Scientific proof that God exists?

[owi]

I believe so no proof is needed.

[BADecker]

I also don't have proof that Super Unicorns with 3 horns that can teleport through space exist, does that mean I should believe they exist until someone proves they don't? I already proved how the god from the bible doesn't exist because they bible is filled with mistakes and nonsense.

No. Absolutely don't believe that these unicorns exist without proof. But also don't believe that they don't exist until you have proof that they don't. Rather, be open to the idea that they might exist, and stop thinking about it if it isn't important to you.

Same with God. You don't have proof that He exists. You don't have proof that He doesn't exist. You don't know either way. So, rather than trying to be an atheist (someone who tries to force himself to believe when he knows he doesn't know) against your own knowledge of the fact that you don't know, be honest. Be what you are... ignorant about this point... until you get proof one way or the other.

If you find yourself curious, however, examine the evidence with pure curiosity, rather than with preconceived notions.

The problem is that people believe in specific gods from specific religions. I'm indeed open to the idea of a being or beings that may have created the universe, however if they exist, they are not the ones from religion.

Religion is not the topic of this thread. Religious posts are made accidentally, because people are religious beings.

The science that shows that God exists is based on ONE simple thing. It is based on the fact that science does not really have a clue about how the universe started... that there is not one real shred of evidence in the universe that explains how the universe could come about and exist. (God of the gaps argument?)

So, where do we go to START investigating for a source? We include all the aspects of the universe. We include things like energy, laws of physics, chemical reactivity, energy and material cross reactivity, complexity, certainly cause and effect which is wide-spread through everything we understand, entropy to show that there was a beginning, life, spirits of people and animals, potentially the soul of man, the mind of man, and multitudes of other things.

Next, based on anything and everything that we see in the universe, we realize that whatever caused all the universe to exist, must have had the components in "mind" before the existence of the universe happened. Why mind? Because mind is part of what exists within the universe. So, it must have existed in a far greater form to be able to make mind available within the universe. (That's all conjecture, ''it must have'' You don't know any of that, you are just making it up.)

Anything able to plan and hold and carry out the making of the universe, matches intelligence combined with spirit combined with power combined with a whole lot of other great things. And, it matches our basic definitions of "God" in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. (Still conjecture.)

Big Bang does not include all these things in its theory. BB relies on all kinds of other theory to fill in the gaps within itself. The whole of BB theory - including the reliance on other theory - is a quagmire of unproven things that are constantly being contradicted as science finds out more and more. However, if Big Bang ever were the cause of the universe, then BB would be God. (Big bang theory relies on evidence like observing the universe and understanding that it's expanding http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20932483) (You can't say that the creator of the universe has a mind and is intelligent and then say that the big bang is god if it created the universe because that would not match your definition of god.

The evidence that BB relies on is self-inclusive evidence. In other words, like evolution, BB doesn't take into account multitudes of things of reality that would suggest that BB is exceedingly incomplete, and therefore inaccurate. For example. BB theory doesn't have a place within itself for spirit and mind. It relies on outside theories for these, or doesn't include them at all. BB theory is entirely useless because of this.

The only way there is conjecture about aspects of God has to do with the fact that God exists outside the universe. There is no way understand anything without, because even the phrase "extremely different" is far too inadequate to express the difference outside. The best we have is to look at what exists within, and to realize that applying it to that which is without will always be "off" to some great extent.

The best understanding that we might have other than simply to say "God," might be Big Bang. But BB is so incomplete real-world-wise, that it is entirely useless in reality.

[BADecker]

If religions are bad, then all things of people are bad. Why? Because some people simply focus on one thing, while others focus on other things. Tesla's religion of math and electronics was bad?

Jesus didn't say much after His crucifixion. But He said a lot before it. The things He said before don't entirely match the things He said after. Why not? There was a change made in the relationship between man and God at the crucifixion time. Even so, Paul's sayings are not going to match the things Jesus said before the crucifixion.

The Bible needs to be understood according to the whole theme of the relationship between God and man during the time that any of it was written... if one wants to understand it properly. Christians who apply O.T. stuff to themselves, often apply those things incorrectly, because they are not of O.T. times.

Yes !

Need to see the reaction of characters in the context.

In this sometime it looks written like platonic dialog. More like story with meaning to be understood through the interaction of two characters rather than mere accurate recollection of historical facts.

I don't agree with that. That makes you platonist before paulist before christian. Christ said clearly to follow him and await his return.

I don't say that Paul was not inspired by God. Cyrus was inspired by God as well. God uses the followers of christ and non followers alike to further his plans.

