Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 392. (Read 845654 times)

I know, I know. I should have PMed her. Sorry about that.



Having 100% faith is different. So is knowing something for a 100% fact. One hundred percent faith is blind faith. One hundred percent fact is no faith at all.

The reason that God gave us the Bible is that most people can't live on 100% faith. Life is based on cause and effect, at least the way we perceive it. Simply living throws us out of faith some, and into looking for facts to back things up. If we were required to have blind faith in God, we would all fail.

Nobody knows anything as 100% fact. Sometimes we think we do. But we take even the most factual things in life on faith at least a tiny bit. In many of my previous posts in this thread, I have pointed out why evidence for God is way stronger than evidence for there not being any God. So, what's the big deal about 100% true (fact)? Our knowledge of such doesn't exist.

One of the primary reasons that anyone spreads his truth is as you say. We'd have a lot of lonely evolution scientists out there if they couldn't spread their "truth" to other lonely evolution scientists.



While I am interested in reactions, I am also interested in people knowing the truth. Part of the way to get people to know truth is getting them to react and respond on something.

Consider kids in school. School isn't very interesting when all the professor does is profess. There needs to be interaction, often so that the professor can learn exactly which area of his expertise people need to know about more so that they get a better picture of the truth.



That's probably a very big truth. God doesn't want people preaching a bunch of nonsense around the world. That's why I and a few others sit tight and study... just so that there are a few of us that know the bottom-line truth.



And you have a really hard time understanding that the real reason people pick on my responses and myself is, that they don't really have any logical responses for my arguments.

It hurts to be wrong, and to know that someone has showed you up. And it hurts even more to know you are wrong, but to NOT know WHY you are wrong... to feel like you have had your very base ripped out from under you. And that's the exact thing I have done to the atheists in this forum who have thoroughly read my comments here.

What else can they do than to fight back any way they know how? After all, they don't have any God who teaches them any morals (they think). So they are allowed to make their own morals, or to have none, if they so desire. So, they act like the beasts, and fight back, rather than to simply lick their wounds, and try to remain friendly.

A few of them like S.Boxx remain cordial, maybe even friendly.



It's kind of sad to see how many people accept the alternative ideas of things like evolution, big bang, and atheism... ideas which are alternative to the truth.

Oh God.


You realize it's a contradiction to have faith in something and then claim something is 100% true, right?   If you have faith in something, that specifically means that you aren't (and can't be) 100% certain that it's the truth.

Epic fail.

You and I both know that the primary reason why you spread the "truth" is because you're seeking recognition for something.  The truth is just never as fun, interesting, or beneficial unless someone else believes the same things that you do, am I right?  This is a rhetorical question.  But actually, you basically confirm this yourself when you then say:


You don't care one bit whether people know the "truth" about anything.  You're interested in reactions.


God probably doesn't want someone running around preaching a bunch of nonsense all over the world  


You have a really hard time understanding the difference between correlation and causality.  We're not picking on you because you have exposed us to alternative ideas, we're picking on you because you're proud to be wrong about things and proud to be a complete asshole to others because they don't believe the absurd things that  you do.  

But yes, your ideas are very "alternative"...like if there was an "alternative" reality with an "alternative" form of logic that is mutually exclusive from our own.

Thanks for your encouragement, BitChick. So far, in this forum, it is really fun to be able to show people the truth. They are basically nice people. Just look at the things S.Boxx has to say. His (her?) encouragement and concern are wonderful, even if he/she is a little backward in the way he says it.

I am happy for your successes in India. I haven't had the opportunity to do something like that... travel with an outreach or medical group. Maybe I simply haven't made my opportunity.

Lots of churches say that you can't receive Jesus without hearing God's Word. Personally, I am coming to believe more and more that it is in the heart through nature that you first hear Jesus... not the Bible. What I mean is this.

If God hadn't held back the destruction when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, everything would have collapsed back then.
We don't know what it would have been like to have children in a sinless state, because it never happened.
Even though little children and fetuses have sin in them (they are physically flawed in their DNA), it is the power of Jesus that they are living in from their start.
In other words, all people hear Jesus throughout their fetal life, and for the first few years as children, even though they are gradually being corrupted by sin, and the hearing is becoming dull.
The point is that ALL hear Jesus, not only those to whom the Bible is read (although most reject who have not heard the Bible because they haven't received the confirmation of God working through His Word, and they have become deaf to their original fetus and little-child training from nature).

