Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 326. (Read 845654 times)

hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
March 12, 2015, 03:40:17 AM
Imagine.. numpty write's book for numpties.. dont have sex, or the world will end says the book.. take each page and scan it with your eye.. your japs eye.. carefull not to spill any cream on said book, after all, gotta eat..

Dude stop arguing with someone that suffers from dunning kruger effect, i told you already there is no point.
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
March 12, 2015, 03:39:10 AM
Imagine.. numpty write's book for numpties.. dont have sex, or the world will end says the book.. take each page and scan it with your eye.. your japs eye.. carefull not to spill any cream on said book, after all, gotta eat..
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
March 12, 2015, 03:37:28 AM
99% of BADeckers posts are nothing but crap, he clearly cannot provide this evidence, because he is a virgin.

Your problem is, you aren't smart enough to figure out which 99%.    Cheesy

Yes I AM, 99% being crap, the last 1% being your non-denial of your virginity.. away lay with your wife.. oh, you cant, she's down the docks..
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 12, 2015, 03:36:31 AM
BADecker, FFS, its a book! Made of dead tree's.. and since you throw out every other peice of evidence there is, then why are you even writing in this thread? AAh, you like stealing the OP's light..

You know how you don't want to read through some long, boring post. I have to thank you for not making yours long and boring. But the opposite is almost as bad. You have to make it long enough to explain what you are talking about. Otherwise, what's the use?

Smiley

What's the point of what you said? Your scared of a bit of pussy, what's wrong, did you discover it was your auld mans cock you were suckin on? 'cause that's god m8, a big dick, stick it in the pussy, and create life, is this what your afraid of, so bash everyone with your paedo book?

You're whacked. I left the door open the other day, and the pussy wandered right in, all by herself.

 Cheesy

EDIT: Wow! Page 202!
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 12, 2015, 03:33:59 AM
99% of BADeckers posts are nothing but crap, he clearly cannot provide this evidence, because he is a virgin.

Your problem is, you aren't smart enough to figure out which 99%.    Cheesy
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
March 12, 2015, 03:26:06 AM
BADecker, FFS, its a book! Made of dead tree's.. and since you throw out every other peice of evidence there is, then why are you even writing in this thread? AAh, you like stealing the OP's light..

You know how you don't want to read through some long, boring post. I have to thank you for not making yours long and boring. But the opposite is almost as bad. You have to make it long enough to explain what you are talking about. Otherwise, what's the use?

Smiley

What's the point of what you said? Your scared of a bit of pussy, what's wrong, did you discover it was your auld mans cock you were suckin on? 'cause that's god m8, a big dick, stick it in the pussy, and create life, is this what your afraid of, so bash everyone with your paedo book?
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 12, 2015, 03:14:54 AM
99% of BADeckers posts are nothing but crap, he clearly cannot provide this evidence, because he is a virgin.

I don't have to provide evidence. Why not? Evidence is something that is evident. So, let me show you where it is evident. It is evident right here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 12, 2015, 03:13:09 AM
BADecker, FFS, its a book! Made of dead tree's.. and since you throw out every other peice of evidence there is, then why are you even writing in this thread? AAh, you like stealing the OP's light..

You know how you don't want to read through some long, boring post. I have to thank you for not making yours long and boring. But the opposite is almost as bad. You have to make it long enough to explain what you are talking about. Otherwise, what's the use?

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
March 12, 2015, 03:11:46 AM
99% of BADeckers posts are nothing but crap, he clearly cannot provide this evidence, because he is a virgin.

There is no point in discussing with someone that suffers from Dunning Kruger:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
March 12, 2015, 03:10:26 AM
99% of BADeckers posts are nothing but crap, he clearly cannot provide this evidence, because he is a virgin.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 12, 2015, 03:08:49 AM

Twisting "what" around?  Example?

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

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

You forgot the part about how you wouldn't accept it, simply because you don't want to accept it. Otherwise you would at least acknowledge the things that I have shown in this post, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395, even if you didn't acknowledge my non-scientific explanations. Since you won't even acknowledge them, even though you say you believe that God exists, your appearance to others is hypocritical, even if you know in your heart that you aren't.