Plans of Paul as a Pharisee was to divide and weaken the Pharisee, to confuse them and to spread the "light" version of christianity that I would call paulianism, so that the message would not die. The method was to presserve the message not to further it. God only knows if not the Paul the message of christ would not be forgotten.

The role of a Paul was to make as much babilonian like people to know about it and be interested in it, so that even the worst pagan would know about Jesus. It was to presserve the word of God.

Its a clear message not to confuse the message of philosophy and the Bible in the Bible words. Catholics the apostate does that. Why do they do it? Because they are graven image worship Paulians, not christians.

You have to born again christian, leave all dogmas and love Jesus.

Thats my opinion.

Saying that god helped tesla is meaningless when you haven't even proved his existence.

Well... Its not meaningless for Tesla. lol.

You just demand impossible, for you to be able to justify your hiding in your atheist closet. Ok. Im fine with it. Be closed in your atheist closet if thats your free will.

As I had already told you. Atheism is not a default possition. Atheism is a point of view that requires YOU to have a proof that god does not exist. You claim there is no god. Where is your proof? If you have none you are an agnostic.

A movie about atheism as belief system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwMIe_AU02c

I also don't have proof that Super Unicorns with 3 horns that can teleport through space exist, does that mean I should believe they exist until someone proves they don't? I already proved how the god from the bible doesn't exist because they bible is filled with mistakes and nonsense.

What mistakes in the bible? Creation? You have not proven that passage wrong.

Snake being a symbol? How have you proven it wrong?

Virginity of Mary is nowhere near there in the bible. That not even the need to be proven wrong - its not biblical

Have you answered what is life? So why do you think ressurection is impossible if you do not even know what you are talking about what life is? Do you mean that the life cease to exist with the beating of a heart? Do you know there is a substance that makes people into a very big coma where the beating of heart is so unable to be recognised that you would think that the person is dead while he is not.

How about cryogenics. Technicly dead frozen bodies being ressurected to life? How about Izraelis torturing Palestinians by chocking them and them ressurecting them? If you think that ice can presserve the life. Why do you think that GOD CAN NOT PRESSERVE it? If everything is in him? Why ice is better?

Give me break. Define life and death first.

I can prove that super unicorns with 3 horns does not exist on earth. We have satelites so one would have seen it. Unless they burrow deep down underground. But then, they would not look like a horse and would have no horns.

Its highly unlikely that a creature that looks like a horse could live anywhere else than on the surface of the earth, eating grass.

It's invisible as well, that's why you didn't see it and it doesn't usually live here because it can teleport through space. In regards to bible mistakes:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors
https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-historical-errors-mistakes-in-bible-248627
https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

You would expect a book that's the only thing that ''proves'' god would have no mistakes, would be so perfectly written that people would not interpret it in different ways. There is also the problem with the description of God. All knowing all powerful yet he fails several times. He even had to kill almost everyone because of his failures, how does a god fail? How does a god get angry?

Since many others have proven that the Bible does not have mistakes, perhaps it is YOU who are mistaken.

Youtube search on "Uri Harel." He was a recent Jewish rabbi who investigated the Old Testament Ancient Hebrew thoroughly. He found that there were only 12 "cosmetic unknowns" in the whole O.T.  These unknowns take absolutely nothing away from any theme of the O.T.  There are no mistakes in the Bible that are worse than cosmetic... "typos."

At the same time, the things of science that seem to contradict the Bible, do so because of the interpretations that scientists and others place on them. Science has to place these interpretations there, because there is no proof for any of these contradictions at all.

To say it another way... Bible religion is not religion; it is fact and truth. Science is the religion.

If the bible was inspired by god you would expect no mistakes or possibility of anyone interpreting in any other way. There is no interpretation when it says that god commanded people to kill other people for whatever reason. It is not a bad interpretation all the contradictions there are in the bible. https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

If you are a god and the only thing you leave to humans to prove your existence is a simple book, wouldn't you make sure it has no errors?

When you are a God of true love and power like God is, you are the best thing that exists. When you are the best thing that exists, being love, you want to give other beings the ability to, also, experience and be the best. If while making them the best - making them like you are - they corrupt the "bestness" you have placed in them (they can do the corruption because they have the power of yourself you placed into them), what are your choices?

Because you have made them like yourself in their core being, you can't coerce them into doing anything. You are willpower, and so are they, because you made them that way. But the very fact that they have turned against "Godness," is their own self destruction. The best you can do is save the few who can be reached in a way where they voluntarily decide to step out of their self destruction.

The benefit to those others - the ones who are continuing onward with their self destruction - is to destroy them early. Why? Two reasons. One, they won't make their own destruction worse if they don't have a longer lifetime to do so, and two, they won't distract any of the saved ones back into self destruction if they are not around to do it.

You have been missing the point because there are not many God-religion teachers who understand... and because you are one of those who are of the self destruction theme. You have a chance to change, now. But you have to do it voluntarily. Nobody can force you, because God placed His willpower into the core of your being.

Change while you have time. And stop directing this thread towards religion all the time, when it is a science thread.

Then why give them free will if you are going to kill them when they do something wrong? Do you not see the problem in that? You are taking away the freedom from them so you could have just programmed them to be good in the first place if you are going to end up stealing their freedom anyways.

How many times do I have to tell you. It isn't God who killed them. It is they who killed themselves. It is self destruction. When they have locked themselves into self destruction, they are going to die, period. Killing them a little faster and sooner than they have killed themselves, simply keeps them from a greater torment in their destruction that they brought on themselves. So, God is actually doing them a favor by bringing about their death a bit sooner.

[BADecker]

I believe so no proof is needed.

Good! Continue on with your faith. But make sure that you are on God's side, because even demons believe, and are fearful of the wrath of God. Consider Jesus salvation.

Hopefully scientific proof will help some who won't believe without it. But if they won't believe even after the scientific proof, they are only making their self destruct more dynamic.

[IadixDev]

I believe so no proof is needed.

Good! Continue on with your faith. But make sure that you are on God's side, because even demons believe, and are fearful of the wrath of God. Consider Jesus salvation.

Hopefully scientific proof will help some who won't believe without it. But if they won't believe even after the scientific proof, they are only making their self destruct more dynamic.

Normally even those who only believe in what they see should end believing, if they really are into what they see 

[IadixDev]

Then why give them free will if you are going to kill them when they do something wrong? Do you not see the problem in that? You are taking away the freedom from them so you could have just programmed them to be good in the first place if you are going to end up stealing their freedom anyways.

Freedom is not reached by ignoring law and rules.

The truth will set you free he said.

Faith is not about avoiding death and suffering in the flesh.

Everyone can reach full command of their spirit.

If you are so afraid of suffering in the flesh or death, you should take few teaching from the stoics


"Don't behave as if you are destined to live forever. What's fated hangs over you. As long as you live and while you can, become good now." — Marcus Aurelius

Tyranny and threats are powerless against Christian believers, he declares, because of the hope they have. “You can kill us, but you cannot hurt us.”


“Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

[Przemax]

It's invisible as well, that's why you didn't see it and it doesn't usually live here because it can teleport through space.

If its invisible how do you know its unicorn let alone having 3 horns?

In regards to bible mistakes:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

That is a nitpicking here. Insects might be reffered as having 4 legs and 2 arms. They use those 2 frontal legs like arms sometimes. Just like Gorrilas sometimes uses only 2 legs not 4. Its nitpicking.

Who cares if someone that is not a matematician had wrote pi number not so precise. God had not wrote the book, it was only inspired.

And yes. Not only the flat earthers thinks the firnament is semisolid. The people that believe the earth is concave like me thinks the same. Before you laugh you must really get to know more about it. It really stand up up to science verification, wheter you believe it or not.

I am such a person that I think everything could be possible until proven wrong, and yes unicorns teleporting are a really easy absurd to be debunked, just like evolution.

Plato is not a dogma.

Philosophy in the platonic sense of dialog is not dogmatic.

It's more a litterature style rather than anything.

More a method of reflection and gain wisdom through interaction between two characters.

When they speak of philosophy in the bible they speaks of sophists , not about plato or Pythagoras.

God was existing before the new testament was written. It's clear Judaism inspired plato, and platonists and stoics influenced Christianism.

For me the new testament make much more sense in the view of platonic teaching.

The old testament still seem to pick up certain elements of previous culture like egyptian and babylonian, while rejecting only the corruption of knowledge by kings and corrupted priesthood orders.

To me it looks a lot like what Jews did with the old testament is similar to what budhist did on hinduism. A sort of purification or synthèses of mesh of various cult to re extract the essential from them.

Pharisee are not all Jews culture, and it's same with babylonian and philosophy, need to be careful about the term used in detail.


Born again is only through water and spirit.

Its not about the dogma. Its about degrading the message of christ by putting him in the grinder of hermeneutics.

Christ message is not cryptic. You don't have to do that. For you it might make more sense when you use hermeneutics. I don't deny that. Maybe its worth so little that you have to put labels on it to be worth anything. For me it makes a lot less sense that way.

