Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 323. (Read 845654 times)

Oh, and I'd like to point out another FACT: BADecker is not qualified to tell other people how to spell in english, since america has many different spelling's. He only does this when he lose's an argument. He uses the government's way of speaking down to folks when he's been butfucked..

The correct term for this mis-use of the english language, is confuse and lose, and ya gotta admit, he is one we ALL wanna lose..

And now I shall explain why the very idea of God is logically flawed so that the entity cannot exist.
First of all, the classic paradox. If God is omnipotent he can create a rock which he cannot carry, but if he cannot carry it he isn’t omnipotent, neither is he omnipotent if he cannot create it. This doesn’t logically disprove his existence but rather that omnipotency is a paradox and a perfect being can’t be paradoxical, because a paradox is imperfect.
Secondly, the paradox of omnipresence. If God is a being he has a body. If he is everywhere, that body cannot exist because a body can only be in a finite place at a given time. It is possible to say that God moves so fast that he could be considered omnipresent, but that doesn’t make him omnipresent. It just means that he moves incredibly fast, and that is not the definition of omnipresence. Also, if he is omnipotent he has to be able to be omnipresent; but he cannot be omnipotent. And if he is perfect he cannot be based on a paradox.
So far, in order to prove God logically, we have to remove the parts that make him a god, and as such he wouldn’t be God.

Thanks for the exhortation.

But people that believe in god already are telling you it's BS. So your theory people are getting upset about starting to believe in god, which they did already, explodes in a fireball.

Once in a while, in professional debates, the debate winner has loads of evidence, so that one can actually call it real, solid proof. Yet his opponent, who has been beaten hands down, simply will not accept the evidence as proof.

While this doesn't happen often, it does happen. The debate judges might award the debate to the one who has the evidence, but this doesn't force the loser to accept the fact of his loss.

I say this because you seem to have trouble grasping things of deeper thinking that are plainly out in the open. Keep practicing. You can catch on. Taking Gingko Biloba can help.

I suppose, because it is me telling you, you won't even try it (the Gingko). The evidence is that you still haven't changed the "Your" to "You're" like I suggested... just because it was I who suggested it.

BADecker, do not be confused.. You have been continually stealing the OP's light solely for your own selfish reasons, by selectively ignoring better evidence than that which you have provided. The OP asked for scientific proof, not a fuckin bible class. Why come here and argue your case, when as you have just stated, even though it took me to say so, your book is in no way evidence of anything other than the FACT it is a book. Many people have clearly stated that which you regurgitate over and over as if it came from you. You underestimate the intelligence of many people here, and when these people provide better proof than you, you demand that proof, cause your too fuckin brainwashed to even contemplate the fact that many people here are more correct than you. The masonic evidence I provided is FACT, since freemasons are still around today. They cannot speak of it, so you will never recieve any evidence from them, it takes someone who has studied a plethora of books, not just one, to answer any relevant questions. I have clearly read one more book than you.

The closest you will ever come to the truth, is the revelation given upon initiation into CERTAIN societies that will GRANT you the ability to view the dude with that ring on his finger, spoken of by ezekial, who incidently was around the 10th author of the bible BEFORE your moses. You dont even know how to see your entire life is written in that book of yours, cabalistically of course.. you deny your jewish roots. Never mind the maths.

Answer this: If god's chosen people are jewish, where does that leave you? Dumb fuck. Preach all you want, your not only not a jew, your denying a woman a kid. You are a non-productive member of a sad society, that in all honesty, is about to be swept away by the eastern traditions..

Proof is not a judgemental thing, it is reality based, fact or not. Have you ever used an ociloscope, maybe a multimeter? When you have a headache, you take snake poison to take the pain away.. (yes, painkillers evolved from snake venom) where is god in all this?

Nowhere to be seen, for he is not of this world.

Now how the fuck you think your gonna be saved, when by your own admission, folk's here know what a silly cuntin idiot you are for denying ALL and ANY evidence that would be considered by most sane people.

The 'crazy' maths at the start of this thread I provided is found in your book. Yes, it is. If you wanna find god, do the maths. What, you cant count? Cant join the dot's? (<- A MEGA hint - origional fractal's anyone?) You would still deny it all. You are an epic fail. When I provided certain masonic passwords, it was only to show that to an extent, I am more qualified than you to take part in this thread. And that my reasoning is sound, despite my arsehole like way of going about things. You fail to realise, there are more masons than christians, and these people know what I say is true, you, can simply be swept away in a sea that god will never part for you.

This maths is gematria, and the fact I mention certain books, is solely for the reader to see the proof for themselves. In practise, by DRAWING the images the maths produce, you become ONE with that which you are trying to prove. The only evidence that comes close to providing proof, is nothing more than the EXPERIENCE gained whilst drawing the true images of the magic square's.. strange huh, how the maths is on a plethora of website's, yet not one single site has the images drawn by hand? Just the maths? Because drawing the square's is akin to creating the image of god, not just the creation, but the actualization of said image, which invoke's ALL other subordinate's to god, and grants whatever they are assigned to do. All I have done, is provide whatever I can to show YOU how wrong you were to use the bible as evidence, which you have done throughout this thread, alienating not only you from many, or many from you, but millions from your society. I mean, who would wanna be saved by you when you cant admit your worshipping a jewish, not christian, diety. Christianity was created by the jews. This was done to make folks believe in one thing, while the jews did another. That 'another' is best viewed in what is classed as a hoax, the protocols of the learned elders of zion. Read that and tell me that's a hoax.

Shame you cant see it's instructions being carried out all over the world, as we speak.

All in the name of YOUR god, no-one else's..

What the hell have I just read??? Nobody is this dumb. Your making this all up and just having a laugh at our expense.

Your trolling. I've been sitting on the fence wondering if your trolling or genuine. This last comment has just cemented my decision.

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.

I love science, God is the greatest scientist of all, it will just take scientists another million years to figure it out.

Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395. The funny thing that is happening as this continues is, God is becoming more of scientific reality, and less of religion.

The problem for religious people when this happens is, they don't have as much room for faith, because the faith space in their minds and souls is taken up by knowing and knowledge - science. Yet God, Himself, says in the Bible (and most of the gods of the other religions indicate or say the same) that you must live by faith.

Too much of the knowledge about God can actually destroy faith... destroy the person who holds the knowledge.

Faith in "science" and faith in God are merging into reality.

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.

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.

Buddhist is about as close as religion gets to science.

Fundamental Buddhist traditions not only make claims, but actually provide replicable methodologies by which one can actually test the rigor of the claims.  For example, the philosophical claim that "desire is the root of all suffering" can be tested by implementing a specific method, e.g. method, to systematically eliminate desire.  The rigor of the claims are strengthened when the claim holds through repeated implementation of the methodology.  So, if such a method (e.g. meditation) is precisely implemented and replicated such that repeated tests lead to decreased desire and a subsequent decrease in suffering, then the claim gains an increase in validity.

Away get laid you, surely it's gotta be better than arguing from a book that, by your definition, is the ONLY evidence?

Care to explain your god without using anything the bible has to offer, or any work's by other people?

What, you dont have the power of creation at your finger tip's?

Must be me

Well, since Buddhism doesn't generally accept God, except possibly in a vague sort of way, what are your evidences that contradict or answer https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 ? No disrespect meant. Just curious.

See? The universe is mental.

There are three parts to being a human, physical, yeah, we're here, astral, yup, we are 'apparently' made of stars, and mental. We thought ourselve's here. And here we are. Your earliest memory is of you constructing your body inside another universe, that being your mother. When you first saw the light, you were being born. between born and 3, you were more astral and mental whilst your body adapted to take on board these other two passengers. Where are you in all this? YOU dont exist as a single entity. And never will.

I am a Buddhist. So, the only scientific proof I need/have is my own mind.

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.

So you prefer to live thousands of years ago than now? Because of the atomic bomb? People always killed other people, whats your point? You wouldnt even be able to write that comment if it wasnt for science