Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

Peer review places science into the realm of scientists. However, ...

I don't totally understand, but it is true that most people alive today and certainly most who lived in the past 10,000 years believed in some kind of God and would agree with you. I know that is one of the arguments; "There must be a God because so many believe in a God."

It does bring up the question of which God. So many religions contradict one another and that makes it even more unclear. Is it Ahura Mozda, Yum Kimil, Ganesha? There are thousands of Gods and each has it's devoted followers who believe with all their heart that their God is real. Are they all correct or are they all wrong? If asked I think many of them would say that only they are right and all other Gods are the product of a delusional mind.

This is why logic, math and science have taken over the world and is replacing religion as a dominant philosophical paradigm. It is not subjective and belief has nothing to do with it. 1+1=2 no matter who or where you are. The Earth goes around the Sun even if the Bible says it does not.
It does not depend on a vague notion or "sense" of Gods presence. Those things are simply not universal in how they are experienced. When a Hindu cries at his transcendent experience of mystical joy is he delusional? Or when I stand in awe at the wondrous mysteries of nature is that different? I don't know.

"Science" of a scientist is a word. "Miracle" is a word. Some happening that acts extremely differntly than science would expect might be a miracle. Until science finds the reason for said happening, the happening might be a miracle, because science may never be able to explain it. Of course, it still might not be a miracle. Science might simply always be ignorant.

By far most of the REAL science that exists doesn't explain why and how the universe exists, or what is behind most of the operations within the universe. Thus, when scientists or others hypothesize or otherwise make suggestions for things not known as fact in science, they might be using the scientific method if they do it properly, but until the hypotheses become proven fact, they are science fiction even if they are part of the scientific method.

To state it directly, most of the major scientific theories - things like Big Bang, black holes, inanimate-to-life by evolution, age of universe, chaos theory, stars operate by nuclear reactions, non-hollow earth, etc. - are science fiction at the same time that they are part of the scientific method.

The point is, most of the major ideas about basic stuff in the universe can be consigned to the position of science fiction. Until it can be explained, much of it can be consigned to the position of miracle, simply because we don't really have any even near plausible explanation for it.

Because of the things pointed out at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, even if God existed only in the realm of fiction, science is proving God more and more each day, even if it happens to be the science fiction part of science wherein God falls. Simply because the "God" hypothesis is seldomly stated in popular public scientific gatherings and announcements, doesn't mean that it does not exist. Because so extremely much of the known universe is unexplained, the God hypothesis is the greatest of all scientific hypotheses.

The greater point is, most of what the universe is made of, and where it comes from, and how it came into existence is entirely unknown. The multitudes of unknowns can be explained by God as they have been for millennia.

The above, also, explains which God... the REAL God... the one that exists in our inner being... that we feel as we exist as part of the unexplained universe.

The major evidence for the existence of God that I left out of my above linked post is, the odds. According to the way the universe operates (entropy), the odds are extremely against something like life ever happening. And the complexity of life as it exists is impossible to the extreme... according to the odds.

Which God? Find the one that defies the odds in any of the religions. That's the REAL God. To my way of thinking, not only does the Judeo-Christian God fit this category, but the Bible, itself, fits the category of not being possible to exist. Of course, one can only see it if he/she examines it in detail... from the history of how it came into being to the quantiy, quality, scope, and depth of information within it to the traditions of the nation of Israel regarding it to the fulfilled prophesies within it, etc.

As it turns out, scientifically speaking, the universe is far less likely to exist than God or the Bible.

[1714641033]

1714641033

[1714641033]

1714641033

[1714641033]

1714641033

[1714641033]

1714641033

[the joint]

Peer review places science into the realm of scientists. However, ...

I don't totally understand, but it is true that most people alive today and certainly most who lived in the past 10,000 years believed in some kind of God and would agree with you. I know that is one of the arguments; "There must be a God because so many believe in a God."

It does bring up the question of which God. So many religions contradict one another and that makes it even more unclear. Is it Ahura Mozda, Yum Kimil, Ganesha? There are thousands of Gods and each has it's devoted followers who believe with all their heart that their God is real. Are they all correct or are they all wrong? If asked I think many of them would say that only they are right and all other Gods are the product of a delusional mind.

This is why logic, math and science have taken over the world and is replacing religion as a dominant philosophical paradigm. It is not subjective and belief has nothing to do with it. 1+1=2 no matter who or where you are. The Earth goes around the Sun even if the Bible says it does not.
It does not depend on a vague notion or "sense" of Gods presence. Those things are simply not universal in how they are experienced. When a Hindu cries at his transcendent experience of mystical joy is he delusional? Or when I stand in awe at the wondrous mysteries of nature is that different? I don't know.

To state it directly, most of the major scientific theories...are science fiction at the same time that they are part of the scientific method.

No, they are not a part of the scientific method.  A method is a method.  Theories are conclusions, not methods.   

Consequently, there is no "science fiction" here.  The scientific method is valid, and the theories you mentioned are conclusions derived from that method.  It then follows that these theories are also valid (i.e. in an empirical context, and so long as the method was properly executed).

[BADecker]

Peer review places science into the realm of scientists. However, ...

I don't totally understand, but it is true that most people alive today and certainly most who lived in the past 10,000 years believed in some kind of God and would agree with you. I know that is one of the arguments; "There must be a God because so many believe in a God."

It does bring up the question of which God. So many religions contradict one another and that makes it even more unclear. Is it Ahura Mozda, Yum Kimil, Ganesha? There are thousands of Gods and each has it's devoted followers who believe with all their heart that their God is real. Are they all correct or are they all wrong? If asked I think many of them would say that only they are right and all other Gods are the product of a delusional mind.

This is why logic, math and science have taken over the world and is replacing religion as a dominant philosophical paradigm. It is not subjective and belief has nothing to do with it. 1+1=2 no matter who or where you are. The Earth goes around the Sun even if the Bible says it does not.
It does not depend on a vague notion or "sense" of Gods presence. Those things are simply not universal in how they are experienced. When a Hindu cries at his transcendent experience of mystical joy is he delusional? Or when I stand in awe at the wondrous mysteries of nature is that different? I don't know.

To state it directly, most of the major scientific theories...are science fiction at the same time that they are part of the scientific method.

No, they are not a part of the scientific method.  A method is a method.  Theories are conclusions, not methods.  

Consequently, there is no "science fiction" here.  The scientific method is valid, and the theories you mentioned are conclusions derived from that method.  It then follows that these theories are also valid (i.e. in an empirical context, and so long as the method was properly executed).

Since theories are not necessarily fact, they are part of the process of scientific method for determining fact. In other words, theories aren't conclusions. Rather, they are delusions that are stepping stones in the proof process.

[ndnh]

Since no one could prove it yet, it has been established that God doesn't exist. 

And hobbits exist.

[Videlicet]

Both sides are presenting the same argument that eventually leads to what we deem "theory" in which our current level of technology can't provide the complete concrete proof of, so we will all be waiting on these "god" arguments, just as we will be waiting on the "advanced scientific theory" that can't be yet proved by humanity.

There are two sides to the line, but don't forget the line: Neutralty.
Viz.

[BADecker]

Both sides are presenting the same argument that eventually leads to what we deem "theory" in which our current level of technology can't provide the complete concrete proof of, so we will all be waiting on these "god" arguments, just as we will be waiting on the "advanced scientific theory" that can't be yet proved by humanity.

There are two sides to the line, but don't forget the line: Neutralty.
Viz.

Seems to me that the choice is between science as God, or something else as God. Science is so far behind as God - just like the atheism religion - that we might as well forget the whole thing (keep the engineering aspect of science).

[cryptodevil]

Both sides are presenting the same argument that eventually leads to what we deem "theory"

Are they fuck the same argument. You're simply demonstrating your ignorance about the meaning of the scientific term, 'Theory'.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

A scientific theory is rooted in an hypothesis which is still considerably superior a starting point as it requires a reasonable basis for formulating it in the first place.

The theist 'theory' you are alluding as being equal to that which is borne of objective processes, is the layman's meaning of the word, 'theory', which is equal to, "Hey, I have a theory about [insert arbitrary claim here]". Which is not at all the same thing and is usually less a sound theory and more wild speculation.

[arrowguys]

im pretty sure god is not exist, so i think dont need to prove anything

[the joint]

Peer review places science into the realm of scientists. However, ...

I don't totally understand, but it is true that most people alive today and certainly most who lived in the past 10,000 years believed in some kind of God and would agree with you. I know that is one of the arguments; "There must be a God because so many believe in a God."

It does bring up the question of which God. So many religions contradict one another and that makes it even more unclear. Is it Ahura Mozda, Yum Kimil, Ganesha? There are thousands of Gods and each has it's devoted followers who believe with all their heart that their God is real. Are they all correct or are they all wrong? If asked I think many of them would say that only they are right and all other Gods are the product of a delusional mind.

This is why logic, math and science have taken over the world and is replacing religion as a dominant philosophical paradigm. It is not subjective and belief has nothing to do with it. 1+1=2 no matter who or where you are. The Earth goes around the Sun even if the Bible says it does not.
It does not depend on a vague notion or "sense" of Gods presence. Those things are simply not universal in how they are experienced. When a Hindu cries at his transcendent experience of mystical joy is he delusional? Or when I stand in awe at the wondrous mysteries of nature is that different? I don't know.

To state it directly, most of the major scientific theories...are science fiction at the same time that they are part of the scientific method.

No, they are not a part of the scientific method.  A method is a method.  Theories are conclusions, not methods.  

Consequently, there is no "science fiction" here.  The scientific method is valid, and the theories you mentioned are conclusions derived from that method.  It then follows that these theories are also valid (i.e. in an empirical context, and so long as the method was properly executed).

Since theories are not necessarily fact, they are part of the process of scientific method for determining fact. In other words, theories aren't conclusions. Rather, they are delusions that are stepping stones in the proof process.

No, theories are not a part of the process for "determining fact."  That's what the experimental method is for.

Yes, theories are conclusions.  Do you know where you find theories in an academic paper?  In the conclusion section.

No, theories are not delusions.  Theories say, "Based upon the current data, this is the best explanation."  In an academic paper, the theory/conclusion is surrounded by as many caveats as is possible, and it is always assumes a margin-of-error.  I have no idea where you get "delusional" from when the scientific method demands that one recognize its own limitations, and then blare those limitations constantly.

[HasherHub]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

[Buffer Overflow]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.

[HasherHub]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.

Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.

[the joint]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

Intelligent Design is not inverse to Evolution.  Accordingly, proving either to be true does not implicate the other to be false.

[Buffer Overflow]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.

Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.

Of course, that's why the religious folk go all funny when evolution is mentioned.
Believing in god and believing in religion are completely different things.

[QuestionAuthority]

There are thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers from census data:

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
Pastafarianism: (my favorate) 20 thousand

If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that people believe in today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

The followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject your God and you reject theirs. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which they have never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them. Sounds like they might all be bullshit, huh.

[BADecker]

There are thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers from census data:

...

And here are a couple of the weakest ones, so weak that they aren't usually even understood to be religions:
science (in the broader sense)
atheism

The god of both of these religions is man. What an ignorant god man is, especially when he practices these two religions while not understanding that they are religions, and that he is the god of these religions.

[BADecker]

Both sides are presenting the same argument that eventually leads to what we deem "theory"

Are they fuck the same argument. You're simply demonstrating your ignorance about the meaning of the scientific term, 'Theory'.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

A scientific theory is rooted in an hypothesis which is still considerably superior a starting point as it requires a reasonable basis for formulating it in the first place.

The theist 'theory' you are alluding as being equal to that which is borne of objective processes, is the layman's meaning of the word, 'theory', which is equal to, "Hey, I have a theory about [insert arbitrary claim here]". Which is not at all the same thing and is usually less a sound theory and more wild speculation.

"Well-substantiated" doesn't mean fact. Often the "well-substantiated"ness of a theory is something that only the proponents of that theory can understand. And it comes about by belief rather than by observing all kinds of opposite and potentially opposite ideas, that would be theories of strength - maybe even fact - if only the theorists had a desire to make the opposites into theory.

Theory has its place. It's called the fictional stepping stones into reality... provided it is proven. If it isn't proven, it remains theory, and is relegated to the realms of fiction, mostly science fiction.

The evidence I set forth in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 produce fact in the minds of those who don't want to simply ignore them because they have the desire to ignore God.

[the joint]

Both sides are presenting the same argument that eventually leads to what we deem "theory"

Are they fuck the same argument. You're simply demonstrating your ignorance about the meaning of the scientific term, 'Theory'.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

A scientific theory is rooted in an hypothesis which is still considerably superior a starting point as it requires a reasonable basis for formulating it in the first place.

The theist 'theory' you are alluding as being equal to that which is borne of objective processes, is the layman's meaning of the word, 'theory', which is equal to, "Hey, I have a theory about [insert arbitrary claim here]". Which is not at all the same thing and is usually less a sound theory and more wild speculation.

"Well-substantiated" doesn't mean fact. Often the "well-substantiated"ness of a theory is something that only the proponents of that theory can understand. And it comes about by belief rather than by observing all kinds of opposite and potentially opposite ideas, that would be theories of strength - maybe even fact - if only the theorists had a desire to make the opposites into theory.

Theory has its place. It's called the fictional stepping stones into reality... provided it is proven. If it isn't proven, it remains theory, and is relegated to the realms of fiction, mostly science fiction.

The evidence I set forth in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 produce fact in the minds of those who don't want to simply ignore them because they have the desire to ignore God.

A theory is simply a description of something.  If you open a dictionary and read the definition of "apple," the definition is a theoretical understanding of the apple. The same applies to all other definitions.

Your belief that God exists is also a theory due to its descriptiveness.

Further still, all facts are theories.  However, not all theories are facts.

[the joint]

There are thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers from census data:

...

And here are a couple of the weakest ones, so weak that they aren't usually even understood to be religions:
science (in the broader sense)
atheism

The god of both of these religions is man. What an ignorant god man is, especially when he practices these two religions while not understanding that they are religions, and that he is the god of these religions.

Neither atheism nor science are religions because they do not meet the definitional criteria of a religon.  You're going off into fantasy-land again.

Atheism literally means "lack of belief in God," so it's just stupid to say that "the god of these religions is man."  You're even further off-base with regards to science, which isn't even a belief system whatsoever; it's a method.

[SlickMoTwoToe]

There are thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers from census data:

...

And here are a couple of the weakest ones, so weak that they aren't usually even understood to be religions:
science (in the broader sense)
atheism

The god of both of these religions is man. What an ignorant god man is, especially when he practices these two religions while not understanding that they are religions, and that he is the god of these religions.

Let's see... to make this post you had to use some sort of electronic device... which was made by man and developed through electronic science, materials science, computer science, and physics. If you are using something so clearly made possible by science and directly made by man, then you are practically worshiping an idol of this scientific "religion",

"Thou shalt not put false gods before me"

Looks like you're going to hell, mate!