Scientific proof that God exists?

[Horacewoodwood]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.

Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.

Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".

Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-God

I am sorry, atheism does not claim moral laws or to know exactly what is the cause of the existence, therefore it acts as truth by admitting the lack of knowledge. Religion does not admit to that, it claims to know precisely who created us, why and when. Of course not all atheists are rational since not all people are rational but that doesn't affect our subject with anything. As for the link you have provided, my dear friend, the first comment says absolutely everything about it. It simply explains to you why NDEs are not scientifically valid proofs of the after life or God because of the lack of information. Maybe one day, science will be able to track down and measure these NDEs and will find a clear answer, whatever that answer would it be. But until then, they are not considered proof for near death experience or God.

Actually NDEs and reincarnation cases as well as other related phenomena can be considered to be objective experiences. The lack of quantitative methods does not prevent one from concluding that survival is real, I conclude that survival is the simplest explanation for the totality of the evidence based on over 100 points and cases, if you have an open mind then you will look into them and see for yourself.

I'm sorry, I believe you have an authority problem. You may decide for yourself whatever the fuck you want, that's why it's called a belief. However, the fact that you believe the testimony of people who experienced NDEs proves afterlife and God does not mean it actually does and the rest of the world, including people who research this profesionally must listen to you and must believe the same as you. Scientists have concluded it is not enough, some of these scientists are also religious. You can believe whatever, they are not evidence, case closed.

[BADecker]

That is precisely what you did, you've shown some laws, you have not proved anything and you should know better then that. We don't live in caves anymore, any type of God proof would have been known by now by the entire world, especially by the different religions around the world. There is no God proof and whether you are a complete retard or just a hypocrite, the truth remains the same. Obviously, you are one of them, and it is neither arguable, nor debatable. I don't think you are picking on me and no I will not show you some scientific laws for the big bang. That is information a 12 year old kid could get with a quick google search, it logically stands at the basics of the Big Bang, otherwise, if it were only for mathematics, nobody would waste time actually tracing the Big Bang back when the universe was merely 450.000 years old. You may deny that evidence, but certainly it will not make it less true, it will simply make you even more retarded, if that is even possible. And for the last time, the ones that have to prove something, and we are talking about solid, powerful, concrete evidence, is you because you claim to know exactly who and when created the universe. That is a very serious claim and can only be backed up with such evidence. Stop wasting your time and go fucking pray, your faith would be much more respected than the bullshit that you keep posting in your links and the insolence of calling your waste of time 'scientific research', a great offence to any scientist who ever lived on this planet. You can keep acting like an apologist piece of shit, or you can start getting real. The 'science' bullshit won't work here, nor anywhere else.

Actually, you only have two choices. Either you know that God exists, or you don't know if He exists or not. Why? You either understand my proof and the evidence of nature that prove He exists. Or you understand that you don't know that He doesn't exist.

Nobody can know that God doesn't exist. Why not? Because nobody has checked every spot in the universe to see that God isn't there. He would have to be God, Himself, to be able to check out the whole universe to see if God was off in some other galaxy doing some other stuff.

Because of this, anyone who says that God DOESN'T exist, is retarded, hasn't thought it through, or is lying. Which one are you?:
1. Retarded;
2. Haven't thought it through;
3. Lying.

You don't seem to be retarded. After all, you write eloquently enough, and with some knowledge and understanding.

By now, after all the discussions that we have had, you must have thought it through... at least somewhat.

That only leaves lying. For whatever reason, you find it purposeful to lie.

Come on, now. Admit that you know that God might exist somewhere in the galaxy that you haven't examined closely, yet.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the poison of religion and to even consider such a mindset, morally you are on the same level with Islam. You either admit that God is real, or you are wrong. That is the capacity of religious fanatics after thousands of years of evolution, to impose their view on the world, to have it as they want it, to act like Gods do. No God in any religion has met perfection, almost all of them are tyrannic, dictatorial, slave owners. They kill at their will, they condemn thoughts, they interfere with free will and if you do not acknowledge them, you'll suffer for eternity. They also love you somehow. Of course, religious people have their ways of cherry picking the writings about Gods, especially nowadays when morality has evolved. Religious people could not go against scientific research, that would have been madness, so instead of that, they went ahead and claimed each and every scientific research proves how great their God is, without any evidence of a God of course. We can clearly observe how Badecker, without any proof to back him up, gives a ultimatum for his claim: you either believe in his God, or you are wrong. There is no way he could be wrong even though he has absolutely nothing but assumptions based on physical an natural laws which he so badly interprets. Yet, he finds that he has the authority to impose his delusional view on each and every human being on this planet. That is how religion has poisoned and is still poisoning humanity. Someone once asked Christopher Hitchens where does evil come from, if there is no God, to which he replied with 'religion'. Take a while and think about that.

