Proof that God exists

[BADecker]

Disproving Gods with History and Science (Dr. Richard Carrier)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU

Dr. Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI

Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan & Arthur C. Clarke agree that religion is bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDf-AbOTNDA
(though they mostly talk about the cosmos, the big bang, aliens, physics and fractals)

Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw

Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8

Part of the reason that these guys do research and make Godless theories is because they don't want to believe in God.

They neither prove that cause and effect, complex universe, universal entropy, don't exist, nor that their combined existence doesn't proves God. Rather, these guys do everything that they can to make theories that attempt to disprove Him.

Their theories haven't been proven. But the laws of nature listed above are being proven all around us, regularly, on a daily basis. These scientific jokers are foolish when they try to prove that God, Who science has proven to exist, doesn't exist.

[1715165699]

1715165699

[BADecker]

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man? 

But he wouldn't know how to use the information, how to interpret it, just like he doesn't know how to search for it. I mean, consider. He tells me on a regular basis, right in this thread, in various ways, that my thinking is flawed. Then he asks me for scientific information. Is that logical?

So, if he really thinks my scientific thinking is flawed, shouldn't he go search somewhere where he might expect to find accurate data? No! of course not. Why not? Because he doesn't really want accurate info. If he did, he would realize that science proves that God exists, and wouldn't keep suggesting that it doesn't.

Fickle like a fickle woman. Thinks my thinking is flawed. Then asks me for science. Goofy.

Your thinking is not only flawed. It's irrelevant and insulting.

There you go again, sporting the only science that can prove my thinking is wrong... political science. How does political science work? Two basic ways. It supports lying when beneficial to its cause, and it supports using continued media-like blabbering to drown out the truth.

[mainpmf]

Disproving Gods with History and Science (Dr. Richard Carrier)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU

Dr. Richard Carrier – 'Did Jesus Even Exist?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI

Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan & Arthur C. Clarke agree that religion is bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDf-AbOTNDA
(though they mostly talk about the cosmos, the big bang, aliens, physics and fractals)

Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw

Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8

Part of the reason that these guys do research and make Godless theories is because they don't want to believe in God.

They neither prove that cause and effect, complex universe, universal entropy, don't exist, nor that their combined existence doesn't proves God. Rather, these guys do everything that they can to make theories that attempt to disprove Him.

Their theories haven't been proven. But the laws of nature listed above are being proven all around us, regularly, on a daily basis. These scientific jokers are foolish when they try to prove that God, Who science has proven to exist, doesn't exist.

No but it proves that you still have no clue about the scientific definition of entropy which has, for the 58th times, nothing to do with complexity, complexity being not even a precise term.

[mainpmf]

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

Damn, you ask for logical reasoning and constructive thinking? What the hell man? 

But he wouldn't know how to use the information, how to interpret it, just like he doesn't know how to search for it. I mean, consider. He tells me on a regular basis, right in this thread, in various ways, that my thinking is flawed. Then he asks me for scientific information. Is that logical?

So, if he really thinks my scientific thinking is flawed, shouldn't he go search somewhere where he might expect to find accurate data? No! of course not. Why not? Because he doesn't really want accurate info. If he did, he would realize that science proves that God exists, and wouldn't keep suggesting that it doesn't.

Fickle like a fickle woman. Thinks my thinking is flawed. Then asks me for science. Goofy.

Your thinking is not only flawed. It's irrelevant and insulting.

There you go again, sporting the only science that can prove my thinking is wrong... political science. How does political science work? Two basic ways. It supports lying when beneficial to its cause, and it supports using continued media-like blabbering to drown out the truth.

You're not doing science.
The first step of any scientific reasoning is to define the terms your using. You never defined neither entropy nor complexity. Hence you never made any reasoning, you're just speaking believing it makes sense.

[eon89]

Wishing it to be science does not make it so. Same with religion.

[BADecker]

Wishing it to be science does not make it so. Same with religion.

Wishing doesn't make anything. Things are what they are.   

[eon89]

Wishing it to be science does not make it so. Same with religion.

Wishing doesn't make anything. Things are what they are.   

Agreed. Crazy people are crazy. That's just how it is.

[organofcorti]

Hey BADecker, you missed this:

Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.

Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.

Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?

Which is more complex, ice or water?

Measuring heat vibrations and how they react on individual sub-atomic particles in their relationships with each other is a complexity beyond understanding at present. This unmeasurable complexity is what produces the result.

So you're not sure if ice or water is more complex? Then how can you say that some level of complexity is only a result of something more complex?

Here's how. Since entropy pervades everything, ultimately everything that is made out of something else is at least slightly less complex than the thing that made it, due to entropy.

Are you trying to go for a swim inside ice, or what

If you don't know which is more complex in that case, how can you be certain which is more complex in any arbitrary case? I will accept answers other than "Because that's the way I think it is".

If you really want the answer to the complexity of ice and water, do the research.    

You still haven't actually defined what complexity is. According to the wikipedia article on complexity "there is no unique definition of complexity" so if you don't provide your definition no one can know what you're talking about.

[af_newbie]

It's cool how what's supposed to prove God is a fact/law and the thousands of things that refutes his existence are just mere theories. And it's funny how no scientist know it hmm?

That's literally the definition of delusional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De6j01DCsZM

Well anyway he doesn't really care about reason. He just gives his opinions like they were facts rock solid!

There is so much knowledge and information that is not yet knowledge, that a thousand academics, or a million of them, would never know it all. And even if they did know it all, they would never be able to think about it all. Not in this lifetime.

So, if they are against the existence of God, why would they want to speak ideas that suggest God exists? Especially if they have not thought in the directions of the ways that prove that God exists?

Needle in a haystack. Can you find the needle? And if you pretend to be looking, but really don't want to find, will you express your find if you find it by accident? Of course not. You will go off and ignore the fact that you did find.



EDIT: Just to show how flawed the video is (which I am not going to watch, btw), the title beneath the video in Youtube is "100 Renowned Academics Speaking About God." But the title inside the video itself is, "50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God." If the joker who put the video up on Youtube can't get it right, it's because he fits right in with the 50 renowned academics.

Scientists don't care about God because they cannot observe it or built mathematical model for it.
God is not even a serious topic for discussion.

They do talk about God when asked by non scientists.

If you think scientists have some sort of anti-God agenda, you are delusional.

You want people to put on bronze age 'God' glasses to see everything through them.  If we did that, we would still be in the bronze age.

Don't be afraid to watch the video.  God will not punish you if you do.

You are refusing to accept any new information that would contradict the Bible because you are afraid that God will kill you and send you to Hell?  Is that it?

BTW, where is HELL?  Don't you need unlimited supply of oxygen for it to work?  Or is that also imaginary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2LSLv8_Gvs

[yugo23]

Hey BADecker, you missed this:

-sniped-

Already tried so many times to make him give a definition...
But he won't. He know the moment he gives his definition we'll simply counter him.

[whizz94]

Scientists don't care about God because they cannot observe it or built mathematical model for it.
God is not even a serious topic for discussion.

I did my science degree to "find out all of the rules which are known to be exactly true, and to learn the methodology of test by which those were discovered, and how to apply honest test for anything else which we are not quite sure about yet".
I regarded questions of theology and the origins of the universe to be much more important than mere details of the next commercially viable technology.
Whilst there are plenty of hoaxes, nonsenses, and blatant political and commercial exploitations to provide examples of purportedly holy claims which are certainly untrue, there remain a handful of miraculous events which do seem to have happened, and which do seem to be the work of God.  The way which I reconcile present day science with the appearance from time to time of miracles is to say that present science gives every particle a quantum mechanical uncertainty.  If God gets to choose whether an atom was Left or Right, and is omniescent about propagating all future consequences of such a choice, that sort of very tiny subatomic tweak, sometimes years in advance of the main event, can be chosen to pick which trouser-leg of history we end up following.  So by tweaking the right quantum state a few years beforehand, God really could have set the best wind speed on the day when David hit Goliath with an inaccurate primitive projectile weapon. 

Now, who's going to argue against that one ?

[blackbird307]

That's one hell of a presumption.

