Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

Do you believe in truth, username18333? If what you say is not truth, then it seems to me that you believe the lie.

(Red colorization mine.)

I believe physicality to be real and “truth” (bl4kjaguar) hyperreal, for one cannot perceive physicality insofar as one conceives “truth” (bl4kjaguar).

To understand the hyper-real, you must understand the truth of your "space brothers"!

Life is a record of how you handled life's physical experience and those wondrous things of abundance which ARE GOD. ACTIONS and INTENT will be measured--not your pot of gold.

As you of the human species move into the throes of the time of chaos, you will be turning again and again unto the "meaning" of life and the question of existence. The pat answers from those self-appointed gurus and preachers will not fulfill your quest for Truth. There is only one place to turn for coming into peace and understanding--UNTO GOD. God never pulls away from man--man efforts to pull from God in his searching for the physical path to spirituality. There is no such thing, beloved ones.

How did the "higher brotherhood of man" get so smart? The same way as you--the hard way! We evolved and grew and learned our lessons and now we are come again unto you, the human of Earth, as emissaries of that One Creator and in the service of the wondrous whole of The Creation--to serve as teachers and wayshowers to you who have lost your vision of Truth and stumble in the darkness. God has sent ones of His realms to fill commissions that you might be given that which you need to find Truth and the WORD. The choice of participation shall be left unto EACH until the final hour.

You have to get angry, because now you know (the truth) that nihilism is not in service of life, and there are only two possible answers to the God question; they correspond to the two worldviews described briefly by Chopra here: https://youtu.be/1KX-JVt0uf0?t=48

Summary:
The ego is really a prison, a necessary stage and a lonely existence (that needs to control) and is not the true self. I suggest you search Phoenix Journals yourself for this information, for a fuller understanding.

The Phoenix Journals are intended as a "real time" commentary on current events, how current events relate to past events and the relationships of both to the physical and spiritual destinies of mankind.

All of history, as we now know it, has been revised, rewritten, twisted and tweaked by selfishly motivated men to achieve and maintain control over other men. When one can understand that everything is comprised of "energy" and that even physical matter is "coalesced" energy, and that all energy emanates from God's thought, one can accept the idea that the successful focusing of millions of minds on one expected happening will cause it to happen.

I suggest you reference Journal 21, Chapter 3 and Journal 31, Chapter 13; I propose the straightforward idea that God has come to speak with you and I through these Journals.

[1715271692]

1715271692

[1715271692]

1715271692

[1715271692]

1715271692

[bl4kjaguar]

Hold on a minute--you have admitted to being a nihilist, so by Roget's definition, your values are contrary to life, and therefore we must enforce some different values first and foremost; we honor life here on Earth, sir; even if you are a philosopher, our rule is "safety first". Values, like symbols, are essential.

[bl4kjaguar]

Speaking of "life" and "values"...

If you are not terrified--get with the program for it is SERIOUS time. The Russians in opposition to the New World Order are onto you, however, and,it is going to get very ugly as you try to spread evil under the guise of goodness and “allowing”. They don’t want loose morals and they have had their bellies full to overflow of abortions with sanction and irresponsibility and lazy counterfeits.

I am here to promote the values of life and goodness, not the New World Order.

So, which new values will you construct? You claim to acknowledge the fear of death, yet I discern that nihilism is not in service of life, and that consequently your nihilism does not serve your life.

[bl4kjaguar]

3)  Yep, here you reinforce your inductive fallacy.  You can't use "the Word of God" to prove God exists before proving that God exists.  You're caught up in a "chicken-or-egg?" problem.  If you haven't proven God to exist, then you don't know its the Word of God.  If you know it's the Word of God, then that means you've already proven to yourself somehow that God exists before looking at the evidence in the first place.

No matter how you spin it, your method doesn't work.  Sorry.

Get the truth from the source, and read the journal I referenced in totality before determining that you are right about scientific proof of God. Are you truly happy to read what I have referenced? 

4)  There is no empirical proof of an afterlife, and you more-or-less acknowledge this by correctly describing the evidence as "suggestive."  However, even if you somehow proved an afterlife exists, it does not in any way prove God exists.

Some have argued that there is no scientific way to prove anything, and that science only serves to disprove a thing.

You must yourself prove that God exists because God dwells within; that is where the proof will come from--within you! Does it bother you that I have proved to myself that God is real by reading Dharma's writings (and thinking upon the same)?

One can see from the AECES top 40, taken altogether, that a process conducive to survival (of some 'aspect') apparently exists. An adequate explanation of the Eisenbeiss case must be simple; it follows that professor Eisenbeiss is telling the 'truth' (valid message) by way of the 'surviving personality' (source) and medium (signal). The message (chess game) was transmitted; Hence, the afterlife is valid truth, and it is supported by the now-recognized fact that life is more than just complicated chemistry; belief in the afterlife is both scientific and in accord with 'information theory'. Actually, the elucidation of the content-source problem (so necessary for evaluation of inspired writings) is but an exercise in information and communication theory; the simplest and most adequate signal transmission mechanisms are posited because science evidences signal transmission all throughout nature, and in science the simplest explanation is best.

Joint, would you Kindly reference the bit about Pascal's Wager from this book? I advise you to search through the text:
http://library.atgti.az/categories/philosophy/R.Sorensen%20-%20A%20Brief%20History%20of%20the%20Paradox.pdf

Back to quoting Journals; once you have read about the Wager, you can see that the Journals are highly "suggestive"!

If MAN can keep you from communion with GOD, he can control you! If you are ever to find God and be WITH GOD--YOU MUST COME INTO COMMUNION WITH GOD--AND BYPASS THE INPUT OF MAN. Since your time as man is short indeed and your time with God is long indeed--infinite, would it not be worthy to learn to talk with God and get His instructions for passage and cease and desist listening to the misguided and misguiding ones from the pulpits and thrones of "authority" and "expert blatherings"? If they be MAN--THEY DO NOT KNOW! THEY ONLY PRESENT THAT WHICH IS ALREADY THRUST UPON THEM AND YOU--BY MAN! I AM NOT MAN IN FLESH--AND DHARMA IS NOT ME.

[bl4kjaguar]

Hold on a minute--

I discern that nihilism is not in service of life, and that consequently your nihilism does not serve your life.

[bl4kjaguar]

Hold on a minute, username18333--what about this point that I have made about values?

I discern that nihilism is not in service of life, and that consequently your nihilism does not serve your life.

Your belief/value does not serve your life, so you should change it; the philosopher you quoted advised as much!

[Astargath]

This thread is now full f the shittiest explanations for the existance of God, no scientific proof whatsoever

[BADecker]

This thread is now full f the shittiest explanations for the existance of God, no scientific proof whatsoever

There is no proof that there are constellations. The groupings of stars that we call constellations can be grouped by anybody in any way that they want. Stars in many (most) of the constellations are not near enough to each other to suggest that they should be grouped together.

In fact, there is little proof that stars exist at all. You have heard of dark matter. A bunch of scientists made up a bunch of stories and a bunch of math regarding what stars and dark matter are. Yet nobody has been close enough to any star - even the sun - to say for sure what it is. And nobody has even sent space vehicles close enough to any star other than the sun, to even SUGGEST what they ACTUALLY are.

Perhaps the ancients were right. Perhaps dark matter is the blanket with the pinholes. Perhaps the light coming through the pinholes is the light from Heaven (whatever that is).

The star wobble that we see, that we interpret as planets moving around some of the stars, might simply be some kind of space/aether aberration that hasn't been identified yet... at least not to the public.

Prove it, one way or the other.

[Astargath]

This thread is now full f the shittiest explanations for the existance of God, no scientific proof whatsoever

There is no proof that there are constellations. The groupings of stars that we call constellations can be grouped by anybody in any way that they want. Stars in many (most) of the constellations are not near enough to each other to suggest that they should be grouped together.

In fact, there is little proof that stars exist at all. You have heard of dark matter. A bunch of scientists made up a bunch of stories and a bunch of math regarding what stars and dark matter are. Yet nobody has been close enough to any star - even the sun - to say for sure what it is. And nobody has even sent space vehicles close enough to any star other than the sun, to even SUGGEST what they ACTUALLY are.

Perhaps the ancients were right. Perhaps dark matter is the blanket with the pinholes. Perhaps the light coming through the pinholes is the light from Heaven (whatever that is).

The star wobble that we see, that we interpret as planets moving around some of the stars, might simply be some kind of space/aether aberration that hasn't been identified yet... at least not to the public.

Prove it, one way or the other.

You just went full retard, never go full retard. Like are you seriously questioning if the sun exists of if there are other stars? Are you just a troll? Because damn

[BADecker]

This thread is now full f the shittiest explanations for the existance of God, no scientific proof whatsoever

There is no proof that there are constellations. The groupings of stars that we call constellations can be grouped by anybody in any way that they want. Stars in many (most) of the constellations are not near enough to each other to suggest that they should be grouped together.

In fact, there is little proof that stars exist at all. You have heard of dark matter. A bunch of scientists made up a bunch of stories and a bunch of math regarding what stars and dark matter are. Yet nobody has been close enough to any star - even the sun - to say for sure what it is. And nobody has even sent space vehicles close enough to any star other than the sun, to even SUGGEST what they ACTUALLY are.

Perhaps the ancients were right. Perhaps dark matter is the blanket with the pinholes. Perhaps the light coming through the pinholes is the light from Heaven (whatever that is).

The star wobble that we see, that we interpret as planets moving around some of the stars, might simply be some kind of space/aether aberration that hasn't been identified yet... at least not to the public.

Prove it, one way or the other.

You just went full retard, never go full retard. Like are you seriously questioning if the sun exists of if there are other stars? Are you just a troll? Because damn

Now it seems to be you who are going religious. Since there isn't any way to prove that stars exist in the standard way we think about them, who really knows what they are?

The closest thing we can do is recognize that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 - and then try to see if He has any explanation for us as to what the stars really are.

[the joint]

3)  Yep, here you reinforce your inductive fallacy.  You can't use "the Word of God" to prove God exists before proving that God exists.  You're caught up in a "chicken-or-egg?" problem.  If you haven't proven God to exist, then you don't know its the Word of God.  If you know it's the Word of God, then that means you've already proven to yourself somehow that God exists before looking at the evidence in the first place.

No matter how you spin it, your method doesn't work.  Sorry.

Get the truth from the source, and read the journal I referenced in totality before determining that you are right about scientific proof of God. Are you truly happy to read what I have referenced? 

4)  There is no empirical proof of an afterlife, and you more-or-less acknowledge this by correctly describing the evidence as "suggestive."  However, even if you somehow proved an afterlife exists, it does not in any way prove God exists.

Some have argued that there is no scientific way to prove anything, and that science only serves to disprove a thing.

You must yourself prove that God exists because God dwells within; that is where the proof will come from--within you! Does it bother you that I have proved to myself that God is real by reading Dharma's writings (and thinking upon the same)?

One can see from the AECES top 40, taken altogether, that a process conducive to survival (of some 'aspect') apparently exists. An adequate explanation of the Eisenbeiss case must be simple; it follows that professor Eisenbeiss is telling the 'truth' (valid message) by way of the 'surviving personality' (source) and medium (signal). The message (chess game) was transmitted; Hence, the afterlife is valid truth, and it is supported by the now-recognized fact that life is more than just complicated chemistry; belief in the afterlife is both scientific and in accord with 'information theory'. Actually, the elucidation of the content-source problem (so necessary for evaluation of inspired writings) is but an exercise in information and communication theory; the simplest and most adequate signal transmission mechanisms are posited because science evidences signal transmission all throughout nature, and in science the simplest explanation is best.

