no idea what you are talking about 99% of the times

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Now notice how he starts talking about someone named Sam out of the blue. He doesn't capitalize the name Sam. And he doesn't explain who Sam is.

Please be patient with him. Have mercy on him. Even, maybe, if you're a religions sort, pray for him.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

You are giving him too much credit. He ain't that powerful.

(oYo)

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 500

I like boobies

Speak of the devil... Cheesy

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Well, at least we had a breather.

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 298. (Read 845809 times)