Proof of God (Gnosticism = Knowledge is Power)

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

So just think about it like this: one represents man, one represents BEAST. Satan was never an angel. Why would God let him deceive his own angels if he is all-knowing? 

I don’t believe there’s any such being as Satan.

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I don’t believe there’s any such being as Satan.

[InvestigativeThinker]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Why do people want to prove God exist? It can not be proven or disproven due to zero actual reference point. All we got are home grown myths.

This agnostic "unprovable" claim has got to be the biggest appeal to ignorance fallacy there is as far as this whole debate goes. I already named two ways to prove God (PMFD and the three patents I listed in the second post after the opening post). You could make these devices. But instead people want to sidestep this. That is literally the scientific method. Why do you want people stuck in the 1800s when Darwin was a thing when we could actually get closer to explaining "God" as a mere concept? Darwinism is implying evolution from devolution (unintelligent design). If anything, everything serving a function would make more sense because of how mechanics works - you need to have working parts. Here's some examples of scientific stupidity that are recent:

D-Wave quantum computer: Quantum Difference Engine, not a circuit.

Apple iPhone: Quantum Analytical Engine (no source code, just qubits hence the "closed source")

CERN Large Hadron Collider: Quantum Indifference Engine (literally creates nothing aka 0-bit information aka stipulation aka GRAVITY in the most expensive project ever just to demonstrate their own stupidity for us)

 

[InvestigativeThinker]

Further, cellular technology and 5G is the expansion of Moore's Law. We are now seeing more transistors being required to accomodate this. What Apple and Google are doing is CRIMINAL!

[XenoFish]

10 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

This agnostic "unprovable" claim has got to be the biggest appeal to ignorance fallacy there is as far as this whole debate goes. I already named two ways to prove God (PMFD and the three patents I listed in the second post after the opening post). You could make these devices. But instead people want to sidestep this. That is literally the scientific method. Why do you want people stuck in the 1800s when Darwin was a thing when we could actually get closer to explaining "God" as a mere concept? Darwinism is implying evolution from devolution (unintelligent design). If anything, everything serving a function would make more sense because of how mechanics works - you need to have working parts. Here's some examples of scientific stupidity that are recent:

D-Wave quantum computer: Quantum Difference Engine, not a circuit.

Apple iPhone: Quantum Analytical Engine (no source code, just qubits hence the "closed source")

CERN Large Hadron Collider: Quantum Indifference Engine (literally creates nothing aka 0-bit information aka stipulation aka GRAVITY in the most expensive project ever just to demonstrate their own stupidity for us)

 

No you haven't. You are simply looking for something to tackle the god title to. 

[XenoFish]

God is an idea and this is how you've chosen to express that idea.

[Rlyeh]

4 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Exactly. And that's what Satan does, as do medusas (sociopaths). That's why he's called Satan. His demons deceive us. 

God is even called Satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1

[InvestigativeThinker]

10 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

God is an idea and this is how you've chosen to express that idea.

Well, I mean you could say the same for Atheism, can't you? It's just philosophical NIHILISM!

[Rlyeh]

34 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

You could make these devices. But instead people want to sidestep this. That is literally the scientific method.

So where is your research charlatan?

[Rlyeh]

32 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Further, cellular technology and 5G is the expansion of Moore's Law. We are now seeing more transistors being required to accomodate this. What Apple and Google are doing is CRIMINAL!

What crime is being committed?

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Well, I mean you could say the same for Atheism, can't you? It's just philosophical NIHILISM!

Nihilism is the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

Atheism is just not believing a God exist. 

[cormac mac airt]

10 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

What crime is being committed?

Redefining a black hole such that even Stephen Hawking is rolling his eyes…from the grave. 
 

cormac

[InvestigativeThinker]

7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Nihilism is the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

Atheism is just not believing a God exist. 

Either way, it's just a "belief" or "philosophy." This is a proposed idea. There are skeptics to the Big Bang who are Atheists just as much as religious skeptics. 

12 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

What crime is being committed?

Their surveillance of the world being one of them. Violating the most fundamental principle a person can have - PRIVACY. Google Voice listens to people in the privacy of their own homes. My aunt told me one time her Android was promoting her stuff that she was talking about in her living room. Google has also collaborated with China - a RIVAL and ROGUE state that is rivaled with the US, to help them develop facial recognition software as part of their surveillance program, as it came out in 2018. Their entire company is selling spyware products to its customers and lying about selling user data to advertisers. The entire reason Android was created was because Google collaborated with Apple to strangle the market. Hell, Google uses other people's forks of Android in their "software releases" without so much as crediting these people. Then they hide behind other companies to do their shady **** (like "D-Wave" and the "GCHQ" as leaked by Snowden in 2013). 

Apple is making people dumber through their products to where THEY are the source code! 

18 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

So where is your research charlatan?

So now you just want to resort to concern trolling and ad hominems? Yeah, no comment on this one, it should be self-explanatory.

[XenoFish]

This is starting to look like paranoid ramblings.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Either way, it's just a "belief" or "philosophy." This is a proposed idea. There are skeptics to the Big Bang who are Atheists just as much as religious skeptics. 

Your point? Not that it matters.

[Rlyeh]

4 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

So now you just want to resort to concern trolling and ad hominems? Yeah, no comment on this one, it should be self-explanatory.

For someone who rambles on about proof, you haven't got much more than fallacies.

[InvestigativeThinker]

32 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

For someone who rambles on about proof, you haven't got much more than fallacies.

 

37 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Your point? Not that it matters.

Uh huh. So this is what I get for actually explaining my proposed concept. It's almost like nobody can question your worldviews without you getting super defensive about it. Atheists, Muslims and Christians are all full of bs. You clearly have read nothing I stated. If you think my opinion "doesn't matter" then I guess this debate is over then, because you were never serious from the beginning. I proposed an idea and you never seriously evaluated it. 

[InvestigativeThinker]

Also, before you reply READ MY STATEMENT FIRST AND TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT. You need to SPECIFY from the OP what I was wrong about in regards to Darwinian "Big Bang" and I will address it. I never claimed to be the smartest man in the universe who knows everything for I am not God. I made trial and error. That's literally how ideas work. They're not always right at first. I've said it once and I'll say it again: this is a PROPOSED OR PATENTED IDEA!

Edited June 22, 2022 by InvestigativeThinker

[Rlyeh]

12 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Uh huh. So this is what I get for actually explaining my proposed concept.

So where is like the proof?  What do you think you'll get for demanding others to prove your BS?

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Well, I mean you could say the same for Atheism, can't you? It's just philosophical NIHILISM!

Or, you may also consider it to be acceptance of what is.  There’s no way to prove that God exists and talking to him is like talking to yourself as I see it.  Since I tried it for a long time, I know this.  But, whatever.  You have the right to believe what you wish, and some it is logical and possible, upon my cursory reads, but you also make stuff up.  For example, when you say you believe in Satan, that means you believe the Bible, since that’s the only place you find him.  I don’t believe the Bible is any kind of factual or metaphorical resource at all.  I believe that God if it exists, does not live on this plane, and could be the program of a supercomputer from the future, and admit that’s a possibility.  I’m open to more things than many atheists because they require real proof for everything.  And I ask, what’s wrong with that?  What the heck is wrong with making a decision that you’re not gonna believe Jack Diddley on a stick unless it’s proven?  I like that about the atheists,  they call that one right IMO.  That’s how I want to live, I don’t believe anything that can’t be proven.  I admit some other things could be. 

[SecretSanta]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

This is starting to look like paranoid ramblings.

Starting? 
Seemed like it from the beginning to me.

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Nihilism is the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

Atheism is just not believing a God exist. 

Well said.

[Guyver]

I’ll chip in point oh two more.  I have some understanding of music and mathematics.  So, with music.  It can be replicated by a computer.  Now, I’m no expert, and so right now it may be possible with AI technology and I don’t know it, but with my gear which is current, the computers can’t play with feel.  But, I can.  If you want to know what playing with feel is, listen to Voices in My Head by the Police.  I’ll post it gladly for y’all to hear because it proves my point without controversy.

Here it is.  Within the pattern of timing within the music, one can play a nanosecond ahead or behind the beat, while still hitting the beat and providing emphasis.  Additionally, we can slightly drag the tempo within the beat and bring the volume down naturally for a slow part or change, then come back in hot on top of the beat.  I don’t believe computers can do that until someone proves my wrong.

[Guyver]

 

[Guyver]

You must listen to the “outro” that is the ending, to really see my point expressed perfectly.  Listen to the drums.  AI can’t do that I don’t think.