Joint, would you Kindly reference the bit about Pascal's Wager from this book? I advise you to search through the text:
http://library.atgti.az/categories/philosophy/R.Sorensen%20-%20A%20Brief%20History%20of%20the%20Paradox.pdf

Back to quoting Journals; once you have read about the Wager, you can see that the Journals are highly "suggestive"!

If MAN can keep you from communion with GOD, he can control you! If you are ever to find God and be WITH GOD--YOU MUST COME INTO COMMUNION WITH GOD--AND BYPASS THE INPUT OF MAN. Since your time as man is short indeed and your time with God is long indeed--infinite, would it not be worthy to learn to talk with God and get His instructions for passage and cease and desist listening to the misguided and misguiding ones from the pulpits and thrones of "authority" and "expert blatherings"? If they be MAN--THEY DO NOT KNOW! THEY ONLY PRESENT THAT WHICH IS ALREADY THRUST UPON THEM AND YOU--BY MAN! I AM NOT MAN IN FLESH--AND DHARMA IS NOT ME.

What is that you don't understand about the limits of empiricism precluding any logical possibility of forming empirical conclusions about God?

[Astargath]

This thread is now full f the shittiest explanations for the existance of God, no scientific proof whatsoever

There is no proof that there are constellations. The groupings of stars that we call constellations can be grouped by anybody in any way that they want. Stars in many (most) of the constellations are not near enough to each other to suggest that they should be grouped together.

In fact, there is little proof that stars exist at all. You have heard of dark matter. A bunch of scientists made up a bunch of stories and a bunch of math regarding what stars and dark matter are. Yet nobody has been close enough to any star - even the sun - to say for sure what it is. And nobody has even sent space vehicles close enough to any star other than the sun, to even SUGGEST what they ACTUALLY are.

Perhaps the ancients were right. Perhaps dark matter is the blanket with the pinholes. Perhaps the light coming through the pinholes is the light from Heaven (whatever that is).

The star wobble that we see, that we interpret as planets moving around some of the stars, might simply be some kind of space/aether aberration that hasn't been identified yet... at least not to the public.

Prove it, one way or the other.

You just went full retard, never go full retard. Like are you seriously questioning if the sun exists of if there are other stars? Are you just a troll? Because damn

Now it seems to be you who are going religious. Since there isn't any way to prove that stars exist in the standard way we think about them, who really knows what they are?

The closest thing we can do is recognize that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 - and then try to see if He has any explanation for us as to what the stars really are.

No way to prove the stars exist? Dont we see the sun? With our own eyes actually. We can also feel its heat. Do you really need more proofs than that? I mean i seriously dont understand your point, serious question are you trolling?

[BADecker]

This thread is now full f the shittiest explanations for the existance of God, no scientific proof whatsoever

There is no proof that there are constellations. The groupings of stars that we call constellations can be grouped by anybody in any way that they want. Stars in many (most) of the constellations are not near enough to each other to suggest that they should be grouped together.

In fact, there is little proof that stars exist at all. You have heard of dark matter. A bunch of scientists made up a bunch of stories and a bunch of math regarding what stars and dark matter are. Yet nobody has been close enough to any star - even the sun - to say for sure what it is. And nobody has even sent space vehicles close enough to any star other than the sun, to even SUGGEST what they ACTUALLY are.

Perhaps the ancients were right. Perhaps dark matter is the blanket with the pinholes. Perhaps the light coming through the pinholes is the light from Heaven (whatever that is).

The star wobble that we see, that we interpret as planets moving around some of the stars, might simply be some kind of space/aether aberration that hasn't been identified yet... at least not to the public.

Prove it, one way or the other.

You just went full retard, never go full retard. Like are you seriously questioning if the sun exists of if there are other stars? Are you just a troll? Because damn

Now it seems to be you who are going religious. Since there isn't any way to prove that stars exist in the standard way we think about them, who really knows what they are?

The closest thing we can do is recognize that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 - and then try to see if He has any explanation for us as to what the stars really are.

No way to prove the stars exist? Dont we see the sun? With our own eyes actually. We can also feel its heat. Do you really need more proofs than that? I mean i seriously dont understand your point, serious question are you trolling?

We see something. We call it the sun. So, the sun exists.

We see something that we call the stars. The stars exist.

We see darkness around the stars. We call some of it dark matter. Dark matter exists.

What they all are is a big question. The sun may be different than the stars. The stars may be pinholes in the blanket of dark matter. Who knows? We have lots of observations and theories regarding the sun, the stars, and maybe even dark matter. We have no proof, although we may be close to getting some proof about what the sun is.

[bl4kjaguar]

I suggest you reference Journal 21, Chapter 3 and Journal 31, Chapter 13; I propose the straightforward idea that God has come to speak with you and I through these Journals.

My proposal is modest; if this thread would but read, the truth about man and god would be known.

[the joint]

I suggest you reference Journal 21, Chapter 3 and Journal 31, Chapter 13; I propose the straightforward idea that God has come to speak with you and I through these Journals.

My proposal is modest; if this thread would but read, the truth about man and god would be known.

Your modest proposal must answer to my simple question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11107528#msg11107528

Edit:  What did you want me to specifically read about Pascal's Wager?  You gave a link to a 500+ page book.

[bl4kjaguar]

The book with the proof is called:

HUMAN
THE SCIENCE OF MAN
THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION AND PROOF OF GOD
AND THE COSMIC ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE
WHAT IS CREATION AND HOW IT CAME TO BE

It is the 7th volume in a series, and you can find it here:
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_36.pdf

[the joint]

The book with the proof is called:

HUMAN
THE SCIENCE OF MAN
THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION AND PROOF OF GOD
AND THE COSMIC ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE
WHAT IS CREATION AND HOW IT CAME TO BE

It is the 7th volume in a series, and you can find it here:
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_36.pdf

Cite me some pages to read.  I'm not skimming through a book of that length because I already know that whatever information in the book will not support your claim of empirical proof for God.

So, I'd like you to cite some pages that reflect the reasoning behind your claim.

[bl4kjaguar]

Hi joint,

On Page 85, it is said that you must first:
"quite thoroughly understand that there is something beyond the sensing of bodies which has no need of bodies."

I believe that the Eisenbeiss case and the rest of the AECES top 40, when taken together, is strong enough to refute humanism; survival is obviously the simplest explanation for these and also the NDE evidence that I posted earlier. It is easy to see why the personality is more than just the physical body in which it is housed; notice that a similar idea has recently been proven in biology, i.e. that life is more than just complicated chemistry.

Page 108:

All new knowledge comes slowly. Be patient--and be masterful. But study the
information for it will not seep all over you by the closed book--EVER. Your own
destiny is of too great import for you not to know that which you should know to
control it. Read the following lessons many times because it will be a real foundation
upon which to build and then open up. You will find the information not only
emotionally philosophical but also equally satisfying from a very practical viewpoint
as well, for it will give you the wisdom of a Sage--as well as an intellectual--and that
alone is well worthwhile.

[username18333]

survival is obviously the simplest explanation for these and also the NDE evidence that I posted earlier.

𝛹(𝑡, 𝛺) = ^ℏ⁄_{ℯ^𝑡sin 𝛺} is a simple model of physicality; however, this simplicity does not, necessarily, guarantee that it is accurate thereto.

It is easy to see why the personality is more than just the physical body in which it is housed

The brain’s observation of its own recurrent processing could beget “the personality” (bl4kjaguar) as a phenominological effect thereof.

[galdur]

Michelle Bachmann: Obama's poor relationship with Israel will bring the return of Jesus

http://www.jpost.com/Christian-News/Michelle-Bachmann-believe-Obamas-poor-relationship-with-Israel-will-bring-the-End-of-Times-398168