Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 323. (Read 845809 times)

Twisting "what" around?  Example?

Oh, right.  You're never going to tell me.

Because you can't.  Because you don't know how.

Coming from you, that means... almost nothing. Oh wait. I used that line already, here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10630423.

Oh, I know. I've figured you out at last. You are a sleeper troll... smart enough to look scientifically good, and well-trained in the language so that you can twist things around.

Gotchya.



EDIT: Did you ever think of applying to here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hiring-trolls-please-apply-inside-985841 ?

At this point, I'd be surprised if you even know what throwing-up is.

Edit:  Oh, it also totally throws a kink in the 6,000 year-old Earth theory.  For someone now traveling at near light speed for a certain duration, to that person, 6,000 years ago to us is now for him..  Conversely, 6,000 years for that person might be, oh, say about 14 billion years for us, i.e. the extrapolated age of the universe based upon its observed rate of expansion from our locality.  

Other than what?

Dude, I'm not a wizard.  I can't read your mind and I have no idea what the hell you're saying.  Sounding like a Panda Express fortune cookie is cryptically stupid.  You are fantastic at saying tons of nothing.

Literally dozens of posts and dozens of requests for you to find just one single example of fallacy, and you haven't.  Not once.  

Because you can't...because you don't know how.

I'm going to guess your response:


See how easy it is to be you?  Just say a bunch of unsupported garbage, act like you're super smart because only you know what the "good" definitions are, and completely ignore any and every opportunity to say something with some kind of rational basis supporting it.

Pretty spot on, eh?

I still don't get what any of this has to do with throwing up...

No, he's right to throw up.  You asked an invalid question.  Light isn't constrained by time, so your question is literally inapplicable.

The speed of light is a constant regardless of an observer's velocity, location, or a change in both.  Regardless of whether I'm stationary or moving towards the speed of light, the speed of light will appear the same in both cases.  Even if I'm going 99.9999% the speed of light, light would still appear to be going as fast as if I were stationary.

Furthermore, when we move or change location, our "time-frame" changes relative to everyone else.  This is empirically verifiable.  The faster you move, the slower you age relative to those who aren't moving.  If you take two atomic clocks set to identical times and leave one stationary on the ground the other travels around Earth in a space shuttle, at the end of the flight you will notice that the once-similar clocks are now different.  The clock that was on board the space shuttle will appear to have slowed down in time, and in fact it did relative to the stationary clock.

We experience time due to perceived changes in our relative spacetime location.  The word "spacetime" exists because they are inseparable -- space is a function of time, and time is a function of space.  Because changes in spacetime location are relative to the speed of light, we can conclude that light is transcendent of locality and whatever swathe of spacetime we happen to inhabit.

Phrased another way, your questions don't make sense because "2000 years ago"  isn't the same for everyone.  If you're moving at near the speed of light, 2000 years for you could be thousands or millions of years for me.  In contrast, 2000 years for me could be a few seconds to you if you're moving at near light speed.

Stop making crap up when you don't know what you're talking about.

You mean you're not sure? What, did you swallow it back down? I saw a guy do that with peaches once. I don't think he liked the idea. I think he was just being polite to the rest of us at the table.

 

EDIT: Wow! 201.

I think I threw up in my mouth...

Okay. I'll enlighten you with the one piece of knowledge that you apparently don't have. This is that you don't need any enlightening from me other than this.

Comprendo?

To God, knowledge is like grokking (you know, like from Robert Heinlein's novel Stranger in a Strange Land). So, guess what knowledge God didn't want us to grok? The exact stuff that we are grokking right now, the knowledge of good and evil. I complain, and I hear a bunch of complaints against God. The complaints come about because we don't like grokking good and evil, the thing we are doing because Adam and Eve listened to the snake rather than to God.

I don't know that I would like to be relieved of the knowledge of good and evil in this world as it is now. But if it were a perfect world (or near enough, like in the Garden), I would much rather remain in ignorance like God wished for us, than have the grokking of good and evil.

It's not called the tree of sin. Subtract the devil from the equation for the moment and what are you left with? A god that prefers us to remain ignorant. The devil did nothing but pose the question, "Why remain ignorant?", to which there is no good answer.

Actually, the original sin was trusting the devil for knowledge rather than trusting God for it.

What is the 'original sin'? Answer: The quest for knowledge. Understanding this is paramount to understanding why having the god debate with anyone of faith is ultimately futile. (And, so I will beat this dead horse once again to make the point.)The quest for knowledge is undeniably what science (and atheism) is all about and it is thereby in direct support of the 'original sin', which is why fundamentalists adamantly oppose it, since it is faith in god, rather than knowledge of god, that is required of believers to believe in something for which there can never be any scientific proof.

Hey buddy, the Law of God requires a person to marry the one who he lays with. Why would anyone want the drama of marriage? But, there are a whole lot of more or less honorable people who marry the one they lay with, even though they don't know that the Law of God says that they should.

You're okay. If you make it to Heaven, you certainly are okay. If you don't make it, let's try to keep your sinning down in this life, by saying you are okay, so that you don't get all upset and sin more. Why should we drum up more sins for you to be punished for in Hell?

Edit: Oh my bad. After reading a few pages it's evident that the thread is only still alive because BADecker is practicing discussion/trolling skills. You owe me a few minutes of my life dude.

You are too scared to touch a woman you dimwitted virgin, away get laid..