By the way its important not to add or take from the message. By doing hermeneutics or comparing him with someone - you are doing precisly that.

[IadixDev]

The thing is more like, do you believe the words of jesus because it's wrote so in the bible, or because the words make sense to you ?

In first case it become more like idolatry of a man.

In the second case it's more like recognition of truth through your own spirit.

It's very important distinction emphasized by plato or socrates.

[Przemax]

The thing is more like, do you believe the words of jesus because it's wrote so in the bible, or because the words make sense to you ?

In first case it become more like idolatry of a man.

In the second case it's more like recognition of truth through your own spirit.

It's very important distinction emphasized by plato or socrates.

The second ofcourse. I know that without the plato.

You know how they say - Even the clock that does not work, shows the time correctly at the given moment a day.

[Astargath]

If religions are bad, then all things of people are bad. Why? Because some people simply focus on one thing, while others focus on other things. Tesla's religion of math and electronics was bad?

Jesus didn't say much after His crucifixion. But He said a lot before it. The things He said before don't entirely match the things He said after. Why not? There was a change made in the relationship between man and God at the crucifixion time. Even so, Paul's sayings are not going to match the things Jesus said before the crucifixion.

The Bible needs to be understood according to the whole theme of the relationship between God and man during the time that any of it was written... if one wants to understand it properly. Christians who apply O.T. stuff to themselves, often apply those things incorrectly, because they are not of O.T. times.

Yes !

Need to see the reaction of characters in the context.

In this sometime it looks written like platonic dialog. More like story with meaning to be understood through the interaction of two characters rather than mere accurate recollection of historical facts.

I don't agree with that. That makes you platonist before paulist before christian. Christ said clearly to follow him and await his return.

I don't say that Paul was not inspired by God. Cyrus was inspired by God as well. God uses the followers of christ and non followers alike to further his plans.

Plans of Paul as a Pharisee was to divide and weaken the Pharisee, to confuse them and to spread the "light" version of christianity that I would call paulianism, so that the message would not die. The method was to presserve the message not to further it. God only knows if not the Paul the message of christ would not be forgotten.

The role of a Paul was to make as much babilonian like people to know about it and be interested in it, so that even the worst pagan would know about Jesus. It was to presserve the word of God.

Its a clear message not to confuse the message of philosophy and the Bible in the Bible words. Catholics the apostate does that. Why do they do it? Because they are graven image worship Paulians, not christians.

You have to born again christian, leave all dogmas and love Jesus.

Thats my opinion.

Saying that god helped tesla is meaningless when you haven't even proved his existence.

Well... Its not meaningless for Tesla. lol.

You just demand impossible, for you to be able to justify your hiding in your atheist closet. Ok. Im fine with it. Be closed in your atheist closet if thats your free will.

As I had already told you. Atheism is not a default possition. Atheism is a point of view that requires YOU to have a proof that god does not exist. You claim there is no god. Where is your proof? If you have none you are an agnostic.

A movie about atheism as belief system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwMIe_AU02c

I also don't have proof that Super Unicorns with 3 horns that can teleport through space exist, does that mean I should believe they exist until someone proves they don't? I already proved how the god from the bible doesn't exist because they bible is filled with mistakes and nonsense.

What mistakes in the bible? Creation? You have not proven that passage wrong.

Snake being a symbol? How have you proven it wrong?

Virginity of Mary is nowhere near there in the bible. That not even the need to be proven wrong - its not biblical

Have you answered what is life? So why do you think ressurection is impossible if you do not even know what you are talking about what life is? Do you mean that the life cease to exist with the beating of a heart? Do you know there is a substance that makes people into a very big coma where the beating of heart is so unable to be recognised that you would think that the person is dead while he is not.

How about cryogenics. Technicly dead frozen bodies being ressurected to life? How about Izraelis torturing Palestinians by chocking them and them ressurecting them? If you think that ice can presserve the life. Why do you think that GOD CAN NOT PRESSERVE it? If everything is in him? Why ice is better?

Give me break. Define life and death first.

I can prove that super unicorns with 3 horns does not exist on earth. We have satelites so one would have seen it. Unless they burrow deep down underground. But then, they would not look like a horse and would have no horns.

Its highly unlikely that a creature that looks like a horse could live anywhere else than on the surface of the earth, eating grass.

