Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 398. (Read 845809 times)

legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 09, 2014, 11:00:42 AM
dear BADecker. Your god's 'ineffable' (spelt correctly for the punctuality insane) name is 'TETRAGRAMMATON.'

What does this mean? If you cannot answer, or choose not to, you have no right to speak of said diety.. since you clearly know nothing of your god, despite your knowledge of a bit of dead tree.. albeit a page..

Often a person's brain uses a three-letter code when speaking between its parts. Speaking spirit to Spirit with God is the thing that is important in life. The language that people use between themselves usually weakens the meanings of the spirit-to-Spirit language.

Smiley

Meaning your word's mean nothing, not just to me, but everyone.. you have zero argument's for the proof of god, consideing your evidence is nothing more than a cleverly written peice of science fiction.. that's so out of date, I'm surprised you aint got food poisoning..

Wow, Decky. You are getting just like the atheists.

Make a hand. Can't? Well make a blade of grass. No, I don't mean grow one. I mean formulate and manufacture one, and set life to it. Can't? Well, what can you do that is marvelous? Anybody can yammer.

Modern medical research has found methods to manipulate the healing abilities of the body to some extent. They can cut out cancers. They can help bones grow better and stronger after they are broken. They actually have some vaccines that really work. But modern medical science hasn't come close to making a real live hand from scratch. They haven't even found a way to regrow a new one on a person who lost an original.

Why hasn't modern scientific medicine been able to make a hand? So far, it's because the process is way too complicated. In fact, they don't really have a working, feasible process for doing it in mind at all!

Look at the prosthetic hands science has created. The computer controlled prosthetic hands are wonderful. There are even methods coming into being where real bionic hands can feel pressure and heat. Marvelous stuff. Costs billions to develop... especially if you consider all the past research that makes the present research possible.

Yet, an average, healthy person is born with two hands that he/she received for free. Modern science can't make them. But they are given free, naturally.

Nature is way smarter than medical science. In fact, nature is so smart that modern science goes to it just to find out what questions they should ask, so that they can properly review nature to look for answers.

So, how did nature get so smart? I mean, if blades of grass, or even hands, were all the smarter that nature had become, nature would still be smart beyond understanding. After all, science still hasn't fully understood how blades of grass and hands come into being entirely.

But nature didn't stop with blades of grass and hands. Nature was so extremely smart that it produced eyes, and brains, and thousands upon of thousands of species of plants and animals, all of them having marvelous reproductive systems, things that the smartest people are only starting to emulate in the machine shop a little bit today.

How smart is a rock? How smart is entropy? A rock has no smarts or non-smarts. And entropy is the breaking down of the things that smart nature has produced. And we, the product of smart nature, because our brains and minds themselves are products of nature, don't even really know if we won't destroy ourselves off the face of the earth before we have the chance to find out all the marvels of smart nature.

How "dumb" can you smart people get? Here's smart nature doing all kinds of fabulous things that smart people can't even come close to doing, and the smart people are dumb enough to contradict their own dictionary definition of "God," even though they work with the super-smart things of nature that God has produced.

It's gotta be entropy that has made these smart people of science so stupid.

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 09, 2014, 07:31:09 AM
dear BADecker. Your god's 'ineffable' (spelt correctly for the punctuality insane) name is 'TETRAGRAMMATON.'

What does this mean? If you cannot answer, or choose not to, you have no right to speak of said diety.. since you clearly know nothing of your god, despite your knowledge of a bit of dead tree.. albeit a page..

Often a person's brain uses a three-letter code when speaking between its parts. Speaking spirit to Spirit with God is the thing that is important in life. The language that people use between themselves usually weakens the meanings of the spirit-to-Spirit language.

Smiley

Meaning your word's mean nothing, not just to me, but everyone.. you have zero argument's for the proof of god, consideing your evidence is nothing more than a cleverly written peice of science fiction.. that's so out of date, I'm surprised you aint got food poisoning..
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
November 09, 2014, 12:15:27 AM
Sorry dude, it's one thing to preach, and another to practice, your book means as much as your daily attendance at church, which is probably non-existant making all your bible bashin shit nothing more than a mute point.. nowt mair than shit talkin fi a wannab preist, who knows nothing of getting folks to buy said trash book. Your tbh, fuckin uselss arguments for the SCIENTIFIC proof of god do nothin but make more people say, fuck church.. fuck the bible.. you are a coward who knows when to shut up.. when the rest remind you that your book is nothing but fuckin poison. As can clearly be read in your words. Sittin there thinkin your gods gift to whatever claiming others are occultists.. you cant even recognise athiests DONT believe in god, and occultists DO, so what is it fuckwit, think you can change subject anytime ya want? Thats why i STAY AWAY FROM CHURCH, FOR FEAR OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU.

"Knowledge puffeth up, but love builds up."

How high do you want to be built, Decky?

