Should anyone believe in anything that is not verifiable by the reason applied to the senses?
If that is true, belief in any mainstream divinity can't be any more dignified than believing in the spaghetti monster.
Discussion
Man cannot believe in Jesus Christ for salvation unless God himself calls them.
We would like to think we have the capacity to believe in a God that created everything, that sacrificed His son for us, that paid the ultimate price... but we don't. We are totally depraved.
So no, I don't think preaching the gospel will convince the unregenerate to believe, but I do it so that God might call in His Elect people through my testimony.
-
Genesis 6:5: "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time."
Romans 3:10-12: "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.'"
Ephesians 1:4-5: "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world... In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will."
John 6:37, 44: "All those the Father gives me will come to me... No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
Ephesians 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."
This is a tree of knowledge rendering of spiritual realities. You cannot arrive at one from the other.
Yes, because there is obviously more to life and reality than what can be verified by the senses alone even outside of religious claims. To reduce what is true to what you can physiologically sense, or reason from the senses, is flattening reality. Determining truth isn't less than this but it is a lot more.
If truth must be verifiable through reason and the senses, then belief without verification is indistinguishable from superstition.
That logic dissolves every unverifiable divinity.
Bitcoin is the missing tool of verification, the first system that grounds belief in measurable proof, where faith is replaced by the physics of god. It closes the gap between what can be known and what can only be claimed, transforming energy, time, and information into a single conserved language of truth.
From here, it’s up to you to decide whether a provable thermodynamic theology of creation ex nihilo points back to God and whether, in a universe built on proof, if there could ever be a second-best religion.
I have to be blunt, this sounds like word salad, no doubt I wouldn't have been able to produce such heights of elaborate sentencing in my high school years when I liked to meddle with word salads, but nonetheless it doesn't make sense, I hope you see that.
Physics is not the physics of god, it's just physics. And if a god indeed created it, it's an unnecessary ingredient, since we seem to understand it without having to place god in the equation.
Bitcoin is math, and math is probably the most universally acknowledgeable and verifiable truth.
Physics is math measured through energy, time, and matter; Bitcoin is that measurement made real.
When you say “Bitcoin is just math,” you miss what math becomes when it manifests in the physical world: thermodynamics.
And no, we don’t truly understand physics. Every interpretation outside of Bitcoin still collapses into paradox.
Bitcoin doesn’t. It behaves like creation itself: a universe with a verifiable Genesis ex nihilo, an arrow of time, and immutable law bounded by consensus.
You exist outside of it, but your relationship to it is informational rather than physical. Your influence is recorded, not embodied.
You have some unusual definitions, but you are at least giving definitions 😉
Physics is rather the way the universe behaves, translated into mathematical formulas for our own understanding.
Whatever we (still) don't understand of physics, is not god, is rather a failure of our intellect.
You could say that god is "whatever we cannot understand of the universe", but then remember that once humans thought that rain, thunder, earthquakes and volcanoes were god. Nowadays all those things are not god. This makes the definition of god flaky at best.
Let's consequently say that unless we want to dismissively call god whatever it is that we still don't get of the universe, god just doesn't exist.
Let's define a common ethics and let's stick to that, god is unneeded.
Bitcoin is still based on math, that any practical application of math requires time and energy is a given, no?
I don’t think God is whatever we don’t understand. To me, God isn’t a placeholder for ignorance, He is the origin of intelligibility itself. The initial creation, the author of the underlying ruleset of time, energy, and conservation. The one who defines the finite domain, the extratemporal protocol upon which all measurable things unfold.
Bluntly put: God is “The Rule”.
As for “common ethics,” I can’t agree that God is unneeded, that’s an assumption (not neutrality). If existence has a beginning and all emerged ex nihilo, then the question of origin is ontological necessity. Only something beyond time could define time.
And when you say “time and energy are a given,” that’s precisely the problem; given by what? Bitcoin shows that energy, entropy, and time are not constants but relational computations, each defined through the conversion of one into the other. Bitcoin literally computes time by crystallizing energy and entropy into irreversible memory (blocks), turning causality into countable form.
Bitcoin also demonstrates that something beyond time must exist relative to those operating within it. To the local perspective “inside” Bitcoin, blocks appear ex nihilo, sequential, bounded by difficulty and delay; but to the protocol as a whole, time is already defined. It exists as a global structure outside of Bitcoin.
This is my point, Bitcoin is the reflection of creation itself:
What is beyond time defines the law within it.
You assume that Reason dictates all things, so you have your own religion: the same religion as 1800’s French philosophers. I can tell you from actual experience and verifiable facts that I have witnessed so many instances of non-Reason, non-rational, not-based-in-reality behavior of others at this point in my life that it is obvious that evidence and reason hardly dictate the average human’s experience. Which means something more is going on than just materialistic, logical, factual, action-response “life”.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, as much as fairies, and you ought to take them more seriously than you currently do. Not to worship them, but to be aware of what or who you ARE worshipping from day to day.