P.S. Badecker here wonders why do I bring religion into subject so often. Well, it's simple: religious people are defined as those who believe in a supernatural creator, they have faith that creator exists, that it made the whole world and us. Atheists, on the other side, are exactly the opposite of that, so calling atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position.

There you go, again, talking religion. Get back on topic and talk science. And, not the science of religion. Rather, as the topic title says, the science of the proof for the existence of God.

You are so religion oriented that you can't even talk science. Look at the scientific proof for God here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Take your religion talk over to one of the religious threads.

I don't think you read or understood what I said, but I shall make it short in order to stop wasting both our times. For decent people, it precisely demonstrates the poison of religion through your example. As for you, it says 'Fuck off, you are a piece of shit that imposes his religion to people. You do not deserve attention you christian whore.' Science does not prove God and most probably never will. Amen and case closed with this retard.

What? You never heard of the ignore button? Don't like what I say? Use the ignore button.

I don't think you are understanding the idea of science. Nothing that I have said is about religion. At the same time, most of what you have said is about religion.

It's a reasonably free forum. This is why you can get off-topic in this thread so much.

If you don't think science proves the existence of God, use some scientific rebuttal to show it. Oh that's right. You do, don't you. It's called "political science" which says that all you have to do is out-talk someone else to be right, and even lie when you can get away with it.

[Palmerson]

I'm not advocating to ignore button existed. I do not believe that God exists, but that doesn't mean I don't have to read reviews from those who believe in it. Suddenly I'm wrong? Everyone should know that his opinion is not absolute truth.

[BADecker]

I'm not advocating to ignore button existed. I do not believe that God exists, but that doesn't mean I don't have to read reviews from those who believe in it. Suddenly I'm wrong? Everyone should know that his opinion is not absolute truth.

Proof isn't opinion. Or are you of the opinion that proof IS opinion.

    

[BADecker]

I'm not advocating to ignore button existed. I do not believe that God exists, but that doesn't mean I don't have to read reviews from those who believe in it. Suddenly I'm wrong? Everyone should know that his opinion is not absolute truth.

Proof isn't opinion. Or are you of the opinion that proof IS opinion.

    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opyv8kbhpZQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-TH8cfD3mY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lua0_mkvL5s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKihkRS4_iI

At times of great joy or great pain, opinion doesn't matter. Reality sets in.

[firuzjumaev]

I have never seen my breakfast getting ready itself without any force or power spent. If even my brwakfast isn't getting ready itself, it can't be that such a greatly designed universe could appear itself... That's enough for those who want to believe...

[qwik2learn]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.

Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.

Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".

Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-God

I am sorry, atheism does not claim moral laws or to know exactly what is the cause of the existence, therefore it acts as truth by admitting the lack of knowledge. Religion does not admit to that, it claims to know precisely who created us, why and when. Of course not all atheists are rational since not all people are rational but that doesn't affect our subject with anything. As for the link you have provided, my dear friend, the first comment says absolutely everything about it. It simply explains to you why NDEs are not scientifically valid proofs of the after life or God because of the lack of information. Maybe one day, science will be able to track down and measure these NDEs and will find a clear answer, whatever that answer would it be. But until then, they are not considered proof for near death experience or God.

Actually NDEs and reincarnation cases as well as other related phenomena can be considered to be objective experiences. The lack of quantitative methods does not prevent one from concluding that survival is real, I conclude that survival is the simplest explanation for the totality of the evidence based on over 100 points and cases, if you have an open mind then you will look into them and see for yourself.

I'm sorry, I believe you have an authority problem. You may decide for yourself whatever the fuck you want, that's why it's called a belief. However, the fact that you believe the testimony of people who experienced NDEs proves afterlife and God does not mean it actually does and the rest of the world, including people who research this profesionally must listen to you and must believe the same as you. Scientists have concluded it is not enough, some of these scientists are also religious. You can believe whatever, they are not evidence, case closed.

So basically you accept the beliefs of scientists as authority? I do not see specifically why you reject the testimony of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Anthony Flew, both famous skeptics; what specifically would refute the evidence that convinced these men? Do you even have an argument that addresses facts or is it mere speculation? What about the fact that skeptical arguments against NDE are invalid? You have the burden of proving that survival has been ruled out yet you present no evidence. On the other hand is a vast wealth of evidence and documented cases with physical evidence included, all of it suggesting the survival of the personality. You act as if there is no physical evidence being presented and yet there are many varied phenomena which are very hard to explain precisely because of that physical evidence!

[pressureonme]

I'm totally illuminated by this topic.

[qwik2learn]

Horace says that science might one day explain NDE without using the survival hypothesis, but this would be more complicated than assuming survival.

What about the present understanding and research of survival researchers? It will all have to be thrown away for this new theory?

[Horacewoodwood]

That is precisely what you did, you've shown some laws, you have not proved anything and you should know better then that. We don't live in caves anymore, any type of God proof would have been known by now by the entire world, especially by the different religions around the world. There is no God proof and whether you are a complete retard or just a hypocrite, the truth remains the same. Obviously, you are one of them, and it is neither arguable, nor debatable. I don't think you are picking on me and no I will not show you some scientific laws for the big bang. That is information a 12 year old kid could get with a quick google search, it logically stands at the basics of the Big Bang, otherwise, if it were only for mathematics, nobody would waste time actually tracing the Big Bang back when the universe was merely 450.000 years old. You may deny that evidence, but certainly it will not make it less true, it will simply make you even more retarded, if that is even possible. And for the last time, the ones that have to prove something, and we are talking about solid, powerful, concrete evidence, is you because you claim to know exactly who and when created the universe. That is a very serious claim and can only be backed up with such evidence. Stop wasting your time and go fucking pray, your faith would be much more respected than the bullshit that you keep posting in your links and the insolence of calling your waste of time 'scientific research', a great offence to any scientist who ever lived on this planet. You can keep acting like an apologist piece of shit, or you can start getting real. The 'science' bullshit won't work here, nor anywhere else.

Actually, you only have two choices. Either you know that God exists, or you don't know if He exists or not. Why? You either understand my proof and the evidence of nature that prove He exists. Or you understand that you don't know that He doesn't exist.

Nobody can know that God doesn't exist. Why not? Because nobody has checked every spot in the universe to see that God isn't there. He would have to be God, Himself, to be able to check out the whole universe to see if God was off in some other galaxy doing some other stuff.

Because of this, anyone who says that God DOESN'T exist, is retarded, hasn't thought it through, or is lying. Which one are you?:
1. Retarded;
2. Haven't thought it through;
3. Lying.

You don't seem to be retarded. After all, you write eloquently enough, and with some knowledge and understanding.

By now, after all the discussions that we have had, you must have thought it through... at least somewhat.

That only leaves lying. For whatever reason, you find it purposeful to lie.

Come on, now. Admit that you know that God might exist somewhere in the galaxy that you haven't examined closely, yet.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the poison of religion and to even consider such a mindset, morally you are on the same level with Islam. You either admit that God is real, or you are wrong. That is the capacity of religious fanatics after thousands of years of evolution, to impose their view on the world, to have it as they want it, to act like Gods do. No God in any religion has met perfection, almost all of them are tyrannic, dictatorial, slave owners. They kill at their will, they condemn thoughts, they interfere with free will and if you do not acknowledge them, you'll suffer for eternity. They also love you somehow. Of course, religious people have their ways of cherry picking the writings about Gods, especially nowadays when morality has evolved. Religious people could not go against scientific research, that would have been madness, so instead of that, they went ahead and claimed each and every scientific research proves how great their God is, without any evidence of a God of course. We can clearly observe how Badecker, without any proof to back him up, gives a ultimatum for his claim: you either believe in his God, or you are wrong. There is no way he could be wrong even though he has absolutely nothing but assumptions based on physical an natural laws which he so badly interprets. Yet, he finds that he has the authority to impose his delusional view on each and every human being on this planet. That is how religion has poisoned and is still poisoning humanity. Someone once asked Christopher Hitchens where does evil come from, if there is no God, to which he replied with 'religion'. Take a while and think about that.

P.S. Badecker here wonders why do I bring religion into subject so often. Well, it's simple: religious people are defined as those who believe in a supernatural creator, they have faith that creator exists, that it made the whole world and us. Atheists, on the other side, are exactly the opposite of that, so calling atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position.

There you go, again, talking religion. Get back on topic and talk science. And, not the science of religion. Rather, as the topic title says, the science of the proof for the existence of God.

You are so religion oriented that you can't even talk science. Look at the scientific proof for God here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Take your religion talk over to one of the religious threads.

I don't think you read or understood what I said, but I shall make it short in order to stop wasting both our times. For decent people, it precisely demonstrates the poison of religion through your example. As for you, it says 'Fuck off, you are a piece of shit that imposes his religion to people. You do not deserve attention you christian whore.' Science does not prove God and most probably never will. Amen and case closed with this retard.

What? You never heard of the ignore button? Don't like what I say? Use the ignore button.

I don't think you are understanding the idea of science. Nothing that I have said is about religion. At the same time, most of what you have said is about religion.

It's a reasonably free forum. This is why you can get off-topic in this thread so much.

If you don't think science proves the existence of God, use some scientific rebuttal to show it. Oh that's right. You do, don't you. It's called "political science" which says that all you have to do is out-talk someone else to be right, and even lie when you can get away with it.

Everything you have said involves your religion and is about your religion, the one that believes in a God. That's what a religion is, dear brain dead christian. Get used to it, you will never get away by labeling your shit science, it is not, you are not a physicist and you have almost 0 understanding of the few laws that you have heard of and abuse so much. What you are, however, is a religious fanatic, one that would do and say anything only to justify his lack of knowledge by claiming a God. You made it mandatory, your God, you actually believe that we should know your God exists, or else we are retards, liars and other things. Next step is to say we are infidels and off with our heads. The ignore button shall not have its way here, because you are something that I will hunt down and bitchslap every time I have an opportunity to do so. I did my scientific rebuttal for your bullshit, but talking science to you is like buying condoms for fleas. It's absurd and a waste of time. That is why my message to you is fuck off you child molesting religious fanatic.

[BADecker]

What? You never heard of the ignore button? Don't like what I say? Use the ignore button.

I don't think you are understanding the idea of science. Nothing that I have said is about religion. At the same time, most of what you have said is about religion.

It's a reasonably free forum. This is why you can get off-topic in this thread so much.

If you don't think science proves the existence of God, use some scientific rebuttal to show it. Oh that's right. You do, don't you. It's called "political science" which says that all you have to do is out-talk someone else to be right, and even lie when you can get away with it.

Everything you have said involves your religion and is about your religion, the one that believes in a God. That's what a religion is, dear brain dead christian. Get used to it, you will never get away by labeling your shit science, it is not, you are not a physicist and you have almost 0 understanding of the few laws that you have heard of and abuse so much. What you are, however, is a religious fanatic, one that would do and say anything only to justify his lack of knowledge by claiming a God. You made it mandatory, your God, you actually believe that we should know your God exists, or else we are retards, liars and other things. Next step is to say we are infidels and off with our heads. The ignore button shall not have its way here, because you are something that I will hunt down and bitchslap every time I have an opportunity to do so. I did my scientific rebuttal for your bullshit, but talking science to you is like buying condoms for fleas. It's absurd and a waste of time. That is why my message to you is fuck off you child molesting religious fanatic.

Everything I have said involves science and standard science laws. To see this, all you have to do is Google the things I say. You keep on bringing religion into it. Don't you have a church to say your religious things in?

[Horacewoodwood]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.

Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.

Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".

Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-God

I am sorry, atheism does not claim moral laws or to know exactly what is the cause of the existence, therefore it acts as truth by admitting the lack of knowledge. Religion does not admit to that, it claims to know precisely who created us, why and when. Of course not all atheists are rational since not all people are rational but that doesn't affect our subject with anything. As for the link you have provided, my dear friend, the first comment says absolutely everything about it. It simply explains to you why NDEs are not scientifically valid proofs of the after life or God because of the lack of information. Maybe one day, science will be able to track down and measure these NDEs and will find a clear answer, whatever that answer would it be. But until then, they are not considered proof for near death experience or God.

Actually NDEs and reincarnation cases as well as other related phenomena can be considered to be objective experiences. The lack of quantitative methods does not prevent one from concluding that survival is real, I conclude that survival is the simplest explanation for the totality of the evidence based on over 100 points and cases, if you have an open mind then you will look into them and see for yourself.

I'm sorry, I believe you have an authority problem. You may decide for yourself whatever the fuck you want, that's why it's called a belief. However, the fact that you believe the testimony of people who experienced NDEs proves afterlife and God does not mean it actually does and the rest of the world, including people who research this profesionally must listen to you and must believe the same as you. Scientists have concluded it is not enough, some of these scientists are also religious. You can believe whatever, they are not evidence, case closed.

So basically you accept the beliefs of scientists as authority? I do not see specifically why you reject the testimony of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Anthony Flew, both famous skeptics; what specifically would refute the evidence that convinced these men? Do you even have an argument that addresses facts or is it mere speculation? What about the fact that skeptical arguments against NDE are invalid? You have the burden of proving that survival has been ruled out yet you present no evidence. On the other hand is a vast wealth of evidence and documented cases with physical evidence included, all of it suggesting the survival of the personality. You act as if there is no physical evidence being presented and yet there are many varied phenomena which are very hard to explain precisely because of that physical evidence!

It is not evidence from various reasons. Testimony is not really scientific evidence, it can be part of, but you need to supervise what is happening to the subject, or at least understand why and how it is happening. Now, to answer your stupid question, when scientists decide something is not enough to become evidence in a scientific research, of course I accept their words instead of listening to a guy on a forum or some folks on a blog. That is why they are called scientists, because they do the research, dumbass. As for the 'burden of proving', no I do not have it, you actually do. I told you specifically where to look at in the link you provided and now you ask me to prove it to you? You are slightly becoming a Badecker, not reading replies and saying the same shit times and times again. Read, analyze, then talk.

[Horacewoodwood]

What? You never heard of the ignore button? Don't like what I say? Use the ignore button.

I don't think you are understanding the idea of science. Nothing that I have said is about religion. At the same time, most of what you have said is about religion.

It's a reasonably free forum. This is why you can get off-topic in this thread so much.

If you don't think science proves the existence of God, use some scientific rebuttal to show it. Oh that's right. You do, don't you. It's called "political science" which says that all you have to do is out-talk someone else to be right, and even lie when you can get away with it.

Everything you have said involves your religion and is about your religion, the one that believes in a God. That's what a religion is, dear brain dead christian. Get used to it, you will never get away by labeling your shit science, it is not, you are not a physicist and you have almost 0 understanding of the few laws that you have heard of and abuse so much. What you are, however, is a religious fanatic, one that would do and say anything only to justify his lack of knowledge by claiming a God. You made it mandatory, your God, you actually believe that we should know your God exists, or else we are retards, liars and other things. Next step is to say we are infidels and off with our heads. The ignore button shall not have its way here, because you are something that I will hunt down and bitchslap every time I have an opportunity to do so. I did my scientific rebuttal for your bullshit, but talking science to you is like buying condoms for fleas. It's absurd and a waste of time. That is why my message to you is fuck off you child molesting religious fanatic.

Everything I have said involves science and standard science laws. To see this, all you have to do is Google the things I say. You keep on bringing religion into it. Don't you have a church to say your religious things in?

Well, then you are right. Everything you said is almost scientific laws really badly interpreted and God does not exist. If however you brain dead monkey change your mind and claim God exists because of your links, then it is religion. Why? Because you believe in a fucking God, you poor mentally challenged donkey.

P.S. You are not a scientist, get over it.

[BADecker]

What? You never heard of the ignore button? Don't like what I say? Use the ignore button.

I don't think you are understanding the idea of science. Nothing that I have said is about religion. At the same time, most of what you have said is about religion.

It's a reasonably free forum. This is why you can get off-topic in this thread so much.

If you don't think science proves the existence of God, use some scientific rebuttal to show it. Oh that's right. You do, don't you. It's called "political science" which says that all you have to do is out-talk someone else to be right, and even lie when you can get away with it.

Everything you have said involves your religion and is about your religion, the one that believes in a God. That's what a religion is, dear brain dead christian. Get used to it, you will never get away by labeling your shit science, it is not, you are not a physicist and you have almost 0 understanding of the few laws that you have heard of and abuse so much. What you are, however, is a religious fanatic, one that would do and say anything only to justify his lack of knowledge by claiming a God. You made it mandatory, your God, you actually believe that we should know your God exists, or else we are retards, liars and other things. Next step is to say we are infidels and off with our heads. The ignore button shall not have its way here, because you are something that I will hunt down and bitchslap every time I have an opportunity to do so. I did my scientific rebuttal for your bullshit, but talking science to you is like buying condoms for fleas. It's absurd and a waste of time. That is why my message to you is fuck off you child molesting religious fanatic.

Everything I have said involves science and standard science laws. To see this, all you have to do is Google the things I say. You keep on bringing religion into it. Don't you have a church to say your religious things in?

Well, then you are right. Everything you said is almost scientific laws really badly interpreted and God does not exist. If however you brain dead monkey change your mind and claim God exists because of your links, then it is religion. Why? Because you believe in a fucking God, you poor mentally challenged donkey.

P.S. You are not a scientist, get over it.

Hey, man. Thanks for helping to keep this thread alive, so that people can understand that there is proof for the existence of God:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

[qwik2learn]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.

Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.

Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".

Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-God

I am sorry, atheism does not claim moral laws or to know exactly what is the cause of the existence, therefore it acts as truth by admitting the lack of knowledge. Religion does not admit to that, it claims to know precisely who created us, why and when. Of course not all atheists are rational since not all people are rational but that doesn't affect our subject with anything. As for the link you have provided, my dear friend, the first comment says absolutely everything about it. It simply explains to you why NDEs are not scientifically valid proofs of the after life or God because of the lack of information. Maybe one day, science will be able to track down and measure these NDEs and will find a clear answer, whatever that answer would it be. But until then, they are not considered proof for near death experience or God.

Actually NDEs and reincarnation cases as well as other related phenomena can be considered to be objective experiences. The lack of quantitative methods does not prevent one from concluding that survival is real, I conclude that survival is the simplest explanation for the totality of the evidence based on over 100 points and cases, if you have an open mind then you will look into them and see for yourself.

I'm sorry, I believe you have an authority problem. You may decide for yourself whatever the fuck you want, that's why it's called a belief. However, the fact that you believe the testimony of people who experienced NDEs proves afterlife and God does not mean it actually does and the rest of the world, including people who research this profesionally must listen to you and must believe the same as you. Scientists have concluded it is not enough, some of these scientists are also religious. You can believe whatever, they are not evidence, case closed.

So basically you accept the beliefs of scientists as authority? I do not see specifically why you reject the testimony of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Anthony Flew, both famous skeptics; what specifically would refute the evidence that convinced these men? Do you even have an argument that addresses facts or is it mere speculation? What about the fact that skeptical arguments against NDE are invalid? You have the burden of proving that survival has been ruled out yet you present no evidence. On the other hand is a vast wealth of evidence and documented cases with physical evidence included, all of it suggesting the survival of the personality. You act as if there is no physical evidence being presented and yet there are many varied phenomena which are very hard to explain precisely because of that physical evidence!

It is not evidence from various reasons. Testimony is not really scientific evidence, it can be part of, but you need to supervise what is happening to the subject, or at least understand why and how it is happening. Now, to answer your stupid question, when scientists decide something is not enough to become evidence in a scientific research, of course I accept their words instead of listening to a guy on a forum or some folks on a blog. That is why they are called scientists, because they do the research, dumbass. As for the 'burden of proving', no I do not have it, you actually do. I told you specifically where to look at in the link you provided and now you ask me to prove it to you? You are slightly becoming a Badecker, not reading replies and saying the same shit times and times again. Read, analyze, then talk.

You make the claim that all the evidence is based on testimonies, that is not true. As far as supervising the subject, what about when the CIA tested one psychic and found his telekinetic abilities to be genuine?? This already proves that physical matter can be acted upon at a distance by the mind, the next step is to accept that minds can survive physical death, i.e. the survival hypothesis.

Famous scientists and skeptics did supervise parapsychological research, I posted that link many times.
I posted over 100 points of evidence many of which involve physical evidence. If you have an open mind then you can read and analyze all the cases and the physical evidence which supports the survival hypothesis. There is even neurological evidence indicating that NDE is an experience "at least as real" as waking reality.
You do not give an accurate representation of the evidence, it is biased to say that there is not enough evidence; scientism is obviously a bias that works against parapsychological research but that bias does not excuse you from evaluating the evidence presented; over 100 points were presented and many of these have been thoroughly researched, reviewed, and debated, and do include physical evidence; indeed, much of the argument for survival stands on physical evidence yet you still insist that it is completely anecdotal. I think it is you who is posting the same stuff here when you should be reading the evidence; it is fairly straightforward to evaluate physical evidence, and I posted a lot of it, much to your consternation.

To be clear, survival is a simple explanation for the evidence, skeptical explanations usually involve trickery but this seems implausible given the circumstances and number of cases. Prove me wrong!

Over 100 points, horace; these points prove my argument, I doubt that you can plausibly explain them without survival. These points are summaries of evidence and primary sources as well as scholarly articles.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg18891891#msg18891891

[Horacewoodwood]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.

Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.

Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".

Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-God

I am sorry, atheism does not claim moral laws or to know exactly what is the cause of the existence, therefore it acts as truth by admitting the lack of knowledge. Religion does not admit to that, it claims to know precisely who created us, why and when. Of course not all atheists are rational since not all people are rational but that doesn't affect our subject with anything. As for the link you have provided, my dear friend, the first comment says absolutely everything about it. It simply explains to you why NDEs are not scientifically valid proofs of the after life or God because of the lack of information. Maybe one day, science will be able to track down and measure these NDEs and will find a clear answer, whatever that answer would it be. But until then, they are not considered proof for near death experience or God.

Actually NDEs and reincarnation cases as well as other related phenomena can be considered to be objective experiences. The lack of quantitative methods does not prevent one from concluding that survival is real, I conclude that survival is the simplest explanation for the totality of the evidence based on over 100 points and cases, if you have an open mind then you will look into them and see for yourself.

I'm sorry, I believe you have an authority problem. You may decide for yourself whatever the fuck you want, that's why it's called a belief. However, the fact that you believe the testimony of people who experienced NDEs proves afterlife and God does not mean it actually does and the rest of the world, including people who research this profesionally must listen to you and must believe the same as you. Scientists have concluded it is not enough, some of these scientists are also religious. You can believe whatever, they are not evidence, case closed.

So basically you accept the beliefs of scientists as authority? I do not see specifically why you reject the testimony of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Anthony Flew, both famous skeptics; what specifically would refute the evidence that convinced these men? Do you even have an argument that addresses facts or is it mere speculation? What about the fact that skeptical arguments against NDE are invalid? You have the burden of proving that survival has been ruled out yet you present no evidence. On the other hand is a vast wealth of evidence and documented cases with physical evidence included, all of it suggesting the survival of the personality. You act as if there is no physical evidence being presented and yet there are many varied phenomena which are very hard to explain precisely because of that physical evidence!

It is not evidence from various reasons. Testimony is not really scientific evidence, it can be part of, but you need to supervise what is happening to the subject, or at least understand why and how it is happening. Now, to answer your stupid question, when scientists decide something is not enough to become evidence in a scientific research, of course I accept their words instead of listening to a guy on a forum or some folks on a blog. That is why they are called scientists, because they do the research, dumbass. As for the 'burden of proving', no I do not have it, you actually do. I told you specifically where to look at in the link you provided and now you ask me to prove it to you? You are slightly becoming a Badecker, not reading replies and saying the same shit times and times again. Read, analyze, then talk.

You make the claim that all the evidence is based on testimonies, that is not true. As far as supervising the subject, what about when the CIA tested one psychic and found his telekinetic abilities to be genuine?? This already proves that physical matter can be acted upon at a distance by the mind, the next step is to accept that minds can survive physical death, i.e. the survival hypothesis.

Famous scientists and skeptics did supervise parapsychological research, I posted that link many times.
I posted over 100 points of evidence many of which involve physical evidence. If you have an open mind then you can read and analyze all the cases and the physical evidence which supports the survival hypothesis. There is even neurological evidence indicating that NDE is an experience "at least as real" as waking reality.
You do not give an accurate representation of the evidence, it is biased to say that there is not enough evidence; scientism is obviously a bias that works against parapsychological research but that bias does not excuse you from evaluating the evidence presented; over 100 points were presented and many of these have been thoroughly researched, reviewed, and debated, and do include physical evidence; indeed, much of the argument for survival stands on physical evidence yet you still insist that it is completely anecdotal. I think it is you who is posting the same stuff here when you should be reading the evidence; it is fairly straightforward to evaluate physical evidence, and I posted a lot of it, much to your consternation.

To be clear, survival is a simple explanation for the evidence, skeptical explanations usually involve trickery but this seems implausible given the circumstances and number of cases. Prove me wrong!

Over 100 points, horace; these points prove my argument, I doubt that you can plausibly explain them without survival. These points are summaries of evidence and primary sources as well as scholarly articles.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg18891891#msg18891891

Holy shit, some people are stupid. The CIA tested a psychic... I'm laughing my ass off right now. Are you talking about 'The men who stare at goats'? Because you must be talking about 'The men who stare at goats' and daaaaaamn you must be so fucking special. Scientism? You called science scientism? As if it were a cult or something. You poor idiot. The difference between science and the shits you poor monkeys talk about is science actually works:if you base medicine on science, you save lives, use it to research technology, retards like you can post this shit here, on a forum, rockets can reach the moon, etc. If I try telekinesis right now to fuck your mother, please ask her if it worked. And if it did, than I will most surely believe in it. As for your links in your post, I believe you poor special boy do not read them yourselves, if you claim that I claim all evidence is based in testimonials. The link about NDEs that you posted was talking about over 100 cases of testimonials of people coming back from clinical death and describing the same experience. Testimonials, you poor idiot. The first comment had a very accurate and complete rebuttal of the claim that these would prove after life and God. You did not read that, you did not even read your own link, you lazy piece of shit, but you expect people to prove you wrong, when you barely make sense in a simple discussion. I'll ask you this, and you will have to be very sincere about it. Are you a biologist? A psychologist? A physicist? A chemist at least? Because if you are not, then why the fuck are we even talking?

[Horacewoodwood]

What? You never heard of the ignore button? Don't like what I say? Use the ignore button.

I don't think you are understanding the idea of science. Nothing that I have said is about religion. At the same time, most of what you have said is about religion.

It's a reasonably free forum. This is why you can get off-topic in this thread so much.

If you don't think science proves the existence of God, use some scientific rebuttal to show it. Oh that's right. You do, don't you. It's called "political science" which says that all you have to do is out-talk someone else to be right, and even lie when you can get away with it.

Everything you have said involves your religion and is about your religion, the one that believes in a God. That's what a religion is, dear brain dead christian. Get used to it, you will never get away by labeling your shit science, it is not, you are not a physicist and you have almost 0 understanding of the few laws that you have heard of and abuse so much. What you are, however, is a religious fanatic, one that would do and say anything only to justify his lack of knowledge by claiming a God. You made it mandatory, your God, you actually believe that we should know your God exists, or else we are retards, liars and other things. Next step is to say we are infidels and off with our heads. The ignore button shall not have its way here, because you are something that I will hunt down and bitchslap every time I have an opportunity to do so. I did my scientific rebuttal for your bullshit, but talking science to you is like buying condoms for fleas. It's absurd and a waste of time. That is why my message to you is fuck off you child molesting religious fanatic.

Everything I have said involves science and standard science laws. To see this, all you have to do is Google the things I say. You keep on bringing religion into it. Don't you have a church to say your religious things in?

Well, then you are right. Everything you said is almost scientific laws really badly interpreted and God does not exist. If however you brain dead monkey change your mind and claim God exists because of your links, then it is religion. Why? Because you believe in a fucking God, you poor mentally challenged donkey.

P.S. You are not a scientist, get over it.

Hey, man. Thanks for helping to keep this thread alive, so that people can understand that there is proof for the existence of God:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

There is no evidence of God and you are not a scientist.

[nomad13666]

Run, Horace! Run!

[nomad13666]

You want scientific proof that God exists?

Go and research flat earth! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg19009786#msg19009786

bump

[Horacewoodwood]

You want scientific proof that God exists?

Go and research flat earth! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg19009786#msg19009786

bump

Let us welcome our third retard here, nomad the flat head monkey. Welcome retard, amuse us.