Allow me:
A good 80% of people who go to church are masons.
...
Hahaha
A good 80% of people who go to church are masons.
...
Hahaha
You are wrong, a whole lot of them are carpenters, like Jesus was, not masons.
Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 321. (Read 845654 times)
You are wrong, a whole lot of them are carpenters, like Jesus was, not masons.
You've been continually quoting the bible as if we were supposed to learn from it, and insult folks who react to such lessons.. you've been doing it from the start.. this is why I choose to troll you, to remind you of what an arse you have been since the OP started this thread.
Again, you have ignored all other evidence, and if you come across something that smacks you in the face, you come out with the confuse and lose scenario, and move onto your next victim. Away and become a productive member of the human race, have a kid, so you can experience first hand, YOUR creative process.. oh, I forgot, you think that pubes your cock.
This is sooooooo like you. When you can't show how and where I have been blatantly quoting the Bible, you start talking about annal sex.
Dude, your that fuckin stupid you dont realise many people will read this ENTIRE thread, and know what it is YOU ask me to provide? I'm not you, I dont confuse and lose, and dont do external links, unless I deem it necessary, with regards to you, there is no fuckin point. Read from the start, and try grasp why folks KNOW you are are so full of shit. The crap you come out with is of biblical proportions, and you expect folks to BELIEVE you? Get it? WE DONT.
Your too lazy to use your cock, and are obviously scared of a decent fanny, who the fuck will ever take your side?
If you dont have a bitch someone else wants, your useless. Wake up.
You are so comical! I never laughed in this forum so much as I do when reading your posts.
Good to see god shines through me with that creative process, far better than the shit you come out with..
As St. Paul says, whatever the reason, Christ (God) is preached.
See? Bible bashin to the fuckin max, what does your last statement have to do with scientific proof of god? FUCK ALL
Oh. I forgot to add the link https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.
Lol Jesus tap-dancing Christ!
Haha thanks for making it obvious you never read my references.
Lol an electrical transformer...resistance...superconductors. Please, PLEASE tell me that was a joke.
The problem of induction is about the limits of inductive reasoning, you idiot!
LOL!
I'm getting to the point where I can almost predict your responses, and Decky's.
LOL !
Very good. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to feed my cat, which is a bike.
Oh, and I stand corrected. You're right, superconductors are a specific type of logical thinking. I always need to be aware of the limits of my superconductor when I utilize the Scientific Method.
Have a good time with your cat!
Have another pearl on me from Mike.
If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.
Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades. The religion of Abraham would have stayed unified, rather than split up into Christianity, Judaism, Sunni, and Shi'ite over what amounts to a bunch of soap opera arguments.
But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.
The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods which could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ATHEISM/inquisition.php#ixzz3UCkn2sq1
If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.
Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades. The religion of Abraham would have stayed unified, rather than split up into Christianity, Judaism, Sunni, and Shi'ite over what amounts to a bunch of soap opera arguments.
But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.
The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods which could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ATHEISM/inquisition.php#ixzz3UCkn2sq1
I like this post.. it's almost as if in accord with what I have been saying:
With regards to god, how many subordinate's are there? I agree that many societies could at least get a grip, and work out just how many there are. Me, I KNOW the angels are planet's, and henceforth, so must the demons be. There you are, that's how many angels and demons there are, just look up. Now agree on how many there are.
Now we could go all fantastical and say:
The cardinal points are angels/demons. The hours of the day, down to the minute of each hour, and the second of each minute also have names.
This is not about who is angelic or demonic, but proof of allegory. For instance, I notice earlier post's on Thor, god of.. THUNDER. Zues, god of the sea.. Who is the winged messenger?
What ilness did you get today? Are those negative thoughts really yours, or is someone else thinking of you, and hence you think? Ears not hot? They must be talking about someone else.. Get the feeling your being watched? Your not wrong.
All is cause and effect, know the effect's of your cause, become god.