It's invisible as well, that's why you didn't see it and it doesn't usually live here because it can teleport through space. In regards to bible mistakes:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors
https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-historical-errors-mistakes-in-bible-248627
https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

You would expect a book that's the only thing that ''proves'' god would have no mistakes, would be so perfectly written that people would not interpret it in different ways. There is also the problem with the description of God. All knowing all powerful yet he fails several times. He even had to kill almost everyone because of his failures, how does a god fail? How does a god get angry?

Since many others have proven that the Bible does not have mistakes, perhaps it is YOU who are mistaken.

Youtube search on "Uri Harel." He was a recent Jewish rabbi who investigated the Old Testament Ancient Hebrew thoroughly. He found that there were only 12 "cosmetic unknowns" in the whole O.T.  These unknowns take absolutely nothing away from any theme of the O.T.  There are no mistakes in the Bible that are worse than cosmetic... "typos."

At the same time, the things of science that seem to contradict the Bible, do so because of the interpretations that scientists and others place on them. Science has to place these interpretations there, because there is no proof for any of these contradictions at all.

To say it another way... Bible religion is not religion; it is fact and truth. Science is the religion.

If the bible was inspired by god you would expect no mistakes or possibility of anyone interpreting in any other way. There is no interpretation when it says that god commanded people to kill other people for whatever reason. It is not a bad interpretation all the contradictions there are in the bible. https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

If you are a god and the only thing you leave to humans to prove your existence is a simple book, wouldn't you make sure it has no errors?

When you are a God of true love and power like God is, you are the best thing that exists. When you are the best thing that exists, being love, you want to give other beings the ability to, also, experience and be the best. If while making them the best - making them like you are - they corrupt the "bestness" you have placed in them (they can do the corruption because they have the power of yourself you placed into them), what are your choices?

Because you have made them like yourself in their core being, you can't coerce them into doing anything. You are willpower, and so are they, because you made them that way. But the very fact that they have turned against "Godness," is their own self destruction. The best you can do is save the few who can be reached in a way where they voluntarily decide to step out of their self destruction.

The benefit to those others - the ones who are continuing onward with their self destruction - is to destroy them early. Why? Two reasons. One, they won't make their own destruction worse if they don't have a longer lifetime to do so, and two, they won't distract any of the saved ones back into self destruction if they are not around to do it.

You have been missing the point because there are not many God-religion teachers who understand... and because you are one of those who are of the self destruction theme. You have a chance to change, now. But you have to do it voluntarily. Nobody can force you, because God placed His willpower into the core of your being.

Change while you have time. And stop directing this thread towards religion all the time, when it is a science thread.

Then why give them free will if you are going to kill them when they do something wrong? Do you not see the problem in that? You are taking away the freedom from them so you could have just programmed them to be good in the first place if you are going to end up stealing their freedom anyways.

How many times do I have to tell you. It isn't God who killed them. It is they who killed themselves. It is self destruction. When they have locked themselves into self destruction, they are going to die, period. Killing them a little faster and sooner than they have killed themselves, simply keeps them from a greater torment in their destruction that they brought on themselves. So, God is actually doing them a favor by bringing about their death a bit sooner.

So he can torture them forever? Your analogy is like a robber trying to rob you with a gun, give me your money or I kill you. Are you really free there? Is that a free choice? Of course is not, no one wants to die but you may not want to give your money to him either. You think all the millions of people that died with the flood wanted to die? Do you not see how absurd that is? If god knew they would pick that, why make them in the first place. It's a loop and it never ends up proving god, it only proves how stupid the concept of god is taking in count the reality we live in.

Why does god want to torture people forever anyways, that's just pointless by the way.

[Astargath]

It's invisible as well, that's why you didn't see it and it doesn't usually live here because it can teleport through space.

If its invisible how do you know its unicorn let alone having 3 horns?

In regards to bible mistakes:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

That is a nitpicking here. Insects might be reffered as having 4 legs and 2 arms. They use those 2 frontal legs like arms sometimes. Just like Gorrilas sometimes uses only 2 legs not 4. Its nitpicking.

Who cares if someone that is not a matematician had wrote pi number not so precise. God had not wrote the book, it was only inspired.

And yes. Not only the flat earthers thinks the firnament is semisolid. The people that believe the earth is concave like me thinks the same. Before you laugh you must really get to know more about it. It really stand up up to science verification, wheter you believe it or not.

I am such a person that I think everything could be possible until proven wrong, and yes unicorns teleporting are a really easy absurd to be debunked, just like evolution.

Plato is not a dogma.

Philosophy in the platonic sense of dialog is not dogmatic.

It's more a litterature style rather than anything.

More a method of reflection and gain wisdom through interaction between two characters.

When they speak of philosophy in the bible they speaks of sophists , not about plato or Pythagoras.

