Quote from: BADecker on December 04, 2017, 01:14:12 AM

Quote from: sirazimuth on December 03, 2017, 10:59:54 PM

Quote from: sirazimuth on September 24, 2017, 01:39:56 AM

i like to scroll this thread to see how many times my buddy BADecker
posts these links....

Quote from: BADecker on September 12, 2017, 03:13:40 PM

One of the greatest things that science is proving is that the universe is way beyond us and our feeble minds to understand.

One of the things that science proved long ago is that God, who understands the whole universe, exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cool

everytime he does... i drink..
dude!! it's been 10 pages or so!! come on man WTF??... i got a six pack waiting!!

Quote from: BADecker on November 29, 2017, 12:19:44 AM

Quote from: Astargath on November 28, 2017, 11:54:14 PM

Quote from: protokol on November 28, 2017, 05:21:51 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 28, 2017, 05:05:02 PM

Quote from: nix_7878 on November 28, 2017, 04:55:45 PM

For now there is no 100% scientific proof of God existence, but I believe even science will lead us to God existence.

Cause and effect exists in everything. There is no pure random. The thing we call random or probability arises from our inability to see tiny details, like which molecules move a leaf as it twists in the summer breeze.

Cause and effect are like programming. Cause and effect all by itself almost proves that God exists, and programed everything to be what it is.

When you add complexity and entropy to the way things exist and operate, the only way they could exist and operate is through God. If God didn't exist, none of the universe would exist as it does.

None of this explains what God is in detail. We can draw some conclusions about the nature of God from science and observation of nature. But the details are limited without direct revelation from God, Himself.

Whatever brought the universe into existence, no matter what form or qualities He has, It is still God.

Cool

if I had a nickel for every time BADecker mentions "cause and effect" and "entropy" without fully understanding the concepts of them I'd be a millionai... Oh wait I own some bitcoin.

Nice.

Tell me about it. After explaining to him several times that those things do not prove god, he just ignores my posts. His delusion wont let him see the truth.

In all your so-called explaining, you have essentially said nothing. You have not explained why and how those things do not prove God. You have only said over and over that I am wrong.

Yet, I have explained over and over how and why they do prove God. Standard examples are listed here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Come on. You can do better than that. If you can't, all your nay-saying is political science, and worthy of no review at all.

Cool

Holy mother of mythical invisible sky fairy!!.... dude!!!
i take a break from here and come back
a few billion pages later and you are still posting your boilerplate links??
damn ... you need to do an update or something!
but that's ok my friend!!

i get to drink!!! lmao

Those links contain the information that proves that God exists. Obviously the info can be written in many different ways. Do me a favor, and write it all up for me in a different way.

Btw, Astargath has proven that he is full of political science... not understanding of the science that proves or disproves that God exists. If he knew anything about science, he would state his points rather than just copying and pasting links to other peoples' work.

Cool

''Gods own complexity implies that He also had a designer. Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design. By using God as an explanation the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (Gods). But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all. It just moves the mystery back a step.''

''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of partsthat is, if it shows complexity. But this is certainly mistaken. We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature. In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.

For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed. Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed. How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures? Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp. We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in naturethat is, they have signs of manufacture.

Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''

''we dont know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture. Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''

Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is''

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390

'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)

There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)''

''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.

The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.

When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.''

You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now.

The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, But what caused God?. The standard answer is, Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this?