Proof that God exists

[mrflibblehat]

...

The greater complexity has more order within it.
...

Chaos can be quite complex.  

Chaos Theory can be complex. There is no real chaos. Everything acts according to the laws of nature as cause and effect dictate. Chaos, like randomness, exist only in the minds of people who can't see (understand) the reason why.

So now you are going to dismiss reality because it is conflicting with your ancient world view.

Cause and effect shows that there is no real chaos. Chaos theory is not necessarily about chaos.

Chaos theory is theory; it has not been proven to be true. Cause and effect is truth. In fact, cause and effect are the basis for scientific examination and discovery.

Why are trying to turn reality into fiction and fiction into reality?

Could you just do ONE thing so we can settle this whole discussion?

Define how YOU decide a theory is true. Then we'll be able to discuss. Cause all you're saying is "the laws that makes my point are true, the others are just theories".

Ok ok! Jeez. No need to get mad. There is no God! There. Happy? We're agreed.

[craked5]

Ok ok! Jeez. No need to get mad. There is no God! There. Happy? We're agreed.

Meh? Not getting mad at you.

And my problem is about how BADecker talks and decide arbitrarily that this is truth and this is not...

[BADecker]

...

The greater complexity has more order within it.
...

Chaos can be quite complex.  

Chaos Theory can be complex. There is no real chaos. Everything acts according to the laws of nature as cause and effect dictate. Chaos, like randomness, exist only in the minds of people who can't see (understand) the reason why.

So now you are going to dismiss reality because it is conflicting with your ancient world view.

Cause and effect shows that there is no real chaos. Chaos theory is not necessarily about chaos.

Chaos theory is theory; it has not been proven to be true. Cause and effect is truth. In fact, cause and effect are the basis for scientific examination and discovery.

Why are trying to turn reality into fiction and fiction into reality?

Could you just do ONE thing so we can settle this whole discussion?

Define how YOU decide a theory is true. Then we'll be able to discuss. Cause all you're saying is "the laws that makes my point are true, the others are just theories".

I don't and can't decide a theory is true. If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

This doesn't mean that people know that it is a law. Scientists may not have figured out that it is a law. Maybe it is complex enough that they will never figure out that it is a law. If this is the case, it will always remain a theory in their understanding.

This doesn't meant that it is a theory in reality. It may be a law in reality. But because scientists haven't determined that it is a law, they will always have to consider it a theory... at least until they can prove that it is a law.

If you mean, how do I decide if a theory is a theory, well, I'm not into formulating theories. I simply take their word for it when they say it is a theory.

In addition, I am not simply saying something like "the laws that makes my point are real laws." What I am doing is stating the laws so that anybody that wants to see that they are laws can, once he has confirmed that they are laws, start calculating for himself that they prove the existence of God.

If you are really that interested, you need to do a little research... but not all that much.

[craked5]

Ok ok! Jeez. No need to get mad. There is no God! There. Happy? We're agreed.

Meh? Not getting mad at you.

And my problem is about how BADecker talks and decide arbitrarily that this is truth and this is not...

He has to.  He is like a cornered animal.  People like that will hang on to their belief regardless of the evidence that completely refutes their claims.

Look at Kurt Wise (PhD in Geology from Harvard) He said that even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture (which it does) , and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence.

That is profound.  This virus runs deep in his veins....

I know. Everytime I think I got him, he just ignores a fact and go on xD

[youdamushi]

...

The greater complexity has more order within it.
...

Chaos can be quite complex.  

Chaos Theory can be complex. There is no real chaos. Everything acts according to the laws of nature as cause and effect dictate. Chaos, like randomness, exist only in the minds of people who can't see (understand) the reason why.

So now you are going to dismiss reality because it is conflicting with your ancient world view.

Cause and effect shows that there is no real chaos. Chaos theory is not necessarily about chaos.

Chaos theory is theory; it has not been proven to be true. Cause and effect is truth. In fact, cause and effect are the basis for scientific examination and discovery.

Why are trying to turn reality into fiction and fiction into reality?

Could you just do ONE thing so we can settle this whole discussion?