God was existing before the new testament was written. It's clear Judaism inspired plato, and platonists and stoics influenced Christianism.

For me the new testament make much more sense in the view of platonic teaching.

The old testament still seem to pick up certain elements of previous culture like egyptian and babylonian, while rejecting only the corruption of knowledge by kings and corrupted priesthood orders.

To me it looks a lot like what Jews did with the old testament is similar to what budhist did on hinduism. A sort of purification or synthèses of mesh of various cult to re extract the essential from them.

Pharisee are not all Jews culture, and it's same with babylonian and philosophy, need to be careful about the term used in detail.


Born again is only through water and spirit.

Its not about the dogma. Its about degrading the message of christ by putting him in the grinder of hermeneutics.

Christ message is not cryptic. You don't have to do that. For you it might make more sense when you use hermeneutics. I don't deny that. Maybe its worth so little that you have to put labels on it to be worth anything. For me it makes a lot less sense that way.

By the way its important not to add or take from the message. By doing hermeneutics or comparing him with someone - you are doing precisly that.

Damn you responded to 1 thing in 1 link. What about all the contradictions in the bible? What about all the other mistakes? Your bible is a pile of trash, don't be delusional.

[IadixDev]

The thing is more like, do you believe the words of jesus because it's wrote so in the bible, or because the words make sense to you ?

In first case it become more like idolatry of a man.

In the second case it's more like recognition of truth through your own spirit.

It's very important distinction emphasized by plato or socrates.

The second ofcourse. I know that without the plato.

You know how they say - Even the clock that does not work, shows the time correctly at the given moment a day.

The more important is to recognize the good time of the day, regardless of what the clock says

The spirit can recognize truth or God's word on its own, and it's the thing that mater.

This goodness in words can appear in other words than the ones of jesus. It's even rather impossible to asserts that's it's physical jesus as the "corpus christi" who said what is wrote in the bible.

Plato and Socrates are among the firsts known to emphasis this concept of understanding through active "interpretation" of interaction between two characters, in the sense the actual truth or enlightment doesnt come from learning of the word themselves, but understanding of the dynamics that is being described through the interaction, and the change being triggered by the effect of the words in the dialog.

And there is still a rather continuous string of scholars from egypt/babylon who lead to the concept of christianism, of the logos, trinity, holy spirit, and all those concept were already discussed before the time of jesus.

The problem is there is not a very clear track of this, because babylonian tablets and egyptian hieroglyph and knowledge is still not very well understood, and there is not clear reccord of this outside of old testament, or what is left of greek/hellenistic scholarship, but these concept of the bible, in the sense of what really matter as the active principle of understanding and recognition of truth through the spirit, were already known and studied before, even if very little was left of it in the politics and doctrine of kings and rulers at the time of jesus.

[IadixDev]

Damn you responded to 1 thing in 1 link. What about all the contradictions in the bible? What about all the other mistakes? Your bible is a pile of trash, don't be delusional.

To me contradiction in the bible only comes from taking things out the historical context , and switch of reference for what is meant by it.

It's the same problem than wahabites current in Islam trying to litteralize everything leading to non sensical interpretation because of trying to discard the "platonic" dimension of the words.

It's not so much about accurate objective description of reality as in natural science.

Most of the dynamics it describe is a process that can only be observed subjectively.

Ignoring the subjective dimension of interpretation of words is what lead to wahabisme and non sensical appearence of the words.

I fully embrace the illusion of reality  

What cannot be called a pile trash ?.. your super realistic and all knowing version of reality that you want to push on everyone using mostly insult and scorning ?. .

[Przemax]

Damn you responded to 1 thing in 1 link. What about all the contradictions in the bible? What about all the other mistakes? Your bible is a pile of trash, don't be delusional.

3 things in one link. Rest of this is not even worth mentioning.

Sorry but those things were answered many many times. Most of this is known to me. If you would be sincere to know the answer, you would find it.

Its waaaaay tooo long to waste my time on such a trivialities. If you want to - find 3 the best from this link https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html and I will answer. I wont explain all of those.

[Crypto_New]

To prove it scientifically is very difficult, even I do not think it is possible. But if we connect the technology of science and belief it will not be synchronized. But if you do not believe that the god does not exist, so who is the creator of man? And how does the universe exist? As I've read from some books or from google, the world or the earth created because of chaos that time, but I forget the reference from where. This is a very silly thing to me. But I am sure, when we talk about the gods of many things to deny its existence, and when we believe therein lies our faith. And until the very last day we argue about this, I'm sure there will be no end.

[IadixDev]

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/paradoxes-of-relativity.html


https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/list-of-special-relativity-paradoxes.646135/

http://listosaur.com/science-a-technology/10-classic-paradoxes-in-science/

There are glitches and paradoxes in science too btw ..

It's not like science can produce a coherent set of axioms to explain everything everything either. .

Thinking that science explain all reality and all reality can be explained by "science", or that science is a coherent set of logic axioms is actually being delusional..

[DerpyBush]

404 not found

[IadixDev]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Primack

Joel R. Primack (born July 14, 1945) is a professor of physics and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz and is a member of the Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics.

http://www.nancyellenabrams.com/


The God that Nancy explores -- one that's consistent with science -- unites all of humanity and provides the wisdom and larger sense of meaning that we need to face our future, as well as the future of our damaged planet, together.
 
This is a God with no smoke and mirrors.


"A God That Could Be Real is full of sparkling prose, memorable quotes, and strikingly original insights that have never been brought to the page before, despite the long-running culture wars between organized religion and modern science over God and cosmic knowledge. My family and I spent a long dinner and all of breakfast the next day debating the meaning of this book. Give this book to the other questing minds in your family, and brace yourself for heated discussions."
 
-- Sandra Moore Faber, National
Medal of Science recipient and
University Professor of Astronomy
and Astrophysics, UCSC


http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/htmlformat/inabeginning.html

"In A Beginning..."

Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah

Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams





Modern cosmology--the scientific study of the universe

as a whole--no longer sees the universe as an infinite,

changeless arena in which events take place, the way Isaac

Newton did. The universe is an evolving, expanding being,

and its origin is the oldest mystery. For the first time in

possibly a million years of human wondering, we are not

simply imagining the beginning: We are observing it, in

radiation that has been traveling to us since the Big Bang,

possibly bearing information generated even earlier.

Theorists are piecing the data together into humanity's

first verifiable creation story.

Most educated people today have an essentially Newtonian

picture of the universe as a place, devoid of all human

meaning, in which we happen to find ourselves. If people

come to understand the emerging scientific cosmology,

however, they may see from what we know of the early

universe that we actually are part of an extraordinary

adventure. With its mind-expanding imagery, this emerging

cosmology gives us a new cosmic perspective, a powerful

source of awe, and a potential source of meaning in our

everyday lives.






The great miracle of our universe

is that something is happening. Galaxies are evolving. Life

is evolving. We are not just eternal potential--we are a

story.

If you play a drum, the skin vibrates in waves. If you

could get very close to it and slow things down

considerably, you would see the skin forming troughs and

crests, not just one at a time but different waves in

different directions across it, the troughs and crests

adding to each other. The sum of all the waves makes the

"sound." The wrinkles of inflation were the primal, cosmic

sound whose meaning the universe is still expanding to

express. This gives a physical picture of the origin akin to

the phrase at the opening of the Gospel of John: "In the

Beginning was the Word."

The idea that God followed a blueprint which existed

before the universe was created is also found in Jewish

Midrashic literature. Genesis Rabbah 1:1 says: "A ruler

building a palace consults an architect's plans. The

Blessed Holy One, in creating the universe, also worked from

a plan--the Torah."

Hokhmah and Kabbalah

Kabbalah, medieval Jewish mysticism, is the only

traditional cosmology we know of in which the universe was

understood to have begun in a point and expanded. We are not

kabbalists, nor are we trying to promote Kabbalah. We are

not arguing that Kabbalah was prescient or somehow knew

mystically what science is now discovering.

We are

interested in Kabbalah because it developed a set of ideas

describing the origin of an expanding universe and

integrated these ideas into its religious worldview. Can

Kabbalah help us to integrate the scientific concepts we

have been describing into our own culture?

"Kabbalah" means "secret tradition," and its origins are

uncertain. Though its earliest preserved writings date from

the twelfth century, from Provence and later Spain, its

adherents believed it derived from the secret Torah given to

Moses and handed down orally through the most religious Jews

ever since.

The early kabbalists were Jews living at the time when

Moslem culture was transmitting the philosophy and science

of Plato and Aristotle to Europe. Utterly committed to the

reality of the infinite and singular God, Jews began

applying Greek reasoning to long-standing problems of their

religion, especially the question of the nature of God. The

kabbalists used every resource they had--not only reason and

logic but poetry, meditation, and mystical experiences--to

try to understand the nature of God. They believed that they

could learn about God through contemplation of God's

relationship to creation. For this reason, they strove to

grasp the hidden reality behind the opening words of

Genesis.



Kabbalah was a cultural outgrowth of medieval European

Jewish experience. By the time of the European

Enlightenment, Jews who read Descartes and Newton considered

the idea of Sephirot as absurd as angels dancing on the head

of a pin. But Kabbalah is a metaphorical description of a

set of fundamental universal relationships which in light of

modern astrophysics appears closer to reality than the

infinite rectangular space of the Newtonian worldview.




Cosmology and Human Meaning in the Twenty-First Century

In a speech given in Philadelphia on July 4, 1994, on

the state of the world and its prospects, Vaclav Havel said

that the planet is in transition: as vastly different value

systems collide, all consistent value systems are

collapsing. We cannot foresee the results. Science, which

has been the bedrock of industrial civilization for so long,

he said, "fails to connect with the most intrinsic nature of

reality, and with natural human experience. It is now more

a source of disintegration and doubt than a source of

integration and meaning... We may know immeasurably more

about the universe than our ancestors did, and yet it

increasingly seems they knew something more essential about

it than we do, something that escapes us...Paradoxically,

inspiration for the renewal of this lost integrity can once

again be found in science...a science producing ideas that

in a certain sense allow it to transcend its own limits...

Transcendence is the only real alternative to extinction."

The search for scientific truth can be a form of

guidance. It is as divine as any other. The foundation-

building revolution that modern cosmology is undergoing

today, as it seeks a verifiable description of the origin of

the universe, requires that we transcend previous notions of

space, time, and reality. This is the kind of science Havel

is hoping for--a science whose metaphors may allow us to

comprehend terrestrial problems from a cosmic perspective.




http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/Creation-A-Convergence-of-Torah-and-Science.html



Only the big bang theory can account for all these observations, and therefore this theory is now accepted by all mainstrea cosmologists.

The most surprising assertion of the big bang theory is that the universe was literally created from nothing. It is instructive here to quote the world’s leading authorities:

“It seems certain that there was a definite time of creation.”2 Professor Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate from the University of Cambridge

“The instant of creation remains unexplained.”3 Professor Alan Guth, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“The creation lies outside the scope of the known laws of physics.”4 Professor Stephen Hawking, University of Cambridge

“The big bang is the modern version of creation.”5 Professor Joseph Silk, University of California

Today, it is not possible to carry on a meaningful discussion of cosmology without the creation of the universe assuming a central role. Professor Brian Greene, a theoretical physicist at Columbia University, wrote in 1999: “The modern theory of cosmic origins asserts that the universe erupted from an enormously energetic event, which spewed forth all space and all matter.”6

When cosmologists use the term “creation,” to what are they referring? Precisely what object was created? Scientists have discovered that the universe began with the sudden appearance of an enormous ball of light, commonly called the “primeval light-ball.” This “explosion of light” was dubbed the “big bang” by British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. The remnant of the initial ball of light was detected in 1965 by two American physicists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who were awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery.


Etc etc


Only brainwashed drones or ignorant "agnostics" are unable to see the connection. .

None of them are "scientist", and are either delusional about religion and/or science, ignorants, or intectually dishonest only defending their bias against religion or science.

[Przemax]

After a nice sleep I came to conclusions why our mr. atheist had a go and excuse with his claims.

I had noticed he used an eristic escape. I had made a question that was not precise enough so that he abused its nonprecision.

I had asked. What science knows better than religion. Its obvious that science knows better about science than religion. It devotes more time to it.

Silly me. I should have asked what science knows better than religion about the matters that religion is talking about.

And the only conclusion is as of yet it was not proven to be that science can play God. Period. If it claim the otherwise, you can know they are lying and they know it.

What science vs bible is mostly doing is confirming it.

For example some people claim that those passages are inconsistant:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

On the first day God spoke. And he had noticed that when he was speaking there was light. Thats because a sound can produce light. Sonulominescence is one of the most profound scientific experiment that proves the God's word.

And there could be a lot of sources of light other the sun. Radiation of matter like sonulomiscence shows is one form of the light. And the separation of light could mean that God's voice was not "heard" in form of trembling (radiation), making a radiation and some parts (of the water's on which the spirits of the God had float above) had trembled before the lord.

Darkness is there where one don't tremble before the lord. Its beutiful passage that science and bible come together.

I am glad that the Bible had inconsistancy like so. It only proves we are making it wrong, we do not tremble before the Lord and we are not enlightened by his word enough.

If Bible was consistent to us - silly people, it would mean its fraud made by a little less silly people that knows how silly people think.

[SiiGLe]

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.”
– Galileo Galilei –

Mathematics is real science.