Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

You need to learn what "proven" means before you use it in a sentence, hypocrite.   

Yes. Prove all the science for yourself, or else take it on faith that some other scientist or group has proven it, you know, like believing in a religion.

[1715381085]

1715381085

[1715381085]

1715381085

[BADecker]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

You have a point there. Even if there were a real other party (the dead person) playing, maybe it was an alien or demon using mind control.

[BADecker]

-Cambrian Explosion : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
-Who created the Univers?

Good science fiction article in that Wiki.   

[BADecker]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

I can explain it with one word.   Liar.

Or joker. 

[BADecker]

"do as I say, not as I do".  

Yes, this is an axiomatic point, very relevant to talk of "god".

All religions are created to establish a hierarchical structure.

"Hierarchical structure" is the way everything works. Think of how your body would function if there wasn't the hierarchical structure of your brain ruling over it. In fact, you'd be dead without hierarchical structure.

Christ never set up a church or a hierarchy.

Hierarchy is man's creation, not God's. In the eyes of God, we are all one. Everything--rocks, trees, people--all, is SACRED.

There are no sacrosanct hierarchies in the realms of God and Hosts.

If you claim to be of the Spiritual Hierarchy then I believe we both know from which side of the lamp you come from.

Why would man need go to another and higher level of joy and life if there were such horrendous lies awaiting him?

You've never read The Acts of the Apostles?

Spiritual hierarchy is between the person and God. Mostly it is between God viewing the soul and spirit of a person, and God judging the person.

No I have not because Christ told me to beware of Pharisees like Saul of Tarsus (in Matthew 23) and I have no evidence that Saul was a "follower of Christ".

Hierarchy is not "the way everything works". It does not work that way in the higher realms.

Now you are trying to say that there are more gods than One.   

[bl4kjaguar]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

You have a point there. Even if there were a real other party (the dead person) playing, maybe it was an alien or demon using mind control.

Perhaps, but there is no evidence for that. The point is this:

Those explanations are needlessly complicated. The simplest explanation is that the personality of the deceased person has persisted and is able to communicate the information that was receievd.

[BADecker]

Science, at its core, is so complex that nobody can hold it in his mind. Therefore, those who hold it, hold it by faith, except for the little part of it that they might understand, relative to itself. What this might mean is, simply, that if the traditional religions of the past are losing believers to the religion of science, they are only converting to a different religion.

Your second statement means almost nothing. It's like saying that all scientists believe in evolution. All scientists do not believe in evolution. Why? Because some other scientists try to classify all things under the term "evolution," thereby proving that, at best, that they are making a generalization that is entirely unfounded scientifically. That's why Evolution is still a theory. But shouldn't be even a theory, because it has been proven wrong and inconclusive so many times in so many ways, and actually has been proven to be impossible probability-wise.

Unfortunately, the lie of Evolution has penetrated the minds of so many people, that it is a reasonably stable political thing, even though it doesn't exist as an actuality and reality.

I have to disagree brother.   I am an evolutionary biologist and I totally understand the process. Science is not a mystery to me, it is simple logic.

Within itself it may be logical. But in the real world there are so many things that the proofs could be applied to other than Evolution, that it is not close to being proven. And then there is probability, which literally DOES make it impossible.

[BADecker]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

You have a point there. Even if there were a real other party (the dead person) playing, maybe it was an alien or demon using mind control.

Perhaps, but there is no evidence for that. The point is this:

Those explanations are needlessly complicated. The simplest explanation is that the personality of the deceased person has persisted and is able to communicate the information that was receievd.

Okay. So you have another religion going here. Good way to make money if you can push it the right way.



EDIT: I mean, look at all the money the scientists are making with theirs. They might even be catching up to the Papacy!

[the joint]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

You need to learn what "proven" means before you use it in a sentence, hypocrite.   

Yes. Prove all the science for yourself, or else take it on faith that some other scientist or group has proven it, you know, like believing in a religion.

Science isn't something that's proven.  This is your fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.  Science is a 'method' of applying a logical process to understanding the world.  Science simply utilizes certain logical tools while disposing of others that are irrelevant to empirical study.  Religious people such as yourself must also use logic -- the same logical language from which yields the scientific method --
to analyze the Bible and form your own interpretations thereof.

In other words, the only difference between scientists and your self in this debate is that scientists abide by a logical system of reasoning *which has clearly defined boundaries* so that they know which conclusions are permissible and which aren't.  You, on the other hand, talk about science as if it draws from a set of entirely different logical rules.   This is simply wrong.  Logic is what it is and everyone uses it, but scientists simply use a more contained system of logic, i.e. logic that is applied *to observations and evidence* in order to make sense of it all. While scientists know where the boundaries are, you have no freaking clue where the boundaries of logic are, and you constantly overstep those boundaries and wander into the realm of literal nonsense ("nonsense" = does not make sense).