Define how YOU decide a theory is true. Then we'll be able to discuss. Cause all you're saying is "the laws that makes my point are true, the others are just theories".

I don't and can't decide a theory is true. If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

This doesn't mean that people know that it is a law. Scientists may not have figured out that it is a law. Maybe it is complex enough that they will never figure out that it is a law. If this is the case, it will always remain a theory in their understanding.

This doesn't meant that it is a theory in reality. It may be a law in reality. But because scientists haven't determined that it is a law, they will always have to consider it a theory... at least until they can prove that it is a law.

If you mean, how do I decide if a theory is a theory, well, I'm not into formulating theories. I simply take their word for it when they say it is a theory.

In addition, I am not simply saying something like "the laws that makes my point are real laws." What I am doing is stating the laws so that anybody that wants to see that they are laws can, once he has confirmed that they are laws, start calculating for himself that they prove the existence of God.

If you are really that interested, you need to do a little research... but not all that much.

Which is why we all ask you this question: how do you make the difference between a true proposal and a false one?

Because for scientists, the proposals of the laws you say are true are less proven than the ones you say are wrong!

My question is about this sentence: " If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law. " how do you determine the proposal is true?

[popcorn1]

...

The greater complexity has more order within it.
...

Chaos can be quite complex.  

Chaos Theory can be complex. There is no real chaos. Everything acts according to the laws of nature as cause and effect dictate. Chaos, like randomness, exist only in the minds of people who can't see (understand) the reason why.

So now you are going to dismiss reality because it is conflicting with your ancient world view.

Cause and effect shows that there is no real chaos. Chaos theory is not necessarily about chaos.

Chaos theory is theory; it has not been proven to be true. Cause and effect is truth. In fact, cause and effect are the basis for scientific examination and discovery.

Why are trying to turn reality into fiction and fiction into reality?

Could you just do ONE thing so we can settle this whole discussion?

Define how YOU decide a theory is true. Then we'll be able to discuss. Cause all you're saying is "the laws that makes my point are true, the others are just theories".

I don't and can't decide a theory is true. If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

This doesn't mean that people know that it is a law. Scientists may not have figured out that it is a law. Maybe it is complex enough that they will never figure out that it is a law. If this is the case, it will always remain a theory in their understanding.

This doesn't meant that it is a theory in reality. It may be a law in reality. But because scientists haven't determined that it is a law, they will always have to consider it a theory... at least until they can prove that it is a law.

If you mean, how do I decide if a theory is a theory, well, I'm not into formulating theories. I simply take their word for it when they say it is a theory.

In addition, I am not simply saying something like "the laws that makes my point are real laws." What I am doing is stating the laws so that anybody that wants to see that they are laws can, once he has confirmed that they are laws, start calculating for himself that they prove the existence of God.

If you are really that interested, you need to do a little research... but not all that much.

Which is why we all ask you this question: how do you make the difference between a true proposal and a false one?

Because for scientists, the proposals of the laws you say are true are less proven than the ones you say are wrong!

My question is about this sentence: " If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law. " how do you determine the proposal is true?

By someone showing you its so..Then when you see it for your own eyes then you know it to be true then it becomes fact..
just BADECKER cannot understand this way of thinking..

[BADecker]

...

The greater complexity has more order within it.
...

Chaos can be quite complex.  

Chaos Theory can be complex. There is no real chaos. Everything acts according to the laws of nature as cause and effect dictate. Chaos, like randomness, exist only in the minds of people who can't see (understand) the reason why.

So now you are going to dismiss reality because it is conflicting with your ancient world view.

Cause and effect shows that there is no real chaos. Chaos theory is not necessarily about chaos.

Chaos theory is theory; it has not been proven to be true. Cause and effect is truth. In fact, cause and effect are the basis for scientific examination and discovery.

Why are trying to turn reality into fiction and fiction into reality?

Could you just do ONE thing so we can settle this whole discussion?

Define how YOU decide a theory is true. Then we'll be able to discuss. Cause all you're saying is "the laws that makes my point are true, the others are just theories".

I don't and can't decide a theory is true. If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

This doesn't mean that people know that it is a law. Scientists may not have figured out that it is a law. Maybe it is complex enough that they will never figure out that it is a law. If this is the case, it will always remain a theory in their understanding.

