Quote from: BADecker on April 14, 2015, 09:15:28 PM

Quote from: XinXan on April 14, 2015, 08:15:20 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 14, 2015, 04:40:59 PM

Well, now. God has been proven to exist by the things written here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. And I personally believe that all scientific investigation is part of the proof that God exists. This isn't to say that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe.

The Bible, while not as full of evidence for the existence of God, is full of evidence that shows that it is an impossible book. The way it was written, the period of time it took, the traditions of the Jews (Hebrews) regarding it, the facts of life that it expresses, the fulfilled prophesies, the fact that it may be the the book with the widest distribution worldwide ever, the fact that its popularity is beyond any other, all show that it is impossible for it to have come into existence.

So, why and how could an impossible-to-exist book ever have come into existence without God moving it into being?

Dont we all agreed that your "proof" was only fallacies? I think we all did but you, i dont know if you have some sort of problem but you better check it with a doctor

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." So is proof.

In a jury trial, often the evidence is sufficient to convince some of the members of the jury, but not enough to convince other members.

Perhaps the majority of forum members who have viewed the evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, have indeed concluded that it is not enough evidence to be proof. Yet there are non-forum members all over the world who adhere to this evidence as proof.

If the evidence at the link were the only evidence - for example, the evidence of probability for the complexity of the universe coming about in some other form, strongly suggests that God is the only thing that could have done it - then you detractors of the proof for God might have some little strength. But since the evidences at the link are only 3 or 4 evidences when there are many others as well, the amazing thing is as follows.

It is amazing that you folks who express that you want to believe the real truth, are so willing to believe such falsehood regarding God... the falsehood that He does not exist. I'm sure you aren't retarded in the regular sense of the word. But what is it that blinds you so extremely much, that you don't want to acknowledge the truth of the evidence that is right in front of your eyes?

That's what some people are like, I guess.

No, proof is not "in the eye of the beholder."

Proof is proof. If I believe that some evidence constitutes proof for something but you don't believe the same, then neither one of us can be certain if proof is "in the eye of the beholder."

Fortunately, proof is not "in the eye of the beholder." Our opinion is irrelevant. All we need to do is look to the logical rules of sound inference to determine whether the evidence actually constitutes proof. Specifically, we look to these rules and ask the question, "Is it logical that our conclusion necessarily follows from the evidence?"

The answer is either that it does or doesn't. There is no middle ground. The evidence you keep referencing is not proof for God, and that won't change no matter how hard you try to convince yourselef.