I know that I have opened up a lot of folks in this forum to alternative ideas. It's evident from the way some of them pick on me. Oh well. They are the ones that have to live with themselves.

Thanks, again. And blessings on YOUR work.

I was one of the people that said we need to be careful not to "cast our pearls before swine" as the Bible warns.

I guess it just comes down to having wisdom to know when our words are really not going to bear any fruit or be profitable.  It isn't that I give up hope. I don't want to ever give up hope: to do so would mean that I have lost a heart of compassion.  But there comes a time when I wonder if saying nothing at all is the wiser way to go.  Perhaps the "soil" is hard and the seeds would just bounce off and not take root.  These are the times to just pray.  Nothing I say will make a difference and in fact, can just add fuel to the fire.  Many like to take things I say and twist them.  But that becomes a question of discernment in each case.  Also, I could just give up too easily and I need to work on that.

All that said, I just returned from an absolutely amazing and life changing trip to India.  I spent two weeks working with an organization, Harvestindia.org and I left with a renewed joy of the amazing things that God is doing and His love for those that are less privileged than most people here on this forum perhaps.  It isn't that God doesn't love those that are rich or have "much" but it seems that with money, power, education comes pride and self satisfaction and no need for God.  If there was a place to "cast my pearls" where they were received with joy and celebration it was in India.  I literally had women dancing for joy in my arms.  I had a vision of Jesus dancing with them as well.  I had the opportunity to feed, hug and pray for people suffering with leprosy and provide medical care and food for them and had a small glimpse of how Jesus must have felt as he was here.  It is no wonder His heart broke for them and they were more receptive to His gift of "eternal life" than those that had all their earthly needs met.  But our lives on this earth are fleeting and it takes wisdom to think beyond the short years we are given at this time.  

But press on in your good works  BADecker (and strive to speak the truth in love)  Perhaps the seeds will take root at some point.

Thanks, Boxx, for your kind words, for your trust in what I have been saying and the way I say it, and for your concern about my mental health. I would have responded like this sooner, but weekends are so hectic most of the time.

As can be readily seen in this forum, people often discuss many topics. People often have many opinions. Sometimes they back their opinions up. Sometimes they don't. So, I want to thank you again, that you think my points are real-world relevant enough that you might want to stop me from expressing them. I don't know why you would want to do this. Perhaps it is that people really don't want to hear something that makes sense, right? The fact that people go to all kinds of goofy sci-fi movies - or watch them on TV - suggests that they might not want the truth, right?

I know not everybody believes in some "magical man that lives in the clouds." Yet quite a few in this forum want to believe in magical scientists that spout all kinds of things as truth that are not... at least by any real evidence that they have to back it up.

Take evolution, for example. The commenter called the joint wants to twist the ideas of evolution into something that isn't commonly understood among folks, just to hide some of the truths about how foolish of an idea evolution is. I mean, who has a time viewer that can take a peek back to see what really happened. Nobody! And when you are dealing with something as complex as the formation of life and species, there's simply no way of outguessing what really happened. Yet that is what modern evolution promoters seem to be trying to do. Just look at all the textbooks that suggest over many pages that evolution is a fact, even though they formally mention in an obscure line or two that it isn't known to be fact for sure.

And look at my comment above yours - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9625147. Some joker by the name of Nick Szabo is credited with reaffirming some statement by another joker named Richard Dawkins, that death is more probable than life. How silly. Everybody knows that you can't have death except that you have life first. And everybody can see that there are gigantic numbers of living things that are alive, that haven't died yet.

Do people really want to believe death is more probable than life, when they can see all the living things around them that have not, yet, died? How foolish. Can't folks see that death only exists among the things that were living and are not living any more? This makes death and life probability equal among dead things. Life is way more probable because there is so much more of it that death hasn't, yet, affected. What's with the head games? Are they really trying to suggest that life and death have something to do with probability, when we all can see that death only follows in things that are living?

