Scientific proof that God exists?

[Decksperiment]

There is of course, a perfectly reasonable way to discover the age of the sphinx.. top left facing the sphinx, is a room. Not only is there a room (sealed, was it ever open?), but inside this room, there is a branch of tree. This is FACT, and no-one knows how the room was made, never mind the branch being inside the room. Let's just smash the sphinx, and grab that branch for carbon dating

[1714922104]

1714922104

[1714922104]

1714922104

[Buffer Overflow]

There is of course, a perfectly reasonable way to discover the age of the sphinx.. top left facing the sphinx, is a room. Not only is there a room (sealed, was it ever open?), but inside this room, there is a branch of tree. This is FACT, and no-one knows how the room was made, never mind the branch being inside the room. Let's just smash the sphinx, and grab that branch for carbon dating

That sounds interesting, never heard about that. I remember the time they sent that robot up one of the airshafts in a pyramid. It reached a dead end, with copper rods sticking out the blocking stone and they drilled through.
Oh, and don't mention carbon dating with BADecker in the room. Epic sore subject.

[Buffer Overflow]

Wow! Page 203!

And not a microscopic atom of evidence/proof yet.

Except for one minor fact. As I have said before, you wouldn't understand or accept the evidence if it jumped up and bit you in the left eye.

But we can try again. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

You just don't get it do you.
There is no scientific evidence of god. There is no scientific proof of god.

It's a faith. That's the whole point!

There's even people on here that believe in god and still dropping your "proof" in the waste bin. What does that tell you?
Open your tightly closed eyes for crying out loud.

[DieJohnny]

I don't see the difference between people that believe in God and those that are so proud of their faith in science.

One group of people trust Holy men to read tea leaves-- ponder and meet one with another and share their insights-- create holy script that lays forth the foundation and framework for mankind's moral and ethical dilemmas.

The other group of people believe in God. What is the difference?

[Bardman]

I don't see the difference between people that believe in God and those that are so proud of their faith in science.

One group of people trust Holy men to read tea leaves-- ponder and meet one with another and share their insights-- create holy script that lays forth the foundation and framework for mankind's moral and ethical dilemmas.

The other group of people believe in God. What is the difference?

Faith in science? Well so far cars drive, planes fly, all of them exist thanks to science. The religion on the other hand destroyed everything that had to do with science, hundreds of years ago, people was getting killed for saying the earth was not flat thanks to the religion.

[the joint]

It really bothers you guys that we might have all been created by chance doesn't it? 

"Created by chance" is a contradiction.  "Created" is causal, "random" is acausal.

To stay consistent in your assertion would require "randomness" to be defined in terms of a concrete, causal probability function of randomness.  This removes any internal inconsistency in the claim.

[the joint]

Wow! Page 203!

And not a microscopic atom of evidence/proof yet.

Except for one minor fact. As I have said before, you wouldn't understand or accept the evidence if it jumped up and bit you in the left eye.

But we can try again. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

No evidence of god there, what if instead of God being timeless actually the real God is THE GIANT SPAGUETTI MONSTER, HE IS THE TRUE GOD HE IS TIMELESS AND HE CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND HERE: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 YOU CAN CHECK MY PROOFS FOR IT, ALL HAIL THE SPAGUETTI MONSTER

The FSM is an invalid analogy to an intelligent designer, even if you assume the FSM to be omnipotent.

This is why:

1) The FSM is defined in terms of both constraint (it flies, is made of spaghetti, and is a monster) and a total lack of constraint (omnipotence).

2) An intelligent designer is defined only in terms of its total lack of constraint (onnipotence).

3) A change in the FSMs constraints necessarily changes its identity.  For example, if the FSM omnipotently changes to a Crawling Potato Fairy (the CPF, duh!), then its identity changes.  It is no longer an omnipotent FSM, but instead is an omnipotent CPF.

4) In contrast, and omnipotent intelligent designer defined only in terms of its lack of constraint could assume the form of an FSM, CFP, or anything else, and it would lose no aspect of its identity.  That is, whether an omnipotent intelligent designer assumes a constrained form or not has no bearing on its identity -- in either case, it is still an omnipotent intelligent designer.

5) Summarizing:
  
     A) If an omni-FSM changes to an omni-CPF, it is no longer an omni-FSM.

     B) If an omni-I.D. assumes the form of an FSM, CPF, or anything else, it is still an omni-I.D.

     C) Therefore, an omni-FSM =\= omni-I.D.

[bl4kjaguar]

science definitely makes a good case for the existence of God. I pretty much believe the genetics evidence it looks quite legit. What is certainly unscientific is evolution. wonder why it is taught in out schools & universities as if its a scientific fact

It's a political ploy. In the past, God and the Bible were the places one went to find law. Now, with God and the Bible being downplayed in favor of evolution and freedom to make your own law, there is freedom to do anything among the masses. This gives government the right to do anything, as well, including taking over the people by pushing them into a dictatorship.

Think about this one for a moment: the only thing giving the government "the right to do anything" is the people's ignorance; that is to say, the people are ignorant of the Bible's true message regarding LAW, and they do not read law dictionaries.

Similarly, it is ignorance that prevents one from seeing the truth about God and our genetics.

Any application of truth, fraud, invalidity, etc., that you apply to the Bible can be applied just as easy to whatever you are talking about. Proof of falseness? Same KIND of proof that you would use.

Prove that the things that are written by your sources are not written by people. However, if an AI wrote them, the AI was originally programmed by people. Or, prove that this is not so.

It cannot be proven that any given Scripture is divinely inspired.

It can only be assumed from a preponderance of the evidence and by providing an answer to the content-source problem that a certain book is inspired.

Check out these links from early in the thread:

http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Publications/CunninghamJP_Fall-2012-Vol-76-(2)-295-319.pdf
http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

Read that post and argue against it...

Where in that post did you even once mention plant evolution or human evolution? And what about the AECES Top 40?

It is very convenient to ignore certain information.

If it is truth, it does not matter the source

[DieJohnny]

I don't see the difference between people that believe in God and those that are so proud of their faith in science.

One group of people trust Holy men to read tea leaves-- ponder and meet one with another and share their insights-- create holy script that lays forth the foundation and framework for mankind's moral and ethical dilemmas.

The other group of people believe in God. What is the difference?

Faith in science? Well so far cars drive, planes fly, all of them exist thanks to science. The religion on the other hand destroyed everything that had to do with science, hundreds of years ago, people was getting killed for saying the earth was not flat thanks to the religion.

Have you ever heard of Eugenics? Or maybe the Atomic bomb, the Hadron collider.  Yes much faith.

Not to mention the now standard "consensus of opinion" "preponderance of evidence" that has quietly replaced faith in clergy with faith in committees of people supposedly a lot smarter than you.

[bl4kjaguar]

OF WHAT KIND OF STUFF ARE YOU MADE?

CLAY? A RIB BONE?
SORRY, YOU ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF “LIGHTED” GOD—INCREDIBLE MIND/ENERGY FROM WHICH CREATION SPRINGS FORTH.
YOU ARE “MAN”—YOU ARE MIND WITH 100% PURE POTENTIAL SO YOU BECOME WHAT IT IS YOU CREATE.

You can perhaps contribute as in “assist” another but you cannot “create” another. You can, however, produce helpless and hapless “others” by your own actions and collective mind-manipulations. You can even “cripple” another in mind and/or body by your various actions. However, each individual without damaged physical parts (that includes the brain) will finally create him-, her-self at whatever level of intelligence or desire recognized within self.

[Bardman]

I don't see the difference between people that believe in God and those that are so proud of their faith in science.

One group of people trust Holy men to read tea leaves-- ponder and meet one with another and share their insights-- create holy script that lays forth the foundation and framework for mankind's moral and ethical dilemmas.

The other group of people believe in God. What is the difference?

Faith in science? Well so far cars drive, planes fly, all of them exist thanks to science. The religion on the other hand destroyed everything that had to do with science, hundreds of years ago, people was getting killed for saying the earth was not flat thanks to the religion.

Have you ever heard of Eugenics? Or maybe the Atomic bomb, the Hadron collider.  Yes much faith.

Not to mention the now standard "consensus of opinion" "preponderance of evidence" that has quietly replaced faith in clergy with faith in committees of people supposedly a lot smarter than you.

So you prefer to live thousands of years ago than now? Because of the atomic bomb? People always killed other people, whats your point? You wouldnt even be able to write that comment if it wasnt for science

[Decksperiment]

Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.

You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.

Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.

Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:

The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.

[mistercoin]

I am a Buddhist. So, the only scientific proof I need/have is my own mind.

[Decksperiment]

See? The universe is mental.

There are three parts to being a human, physical, yeah, we're here, astral, yup, we are 'apparently' made of stars, and mental. We thought ourselve's here. And here we are. Your earliest memory is of you constructing your body inside another universe, that being your mother. When you first saw the light, you were being born. between born and 3, you were more astral and mental whilst your body adapted to take on board these other two passengers. Where are you in all this? YOU dont exist as a single entity. And never will.

[BADecker]

I am a Buddhist. So, the only scientific proof I need/have is my own mind.

Well, since Buddhism doesn't generally accept God, except possibly in a vague sort of way, what are your evidences that contradict or answer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 ? No disrespect meant. Just curious.

[Decksperiment]

I am a Buddhist. So, the only scientific proof I need/have is my own mind.

Well, since Buddhism doesn't generally accept God, except possibly in a vague sort of way, what are your evidences that contradict or answer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 ? No disrespect meant. Just curious.

Away get laid you, surely it's gotta be better than arguing from a book that, by your definition, is the ONLY evidence?

Care to explain your god without using anything the bible has to offer, or any work's by other people?

What, you dont have the power of creation at your finger tip's?

Must be me

[the joint]

I am a Buddhist. So, the only scientific proof I need/have is my own mind.

Buddhist is about as close as religion gets to science.

Fundamental Buddhist traditions not only make claims, but actually provide replicable methodologies by which one can actually test the rigor of the claims.  For example, the philosophical claim that "desire is the root of all suffering" can be tested by implementing a specific method, e.g. method, to systematically eliminate desire.  The rigor of the claims are strengthened when the claim holds through repeated implementation of the methodology.  So, if such a method (e.g. meditation) is precisely implemented and replicated such that repeated tests lead to decreased desire and a subsequent decrease in suffering, then the claim gains an increase in validity.

[BADecker]

Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.

You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.

Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.

Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:

The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

[the joint]

Seems to me when it boils down to it, that since the universe is mental, then we are nothing but mere thought.. made of a rib? No. Of star's? No, but we live on one.. Science is NOT a faith, it is a tool that can be used to reach general consensus that something either is, or is not. I do not need faith to work with science, I need intelligence to figure the yet unknown. If I could prove god, would you accept it? BADecker fails to realise his book is a book of allegory, a book designed to make you believe in something from nothing. We are taught you cant get something from nothing. Me, I look at the rain, and say, um.. ? If I had proof, would you want it? No, because like BADecker, some have been alive too long to move from that single tracked brain they show the world they are stuck on.

You'd think for a minute, that it would take a scientist to prove god, because folks like BADecker would tarnish whatever evidence so as to suit his needs. It cannot take a BADecker to prove god, since shite is not considered as proof.

Ironically, for scientific proof of god, we need scientifically minded (in BADeckers opinion, athiest's) people, not brainwashed fools.

Someone please drop a postit in BADeckers inbox which reads:

The bible is not SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Argue anything else, but this fact remains the same.

The Bible absolutely is not scientific proof for God!

Proof, no matter what it may be, is a judgmental thing. It is a personal thing. One can be confronted with all the evidence of the whole universe, scientific evidence and otherwise, and still not accept it as proof.

The reason that certain people are all upset with me (as shown by their comments and posts) since I started pushing the stuff listed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is, people are generally reasonably honest. (The reason for their general honesty is another topic.) My reasoning is hitting too close to their honesty. They are starting to convince themselves, from the evidence, that God actually might be real after all. And nobody likes being wrong, especially when it is himself/herself that is telling them that they are wrong.

No, proof is "not" a personal thing.  This is you making up a definition of "proof" that is not only different from its actual definition, but is 100% inverse and contrary to the actual definition.

Actual definition of proof implies it is objective, and thus it can be understood independent of personal experience (i.e. it isn't personal).

Your definition of proof states that it is personal, and therefore is *not* objective and *cannot* be understood independent of personal experience.

So, no, proof is not judgmental, nor is it personal.

Why do I bother mentioning this when you will obviously avoid any direct response?  Who knows.  Probably practice for concise explanation during future debates with competent opponents.

[BADecker]

I don't see the difference between people that believe in God and those that are so proud of their faith in science.

One group of people trust Holy men to read tea leaves-- ponder and meet one with another and share their insights-- create holy script that lays forth the foundation and framework for mankind's moral and ethical dilemmas.

The other group of people believe in God. What is the difference?

Faith in science? Well so far cars drive, planes fly, all of them exist thanks to science. The religion on the other hand destroyed everything that had to do with science, hundreds of years ago, people was getting killed for saying the earth was not flat thanks to the religion.

Science, that is, the accumulation and organization of knowledge, is showing more and more that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. The funny thing that is happening as this continues is, God is becoming more of scientific reality, and less of religion.

The problem for religious people when this happens is, they don't have as much room for faith, because the faith space in their minds and souls is taken up by knowing and knowledge - science. Yet God, Himself, says in the Bible (and most of the gods of the other religions indicate or say the same) that you must live by faith.

Too much of the knowledge about God can actually destroy faith... destroy the person who holds the knowledge.

Faith in "science" and faith in God are merging into reality.