This doesn't meant that it is a theory in reality. It may be a law in reality. But because scientists haven't determined that it is a law, they will always have to consider it a theory... at least until they can prove that it is a law.

If you mean, how do I decide if a theory is a theory, well, I'm not into formulating theories. I simply take their word for it when they say it is a theory.

In addition, I am not simply saying something like "the laws that makes my point are real laws." What I am doing is stating the laws so that anybody that wants to see that they are laws can, once he has confirmed that they are laws, start calculating for himself that they prove the existence of God.

If you are really that interested, you need to do a little research... but not all that much.

Which is why we all ask you this question: how do you make the difference between a true proposal and a false one?

Because for scientists, the proposals of the laws you say are true are less proven than the ones you say are wrong!

My question is about this sentence: " If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law. " how do you determine the proposal is true?

By someone showing you its so..Then when you see it for your own eyes then you know it to be true then it becomes fact..
just BADECKER cannot understand this way of thinking..

Well, you proved that one theory is law, anyway... that you know how to talk idiocy.

[BADecker]

...

The greater complexity has more order within it.
...

Chaos can be quite complex.  

Chaos Theory can be complex. There is no real chaos. Everything acts according to the laws of nature as cause and effect dictate. Chaos, like randomness, exist only in the minds of people who can't see (understand) the reason why.

So now you are going to dismiss reality because it is conflicting with your ancient world view.

Cause and effect shows that there is no real chaos. Chaos theory is not necessarily about chaos.

Chaos theory is theory; it has not been proven to be true. Cause and effect is truth. In fact, cause and effect are the basis for scientific examination and discovery.

Why are trying to turn reality into fiction and fiction into reality?

Could you just do ONE thing so we can settle this whole discussion?

Define how YOU decide a theory is true. Then we'll be able to discuss. Cause all you're saying is "the laws that makes my point are true, the others are just theories".

I don't and can't decide a theory is true. If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

This doesn't mean that people know that it is a law. Scientists may not have figured out that it is a law. Maybe it is complex enough that they will never figure out that it is a law. If this is the case, it will always remain a theory in their understanding.

This doesn't meant that it is a theory in reality. It may be a law in reality. But because scientists haven't determined that it is a law, they will always have to consider it a theory... at least until they can prove that it is a law.

If you mean, how do I decide if a theory is a theory, well, I'm not into formulating theories. I simply take their word for it when they say it is a theory.

In addition, I am not simply saying something like "the laws that makes my point are real laws." What I am doing is stating the laws so that anybody that wants to see that they are laws can, once he has confirmed that they are laws, start calculating for himself that they prove the existence of God.

If you are really that interested, you need to do a little research... but not all that much.

Which is why we all ask you this question: how do you make the difference between a true proposal and a false one?

Because for scientists, the proposals of the laws you say are true are less proven than the ones you say are wrong!

My question is about this sentence: " If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law. " how do you determine the proposal is true?

In general, I don't make the determination. I simply apply what science has said when they say law or theory.

If a proposal in a theory is the truth, the fact that the theory is still theory shows that nobody has proven the proposal to be truth. It doesn't mean that the proposal is not truth. It simply means that nobody knows for sure if it is truth or not.

Proving the proposal to be true, or to be so blatantly false that it is not even a theory, is what the scientists are continually trying to do. When it is proven, they will call it law. If it is not proven, it will either remain theory, or when appropriate, it will be dropped from the ranks of theory altogether.

[Moloch]

If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

In general, I don't make the determination. I simply apply what science has said when they say law or theory.

The problem is... you don't have the first clue what you are talking about...

The theory of evolution cannot become a law... it's not possible... theory is literally the best it gets for evolution... theory is the epitome of science

A law is a completely different concept, and usually requires a mathematical proof (the only "proof" science accepts as objective fact)

Please learn the terminology of science before spewing more bullshit

[af_newbie]

If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

In general, I don't make the determination. I simply apply what science has said when they say law or theory.

The problem is... you don't have the first clue what you are talking about...