Your little comment about me has me a little worried about YOU. Come on down off your fictional delusions. Wake up and smell the coffee. Of course, if "they" are paying you to test me, I can understand. A person's got to earn a living. In that case, I welcome all the comments about me you want to make. We wouldn't want you to starve, now, would we?

@ BADecker

Please don't take this wrong, but you are abusing personal boundaries by trying to push your personal beliefs on other people. I am not a doctor, but you seem to be displaying many symptoms of schizophrenia. I am not trying to joke or ridicule you, but do you hear voices in your head? Maybe Jesus or God may be helping you out a little. I am concerned that you may need a good mental health evaluation. Please don't get so upset if the whole world doesn't believe in a magical man that lives in the clouds. You can't let yourself get so upset because people won't do what you want them to. I'm talking about acceptance. You have to accept every person, place, thing or situation for what it is. You are not the director of the play. If you seek true love and peace in your life, acceptance is the answer.

Thanks, S.Boxx

As always, when talking about complex subjects, all kinds of assumptions are made. They are often automatically injected, and the listener (reader), because he is focused on some major point, often misses some little assumption that can have a tremendous impact on the whole.

For example, from the above, linked, Nick Szabo article:

Look at the assumption in the first line of the quote. What is really meant by it? Does the rest of the paragraph really explain it?

Consider. Death is NOT more probable than life, because without life, there would be no death, right? I mean, something that is dead, must have been alive at some time. Otherwise it is simply an inanimate object, right?

So far in the existence that is around us, we haven't found anything that is alive, and will be alive forever. At least not that we know of. So, someone might think that life and death could be equally probable. However, here is where life is more probable than death. There exist MANY, MANY living things that have not yet died. And until they ALL die, we cannot be secure in the knowledge that they absolutely WILL die.

Personally, I do not follow Dawkins. But if he truly thinks that death is more probable than life, he is not thinking clearly. At the very least, he is not expressing himself clearly. Death is absolutely not more probable than life. Death is not even the opposite of life. In fact, life and death have nothing to do with each other except that, without life there cannot be death.



EDIT: If you read the article in its entirety, you will be able to find many places where something is inserted that is not explained. It isn't just once or twice. It is throughout the article. Such insertions may sound right and proper. Yet, because there often isn't any explanation of them at all, and because most of the time they could be explained in many different ways, the interpretation of them is left to individual readers who may have many different ideas about what is being expressed.

The point? The whole article is virtually meaningless. One might have as relevantly said, "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.," and let it go at that.

I posted the link to Steven Hawkins 2 hour tv special on this subject earlier in the thread.

Here are some thoughts by Nick Szabo:

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/tradition.html

Dank, you might find this useful reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

I've gotten progressively less heady with my philosophy. It's not so much that I believe anything different, but rather that the approach that I used to take (much more similar to yours) left me feeling frustrated, and I never made much progress with anyone.  Usually, the only people I impressed were those who wouldn't be able to tell the difference between fact and fantasy anyway, or women who swoon for heady guys, and I can tell you they weren't listening to me because of my wisdom.

I used to think that just by preaching about philosophy and meditation and truth with a (sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious) tone of subtle arrogance that people would go, "Wow! You really know something I don't! Teach me!"  Well, it didn't.  My intentions were mostly good, though of course there was some desire to seek recognition for my efforts of learning and practice.  I genuinely wanted others to benefit from what I knew.  Edit: I still act this way from time to time, as evidenced by my posts here.

Then I realized after a few years that not only was I not getting anywhere with people, but I was deluding myself into thinking that what I was doing was actually useful.  Perhaps at times it was as I believe my style of presenting information appeals to a certain type of person, but I realized that there were a lot more productive ways that I could be spending my time, facilitating good and spreading good vibes.

People just don't typically get good vibes from people who keep spouting the same thing like a broken record, no matter how true or important it might be.  Find another method.  Yours isn't working.  

Seeing oneness in the words god and universe is trapping me?

Is this still the joint from a couple years ago?

If you hold awareness and are able to conclude that you exist, you can also conclude that the universe exists.  If you can conclude through your awareness of your existence that the universe exists, you can conclude that the universe is aware.

Is god not an omnipresent form of consciousness?  Ie, the aware universe your awareness concluded to exist?

Why did you make this post?  I'm genuinely curious as to what benefit you think this post serves.