By the way, what do you think about the Pope's recent declaration in support of evolution, which is essentially a declaration in support of the scientific method?

[the joint]

Yeah, I especially like the part where you countered the facts laid before you about your precious Bible falling short on the whole 'word of god' shtick.

Henry VIII decides he wants to get divorced, voila! goodbye RC, say hello to the "Church of England", now, who do I have to behead to get a CofE Bible thrown together?

Just as I figured. You don't have anything else. So you go and pick on the failings of a human being. So, do you really think that your perfection is good enough?

...Says he who claims science is "weakest" and then provides absolutely no reasoning behind the statement whatsoever.  It appears you're the one who has nothing else aside from two tactics:  1) Keep saying the Bible is right, and 2) attack people when they call you out on your bogus thinking.

Care to provide justification for your statements?  I remember how you completely failed to create a deductive argument for claims homosexuality is "bad" and "unnatural" even when I created a template for you.

Care to try again?

Premise 1: Insert here
Premise 2: Insert here
Premises 3, 4, etc.: Insert here
Therefore:  Science is the weakest with all of its "ifs"

There you go, sport. There's the template, all you need to do is fill in the premises to reach your conclusion.  If you succeed, I (and I'm sure many others) will concede to a superior argument.

Make my day

Here it is about science. All science that can be used in daily life is practical. All the rest of it is based on "if." "If" means that science doesn't know. Science is fantasy, or else it is the weakest religion.

No.  Here's the problem you're having:  Logic is something you use regardless of whether you're talking about science or the Bible.  Accordingly, there are logical rules to be followed in order to demonstrate a sound conclusion.  The deductive argument template I've presented you with is recognized globally as a valid format for presenting an argument.  The reason behind using it is because it allows you to show how your premises support your conclusion.  If you can't soundly support your conclusion in such a format, it means there are gaps in your reasoning, or at the very least there are gaps in your explanation.

That's why I gave you the template to work with.  Since you claim to know this stuff front to back, it should be no challenge for you to list your premises in such a way that they undeniably lead to your conclusion.

So far, you have not been able to demonstrate your ability to do this.  Accordingly, since you fail to present a concise, succinct argument when challenged, we assume you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.  Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks which are globally recognized as the absolute weakest type of argument as it doesn't even address the topic whatsoever.

If you can't formulate a deductive argument to support your conclusion that "science is weakest," then you must concede to our superior arguments. No amount of smiley faces, smug-but-ignorant passive aggression, etc. will make you any more right.  But I suspect being right isn't as much of a priority to you as simply not wanting to admit the possibility that you come off as intellectually retarded.

Precisely the thing that I am talking about with regard to science. Certainly there are parts of science that are logical and actual. But there are other parts that might seem logical and actual in some ways, but haven't been proven yet.

This is the exact way that virtually all religions work. They all have something that makes sense, is logical. In fact, most of them have many things that are logical. But they, also, have the parts that are not proven, and possibly cannot be proven. People believe these unproven parts on faith.

Consider. If you are a man of science, you know which areas of your field of science are proven, and which areas need more investigation. But, when it comes to an area of science that is not your field, what do you do? You look at the credibility of the scientists that have done work in those areas. Then you either believe them, or you don't. Science is a faith thing. It is religion.

When you scientifically study the Bible and its history of coming together, you find that it is an impossible-to-exist book. If you haven't done the studies yourself, you either believe, or you don't believe those who have done the studies. It's called religion.

Science is too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely. It is a religion.

Science is absolutely not too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely. Science is a method.  Here, watch:



If you understand that image, then you understand the entirety of the scientific method.  Again, science is a method and NOT that which it studies (which is likely too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely).

And, based upon your post, since you have *again* failed to construct a succinct, coherent argument even after I babied you by giving you a fill-in-the-blank template, I'll assume this post concedes the superior argument to me.

Thanks for that

[bl4kjaguar]

Humanity is not very well aware of the nature of souls, it is true. However,
The "survival hypothesis" does not qualify as a religion, but rather it is the simplest explanation for these 40 cases.

"The personality survives death, at least sometimes" is the simplest explanation for these cases.
"When an extremely improbable situation arises, we are entitled to draw large conclusions from it."
--Kurt Gödel

No I have not because Christ told me to beware of Pharisees like Saul of Tarsus (in Matthew 23) and I have no evidence that Saul was a "follower of Christ".

Hierarchy is not "the way everything works". It does not work that way in the higher realms.

Now you are trying to say that there are more gods than One.  

I am trying to say that hierarchies are a fabrication of man and they do not exist in the higher realms. I am not sure how you deduce many-gods from that.
Anyway, I question the "teachings" of Pharisee Paul; Christ made gave us many warnings about Pharisees.