[whizz94]

Presumption that a photon is both a countable particle and a wavelike splurge is testable with the two-slits experiment and photon counting photomultiplier equipment.  I got the hang of those before postulating about how much could depend on a fortuitous <left or right> particle state.  There remains a gaping hole between my saying that such does happen occasionally but influentially, and yourselves seeing an example of such a tiny miracle leading to an observably big miracle.  There remains a second gaping hole between observably big impossibly improbable events occurring and those being a part of a divine plan.  There remains a third gap between noticing a miraculous anomaly and finding out whether its cause was divine or satanic.

[blackbird307]

Still - There is no God, and until real evidence it will remain so.

[whizz94]

For you to say that requires presumption that the scriptural record of David and Goliath must be untrue, as it was an impossibly lucky shot with a huge consequence upon all subsequent history.
Now, why should we believe your assertion ?

[xslugx]

Scientists don't care about God because they cannot observe it or built mathematical model for it.
God is not even a serious topic for discussion.

I did my science degree to "find out all of the rules which are known to be exactly true, and to learn the methodology of test by which those were discovered, and how to apply honest test for anything else which we are not quite sure about yet".
I regarded questions of theology and the origins of the universe to be much more important than mere details of the next commercially viable technology.
Whilst there are plenty of hoaxes, nonsenses, and blatant political and commercial exploitations to provide examples of purportedly holy claims which are certainly untrue, there remain a handful of miraculous events which do seem to have happened, and which do seem to be the work of God.  The way which I reconcile present day science with the appearance from time to time of miracles is to say that present science gives every particle a quantum mechanical uncertainty.  If God gets to choose whether an atom was Left or Right, and is omniescent about propagating all future consequences of such a choice, that sort of very tiny subatomic tweak, sometimes years in advance of the main event, can be chosen to pick which trouser-leg of history we end up following.  So by tweaking the right quantum state a few years beforehand, God really could have set the best wind speed on the day when David hit Goliath with an inaccurate primitive projectile weapon. 

Now, who's going to argue against that one ?

Oh me I am going to argue with that one.

What you're saying is that every action is the result of others. That everything has its own causes; Fair enough, it means that the way the first atom of hydrogen was send into that precise direction with this precise number of quanta or energies decided everything.
And so? How does it prove the existence of God in any way? It just explains how an omninious and omnipotent being could be... Omninious and omnipotent? Whaou, what a demonstration...

[xslugx]

For you to say that requires presumption that the scriptural record of David and Goliath must be untrue, as it was an impossibly lucky shot with a huge consequence upon all susequent history.
Now, why should we believe your assertion ?

If it happened than it was possible. Don't get the fact that it was lucky in there to brag about god. It's not because the chances were incredibly thin that it's a miracle if it happened.
And is it me or are you talking about David and Goliath like they were true?

[blackbird307]

If I play beer pong and get the ball in from the first try am I lucky or is it some proof of divine intervention?

[salinizm]

There is no proof the easter bunny doesn't exist.  Do you believe in it too?

yes , i believe in all the shittiest magical thing on this earth... because i want to do that..

[whizz94]

That some of the alleged miracles which are impossibly improbable by all normal rules of science could have been brought about by exceedingly well-planned use of a subatomic tweak here and there does not prove that God does exists.  It merely claims that
i) God could exist in a world of well-defined immutable laws of physics which we only found out quite recently
ii) That such a God could accomplish miracles by much smaller adjustments than theology people had previously thought
iii) Proof that God does Not exist becomes more difficult for atheists

Also, I'm not claiming total divine control of every detail of every quantum state; just a very occasional few, enough to pick the least bad history.


Now blackbird307, I don't know the game beer pong to look at the odds of your getting the ball in first try by ordinary luck.  I am not aware of any divine purpose for "arranging" that you miraculously do, as you seem to be of the militant atheist mindset who would refuse to be converted by such an event if it did occur.  In any case, landing a ball in a pint glass is not improbable enough for the class of events which I notice.

David getting a history-changing hit on Goliath is improbable enough.  Did it actually happen ?  Well, that is a long time ago.  Could it happen by beer-pong luck ? probably not.  Could that have happened by propagation-of-consequences miraculous luck ?  Well I'm saying that it could have, and very well might have happened.  xslugx, I stop short of saying that it must have happened, because it was a long time ago and there are all sorts of flaws in records of that age.