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
March 12, 2015, 03:08:30 AM
BADecker, FFS, its a book! Made of dead tree's.. and since you throw out every other peice of evidence there is, then why are you even writing in this thread? AAh, you like stealing the OP's light..
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 12, 2015, 03:03:52 AM
Most people who think about it know that the speed of light is a constant. Light travels at the rate of 186,000 miles per second. This, however, has been shown by recent experimentation to be wrong. In fact, the speed of light travels at varying rates at different times. The evidence that this is commonly accepted by scientists lies in the redshift of certain stars and galaxies.

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago if the universe is indeed that old? We don't know. We can guess. We can estimate to some extent. But we don't know for a fact.

In the past, there might have been tremendously great differences between the "constants" that we see now, and what they were in the distant past. How do we know? Because we are finding tiny differences in many so-called constants year by year right now.

The same is true for much of physics. For example, the simple, well-known physics of the operation of stars is being entirely overturned by the electric cosmos findings.

The point is, we can barely measure things that are right under our noses with reasonable accuracy. The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion years old universe is pure speculation. It is based on the idea that the constants that we see now were constants over all time. But they are not.

The Bible on the other hand, was taken from writings that came down from almost the beginning, 6,000 years ago. These writings were sifted through by Moses, a prince of Egypt between 1,500 and 1,600 BC. He wrote the basics of what he found, down, in the first 5 books of what would become the Bible.

The strength of the Bible is way stronger that scientific observations of today.

The age of the current creation is right around 6,000 years. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10706854 to show how the Bible itself can be interpreted showing both, 6,000 for this creation, but time-like additions for the whole timeline of the earth https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10706854.

Smiley

If this is your evidence and proof of the earth being 6.000 years there is absolutly no point in keep arguing with you, im sorry friend you are just stupid, not trying to be offensive but someone that keeps denying the hundreds of proofa and methods to determinate the earth's age is just stupid. DUNING KRUGER EFFECT LADIES AND GENTLEMANS

This is the little tip of it. The evidence that the Bible is truth and has strength lies in the fact that it is an impossible to exist book. The history of how it came about, the various authors, the tradition that Israel holds regarding the O.T., the tradition that the miracles are truth, and many other items, not the least of which are all the fulfilled prophesies, show that the Bible is great, beyond understanding, and beyond being able to exist by any means that we understand. Since this is true, the Bible has greater strength than all the hypothetical scientific extrapolations about the age of the earth and universe.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 12, 2015, 02:58:38 AM
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.


Correct, debating against faith is futile because the total lack of evidence supporting the belief leaves you with nothing solid to debate against.

But, it is also futile to debate Intelligent Design with anyone who demands physical evidence for an Intelligent Designer.  It is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to ever be any.

This is because of the following:

Premise 1:  Empiricism can only explore and conclude upon what's observed (axiomatic).
Premise 2:  An intelligent designer cannot possibly be observed (axiomatic).
Therefore:  Empiricism cannot explore and conclude upon an Intelligent Designer (logical deduction from true premises)

Further explanation and support of premises:

1)  Premise #1 is axiomatically true because the definition of Empiricism is "the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience."

2)  Premise #2 is axiomatically true because a total lack of constraint (i.e. infinite) is the defining characteristic of an intelligent designer.
By "defining characteristic," I mean that being infinite and totally lacking constraint is the only criteria by which it can be distinguished from all other real phenomena that is necessarily constrained.

3)  The conclusion follows from the premises because, since Empiricism can only explore that which is constrained so as to be distinguishable to the senses, and because an Intelligent Designer necessarily and totally lacks any constraint, it follows that Empiricism cannot explore Intelligent Design (and thus obviously can't soundly comment upon it one way or another).

So, even if you assume an Intelligent Designer exists right off the bat, it is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be any physical evidence for one. 

It is simply a bad, invalid argument to conclude it is silly to believe in an Intelligent Designer due to a lack of physical evidence.


Of course, when you don't look at or talk about the physical evidence, then there isn't any in your discussion. Yet, the physical evidence has been shown right here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
March 12, 2015, 01:33:39 AM
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.


Correct, debating against faith is futile because the total lack of evidence supporting the belief leaves you with nothing solid to debate against.

But, it is also futile to debate Intelligent Design with anyone who demands physical evidence for an Intelligent Designer.  It is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to ever be any.