So what I have been saying all along, is the proof is staring you in the face, not that god exists, but that angels and demons do. therefore it stands to reason that they are subordinate to THEIR laws, and do what has been proven for at least 64.000 years, or NO religion would exist, for they'd have no evidence that would be of any use if there were indeed none. The fact they have been fighting for the hearts and minds of men, is because if we were taught the proper stuff, we would become more powerfull than those who want us as SUBORDINATE to them, them being religious freaks on a power trip.
The fact the universe is a mental construct creates one thing you fail to realise, in that if god COULD make his presence known, he would have to do so IN this mental construct, proving he COULD communicate with humans, mentally, and the next would be completely unaware of it.
Have another pearl on me from Mike.
If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.
Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades. The religion of Abraham would have stayed unified, rather than split up into Christianity, Judaism, Sunni, and Shi'ite over what amounts to a bunch of soap opera arguments.
But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.
The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods which could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ATHEISM/inquisition.php#ixzz3UCkn2sq1
If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.
Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades. The religion of Abraham would have stayed unified, rather than split up into Christianity, Judaism, Sunni, and Shi'ite over what amounts to a bunch of soap opera arguments.
But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.
The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods which could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ATHEISM/inquisition.php#ixzz3UCkn2sq1
All the above positing is human thinking. God does His thinking in different ways. Why? Because He is so overwhelming that if He did it like human positing, there wouldn't be any freedom. So, He does it differently to allow us our freedom.
Someone might come back with the idea, how can there be freedom if there is cause and effect of everything. The answer is reasonably simple, but I won't go into it here, because it would present a whole new thread of stuff in this thread. Out of place.
Lol Jesus tap-dancing Christ!
Haha thanks for making it obvious you never read my references.
Lol an electrical transformer...resistance...superconductors. Please, PLEASE tell me that was a joke.
The problem of induction is about the limits of inductive reasoning, you idiot!
LOL!
I'm getting to the point where I can almost predict your responses, and Decky's.
LOL !
Very good. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to feed my cat, which is a bike.
Oh, and I stand corrected. You're right, superconductors are a specific type of logical thinking. I always need to be aware of the limits of my superconductor when I utilize the Scientific Method.
Lol Jesus tap-dancing Christ!
Haha thanks for making it obvious you never read my references.
Lol an electrical transformer...resistance...superconductors. Please, PLEASE tell me that was a joke.
The problem of induction is about the limits of inductive reasoning, you idiot!
LOL!
I'm getting to the point where I can almost predict your responses, and Decky's.
LOL !
Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.
You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.
Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.
Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:
The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.
You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.
Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.
Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:
The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.
The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!
Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.
The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.
No, proof is "not" a personal thing. This is you making up a definition of "proof" that is not only different from its actual definition, but is 100% inverse and contrary to the actual definition.
Actual definition of proof implies it is objective, and thus it can be understood independent of personal experience (i.e. it isn't personal).
Your definition of proof states that it is personal, and therefore is *not* objective and *cannot* be understood independent of personal experience.
So, no, proof is not judgmental, nor is it personal.
Why do I bother mentioning this when you will obviously avoid any direct response? Who knows. Probably practice for concise explanation during future debates with competent opponents.
Since few (if any) even understand what you say, your talk is not even evidence, much less proof of anything, except to a believer like yourself, that is.
Lol says the person who invents definitions to pre-existing words at will and has not provided a single direct response to any question posed to him in over 204 pages of material, to the person who responds directly to virtually point you make, citing references and providing deep, thoughtful responses to all of them.
You're totally right. There isn't anyone else on Earth other than myself that thinks a dictionary is valid source for defining words of the English vocabulary.
I'll just take our approach and say that everything in the dictionary means the exact opposite.
If you think science is about faith and faith is about evidence, then by logical extension I also assume that you think "bad" means "good," "I" means "you," and "God" means "Satan."
Edit: Oh wait! I had an epiphany! The dictionary is obviously a political deception of scientists!
The meanings of words have changed over the decades. Some words have been dropped. Some have been added. Most of the time the dictionary makers are listening to the people to see what the new meanings of words are. Often new words and meanings are interjected into society through the media, by politicians... sometimes by scientists.
You really need to get your nose out of the books once in awhile, so that you can see that things change, even words. (Now I suppose you are going to pick on my usage of "awhile" rather than "a while.")
Lol oh that's much better. Just go about changing words so they can mean anything you want them to. Who cares that a current dictionary provides current definitions? I have an idea, why don't you simplify and use one word only with an infinite number of meanings!
Then your proof for God would no doubt be perfect.
This is what it would look like: "The the the the the the, the the the. The the the, the." Therefore, God exists.
Edit: By the way, "The the the the. The the. The the the the the the the the." Therefore you're wrong. And its perfectly sound. All I had to do was concede to your wisdom and change words too. This is fun, and so easy! It's like I don't even have to think about it at all.
no God no cry
Because the universe is a mental construct..
Have another pearl on me from Mike.
If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.
Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades. The religion of Abraham would have stayed unified, rather than split up into Christianity, Judaism, Sunni, and Shi'ite over what amounts to a bunch of soap opera arguments.
But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.
The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods which could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ATHEISM/inquisition.php#ixzz3UCkn2sq1
If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.
Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades. The religion of Abraham would have stayed unified, rather than split up into Christianity, Judaism, Sunni, and Shi'ite over what amounts to a bunch of soap opera arguments.
But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.
The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods which could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist.
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ATHEISM/inquisition.php#ixzz3UCkn2sq1
You state:
Quote
"Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists."
Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
I'm trying to help you out.
...
Thanks for trying to help me out.
People generally don't get that deep into understanding things. They don't understand by pure logic. They let their brain mull things over while they live their daily life, and then they come up with the thing that they feel is proof to them.
You might be able to show people how their mulling-over of the supposed evidence isn't proof, but you would have to get them to sit down and listen. It would seem like a sermon or Bible class to many of them. Some of the people would get it; most wouldn't. And almost all of them would forget it within a few minutes after they left your explanation class.
You happen to be listening to my little explanation here. It is like your explanation class, but from a different "angle." But it seems that you would rather ignore the basic points that I am suggesting. Ir seems that you would rather toss the evidence out the window and not accept it as proof. And that's okay. This world wouldn't be as great as it is if people were forced to believe the evidence.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
Thanks, again, for helping me out.
So, I assume then you have clicked the link I provided, read and learned about the 'problem of induction,' and then concluded it was wrong so as to continue on with your point of view.
Here's another chance for you point out my fallacy: Can you tell me what the 'problem of induction' and explain why it isn't applicable to you?
You mean in an electrical transformer, right? It's resistance. That's why they have superconductors.
Lol Jesus tap-dancing Christ!
Haha thanks for making it obvious you never read my references.
Lol an electrical transformer...resistance...superconductors. Please, PLEASE tell me that was a joke.
The problem of induction is about the limits of inductive reasoning, you idiot!
You believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
And you don't understand why I have doubts?
--Mike Rivero
And you don't understand why I have doubts?
--Mike Rivero
Everyone has doubts, even the best of believers. The idea is to gain some faith and do away with the doubts. Start here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.
See BADecker? More witness's to the fact your god is a jew. You cannot be saved, so pleease, go get laid, honestly, you'll love it as much as she'll love you.. till the next challenge (a priest) comes along.. she'll well be off with him
You believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
And you don't understand why I have doubts?
--Mike Rivero
And you don't understand why I have doubts?
--Mike Rivero
BADecker, you must be getting desperate for someone to change the subject.. please, entertain me, explain why you would hold open the door of your church for those who deny jesus, and will never say his name, even in a prayer, at ANYONES funeral?
Keep in mind you are against devil worship..
Keep in mind you are against devil worship..
You state:
Quote
"Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists."
Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
I'm trying to help you out.
...
Thanks for trying to help me out.
People generally don't get that deep into understanding things. They don't understand by pure logic. They let their brain mull things over while they live their daily life, and then they come up with the thing that they feel is proof to them.
You might be able to show people how their mulling-over of the supposed evidence isn't proof, but you would have to get them to sit down and listen. It would seem like a sermon or Bible class to many of them. Some of the people would get it; most wouldn't. And almost all of them would forget it within a few minutes after they left your explanation class.
You happen to be listening to my little explanation here. It is like your explanation class, but from a different "angle." But it seems that you would rather ignore the basic points that I am suggesting. Ir seems that you would rather toss the evidence out the window and not accept it as proof. And that's okay. This world wouldn't be as great as it is if people were forced to believe the evidence.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
Thanks, again, for helping me out.
So, I assume then you have clicked the link I provided, read and learned about the 'problem of induction,' and then concluded it was wrong so as to continue on with your point of view.
Here's another chance for you point out my fallacy: Can you tell me what the 'problem of induction' and explain why it isn't applicable to you?
You mean in an electrical transformer, right? It's resistance. That's why they have superconductors.
Yeah yeah yeah, change the fuckin subject, take that pussy joint somewhere else, we aint here to discuss a language written where I live, not some far off, very distant country with a dialect for war..
Edit: Proof a dictionary cannot be used to define the english language:
Define the word TETRAGRAMMATON
What, it's not in the dictionary?
How's that for a wild guess?
Edit: Proof a dictionary cannot be used to define the english language:
Define the word TETRAGRAMMATON
What, it's not in the dictionary?
How's that for a wild guess?
You state:
Quote
"Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists."
Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
I'm trying to help you out.
...
Thanks for trying to help me out.
People generally don't get that deep into understanding things. They don't understand by pure logic. They let their brain mull things over while they live their daily life, and then they come up with the thing that they feel is proof to them.
You might be able to show people how their mulling-over of the supposed evidence isn't proof, but you would have to get them to sit down and listen. It would seem like a sermon or Bible class to many of them. Some of the people would get it; most wouldn't. And almost all of them would forget it within a few minutes after they left your explanation class.
You happen to be listening to my little explanation here. It is like your explanation class, but from a different "angle." But it seems that you would rather ignore the basic points that I am suggesting. Ir seems that you would rather toss the evidence out the window and not accept it as proof. And that's okay. This world wouldn't be as great as it is if people were forced to believe the evidence.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
Thanks, again, for helping me out.
So, I assume then you have clicked the link I provided, read and learned about the 'problem of induction,' and then concluded it was wrong so as to continue on with your point of view.
Here's another chance for you point out my fallacy: Can you tell me what the 'problem of induction' and explain why it isn't applicable to you?
Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.
You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.
Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.
Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:
The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.
You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.
Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.
Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:
The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.
The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!
Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.
The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.
No, proof is "not" a personal thing. This is you making up a definition of "proof" that is not only different from its actual definition, but is 100% inverse and contrary to the actual definition.
Actual definition of proof implies it is objective, and thus it can be understood independent of personal experience (i.e. it isn't personal).
Your definition of proof states that it is personal, and therefore is *not* objective and *cannot* be understood independent of personal experience.
So, no, proof is not judgmental, nor is it personal.
Why do I bother mentioning this when you will obviously avoid any direct response? Who knows. Probably practice for concise explanation during future debates with competent opponents.
Since few (if any) even understand what you say, your talk is not even evidence, much less proof of anything, except to a believer like yourself, that is.
Lol says the person who invents definitions to pre-existing words at will and has not provided a single direct response to any question posed to him in over 204 pages of material, to the person who responds directly to virtually point you make, citing references and providing deep, thoughtful responses to all of them.
You're totally right. There isn't anyone else on Earth other than myself that thinks a dictionary is valid source for defining words of the English vocabulary.
I'll just take our approach and say that everything in the dictionary means the exact opposite.
If you think science is about faith and faith is about evidence, then by logical extension I also assume that you think "bad" means "good," "I" means "you," and "God" means "Satan."
Edit: Oh wait! I had an epiphany! The dictionary is obviously a political deception of scientists!
The meanings of words have changed over the decades. Some words have been dropped. Some have been added. Most of the time the dictionary makers are listening to the people to see what the new meanings of words are. Often new words and meanings are interjected into society through the media, by politicians... sometimes by scientists.
You really need to get your nose out of the books once in awhile, so that you can see that things change, even words. (Now I suppose you are going to pick on my usage of "awhile" rather than "a while.")
Jump to: