Scientific proof that God exists?

[1aguar]

I have proven that all atheists are mistaken in that they lack an afterlife-concept even when that concept has been proven scientifically.

If you've just proven the atheists wrong, then you've just proven God exists. But proof of God is impossible. I'm not sure what, but there's something not quite right here.

Humanists are not quite right in their worldview because they lack an afterlife-concept; most have not evaluated the 52 points at near-death.com, and the same goes for atheists.

What is missing is your own endeavor to find out the truth about Man and God and the afterlife once you have accepted the survival hypothesis as a well-supported conclusion of science.

Atheists should read more about the afterlife and related ideas before coming to a faulty conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. I have provided the resources that will help one to study the survival hypothesis and beyond.

[1714589781]

1714589781

[1714589781]

1714589781

[Lauda]

Humanists are not quite right in their worldview because they lack an afterlife-concept; most have not evaluated the 52 points at near-death.com, and the same goes for atheists.

What is missing is your own endeavor to find out the truth about Man and God and the afterlife once you have accepted the survival hypothesis as a well-supported conclusion of science.

Atheists should read more about the afterlife and related ideas before coming to a faulty conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. I have provided the resources that will help one to study the survival hypothesis and beyond.

Stories are not evidence, NDEs are not evidence. Any doctor will easily explain you why they are seeing stuff when their oxygen levels aren't normal.The chances of "god" creating us are probably the same as some alien race creating us.

After careful evaluation of the website that you've provided me, I have come to a conclusion. I've wasted way too much time on this "evidence"; this website lives in the past and so do its beliefs.It has an awful design.
If you're claiming that website is scientific evidence, or any evidence at all you need to be ignored.

P.S. Points 1 and 5 contradict each other. Cheerio.

[Videlicet]

N-Dimethyltryptamine causes the near death experiences, not lack of oxygen my friend
Plenty of research on this chemical and its production via the pineal gland.

One of the many keys to allow closed minds to become open, just as many years ago the world was convinced earth was the center of the universe, likewise science is discovering its error: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or how about Einstein stating particles cannot move the speed of light as they will require infinite energy, but yet quantum duality namely photons exhibit properties of momentum, which defies this [Photovoltaic Effect].

I think reliance on science or religion is the basis for many of the fundamental flaws in human thought, for the isolated duality only limits our perception. Both are the same, for they only carry polarizations of consciousness and fixations on crystalline thought forms, when in actuality the truth is fluid, ubiquitous.

Thank You,
Viz.

[notbatman]

Is this discussion exclusive to monotheism?

I've been finding that a lot of new ideas are just hoaxes; I believed the earth was a globe until I actually checked into it, LOL!

[1aguar]

N-Dimethyltryptamine causes the near death experiences, not lack of oxygen my friend

NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone.

The level of conscious alertness during NDEs is usually greater than that experienced in everyday life - even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead.

After careful evaluation of the website that you've provided me, I have come to a conclusion. I've wasted way too much time on this "evidence"; this website lives in the past and so do its beliefs.It has an awful design.
If you're claiming that website is scientific evidence, or any evidence at all you need to be ignored.

You are in a rush to exit this discussion? It's too bad because apparently you did not review all 52 points:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

[Videlicet]

And this goes to prove the weaknesses in science in its inability to explain aspects of life experienced by many in which metaphysics explains; yet metaphysics goes to prove its weakness in explaining certain realities science can explain.

When opposites are carried to the extreme, they are alike. That's my point, each serves their purpose to explain reality, in which if we see both, we gain a greater perspective in life.

Thank You,
Viz.

[the joint]

Humanists are not quite right in their worldview because they lack an afterlife-concept; most have not evaluated the 52 points at near-death.com, and the same goes for atheists.

What is missing is your own endeavor to find out the truth about Man and God and the afterlife once you have accepted the survival hypothesis as a well-supported conclusion of science.

Atheists should read more about the afterlife and related ideas before coming to a faulty conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. I have provided the resources that will help one to study the survival hypothesis and beyond.

Stories are not evidence, NDEs are not evidence. Any doctor will easily explain you why they are seeing stuff when their oxygen levels aren't normal.The chances of "god" creating us are probably the same as some alien race creating us.

After careful evaluation of the website that you've provided me, I have come to a conclusion. I've wasted way too much time on this "evidence"; this website lives in the past and so do its beliefs.It has an awful design.
If you're claiming that website is scientific evidence, or any evidence at all you need to be ignored.

P.S. Points 1 and 5 contradict each other. Cheerio.

Correct, NDEs and stories are not evidence, but a doctor's empirical explanation of these events is non-comprehensive right from the get-go.  There are inherent problems with assuming that these experience can be comprehensively explained in terms of brain activity.  Surely you know this.

[notbatman]

Google search images:

ancient sputnik

https://www.google.com/images

[1aguar]

The mind is not the brain; the human mind is not sourced in the brain any more than the internet can be found in your laptop or your modem.

There are inherent problems with assuming that these experience can be comprehensively explained in terms of brain activity.  Surely you know this.

What is the real function of our brains?
Is it the brain tissue itself that creates our intelligence, or is it the electrical and conductive nature of the brain that allows us to connect to intelligence? More or less like a sophisticated antennae, just like Nikola Tesla observed of himself early in the 20th century.



Briefly, I will explain the evidence for the holographic brain concept; the first example is the double-slit experiment:

In quantum mechanics, the observer and the system being observed became mysteriously linked so that the results of any observation seemed to be determined in part by actual choices made by the observer.

[Mathematics logically proves that] the observation is affected by choices made by the observer.

When you observe something, what is the aspect of yourself which is interacting with that which you are observing but awareness/consciousness?

At the fundamental level of reality everything is energy, and that is an irrefutable conclusion in physics no matter how you look at it. And thus to believe that we are in any way separate from anything else in the universe, let alone the particles in our immediate vicinity, once again is not supported by the evidence.

Sources:
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/16/proof-human-body-projection-consciousness/
http://www.projectglobalawakening.com/2014/03/29/nature-of-mind/
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm

[BADecker]

The mind is not the brain; the human mind is not sourced in the brain any more than the internet can be found in your laptop or your modem.

There are inherent problems with assuming that these experience can be comprehensively explained in terms of brain activity.  Surely you know this.

What is the real function of our brains?
Is it the brain tissue itself that creates our intelligence, or is it the electrical and conductive nature of the brain that allows us to connect to intelligence? More or less like a sophisticated antennae, just like Nikola Tesla observed of himself early in the 20th century.



Briefly, I will explain the evidence for the holographic brain concept; the first example is the double-slit experiment:

In quantum mechanics, the observer and the system being observed became mysteriously linked so that the results of any observation seemed to be determined in part by actual choices made by the observer.

[Mathematics logically proves that] the observation is affected by choices made by the observer.

When you observe something, what is the aspect of yourself which is interacting with that which you are observing but awareness/consciousness?

At the fundamental level of reality everything is energy, and that is an irrefutable conclusion in physics no matter how you look at it. And thus to believe that we are in any way separate from anything else in the universe, let alone the particles in our immediate vicinity, once again is not supported by the evidence.

Sources:
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/16/proof-human-body-projection-consciousness/
http://www.projectglobalawakening.com/2014/03/29/nature-of-mind/
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1116425.msg11835382#msg11835382

[1aguar]

Stories are not evidence, NDEs are not evidence.
Any doctor will easily explain you why they are seeing stuff when their oxygen levels aren't normal.
The chances of "god" creating us are probably the same as some alien race creating us.

P.S. Points 1 and 5 contradict each other. Cheerio.

BUMP for the concise scientific proof of God posted in this other thread; it is a logical deduction starting from empirical observations and easily-accepted premises:

1) Observe the numerous empirical observations supporting "the survival hypothesis", which is part of "the scientific study of consciousness"; the survival hypothesis, i.e. "life after death", is the simplest explanation for the evidence (summarized in 52 points), so it is most correct. For this proof, only point #36 (linked below) needs to be accepted; this point states that the overwhelming evidence (51 other points) now places the burden of proof upon those who are skeptical of the survival hypothesis. Therefore, the survival hypothesis is valid knowledge, "proven" by the weight of the evidence (and the counterargument proposed by LaudaM above is insufficient, even if correct).
2) Consider the Definition of humanism as necessarily rejecting the survival hypothesis. That is, all humanists reject the supernatural, god(s), "life after death", etc. This is because humanism is Defined as the idea that Man is the basis for existence, thought, and ethics and acts as the founder and guarantor of knowledge and thought.
3) Consider the Rational Principle that all reason and thinking must be backed by substance (especially when it comes to the God-question) and that therefore any denial of (a Supreme being called) GOD as the guarantor and founder of knowledge and reason is necessarily an affirmation of (a Rational being called) Man as that guarantor.
4) Conclusion: The knowledge acquired from the evidence is in conflict with humanism; therefore, GOD is the guarantor of knowledge, not Man.

"Let it be said that not all humanists are atheists, but presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"
Atheism and Secularity, Page 10
Link

Only Man or GOD can be the guarantor of knowledge and thought (reason).
I propose (along with Mr. Eller) that a rationalist atheist would also dismiss claims about the entire line of "spiritual" thinking, as nothing more than a metaphor run amok.
This would be a mistake because Life after death is not a metaphor--it is backed by 52 salient points of evidence.
Now I am asking atheists to be rational with regards to the evidence; in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
I have just presented evidence refuting humanism, defined as the idea that Man is the basis for existence, thought, and ethics and acts as the founder and guarantor of knowledge and thought. For the humanist, a soul is a foreign and inert concept--and nothing more than a concept, literally a word without a referent. All humanists are without a belief in the afterlife.
I have proven that life exists after death, and that is where humanism is wrong about Man's consciousness.
I hope humanists will try to responsibly address the evidence, and likewise for any atheist.

[yummyransom]

I assure you that he is totally real. There's a lot of evidence that can proved that God is existed.

[QuestionAuthority]

Jesus loves the little children
The fucked up children of the world
Doubled headed, dumb or fright
They are funny in his sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

[Blackmet]

Anyone tell me, who was the first - the chicken or the egg?

[the joint]

Anyone tell me, who was the first - the chicken or the egg?

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html

I like this answer.

[cmthompson22]

I think the issue here is that a lot of people do not believe that there can be a connection between science and religion. They think that if you believe in science that you cannot believe in religion because you are all into the logic and disproving God. And those who believe in religion are not smart enough to deal with or understand science. But the fact is, science can be used as a tool to learn and understand more about the world that God has created for us all to enjoy

There are a lot of great scientists who say that they were able to believe more in God when they began to study science. They were amazed at the world around them when they were studying various parts of the world. But most people think this is not true. They think that science needs to be separate from religion, but in fact these two things can work together well and should be studied and enjoyed together. They are not the enemies and some of the best scientists in the world, even those who were completely against God to start with, become very religious after they began to study more.

Of course, there are a lot of different posters on here who do not believe that God exists, I guess that is their right, but I do believe in Him. I believe there are just too many miracles and wonderful things that go on in the world and would not be possible without the help of God. Yes, bad things go on in the world, but there are so many good things if you just take the time to look around and see all of it. The saddest part of all this is what all of these people who don’t believe in God have nothing to believe in and nothing to help them get through the good times and the bad times.

[1aguar]

There are a lot of great scientists who say that they were able to believe more in God when they began to study science. They were amazed at the world around them when they were studying various parts of the world. But most people think this is not true. They think that science needs to be separate from religion, but in fact these two things can work together well and should be studied and enjoyed together. They are not the enemies and some of the best scientists in the world, even those who were completely against God to start with, become very religious after they began to study more.

Yes, it's true; many in science have derived inspiration from religion and spirituality. Moreover, many atheists changed their perspective after having a transcendental experience called NDE, they became more open to the possibility of life after death.

Here is a list of famous scientists and what they said about God; it may be surprising to see so many rational thinkers converge on the same concept.

[SlickMoTwoToe]

But the fact is, science can be used as a tool to learn and understand more about the world that God has created for us all to enjoy

That's taking the assumption that there is a God for granted in the first place. If we all agreed on that same assumption and took it for granted, your statement would be fairly logical (assuming that no one had ever questioned the existence of God). I have seen religious people use science effectively to understand natural phenomena and learn more about the world around them, and they would probably agree with your statement, but anyone who has ever questioned the existence of God and then applied honest scientific reasoning to try to answer that question may not be so convinced. This is why science and religion are incompatible: because in religion questioning the existence of God, questioning the "miracles" or trying to look for other explanations for them is considered wrong, while in science, it is easy to see that many of the so called miracles would be either physically impossible (therefore a human-fabricated story) or else more easily and realistically explained by human artifice rather than some unseen and non-measurable force that can break the laws of physics at a whim.

[RodeoX]

I'm still waiting for someone to direct me to the peer reviewed scientific journal where this is published. If it is not, then it is simply not science. Scientific research is not conducted by basement dwellers at some public forums.

If there were actual science involved it would be published, reviewed the world over, the experiments would be recreated and tested, experts in their fields would try additional experiments. And no, the guy at Bible camp is not an expert in science. Indeed he must reject science to keep the whole house of cards from falling. 

[andysbizz]

I think that's not enough proof that God exists. But proving that the same generation mix with each other over time.