Scientific proof that God exists

Status
Not open for further replies.
voodoochile said:
after 22,775 posts, that sort of crap is the best you can come up with?
Click to expand...

Here's some better crap even than the OP:

Theory and Cultural Objectivism

1. Discourses of failure

In the works of Spelling, a predominant concept is the distinction between creation and destruction. However, the subject is interpolated into a that includes sexuality as a whole.

An abundance of theories concerning postdialectic constructive theory exist. Thus, the example of neoconstructive capitalist theory intrinsic to Spelling’s Models, Inc. emerges again in The Heights.

If cultural objectivism holds, we have to choose between pretextual nihilism and the materialist paradigm of reality. In a sense, the primary theme of the works of Spelling is a self-fulfilling paradox.

2. Neodeconstructive cultural theory and pretextual desituationism

If one examines cultural materialism, one is faced with a choice: either reject postdialectic constructive theory or conclude that the raison d’etre of the artist is significant form. Lyotard uses the term ‘pretextual desituationism’ to denote the difference between sexual identity and class. But Parry[1] states that we have to choose between the conceptualist paradigm of expression and precapitalist theory.

Bataille’s critique of cultural objectivism suggests that discourse comes from communication. Therefore, the main theme of McElwaine’s[2] analysis of pretextual desituationism is the paradigm, and hence the economy, of modernist sexual identity.

Many discourses concerning the bridge between society and language may be discovered. But in Models, Inc., Spelling deconstructs cultural objectivism; in Robin’s Hoods, although, he denies pretextual desituationism.

Sartre uses the term ‘postdialectic textual theory’ to denote not, in fact, theory, but subtheory. In a sense, the premise of postdialectic constructive theory implies that the establishment is intrinsically elitist, but only if Lacan’s critique of cultural objectivism is invalid; otherwise, Foucault’s model of postdialectic constructive theory is one of “the postcapitalist paradigm of expression”, and thus part of the dialectic of reality.


references:

1. Parry, U. B. L. ed. (1975) Postdialectic Demodernisms: Cultural objectivism and postdialectic constructive theory. Schlangekraft

2. McElwaine, Q. U. (1981) Postdialectic constructive theory and cultural objectivism. Oxford University Press
 
Proof of God, part 1

proof-god-atheist.jpg
 
lord_sylus said:
:m:

Yes please refrain from using profanity…

You still don’t get it do you, the simple answer to your ridicules claims are that you have no understanding or even perception of how fast the speed of light is… do you think those numbers I posted are fake? Try using the formulas and work it out for yourself

F=m.a
A= (Vc-V)/t
1G=9.81m/s²

Using these simple formulas you can see yourself that what you are saying is impossible, if you moved your hand and the steering weal at the speed of light, within 0.001 sec you would have turned the steering weal over 636.6 times (if it had a diameter of lets say 30cm)… I doubt that would keep your physics engine car on the track, not to mention destroing the steering weal!
Not to mention that it is based on Newtonian physics, according to relativity you would never be able to reach C so I still gave you a chance using these formulas

But as a good bullsh**er you totally avoided the calculated proof… and didn’t even try to disprove it, because you don’t even understand it is my gues!

And Travelling Code?? Code doesn’t travel, in a computer, the only thing that travels in a computer are electrons flowing through the components, and there isn’t a single component on this planet that allows that to pass through it at the speed of light! Even if you actually could do what you say you can, which in it’s own is so unbelievable it makes me laugh, you as a person could not make the information inside the computer travel any faster that it does…

The fact that in every post you keep saying “you made it happen”, “your proof was stolen”, “you are so fast” just proves that you are lying and making all this up as you go along, sure it’s fun proving you wrong in every post, and reading how people indulge in your fantasy just to see you get of an it.

But looking at it all factually,
You have no proof and have no way of getting it
All we have is your word (not worth the pixels)
Every thing you say and claim sounds more like magic than the real world
And you have absolutely no knowledge of what you are trying to discredit

And every time we ask a question like Ophiolite does you don’t answer it

An answer to your question:

“Wow cool graphics when this game comes out I’m definitely going to by it and the VR helmet that goes with it”:D

So now answer some of our questions
Starting with Ophiolite’s

And tell me how long your arm travelled at C to make the corrections needed?(indulge indulge)
How did they keep the computer cool while you where “speeding it up”?
Were you the only test person, or did they have more than one?

If you could answer one of there questions for us with actual factual proof that we can not disprove, that would be a start, but I seriously doubt it :p
Click to expand...

Make me.

I dont care about your formulas. I know enough. The proof to back it up is in japan, stolen by little old man.

Can you not see that this would change everything we know. Including all the stuff you have been studying in 3rd level education.

Long story short I made it happen. the cryptographer was prepared. yamauchi , the old faggot, is a billionaire. any power supply or computing hardware was bought.

I am aware of the circumstances and of how crazy it sounds. I can understand your negativity and empathise with your inability to believe this, as it is a lot to believe. You understand me but you dont believe me because you havent seen the proof. I am looking forward to when everybody does.

To be quite honest though, be constructive or take a walk. I have been saying I was robbed of everything. I have been saying I dont have proof but I'm telling you where it is. I am being very clear about everything.
 
Dear voodoochile,
thank you for taking the time to provide the answers to my questions in post #179. Based upon these answers it is very clear that you are either a skillfull troll or a seriously delueded individual. I have no wish to waste my time with the former, or to cause inadvertent harm to the latter.

I do urge you to seek professional help. I am almost certain you will ignore this, but I suspect there is a small part of you that realises this is good advice. Please listen to that small part of you and go find that help.

Good luck and goodbye.
 
Ophiolite said:
Dear voodoochile,
thank you for taking the time to provide the answers to my questions in post #179. Based upon these answers it is very clear that you are either a skillfull troll or a seriously delueded individual. I have no wish to waste my time with the former, or to cause inadvertent harm to the latter.

I do urge you to seek professional help. I am almost certain you will ignore this, but I suspect there is a small part of you that realises this is good advice. Please listen to that small part of you and go find that help.

Good luck and goodbye.
Click to expand...

You forgot option C. Are you afraid of it?

Not my problem you cant believe it. It really was because of one single decision.

Eventually, when I manage to force this to be made public, you will wish you had taken a chance.
 
Please try and replicate this event, and try not to get your evidence conveniently stolen again.
 
Uhhh... We can logically prove that, but not scientifically. When scientists finally climb the mountain, they'll find a theologian at the top.
 
You guys are missing the point of the OP. They're claiming a visual effect occurred while testing a "physics engine" and then go on about how this was done by manipulating the physics "faster than light".

There are however a number of problems in this explanation, like for instance a "normal" physics engine would not be able go as fast as light, let alone faster. This would require special equipment and network parameters and technically wouldn't violate any physics laws. (Even Mozart's 40th symphony at 4.7 time the speed of light still had certain reference points. For instance normal play and lightspeed play would start at the same time, just the lightspeed version would obviously finish extremely quickly while the normal version would continue to play a while. Obviously the FTL play can only play what is prepared before hand, this basically means you can't magically make information appear in reality from just a meme that you'll do something shortly, it has to be already be in the pipelines being done.)

This is main reason why I suggested to the OP that it's a Jib (Someone played a practical joke on him) and the problem is that he's allowed his imagination to get the better of himself so he's now further away from the truth.
 
Steve100 said:
Please try and replicate this event, and try not to get your evidence conveniently stolen again.
Click to expand...

I could easily repeat the test where i found the points of inertia. I could easily demonstrate how fast I can bring the code. A few thoudand mph, without even trying. You could try to see what you could reach. I could do all this without breaking a sweat but there is a problem. A sad old japanese faggot who is interfering with this whole process and slowing down its publication.

I wont get caught again. I'll get even for the last time too.
 
epiman said:
How can you scientifically prove that God exists???
Click to expand...


Good question. Its as close as proof gets. This genuinely is a system that God incorporated into the laws of physics. That combined with what I witnessed and the recorded process which is in japan, is what you have to believe. It really is a lot when you put it all together. Its off to a bad start thanks to that bitch but the truth is the truth and this was meant to be found. Believing in God is almost always difficult here. I think its meant to be that way, like a test. Now you have to believe a video game playing looney, so its still going to difficult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top