[the joint]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

You have a point there. Even if there were a real other party (the dead person) playing, maybe it was an alien or demon using mind control.

Perhaps, but there is no evidence for that. The point is this:

Those explanations are needlessly complicated. The simplest explanation is that the personality of the deceased person has persisted and is able to communicate the information that was receievd.

I disagree.  It is not the simplest explanation as it invokes additional, unnecessary assumptions.  Specifically, in addition to the assumption that the 'psychic' is telling the truth, it introduces the assumption that we should ignore all of the hundreds of times that people have claimed to perform such "supernatural" abilities but have failed or have conclusively been found to be liars.  Since we do have evidence that others who have made similar claims have either failed to prove their claims or have been proven outright liars, we only need to introduce one assumption to reach a conclusion, i.e. that the supposed "psychic" is a liar.

[BADecker]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

You need to learn what "proven" means before you use it in a sentence, hypocrite.  

Yes. Prove all the science for yourself, or else take it on faith that some other scientist or group has proven it, you know, like believing in a religion.

Science isn't something that's proven.  This is your fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.  Science is a 'method' of applying a logical process to understanding the world.  Science simply utilizes certain logical tools while disposing of others that are irrelevant to empirical study.  Religious people such as yourself must also use logic -- the same logical language from which yields the scientific method --
to analyze the Bible and form your own interpretations thereof.

In other words, the only difference between scientists and your self in this debate is that scientists abide by a logical system of reasoning *which has clearly defined boundaries* so that they know which conclusions are permissible and which aren't.  You, on the other hand, talk about science as if it draws from a set of entirely different logical rules.   This is simply wrong.  Logic is what it is and everyone uses it, but scientists simply use a more contained system of logic, i.e. logic that is applied *to observations and evidence* in order to make sense of it all. While scientists know where the boundaries are, you have no freaking clue where the boundaries of logic are, and you constantly overstep those boundaries and wander into the realm of literal nonsense ("nonsense" = does not make sense).

By the way, what do you think about the Pope's recent declaration in support of evolution, which is essentially a declaration in support of the scientific method?

Now you're playing with semantics. Let me get my cup of coffee ...

... Okay, I'm back.

You know? This is exactly the thing that I am saying. but, let me say it a little differently.

Back in the mid 1900s, each scientific field of endeavor attempted to carve out its own little niche, and remain separate from - and better than - all the others. Chemistry had its spot, biology its place, electronics and electrical were separated, and there was physics, aloof from them all. But nowadays we understand that everything works together.

When you look at the whole of what is scientific knowledge, the sciences of probability, combined with the geologic and archaeologic investigations of past species, combined with all the biological investigations of today, and considering the complexity and the entropy, something like Evolution is so exceedingly impossible, that it is utterly impossible.

In fact, there is only one major scientific realm where Evolution can be proven to exist. This is the realm of political science, where talk, talk, propagandize, talk, and more talk are the only ingredients needed to make something true. And it is the simple, humble, believing masses that this so-called evolution propaganda has been focused on, to turn the masses from the age-old religions, to the religion of science.

Go at the semantics of the word science. I explained the differences in meaning above by example.

[BADecker]

Humanity is not very well aware of the nature of souls, it is true. However,
The "survival hypothesis" does not qualify as a religion, but rather it is the simplest explanation for these 40 cases.

"The personality survives death, at least sometimes" is the simplest explanation for these cases.
"When an extremely improbable situation arises, we are entitled to draw large conclusions from it."
--Kurt Gödel

No I have not because Christ told me to beware of Pharisees like Saul of Tarsus (in Matthew 23) and I have no evidence that Saul was a "follower of Christ".

Hierarchy is not "the way everything works". It does not work that way in the higher realms.

Now you are trying to say that there are more gods than One.  

I am trying to say that hierarchies are a fabrication of man and they do not exist in the higher realms. I am not sure how you deduce many-gods from that.
Anyway, I question the "teachings" of Pharisee Paul; Christ made gave us many warnings about Pharisees.

Simply stated, God is the Boss of everything that exists in this universe. And we have no inkling about anything that exists outside of it. That's hierarchy. All lower hierarchy is of God's choosing.

In nature, all around, you can see the operation of hierarchy. It's called pecking order, or alpha-bitch. What you are proposing is that this is all absent? Take a look around. If theymos and his gang didn't allow us to talk here, we would be gone, at least by the current usernames. That's hierarchy.

[Vod]

Now you are trying to say that there are more gods than One.  

Hey, if you believe in one, you have to believe in all of them.  Or you are a hypocrite.

Simply stated, God is the Boss of everything that exists in this universe.

The universe in your mind.  Your god has no power outside of your mind.

[BADecker]

Yeah, I especially like the part where you countered the facts laid before you about your precious Bible falling short on the whole 'word of god' shtick.

Henry VIII decides he wants to get divorced, voila! goodbye RC, say hello to the "Church of England", now, who do I have to behead to get a CofE Bible thrown together?

Just as I figured. You don't have anything else. So you go and pick on the failings of a human being. So, do you really think that your perfection is good enough?

...Says he who claims science is "weakest" and then provides absolutely no reasoning behind the statement whatsoever.  It appears you're the one who has nothing else aside from two tactics:  1) Keep saying the Bible is right, and 2) attack people when they call you out on your bogus thinking.

Care to provide justification for your statements?  I remember how you completely failed to create a deductive argument for claims homosexuality is "bad" and "unnatural" even when I created a template for you.

Care to try again?

Premise 1: Insert here
Premise 2: Insert here
Premises 3, 4, etc.: Insert here
Therefore:  Science is the weakest with all of its "ifs"

There you go, sport. There's the template, all you need to do is fill in the premises to reach your conclusion.  If you succeed, I (and I'm sure many others) will concede to a superior argument.

Make my day

Here it is about science. All science that can be used in daily life is practical. All the rest of it is based on "if." "If" means that science doesn't know. Science is fantasy, or else it is the weakest religion.

No.  Here's the problem you're having:  Logic is something you use regardless of whether you're talking about science or the Bible.  Accordingly, there are logical rules to be followed in order to demonstrate a sound conclusion.  The deductive argument template I've presented you with is recognized globally as a valid format for presenting an argument.  The reason behind using it is because it allows you to show how your premises support your conclusion.  If you can't soundly support your conclusion in such a format, it means there are gaps in your reasoning, or at the very least there are gaps in your explanation.

That's why I gave you the template to work with.  Since you claim to know this stuff front to back, it should be no challenge for you to list your premises in such a way that they undeniably lead to your conclusion.

So far, you have not been able to demonstrate your ability to do this.  Accordingly, since you fail to present a concise, succinct argument when challenged, we assume you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.  Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks which are globally recognized as the absolute weakest type of argument as it doesn't even address the topic whatsoever.

If you can't formulate a deductive argument to support your conclusion that "science is weakest," then you must concede to our superior arguments. No amount of smiley faces, smug-but-ignorant passive aggression, etc. will make you any more right.  But I suspect being right isn't as much of a priority to you as simply not wanting to admit the possibility that you come off as intellectually retarded.

Precisely the thing that I am talking about with regard to science. Certainly there are parts of science that are logical and actual. But there are other parts that might seem logical and actual in some ways, but haven't been proven yet.

This is the exact way that virtually all religions work. They all have something that makes sense, is logical. In fact, most of them have many things that are logical. But they, also, have the parts that are not proven, and possibly cannot be proven. People believe these unproven parts on faith.

Consider. If you are a man of science, you know which areas of your field of science are proven, and which areas need more investigation. But, when it comes to an area of science that is not your field, what do you do? You look at the credibility of the scientists that have done work in those areas. Then you either believe them, or you don't. Science is a faith thing. It is religion.

When you scientifically study the Bible and its history of coming together, you find that it is an impossible-to-exist book. If you haven't done the studies yourself, you either believe, or you don't believe those who have done the studies. It's called religion.

Science is too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely. It is a religion.

Science is absolutely not too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely. Science is a method.  Here, watch:



If you understand that image, then you understand the entirety of the scientific method.  Again, science is a method and NOT that which it studies (which is likely too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely).

And, based upon your post, since you have *again* failed to construct a succinct, coherent argument even after I babied you by giving you a fill-in-the-blank template, I'll assume this post concedes the superior argument to me.

Thanks for that

Again, semantics. If scientific method were all we were talking about, then you might be absolutely correct. But when people say "science" nowadays, they also mean all the "stuff" that science has determined about everything.

[bl4kjaguar]

A working explanation must be powerful enough to explain all of the observations (Salient Points) as they are collateral assumptions. It is not enough that an explanation is simple, it must also account for the facts.

[Vod]

Now you are trying to say that there are more gods than One.  

Hey, if you believe in one, you have to believe in all of them.  Or you are a hypocrite.

Said the hypocrite.

Posted the thief and liar.  

[Sagacious]

Coming to a Bitcoin forum I must say I expected a little more intelligence and no stupid debates are something which has never been proven & every bit of 'evidence' was created by a man.

[BADecker]

Now you are trying to say that there are more gods than One.  

Hey, if you believe in one, you have to believe in all of them.  Or you are a hypocrite.

Simply stated, God is the Boss of everything that exists in this universe.

The universe in your mind.  Your god has no power outside of your mind.

Believing that all of them exist or existed in the minds of some people is not a far stretch. Yet, it is the ONE God that is a reality.

Until you can start to understand that here are both spirit and soul that interact with mind and body, you will always have a hard time believing in God.