Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

@BADecker You're an idiot abusing what little you know of actual science in order to twist it to your own reality. Stop citing shit as though you even understand it in the first place. Your tiresome 'entropy' screeching keeps falling down over this inconvenient fact I have already cited: "Of utmost importance, entropy is an energetic phenomenon, and only tangentially has to do with the distribution of matter in a system."

As I said, I just wish I could unsubscribe to this shit thread. Sure, I could simply refuse to ever post it in again but the trouble is, sometimes when it appears for the umpteenth time in my list, I remember that I once was so brainwashed that I couldn't see the reality of the situation and it was the rational and reasonable words of others which allowed me to break my conditioning and free my mind from this juvenile and intellectually dishonest system of unquestioning 'faith'. So every now and then I suck it up and try again with you, only for you to show yourself to be beyond help it would seem.

Can't take it, huh? Some people finally come along with some points that show irrefutably that modern science is in so many ways science fiction, and you can't take it.

That's okay. Modern science is filled with so many lies and half-truths, right along with the truths, that what else could be expected from those who hold it as their god?

[1714167517]

1714167517

[1714167517]

1714167517

[the joint]

Yet people try to prove over and over again that this case can be solved with science and reason. That is why we have always a huge discussion about nothing...

There is no 'case', there is only wild imagination summed up so perfectly by the end of your last sentence.

We might as well have them arguing the case for the existence of the train to Hogwarts.

Deferring to scientific evidence for God or a lack thereof in support of an argument is a waste of time because there is no amount of evidence that could prove or disprove the existence of a monotheistic god in the first place.  Monotheistic gods are, by definition, beyond the scope of empiricism.  

Whenever I watch religious debates -- and because of YouTube, I've seen a lot -- the same scenario tends to unfold over and over again.  The religious tend to use some form of retarded logic to try to turn religious texts into some scientific account, and atheists rightfully jump all over them for it.  But then, instead of simply shutting up, the atheists can't help but toss in their own form of retarded logic and make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence.  Then the religious, who already jumped on board the retard wagon, try to rebut the atheists' counterpoint as though it's actually a tenable position.  It's not.

So, we have one group of people making BS claims, and another group making BS counterclaims about which the first group then makes its own BS counterclaims.  

If you're going to debate God's existence, great.  Just leave empiricism out of it.

The only reason no amount of evidence could ever prove or disprove the existence of God is, people who are strong willed can always say that there still isn't enough evidence. That's the only reason.

This means that NOTHING that has been proven ever really has been proven to everybody. In court trials, where the evidence is overwhelming, the jury can still say, the evidence doesn't prove it.

The idea that the evidence of the machine-like nature of the universe doesn't have anything to do with proving God, is simply a belief held by people who have the agenda of not wanting God to be proven. God could walk right up to those people, slap them in the face, or kiss them on the cheek, and then do all kinds of miracles right in front of them, some of which would incite pain, others of which would incite pleasure, and they still wouldn't believe.

Modern science as it exists in its popular fashion, at its core, has no FACT for how this marvelous thing that we call the universe could have ever come into existence. All of the modern scientific explanations for this are science fiction. The evidence of this is that certain relatively obscure scientists have found that red-shift in stars doesn't have anything to do with the distance that stars are away from us, or the speed at which they are traveling away. Red-shift stars have been observed in multiple cases to exist right along side of other stars that are relatively close. This means that the Big Bang Theory is no longer even a theory. It exists as a theory only in the minds of believers in the Big Bang God. To see the evidence for this, Google "electric sun" or "electric cosmos" or "electric universe," and study the results.

There is only one other idea that makes sense for the existence of the universe (as though Big Bang ever really made sense). That idea is God. Since we know relatively nothing regarding the marvels in the universe and nature (we are still just scratching the surface), and since the marvels have machine-like quality to them, and since we know from personal experience that the person who has greater smarts and ingenuity usually is able to develop the greater more-complex machinery, so it goes that the Maker of the universe machinery fits the definition of God.

Responding to each paragraph in order:

1)  Wrong.  It has nothing to do with a person's will.  It's simply an impossibility to make any definitive claims about a monotheistic god based upon evidence because it runs directly into the fallacy of induction.

2)  In criminal court, juries cast a verdict based upon the interpretation of evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt," and not "beyond all doubt."  In civil cases, judgments are simply based upon preponderance of the evidence.  To conclude about God based upon evidence requires infinite data to reach a conclusion beyond all doubt.  This is impossible.

3)  Nothing you state here is a valid consideration.  Witnessing a 'miracle' doesn't suggest God exists whatsoever.  Neither does talking with a burning bush.  For example, you wouldn't be able to decipher whether it was a monotheistic or a polytheistic god that performed the 'miracle.'

4)  If you don't know what the scientific method is, you probably shouldn't pretend that you do.  This entre paragraph is garbage (sorry).

5)  None of the considerations you state here imply the existence of god.  The "machine-like Universe" is a dead argument and does not in any way imply God's existence.

[BADecker]

But then, instead of simply shutting up, the atheists can't help but toss in their own form of retarded logic and make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence. 

So you protest against this on the basis that 'god' cannot be held to the same degree of critical analysis as, well, EVERYTHING we know about our reality because, as you say, this 'god' character is by definition 'beyond the rules of Nature'. Trouble is, this definition is solely by way of attributes WE HUMANS have given the concept of a monotheistic 'god'.

God is inside the universe as well as outside. Of course, "outside of the universe" doesn't make any sense at all.

[BADecker]

Yet people try to prove over and over again that this case can be solved with science and reason. That is why we have always a huge discussion about nothing...

There is no 'case', there is only wild imagination summed up so perfectly by the end of your last sentence.

We might as well have them arguing the case for the existence of the train to Hogwarts.

Deferring to scientific evidence for God or a lack thereof in support of an argument is a waste of time because there is no amount of evidence that could prove or disprove the existence of a monotheistic god in the first place.  Monotheistic gods are, by definition, beyond the scope of empiricism.  

Whenever I watch religious debates -- and because of YouTube, I've seen a lot -- the same scenario tends to unfold over and over again.  The religious tend to use some form of retarded logic to try to turn religious texts into some scientific account, and atheists rightfully jump all over them for it.  But then, instead of simply shutting up, the atheists can't help but toss in their own form of retarded logic and make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence.  Then the religious, who already jumped on board the retard wagon, try to rebut the atheists' counterpoint as though it's actually a tenable position.  It's not.

So, we have one group of people making BS claims, and another group making BS counterclaims about which the first group then makes its own BS counterclaims.  

If you're going to debate God's existence, great.  Just leave empiricism out of it.

The only reason no amount of evidence could ever prove or disprove the existence of God is, people who are strong willed can always say that there still isn't enough evidence. That's the only reason.

This means that NOTHING that has been proven ever really has been proven to everybody. In court trials, where the evidence is overwhelming, the jury can still say, the evidence doesn't prove it.

The idea that the evidence of the machine-like nature of the universe doesn't have anything to do with proving God, is simply a belief held by people who have the agenda of not wanting God to be proven. God could walk right up to those people, slap them in the face, or kiss them on the cheek, and then do all kinds of miracles right in front of them, some of which would incite pain, others of which would incite pleasure, and they still wouldn't believe.

Modern science as it exists in its popular fashion, at its core, has no FACT for how this marvelous thing that we call the universe could have ever come into existence. All of the modern scientific explanations for this are science fiction. The evidence of this is that certain relatively obscure scientists have found that red-shift in stars doesn't have anything to do with the distance that stars are away from us, or the speed at which they are traveling away. Red-shift stars have been observed in multiple cases to exist right along side of other stars that are relatively close. This means that the Big Bang Theory is no longer even a theory. It exists as a theory only in the minds of believers in the Big Bang God. To see the evidence for this, Google "electric sun" or "electric cosmos" or "electric universe," and study the results.

There is only one other idea that makes sense for the existence of the universe (as though Big Bang ever really made sense). That idea is God. Since we know relatively nothing regarding the marvels in the universe and nature (we are still just scratching the surface), and since the marvels have machine-like quality to them, and since we know from personal experience that the person who has greater smarts and ingenuity usually is able to develop the greater more-complex machinery, so it goes that the Maker of the universe machinery fits the definition of God.

Responding to each paragraph in order:

1)  Wrong.  It has nothing to do with a person's will.  It's simply an impossibility to make any definitive claims about a monotheistic god based upon evidence because it runs directly into the fallacy of induction.

2)  In criminal court, jury's cast a verdict based upon the interpretation of evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt," and not "beyond all doubt."  In civil cases, judgments are simply based upon preponderance of the evidence.  To conclude about God based upon evidence requires infinite data to reach a conclusion beyond all doubt.  This is impossible.

3)  Nothing you state here is a valid consideration.  Witnessing a 'miracle' doesn't suggest God exists whatsoever.  Neither does talking with a burning bush.  For example, you wouldn't be able to decipher whether it was a monotheistic or a polytheistic god that performed the 'miracle.'

4)  If you don't know what the scientific method is, you probably shouldn't pretend that you do.  This entre paragraph is garbage (sorry).

5)  None of the considerations you state here imply the existence of god.  The "machine-like Universe" is a dead argument and does not in any way imply God's existence.

Your faith in the science god, and also the god of your own infallible reasoning is remarkable. Hold onto that kind of faith style, because if you ever become convinced that God exists, you will be a tremendously strong person for Him.

[the joint]

But then, instead of simply shutting up, the atheists can't help but toss in their own form of retarded logic and make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence.

So you protest against this on the basis that 'god' cannot be held to the same degree of critical analysis as, well, EVERYTHING we know about our reality because, as you say, this 'god' character is by definition 'beyond the rules of Nature'. Trouble is, this definition is solely by way of attributes WE HUMANS have given the concept of a monotheistic 'god'.

To employ the special pleading fallacy, which you are, is only honest if you are also acknowledging that the reason you are employing special pleading is because our imagination has chosen to attribute 'his' characteristics as such in order to explain away the fact we are proposing the existence of an 'intelligent designer' when no empiric measurement can ever be applied because we say 'he' is beyond our reality.

The process of defining the characteristics or, for that matter, mere existence of something outside our reality, other than simply admitting you're 'making shit up' with your imagination, is farcical in the extreme.

To protest against the Atheist who, rightly, says there is no reason to believe in the existence of a proposed 'god' is to, by definition, accept the potential existence of ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ANYBODY EVER DREAMS UP because, after all, the 'retarded logic' of dismissing claims towards the existence of that for which exists attributes beyond our reality, according to you, is wrong, therefore: [insert any fanciful supernatural notion here and apply some special pleading fallacy liberally as though it is equally as valid as dismissal of same for lack of evidence]

If we're going down that road, I'm with Konstantinos and his 'hypothesis' concerning the giant black dildo of smiteyness. Because, hey, you can't disprove me!!!!111!!!!1!!!!!! :superrolleyes:

@BADecker You're an idiot abusing what little you know of actual science in order to twist it to your own reality. Stop citing shit as though you even understand it in the first place. Your tiresome 'entropy' screeching keeps falling down over this inconvenient fact I have already cited: "Of utmost importance, entropy is an energetic phenomenon, and only tangentially has to do with the distribution of matter in a system."

As I said, I just wish I could unsubscribe to this shit thread. Sure, I could simply refuse to ever post it in again but the trouble is, sometimes when it appears for the umpteenth time in my list, I remember that I once was so brainwashed that I couldn't see the reality of the situation and it was the rational and reasonable words of others which allowed me to break my conditioning and free my mind from this juvenile and intellectually dishonest system of unquestioning 'faith'. So every now and then I suck it up and try again with you, only for you to show yourself to be beyond help it would seem.

Responding to paragraphs in order:

1)  Here you correctly point out the problem with ascribing a definition to God before confirming His existence.  This runs straight into the fallacy of induction. Let me be clear that this is *not* sound logic.  I'm well aware of that.  

However, if logic necessesitates the existence of some entity that, for all practical considerations, remind us of intuitive notions of God (e.g. Omnipotent; a Creator), then it would be practical to just call it 'God.'  But whatever you call it just comes down to personal preference.

And yes, I'm suggesting that a monotheistic god can not, nor ever could be, explored via science.  Science can't even explore or falsify its own assumptions, so how could you possibly expect it to capably explore something even more general?

2)  Think of it this way:  I start with a preconception of what god is, i.e. an intelligent designer.  Then, I forget all about that preconception and simply go about my business trying to use logic to uncover the fundamental truths of reality.  One such truth happens to be that reality is a mental construct.  Knowing this, I can retrieve my original presupposition and compare it to my findings.  Since it is practical to equate 'reality as a mental construct' with 'intelligent design,' I can practically conclude God exists.

3)  See above.  The only thing I would add here is that talking about something outside of reality is pointless.  If there were something real enough outside of reality so as to be able to affect it, it would be inside reality.

4) Again, the atheists' 'retarded logic' I'm referring to is thinking that empirical methods of exploration have any business exploring something that is self-apparently beyond its scope.  Inductive limitations render this impossible.  Anyone who claims otherwise has a poor understanding of the limitations of empiricism.

5)  I think it would be worth your time to consider why common atheist rebuttals such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Space Teapot are invalid right from the get go.

6)  I'll skip your response to BadDecker, but with regards to your last paragraph I think it's pretty clear that you have the opportunity to learn something by sticking around.

[the joint]

Yet people try to prove over and over again that this case can be solved with science and reason. That is why we have always a huge discussion about nothing...

There is no 'case', there is only wild imagination summed up so perfectly by the end of your last sentence.

We might as well have them arguing the case for the existence of the train to Hogwarts.

Deferring to scientific evidence for God or a lack thereof in support of an argument is a waste of time because there is no amount of evidence that could prove or disprove the existence of a monotheistic god in the first place.  Monotheistic gods are, by definition, beyond the scope of empiricism.  

Whenever I watch religious debates -- and because of YouTube, I've seen a lot -- the same scenario tends to unfold over and over again.  The religious tend to use some form of retarded logic to try to turn religious texts into some scientific account, and atheists rightfully jump all over them for it.  But then, instead of simply shutting up, the atheists can't help but toss in their own form of retarded logic and make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence.  Then the religious, who already jumped on board the retard wagon, try to rebut the atheists' counterpoint as though it's actually a tenable position.  It's not.

So, we have one group of people making BS claims, and another group making BS counterclaims about which the first group then makes its own BS counterclaims.  

If you're going to debate God's existence, great.  Just leave empiricism out of it.

The only reason no amount of evidence could ever prove or disprove the existence of God is, people who are strong willed can always say that there still isn't enough evidence. That's the only reason.

This means that NOTHING that has been proven ever really has been proven to everybody. In court trials, where the evidence is overwhelming, the jury can still say, the evidence doesn't prove it.

The idea that the evidence of the machine-like nature of the universe doesn't have anything to do with proving God, is simply a belief held by people who have the agenda of not wanting God to be proven. God could walk right up to those people, slap them in the face, or kiss them on the cheek, and then do all kinds of miracles right in front of them, some of which would incite pain, others of which would incite pleasure, and they still wouldn't believe.

Modern science as it exists in its popular fashion, at its core, has no FACT for how this marvelous thing that we call the universe could have ever come into existence. All of the modern scientific explanations for this are science fiction. The evidence of this is that certain relatively obscure scientists have found that red-shift in stars doesn't have anything to do with the distance that stars are away from us, or the speed at which they are traveling away. Red-shift stars have been observed in multiple cases to exist right along side of other stars that are relatively close. This means that the Big Bang Theory is no longer even a theory. It exists as a theory only in the minds of believers in the Big Bang God. To see the evidence for this, Google "electric sun" or "electric cosmos" or "electric universe," and study the results.

There is only one other idea that makes sense for the existence of the universe (as though Big Bang ever really made sense). That idea is God. Since we know relatively nothing regarding the marvels in the universe and nature (we are still just scratching the surface), and since the marvels have machine-like quality to them, and since we know from personal experience that the person who has greater smarts and ingenuity usually is able to develop the greater more-complex machinery, so it goes that the Maker of the universe machinery fits the definition of God.

Responding to each paragraph in order:

1)  Wrong.  It has nothing to do with a person's will.  It's simply an impossibility to make any definitive claims about a monotheistic god based upon evidence because it runs directly into the fallacy of induction.

2)  In criminal court, jury's cast a verdict based upon the interpretation of evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt," and not "beyond all doubt."  In civil cases, judgments are simply based upon preponderance of the evidence.  To conclude about God based upon evidence requires infinite data to reach a conclusion beyond all doubt.  This is impossible.

3)  Nothing you state here is a valid consideration.  Witnessing a 'miracle' doesn't suggest God exists whatsoever.  Neither does talking with a burning bush.  For example, you wouldn't be able to decipher whether it was a monotheistic or a polytheistic god that performed the 'miracle.'

4)  If you don't know what the scientific method is, you probably shouldn't pretend that you do.  This entre paragraph is garbage (sorry).

5)  None of the considerations you state here imply the existence of god.  The "machine-like Universe" is a dead argument and does not in any way imply God's existence.

Your faith in the science god, and also the god of your own infallible reasoning is remarkable. Hold onto that kind of faith style, because if you ever become convinced that God exists, you will be a tremendously strong person for Him.

I *do* believe God exists.

[BADecker]

I *do* believe God exists.

For a human being, that is a really good start.

Consider soldiers in a war for a moment. If two soldiers on opposite sides confront each other, and one of them has weapons and the other does not, and the one with weapons has the great advantage over the other, simply knowing that the other exists is not enough.

If I were the weaker soldier above, I would want to do more than simply acknowledge the existence of the other... if I wanted to live, that is.

You have a wonderful past in examining the things about God. Some of the things you examined were truth; some were lies. Use your reasoning ability to juggle the knowledge you have, so that you bring the truth to the forefront... so you can throw the lies away.

[the joint]

So you protest against this on the basis that 'god' cannot be held to the same degree of critical analysis as, well, EVERYTHING we know about our reality because, as you say, this 'god' character is by definition 'beyond the rules of Nature'. Trouble is, this definition is solely by way of attributes WE HUMANS have given the concept of a monotheistic 'god'.

I thought I would clarify this a bit further, even though I responded to it already in my previous post.

What I'm saying is that I protest against claims for/against the existence of God based upon empirical evidence because the topic needs to be held to a higher degree of critical analysis than what empirical methods are able to provide.

Think of it this way:  Empiricism is simply a theory about knowledge acquisition.  But, it's only one of many.  There are other methods of acquiring knowledge that totally and completely trump science when it comes to discussing basically *anything* that has a supra-physical component(s).

The TL;DR version is that empiricism is awesome for exploring and explaining isolated phenomena in terms of other isolated phenomena.  Aside from that, it's essentially useless.

[duckydonald]

God does exist, here is the proof if you read this, you might start to wonder and say oh shit, Now all you homos and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

[the joint]

God does exist, here is the proof if you read this, you might start to wonder and say oh shit, Now all you homos and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

This article is a pretty good example of what I've been talking about, although I don't care much at all for any specific content in it.

There is no need for an advanced degree or any special training to reach the logical conclusion that there is no beginning of time.  Sure, on a topological level there is a ton of evidence that suggests that around ~14 billion years ago the Universe popped into existence at the instant of the Big Bang.  However,  that conclusion is based upon our relative location in spacetime.  If we were someplace else, e.g. near the event horizon of a black hole, the calculated age of the Universe would be vastly different.  

Scientists have been unable to synthesize classical and quantum physics.  The classical model results in the conclusion of the Big Bang.  The quantum model does not.  The *best* model would synthesize these opposing models.

Edit:  Also, shut up about what you think of homosexuals.  What kind of idiot reads a (poorly written) science article and uses it as justification to slam gay people?  Your line of reasoning is complete BS and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[duckydonald]

how is prayer slamming

[(oYo)]

Now all you homos and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

I'm curious as to why you felt the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'. Doesn't your bible identify homosexuality as a sin? I didn't realize it was elevated to some special class of (inhuman) evil.

[darkota]

Now all you homos and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

I'm curious as to why you felt the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'. Doesn't your bible identify homosexuality as a sin? I didn't realize it was elevated to some special class of (inhuman) evil.

The bible is one of the most violent religious books in history. The "god" of the bible promotes the killing of women, children, and men for trivial things.

I'm sorry, but the bible is just a bunch of bullcrap. Everyone here should really research the laws of moses, or just google it and check for yourself if you have an extra bible with you. It'll show you all the insane violence promoted by "god".

[the joint]

how is prayer slamming

You're using your messiah complex to reach the conclusion that they need prayer to be saved.  You don't think using derogatory language and then condemning someone to hell if they don't pray is slamming? 

[darkota]

how is prayer slamming

You're using your messiah complex to reach the conclusion that they need prayer to be saved.  You don't think using derogatory language and then condemning someone to hell if they don't pray is slamming?  

500 years from, religion will probably cease to exist in the minds of the majority and we'll finally have a world that isn't divided by stupid belief systems that create violence and intolerance... Makes me wish sometimes that I was born then.

[atlantic miner]

There is no way to prove scientifically something you can't see, touch, observe. Science is only applicable to what can be tested, and not simply theorized upon, or what takes faith to believe.

[Buffer Overflow]

God does exist, here is the proof if you read this, you might start to wonder and say oh shit, Now all you homos and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

I don't understand how if we disproved the big bang, this in anyway proves god?
Oh and please keep your insecure homophobic views to yourself.

[duckydonald]

read the article, to pray for sinners is not condemning nor judging.

dont 4get There all sorts of religions

[duckydonald]

Now all you homos and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

I'm curious as to why you felt the need to differentiate between 'homos' and 'sinners'. Doesn't your bible identify homosexuality as a sin? I didn't realize it was elevated to some special class of (inhuman) evil.

The bible is one of the most violent religious books in history. The "god" of the bible promotes the killing of women, children, and men for trivial things.

I'm sorry, but the bible is just a bunch of bullcrap. Everyone here should really research the laws of moses, or just google it and check for yourself if you have an extra bible with you. It'll show you all the insane violence promoted by "god".

If god Inspired man to write the bible, Then why not Satan inspired man to write false bibles.  You guys have no brains.

[duckydonald]

God does exist, here is the proof if you read this, you might start to wonder and say oh shit, Now all you homos and sinners, go pray, and Ill pray for you all.

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

I don't understand how if we disproved the big bang, this in anyway proves god?
Oh and please keep your insecure homophobic views to yourself.

Read the bible then you will understand