Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 301. (Read 845578 times)

I have shown you why your "explanations" are incorrect and are a support for why god doesn't exist. It's puzzling as to why you firmly believe that they are "proofs" for god, doesn't make any sense at all...

Oh I've studied the bible, it's far from the word of god as you put it. My child can write far better a story than what the bible gives to explain things.

It is a double too-bad for you, then. Because Christianity is based in the Bible, especially the New Testament. And it is the non-acceptance of the machine-like nature of the universe that is part of the explanation in the N.T. that St. Paul uses to show why some people won't accept the existence of God.

My explanations of it at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 are directed at the more sophisticated thinking of the modern-scientist type of person, that is prevalent today.

By all means, go to the Bible and read it and study it. It is only the Word of God, the Bible, that can stir the heart for the thing that the Bible is all about, the saving of souls, and the saving of bodies in the resurrection.

When I first came here, I'd thought I'd get actual replies from actual, educated christians trying to prove their belief in god through logical means. Instead, what I got was a clueless troll who chose to re-paste the same link containing arguments against god, while uselessly trying to pass them off as arguments for god, and all along standing strong in it's incorrect statements. Nevertheless, I am sorely disappointed.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10829465

I agree. This is a good form of self-conditioning reinforcement.

Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel.

As if I don't believe in God or something.

Was that post in response to me?  There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post. 

Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it?

Let me use the shark and the goldfishes in the fish tank.

There is a glass fish tank. It is divided into two parts by a single pane of tough glass. One part holds a school of goldfish. The other part holds a shark.

The shark sees or otherwise recognizes the goldfishes, and the goldfishes similarly see the shark.

The shark naturally wants to eat the goldfishes. It swims full speed at the goldfishes, but is stopped by the pane of glass... even hurts its "nose" when it runs full speed into the glass divider.

After a time of attempting to attack the goldfishes, the shark becomes conditioned to the fact that it can't get to the goldfishes, that it hurts its nose when it tries, so it stops trying. In addition, the goldfishes become conditioned to the fact that the shark can't get to them.

The divider pane of glass is removed, and the shark and the goldfishes swim together for a time. The shark doesn't eat the goldfishes, and the goldfishes aren't afraid of the shark. Their conditioning keeps them apart. However, if the shark accidentally sucks in a goldfish in its natural process of breathing, the conditioning starts to break down.



The machine/Machine-Maker example found at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 is overwhelming and abundant proof that God exists. When one throw in the fact that scientists are constantly using the scientific method on parts of the universe (albeit mostly parts here on earth) thereby proving the machine-like qualities of the universe, one can easily see how the machine/Machine-Maker analogy not only applies, but is being proven by scientists on a daily basis.

The point of the fish story, above, is, your conditioning simply keeps you from seeing the obvious. Unlike fish, human beings have the ability to reinforce their own conditioning. And that is exactly what you do when you use the idea (be the idea yours or others) that inference can't be used as proof. I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence in the courts is always used correctly. But much of the time it is.

Your conditioning is starting to break down. Why is your thinking conditioning and mine not? Because it is the natural state of mankind to recognize God in the workings and existence of the universe. It is only conditioning that stops some people from recognizing God. The evidence for this is, like the https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 link says, the world is full of people who naturally recognize God. That's why we have the religions.



EDIT: Wow! 227 pages!

After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.

Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.

However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be.  If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).

Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole.  Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid.  In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.

So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie?  Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence?   Well, it's plainly not.  To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...to you.  But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible.  Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible.  You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence.  I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.

Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence.  In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism.  Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place.  Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?

On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence.  The key word here is 'consistent.'  Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it.  You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.

Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility.  Those who think it does sound like you.  Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.

You actually fall into the latter category.  Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence.  Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.

But do you know what is totally hilarious?  The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater!

A typical BaDICKer response methinks..

Tis almost like, there are indeed those who's answer's or argument's for/against, are all for/against the CATHOLIC education system, NO other religion is included, how very fuckin sad..

So you admit that you are ignorant and uneducated in these fields. Please go work or study the field of archaeology, botany, and biology, then you'd answer your own illogical question.

It's even funnier knowin I laid the track's of the journey he has to take, based on the fact he cant just shut the fuck up when he should, never mind provide proof of anything other than the fact I STUCK him on said tracks

Ps, count how many thread's i have never read, that these wimp's try to hijack by bringing my name into it, how fuckin sad.. just as well it's them doing the following, or they'd have no god to think about when they go to sleep.. yeah you know they aint thinkin o god, they're thinkin o me..

Prayin for me to stop, 'cause they been shagged into not stopping, they like the last word, even if it does come from their creamy white n brown lips..

Strawman.
The joint never said anything about Big bang, black holes etc... being theories or not.

Your "proof" was challenged and you had no defense
Not even a weak defense. Nothing, zilch, zero.

Responding in order:

1) Yes, I'm debating.  I wish you would.

2) There is no such thing as a human "race."  We are human species.  Race does not exist, it's a social construct and has absolutely no genetic basis.

3) How the hell did you confuse my desire to not be responsible for your idiotic thinking with a desire to be removed from humanity?!   ...Seriously...what the hell?

4) No. The point is that nobody knows what you're thinking because you claim one thing at the same time that you claim the exact opposite, and also at the same time you claim something irrelevant.

What happens is that you say something, we call you out on it, them you change your claim to something else.  When we call you out on the new claim, you switch it again to something else.  This makes it impossible to make sense of anything you say, because everything you say contradicts everything else you said, and will be contradicted itself by whatever you're going to say in the future.

5). *You* said that the information you linked was proof of God's existence.  Then you said it wasn't.  If you tell us that it is "proof," then duh, we think that's what you're trying to do...because you *told* us.

6). Scientists *never* use evidence to prove God exists, because it's *impossible.*  How can you not understand this simple concept?

Watching BADecker trying to dig himself out of that hole he dug, is like watching a train crash in slow motion.

I don't know about this stuff (highlighted) that I am aware of. Perhaps I will look it up someday. I DO, on occasion, take cordyceps as a nutritional supplement.

I don't know much about bone canser in children or adults. If I did, I would have spelled the word correctly.

If you are trying to ask me why there are problems in the world, the real fast, simple answer is this. God, for His own purposes and for our glory and best benefit gave us free will. Our first ancestors, Adam and Eve, used their free will to listen to the devil rather than to God. The result was spiritual imperfection in at least the world, if not the whole universe, and genetic imperfection in themselves and all who inherit their genes. The imperfection wasn't God's doing. It was theirs. However, if we were perfect right this instant, would that stop us from making mistakes that would throw us right back into the same problems that we have now?



EDIT: I enjoy your handle.  

if god exists, whats up with Leucochloridium paradoxum, Ampulex compressa, Cymothoa exigua, Loa loa, Dracunculus, Cordyceps fungi, Wolbachia, Vandellia cirrhosa, Toxoplasma gondii and Sacculina. Just google it. and as Stephen Fry says if god exists he is “utterly evil, capricious and monstrous”

I would say: ‘bone cancer in children? What’s that about?

All this time the joint and you have been thinking that I have been trying to prove (or something like prove) the stuff at the link https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 ?  All I have been doing is providing information about the evidence that scientists use on a regular basis to prove that God exists.

Now you, yourself, are spouting a bunch of unprovable junk... by your own admission. Or do you have a real, working, time viewer?

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.

So you're debating!?


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)?



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.

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.