The theory of evolution cannot become a law... it's not possible... theory is literally the best it gets for evolution... theory is the epitome of science

A law is a completely different concept, and usually requires a mathematical proof (the only "proof" science accepts as objective fact)

Please learn the terminology of science

No point explaining it to him.  He only knows what his handlers told him.

People like him convince themselves that God exist, then come up with some pseudo-scientific reasons to justify their belief.

It is the same reaction, as people who make a really bad investment (say by buying a shitty stock), once the stock starts tanking, they will still try to find reasons to justify their original decision.  It is the inability to think critically that makes them keep the stock all the way down until it is de-listed.

I suspect the same psychological mechanism is at work here.

PS. Any new scientific discovery is bad news for the GOD stock.
 

[D3ViL]

i dont endorse religion but i do believe in one universal power. i have read some of the ignorance of the users in here..its their thought, and i have mine.

[galdur]

But today Facebook scientifically proved God does exist with a little blue check mark. I dunno, that's kind of tough to refute.

[BADecker]

But today Facebook scientifically proved God does exist with a little blue check mark. I dunno, that's kind of tough to refute.

...

In addition, since religion is part of the above posts, there are the vibrations that the religious choirs make when the sing praises to God.

Gravity waves are useless. We may not ever find any more of them.

 

[BADecker]

If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

In general, I don't make the determination. I simply apply what science has said when they say law or theory.

The problem is... you don't have the first clue what you are talking about...

The theory of evolution cannot become a law... it's not possible... theory is literally the best it gets for evolution... theory is the epitome of science

A law is a completely different concept, and usually requires a mathematical proof (the only "proof" science accepts as objective fact)

Please learn the terminology of science before spewing more bullshit

Well, after all, this was not supposed to be about my or your understanding of terminology.

The point is, science has proven that God exists.

[BADecker]

If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.

In general, I don't make the determination. I simply apply what science has said when they say law or theory.

The problem is... you don't have the first clue what you are talking about...

The theory of evolution cannot become a law... it's not possible... theory is literally the best it gets for evolution... theory is the epitome of science

A law is a completely different concept, and usually requires a mathematical proof (the only "proof" science accepts as objective fact)

Please learn the terminology of science

No point explaining it to him.  He only knows what his handlers told him.

People like him convince themselves that God exist, then come up with some pseudo-scientific reasons to justify their belief.

It is the same reaction, as people who make a really bad investment (say by buying a shitty stock), once the stock starts tanking, they will still try to find reasons to justify their original decision.  It is the inability to think critically that makes them keep the stock all the way down until it is de-listed.

I suspect the same psychological mechanism is at work here.

PS. Any new scientific discovery is bad news for the GOD stock.
 

I want to thank you for confirming that science has proven God exists. How are you confirming it? You are confirming it by focusing on me rather than focusing on the three scientific laws:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.

The fact that you can't explain them away, shows that you agree with them. If you didn't agree with them, you would explain them away.

So, thanks again. Makes my job easier.

 

[craked5]

But today Facebook scientifically proved God does exist with a little blue check mark. I dunno, that's kind of tough to refute.

Facebook?

That's one of the biggest success of the European search institute

[yenxz]

After long and secular debates about atheism, the need for a separate topic about God's existence has arisen.
There are amongst us a group of people who believe that while there is no proof that God exists, there also is no proof that He doesn't exist.
Please share your argument in a logical manner and abstain from saying things like "I'm right because I'm right".
I know that this, in the end, is a philosophical discussion so only logical are welcome.

even charles darwin was believe that god exist,universe is can't be exist without creator,and some scientist believe that universe is made by God.

[Moloch]

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

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

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist



P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

[BADecker]

even charles darwin was believe that god exist

Are you sure about that?

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

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft Atheist



P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

It's kinda funny that jokers like you who want to believe that the fiction of science theory is truth don't even understand that you have a religion going in it.

[BADecker]

...
P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...

The guy is confused by "all these theories".  He needs one truth: God exist because it exist.
All science is just theories.  Religitards reject all scientific facts and theories that contradict
their "Goat Herding Manual - Adventures of the 1st century herdsman." aka the Bible.

I'm starting to like your posts a lot. You a good buddy, talking all this, but never contradicting the scientific laws that prove God exists.