My responses:  Okay.  Okay. Yes. Yes.

...So?

Edit:  Dank, I think you're addicted to this type of philosophizing, like a drug.  I don't believe it's liberating you from anything, but trapping you further.

You sound absolutely ridiculous.  There's no possible way that you speak like this in person.  It's phony and disingenuous and you know it.

I also expect you to apologize for your condescending attitude.  You're not fooling anyone into thinking you're superior with your "Now, children" nonsense.  The only reason you're resorting to the "childish" tactics is because you have nothing constructive to say to support your arguments.

I'm taking (i.e. wasting) my time trying to actually respond point-by-point to your posts.  Furthermore, while you're far more deserving of a condescending attitude than others here by virtue of your horrible social graces and your delusional narcissism, I'm genuinely trying to educate you here and help you learn something.  I assume the reason nobody else is doing the same thing is because everyone realizes you're as dense as a concrete wall within a few seconds of listening to you.

That being said, I would appreciate if you would honor my posts with the same respect that I honor yours (when you're just spouting ignorance rather being a complete jerk, that is).  You really ought to consider the fact that you might be correct in your beliefs about God and Jesus, but have a completely irrational basis for those beliefs.  As it turns out, you do, and I've been explaining why.  It isn't a matter that's up for interpretation.

One of the worst qualities in a person is when they absolutely refuse to accept they're wrong in spite of black-and-white evidence.  If there actually are people who were converted by you, I feel especially sorry for them because you have misled them with not only information that is false, but is so plainly and absurdly false that I have trouble finding the words to express how appalling it is.   What's even more appalling is that you are proud of it.

To summarize, you're proud to be wrong, proud to misinform others, proud to be ignorant and unwilling to adapt to new information that doesn't mesh with your (flawed) beliefs about science and logic.  You're proud to be insulting, condescending, and then accuse others of acting childish when no better description could be ascribed to your own self.

God = all.  Universe = all.

Does the universe exist?

Are you aware?

It is doubtful that you will expose my beliefs as a fraud or a contradiction.

I am not here to persecute you, I just want the facts.

Why are you here to criticize me? I just want to talk to you about the facts, but you are not interested.



Got something in your eye?

Jesus had divine powers or there is something we don't get because he was walking alone in villages where no one knew him and people were gathering and following up leaving families and houses .

Oh, you just had to, didn't y.........

Wait! Hold that thought. This post was supposed to come after your response to my previous post.

eh.....   I'll finish it up later, after you respond.

Now, children. I know it hurts a little when you find out that there isn't much (if any) substance to the things that you believe. But YOU ARE ALIVE! You have the opportunity to shake your childishness off, and to move ahead in the direction of REAL TRUTH.

Don't fail me now. I have pointed you in the direction where you can find TRUE life, and love, and fulfillment. Grab hold of the things I have shown you. Run with them. LIVE!

There were those in this forum who told me it was useless to try to save you. Others suggested that I was only casting my pearls before the swine. But rather than simply accept their words, I pressed on, in the hopes that I could somehow show some of you the way. And I have succeeded with some.

Don't fail yourselves, now... now that you are so close to finding out the truths of the Bible. Jesus would love to have you with Him in His kingdom. Throw off the foolishness of your childish ways, and grow up into eternal life!

The Joint, I will definitely have a look at those references you have posted before I say much more in this thread.

I briefly want to mention that I also found a cool theory of abstract things described in the book "Coming to Understanding"; it is referenced in this article called "The Mystery of the Millionaire Metaphysician".



This is a great question. One responds with the truth by stating facts.

All I ever wanted was for you to back up your claim that the Bible is an impossible book. Actually, what you were really trying to claim is that "the Bible is the only written word of God". I had asked you to back that up!

When BADecker refused, that is when I went on the prowl, chased him, and took him down, along with his dogma.

I hope you're not implying that you're the one responding with truth.  You aren't.  Your threads intentionally avoid logic, and you make no indication that you want to learn why your arguments carry absolutely no weight.

All of your posts in this entire thread could have been summed up as "I believe in the Bible, no matter what" and it would carry just as much weight as everything else you've said.   Actually, it would carry *more* weight because it would be one of the only factual things that you've stated.


Project much?