 Kiss

EDIT: How does an atheist know that he is an atheist? He doesn't, since he has no proof that God doesn't exist. But, he confirms that God exists by taking on the role of a god when he says that God doesn't exist. In other words, he is placing himself in the position of a god by making a determination that only God can make.

Atheists are ignorant hypocrites, and they don't even know it.

EDIT: If atheists were simply atheists, because nobody told them about God or atheism, they might stand a chance of being atheists. But when they make the claim, they are putting themselves up as a god by have the god-like quality of making some kind of a claim for anything, even for atheism.

Denying the existence of god does not make you a god. Your attempt to do semantic gymnastics in order to assert that an atheist not believing in god actually confirms god makes absolutely no sense. That's one of the most absurd lines of logic that has been posted in this thread.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
November 09, 2014, 12:12:26 AM
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.'  Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept.  It simply doesn't work.  Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot.  Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.

So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god?  And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?

The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God.  They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose.  The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.

So yes, it's a bad analogy.  It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground.  You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.

Ah, are you then referring to the existence of "god" vs. the existence of "God?" The former being a concept and the latter being a specific deity, such as the Christian or Muslim or what-have-you? I'm not sure it matters anyway, but if you're referring to the second, the analogy is a match.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 08, 2014, 03:45:58 PM
Sorry dude, it's one thing to preach, and another to practice, your book means as much as your daily attendance at church, which is probably non-existant making all your bible bashin shit nothing more than a mute point.. nowt mair than shit talkin fi a wannab preist, who knows nothing of getting folks to buy said trash book. Your tbh, fuckin uselss arguments for the SCIENTIFIC proof of god do nothin but make more people say, fuck church.. fuck the bible.. you are a coward who knows when to shut up.. when the rest remind you that your book is nothing but fuckin poison. As can clearly be read in your words. Sittin there thinkin your gods gift to whatever claiming others are occultists.. you cant even recognise athiests DONT believe in god, and occultists DO, so what is it fuckwit, think you can change subject anytime ya want? Thats why i STAY AWAY FROM CHURCH, FOR FEAR OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU.

"Knowledge puffeth up, but love builds up."

How high do you want to be built, Decky?

 Kiss

EDIT: How does an atheist know that he is an atheist? He doesn't, since he has no proof that God doesn't exist. But, he confirms that God exists by taking on the role of a god when he says that God doesn't exist. In other words, he is placing himself in the position of a god by making a determination that only God can make.

Atheists are ignorant hypocrites, and they don't even know it.

EDIT: If atheists were simply atheists, because nobody told them about God or atheism, they might stand a chance of being atheists. But when they make the claim, they are putting themselves up as a god by have the god-like quality of making some kind of a claim for anything, even for atheism.
member
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
November 08, 2014, 07:41:38 AM
I do not need proof.

As per experience I have been over the worst times but God made me who I am today.

That is proof enough I think.
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 08, 2014, 06:19:25 AM
Sorry dude, it's one thing to preach, and another to practice, your book means as much as your daily attendance at church, which is probably non-existant making all your bible bashin shit nothing more than a mute point.. nowt mair than shit talkin fi a wannab preist, who knows nothing of getting folks to buy said trash book. Your tbh, fuckin uselss arguments for the SCIENTIFIC proof of god do nothin but make more people say, fuck church.. fuck the bible.. you are a coward who knows when to shut up.. when the rest remind you that your book is nothing but fuckin poison. As can clearly be read in your words. Sittin there thinkin your gods gift to whatever claiming others are occultists.. you cant even recognise athiests DONT believe in god, and occultists DO, so what is it fuckwit, think you can change subject anytime ya want? Thats why i STAY AWAY FROM CHURCH, FOR FEAR OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 07, 2014, 10:50:36 PM
dear BADecker. Your god's 'ineffable' (spelt correctly for the punctuality insane) name is 'TETRAGRAMMATON.'

What does this mean? If you cannot answer, or choose not to, you have no right to speak of said diety.. since you clearly know nothing of your god, despite your knowledge of a bit of dead tree.. albeit a page..

Often a person's brain uses a three-letter code when speaking between its parts. Speaking spirit to Spirit with God is the thing that is important in life. The language that people use between themselves usually weakens the meanings of the spirit-to-Spirit language.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
November 07, 2014, 10:46:06 PM
Am I the only person that can't keep up with anything this guy is saying^^?

Actually, almost anyone can keep up. Decky DOES have a lot of interesting info. You simply have to ferret it out of all the wasted language that he throws in. Sometimes it is fun doing it.

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 10:40:48 PM
dear BADecker. Your god's 'ineffable' (spelt correctly for the punctuality insane) name is 'TETRAGRAMMATON.'

What does this mean? If you cannot answer, or choose not to, you have no right to speak of said diety.. since you clearly know nothing of your god, despite your knowledge of a bit of dead tree.. albeit a page..
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 10:36:26 PM
Haha.. think you can buy mine?
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 10:34:25 PM
I think from now on, to speak your mind regarding your 'god', you must write your version of his 'ineffable' name.. only then should you be viewed as 'worthy' of defending your particular 'god' by taking part in this thread.. but you cant, because you know nothing of said countless 'in-effable' names.. testing testing, I hope your ready..
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 10:30:42 PM
Hey, if you think that's bad, I'm trying to keep up too!!

(you missed BADecker sayin am an athiest, only to THEN say I'm an occultist, which by definition requires a belief in god, so if I'm an occultist, I believe in his god?)

So which is it, AM I an atheist, or do I believe in god? (granting BADecker the right to say I'm an occultist)

sr. member
Activity: 270
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 10:27:16 PM
Am I the only person that can't keep up with anything this guy is saying^^?
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 10:26:18 PM
My turn.. tomorrow, I will argue the scientific proof based on freemasonry only.. rest assured I am not a mason, but will leave the best of them standing with my knowledge of.. speak any words you think will prove 'god' - I will answer.. in the true masonic code.

(font for sale)

I just hope you really CAN read Wink

Stenography is about to get an overhaul.
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 10:20:12 PM
Just as I thought.. not one motherfuckin word.. pussy bible basher knows nowt about his own religion (TETRAGRAMMATON), never mind what he wants us to 'see'.. how can we see HIS god, when WE ARE that which he tries to convince us of, by using another, in the guise of diety? He fail's because all he has is a worn ot tree, which incidently is one of a plethora of tree's KILLED in the name of his GOD. My god would see him die in the attempt to kill one tree if it was to be used to print such trash.. only since the bible has been 'created' has this planet lost over 60% of total life form's, all in the name of this diety that demand's faith, hope, or charity.. note feeding the homeless is now illegal in a country that like's to think they have a god given right to do whatever? Does that mean take me on? I'm up for that.. I could bring down america with a simple lower case alpha. America is dead. It's just their brains have yet to catch on.. aint that right GODecker?
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
November 07, 2014, 10:17:05 PM

Thanks for proving I was right not wasting an hour on him.  The so called man footprints were debunked a long time ago. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Science has made a amazing case for evolution over and over and over.  There is a reason only the occasional nutjob like him thinks he can disprove it.

Debunked? I don't see much counter-evidence in those 4 paragraphs of rhetoric.

Naturally, those who believe the fallacious claims of evolution theory can't be persuaded by reason and evidence. It follows that once you abandon sound judgement for wishful thinking, assumption-based reasoning, and willful ignorance (as cooldgamer demonstrated for all), then its impossible to reach the correct conclusions.

Another example of how science disproves evolution:

'Living fossils' such as the coelacanth. If the evolution model is correct, then there should be no 'living fossil' evidence against it. If the coelacanth is used to date rocks, or the rock layers are used to date the coelacanth, and we find a coelacanth alive that's identical to the fossil, that's a death blow to the theory.

Dear foggyb,

You don't seem to understand what evolution actually is. Look at Charles Darwin work for a basic understanding. Evolution occurs for survival. I.E if two species of birds lived on one island and both species hunted the same prey, one or the other would have to evolve more efficient ways of catching their prey better than the other species of bird.

A fish(coelacanth), survivng millenea and being relatively the same today as it was back then, just shows that there was no competition, so no need for it to evolve or change.
sr. member
Activity: 270
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 10:15:46 PM
The real questions is, scientific proof God doesn't exist? 0.o
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 10:11:39 PM
I'm thinking.. aloud.. How can an athiest be an occultist, if he does not believe in god? Because to be an occultist, you must accept A: the bible, and B: the devil. A: = Nothing more than a very complicated way to B: Which you must be if your an occultist, by definition of the word. I'm stumped.. I'm an occultist because I get on a bus, go to work, come home, test a few hacks, n rip the shit ooty bible basher's.. wow.. I'm not american, but just as bad, yeehaa.. can I get a cowboy hat or a fuckin horse? Anything that allows me to pick up a gun like only an american can do, and shoot badecker just for sayin his shit.. It's fuckin strange that everyything I was taught was to look after dicks like this when the shit hits the fan, I mean, if the enemy was about to point a gun at you, and BADecker was in front, would you do your 'rightous' thing, and ask him politely to move out of your bullet's path? Fuck that, We can kill two bird's with one stone.. just please wipe the memory he may have that allow's him to be reborn.. (quick head smack of bonnet of car, crack skull material) Only then will he know I'm right: I AM, so are WE ALL!! Fuck BADeckers people.. if we dont, the rest of the world will.. fuckin rightous twats think god included white man.. note they never metioned that in said book?
sr. member
Activity: 630
Merit: 250
November 07, 2014, 09:54:05 PM
BADecker.. Decked by BADDER..
Jump to: