Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 462. (Read 845654 times)

Get it right dick (yup, another foreskin puller who dont believe, so attacks those who try to), I have no superior complex, and I'll bet you 100 btc right now that I have the actual answer the OP seeks, if you dont have 100 btc, fuck off back to school. YOU cant afford to have a conversation with me, especially when you refuse the evidence.

Where is YOUR scientific proof of god? If you dont believe, fuck off to the alcoholic pc section designed entirely for clueless cunts like you.

100btc for THE definative answer, the fee is a disclosure fee, take it or leave it.. bet you CANT (using the excuse you wont) pay for the answer you seek, or you would not be reading my junk, idiot!!!!!

And the reason I attack is cause your that dumb you think I'm your brother, stop LYING, and go get a fuckin brain.

Edit: remix of above sentence: The reason I attack you is your that dumb you believe that I am your brother, despite me writing in this thread my mother is dead, making me having a brother SCIENTIFICALLY impossible, stop trying to convince people of your delusions by lying in the hope your kindred will jump in to back YOU up, do I look like your brother? If so, forgive me.. now here's your straight jacket, there's the fuckin door, use it.

Oh, and if it appear's to you I have a superior complex, you are mistaken.. you were told to read books, NOT pdf's or html. It's not my fault I have a superior Scottish education to your fuckin tribal nonsense.. I bet the only reason you dance around the fire is cause you've yet to learn not to stand on hot embers.

Ps, that 100 btc for the definitive answer is offered to all, not that we need it.. but it's worth paying.

They are analogous because the reason one thing happen is its cause.
It's a reason, not a meaning.

The reason of two protons giving helium is nuclear force. There is no meaning underlying though.

So... The Superiority Complex emerges in it's full glory for all to see. Keep on keeping on brother. You're so much more than I.

I slept through most of my philosophy class lectures. More technology has been created in the last 100 years than when those academics looked down upon the unwashed masses. At least religion has an appetite for smiting which requires technological advancement of weaponry. Philosophy rarely calls anyone to action.

Perhaps not, but these principles are analogous.

Try to understand what the author of that quote is saying; he is a profound and very objective thinker.

He said a lot of profound things, only a few of which are found here:
http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

So the scientist does not want to "go there" and assume a cause?

Objective and subjective things he thus ascertains to be alike inscrutable in their substance and genesis.

He learns at once the greatness and the littleness of the human intellect — its power in dealing with all that comes within the range of experience, its impotence in dealing with all that transcends experience. He, more than any other (except maybe Socrates), truly knows that in its ultimate nature nothing can be known.

Even the fact of your existence would now be subject to doubt.
Unavoidable as is this belief, it is yet a belief admitting of no justification by reason: nay, indeed, it is a belief which reason, when pressed for a distinct answer, rejects.

Ultimate religious ideas and ultimate scientific ideas, alike turn out to be merely symbols of the actual, not cognitions of it.

I like the word 'symbol' better than 'guess'; presumably, there can be knowledge in the context of semiotics; a guess excludes knowledge. I have quoted Spencer above, and below is Pascal:

"What a Chimera is man! What a novelty, a monster, a chaos, a contradiction, a prodigy! Judge of all things, an imbecile worm; depository of truth, and sewer of error and doubt; the glory and refuse of the universe. Who shall unravel this confusion?"

"It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself."

That's not the point
The fact that everything has a cause (true or false) doesn't imply the fact that everything has a meaning/reason

What happens if all the science you thought was true turns out to be false? Does that mean your cause is false? Your question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Science doesn't need causes from the past, it only wants to make predictions about the future. Sometimes our science relies on best guesses.

When I posted the maths of the magic squares, I showed that maths is the universal language, even though I knew others knew this. I am at least twice the age you estimate, and the Kybalion in my opinion is just one book that attempts to describe the events of the bible in simple scientific, provable facts barring one, which I refer folks to in the guis of hidden energies of the earth. I only quoted from the Kybalion, never used it.

If I had the skills I have, before churches were built, I'd be called more than an alchemist (i do know how to make an ever burning lamp, brass, bitumen (miss a few ingredients intentionally)) as I go on a set of decks and control THOUSANDS of minds at once, they know I do it, and they love it. They dance to it, and I get laid afterwards. My electrical knowledge leaves you standing, in this I am a scientist, so yeah, I guess I am an alchemist, since I know which chemicals NOT to blend.

Have I read the emerald tablets? At one point, every day like some read a bible, not only that, I've re-written it, and comes in the form of an audio book that I created for a blind friend. I have worked in esoteric fields, I have read every esoteric book available online, previous to the last few years, the older the better.. If ya wanna attack an aquarian in the age of aquarius keep in mind that the diety we seek evidence of is more likely to back me up for the next 26.000 years. Have you ever known an aquarian to toe the line, to do what they're told, to follow old, when they ARE the creators of origionality in ways you could not fathom? They are not only the ORIGIONATORS, and hence akin to a creator, something you are incapable of as you attack despite my evidence that god was required to feed his kid. But you only choose to see what you wanna see, you have to look with better eyes..

Edt: And when I seem to be attacking, keep in mind I am individual, here on my own, and back no-one up, since I have been, Am, and always will be on my own in this reality, and speak for myself using the plethora of information this planet can offer. As for knockin folks over the head with it, dont take my word for it, read a bit more like I did, from books, not the internet. I only react to percieved attacks. Have I attacked ?

The only reason I dont just lay it down is because I gotta be gentle with some o em pussyyyyyyy's...

Edit: The only reason folks find it difficult to twist me to their way of thinking is a very un-usual aquarian trait.. I never pick side's, I like to remain a man in the middle, like a peacekeeper. When my son asked what football team I support, I said Scotland, even though it's a crap team.. Why Scotland, dad, and not a scottish team? For then we are not devided, my son. So when one sect of religion gangs up on a soul son, they should prepare for more than war.. they should prepare for the age of aquarius, the only people clever enough to create the third choice of the two offered, and go that way.. cya..

Ps, incidently, I was born in '69 hahaha

What happens when you assume that science is not founded upon the principle that everything has a cause?

Huh?

There are humorists that make a great deal of money and are very popular for their sarcasm. Perhaps you shouldn't be so sensitive about an obvious play at physical comedy.

I would prefer you explain the true meaning of sarcasm and attempt to understand that for yourself.

Honesty is the best policy, closely linked to the golden rule.

I was just pointing out the wonder of God's glory. Would you prefer a picture of an ebola victim?

Sarcasm... What is the meaning behind that?

I almost forgot somebody important!
Now that I have remembered, I can say that everyone reading this thread right now is in for a big treat!






Get the whole scoop.

Science is actually proof of God in itself.

Science and maths is only possible because of the patterns and order in the universe. After all, what is science and maths in it's purest form? Is it not simply a record of immutable and repeatable patterns in nature. In reality (not on a screen that can be manipulated) 2 + 2 will ALWAYS = 4. It's a simple repeatable fact of how reality works.

The intelligence built into this universe is a wonder in itself.

Decks, just please don't tell me you're into that alchemy nonsense and believe you'll eventually be able to control other people's minds and change reality with the power of your mind. Just please don't say that. It's the ultimate level of hubris, arrogance and reveals an spectacular superiority complex.

I'd say that you're in your 20's and only discovered these texts in the last 2 years? I reckon you rate The Kybalion (written in 1969). Am I wrong?

Don't get knowledge you don't fully understand and then try to knock people over the head with it. Read it CAREFULLY. All sacred texts talk about how you live your life here on planet earth as a spiritual being. What you are displaying here does not show that you intend to adhere to that principle. Have you actually read The Emerald Tablets of Thoth in it's entirety (not just a few selected passages that you can smash other people over the head with)?

Check the reference.

I've no scientific proof of God. But I can see many scientific and logical proofs there is no God, or at least none of those Religion describes.
In the more plain and logical ground, none of the mythological creatures they describe as God does actually qualify to be one. They show too much of human weaknesses and ignorance, aren't "Almighty" at all, need humans to do their dirty work... in sum; the evidences are more than clear that it was men who created god(s) and not the other way around.
In the creation ground, we would have endless questions if we accept creationism: who created God? Who created who created God? And before him? And so on, and so on...

Meanwhile, please hit us with your version of the scientific proof of god?

Edit: Away to the dark side, nite nite..