This is because of the following:

Premise 1:  Empiricism can only explore and conclude upon what's observed (axiomatic).
Premise 2:  An intelligent designer cannot possibly be observed (axiomatic).
Therefore:  Empiricism cannot explore and conclude upon an Intelligent Designer (logical deduction from true premises)

Further explanation and support of premises:

1)  Premise #1 is axiomatically true because the definition of Empiricism is "the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience."

2)  Premise #2 is axiomatically true because a total lack of constraint (i.e. infinite) is the defining characteristic of an intelligent designer.
By "defining characteristic," I mean that being infinite and totally lacking constraint is the only criteria by which it can be distinguished from all other real phenomena that is necessarily constrained.

3)  The conclusion follows from the premises because, since Empiricism can only explore that which is constrained so as to be distinguishable to the senses, and because an Intelligent Designer necessarily and totally lacks any constraint, it follows that Empiricism cannot explore Intelligent Design (and thus obviously can't soundly comment upon it one way or another).

So, even if you assume an Intelligent Designer exists right off the bat, it is a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be any physical evidence for one. 

It is simply a bad, invalid argument to conclude it is silly to believe in an Intelligent Designer due to a lack of physical evidence.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
March 12, 2015, 01:25:24 AM
Most people who think about it know that the speed of light is a constant. Light travels at the rate of 186,000 miles per second. This, however, has been shown by recent experimentation to be wrong. In fact, the speed of light travels at varying rates at different times. The evidence that this is commonly accepted by scientists lies in the redshift of certain stars and galaxies.

The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago if the universe is indeed that old? We don't know. We can guess. We can estimate to some extent. But we don't know for a fact.

In the past, there might have been tremendously great differences between the "constants" that we see now, and what they were in the distant past. How do we know? Because we are finding tiny differences in many so-called constants year by year right now.

The same is true for much of physics. For example, the simple, well-known physics of the operation of stars is being entirely overturned by the electric cosmos findings.

The point is, we can barely measure things that are right under our noses with reasonable accuracy. The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion years old universe is pure speculation. It is based on the idea that the constants that we see now were constants over all time. But they are not.

The Bible on the other hand, was taken from writings that came down from almost the beginning, 6,000 years ago. These writings were sifted through by Moses, a prince of Egypt between 1,500 and 1,600 BC. He wrote the basics of what he found, down, in the first 5 books of what would become the Bible.

The strength of the Bible is way stronger that scientific observations of today.

The age of the current creation is right around 6,000 years. See http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10706854 to show how the Bible itself can be interpreted showing both, 6,000 for this creation, but time-like additions for the whole timeline of the earth https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10706854.

Smiley

If this is your evidence and proof of the earth being 6.000 years there is absolutly no point in keep arguing with you, im sorry friend you are just stupid, not trying to be offensive but someone that keeps denying the hundreds of proofa and methods to determinate the earth's age is just stupid. DUNING KRUGER EFFECT LADIES AND GENTLEMANS
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
March 12, 2015, 12:34:13 AM
Using genealogy, we can roughly estimate the age of the earth, as stated by the Bible, to be 6500 years. The very top estimate would be close to 10,000 years, but that’s a stretch. Science has proven that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has shown us this, and has remained consistent with lunar and terrestrial samples. In other words, we haven’t just tested this once in one situation, it’s been extensively tested. This isn’t a guess, or a hunch, there’s a substantial amount of evidence to back this up.

Unfortunately some people are so stubborn that they can keep themselves from believing the evidence even if it jumps up and bites them in the left eye.
BADecker will be along shortly to give us an actual real life example of such behaviour.

See, told yeah he'd give us a good demonstration. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
March 12, 2015, 12:33:31 AM


The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i


I think I threw up in my mouth...



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.

 Cheesy

EDIT: Wow! 201.

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.

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

Smiley

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.  

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.

Smiley

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

Twisting "what" around?  Example?

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

Because you can't.  Because you don't know how.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 12, 2015, 12:18:30 AM


The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i


I think I threw up in my mouth...



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.

 Cheesy

EDIT: Wow! 201.

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.

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

Smiley

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.  

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.

Smiley

EDIT: Did you ever think of applying to here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hiring-trolls-please-apply-inside-985841 ?
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
March 12, 2015, 12:03:46 AM


The point is, what was the speed of light 2,000 years ago? What was it 10,000 years ago i


I think I threw up in my mouth...



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.

 Cheesy

EDIT: Wow! 201.

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.

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

Smiley

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.  
Jump to: