Scientific proof that God exists?

[Astargath]

Ok. Thanks. The answer is point number 4 - Its the love to deceit. Thank you for answering my question.

I only post reality - no one is being deceived.  

Now, do you have any proof your fairy tale exists?

He doesn't and now he is going to ask you to define proof.

[Vod]

Ok. Thanks. The answer is point number 4 - Its the love to deceit. Thank you for answering my question.

I only post reality - no one is being deceived.  

Now, do you have any proof your fairy tale exists?

He doesn't and now he is going to ask you to define proof.

Not a problem - there is no scientific proof of fairy tales - I can go back and forth with them all year.  

[kie]

Its hard to give proofs that god exist.
 God and science cant ride on the same boat.
 Because they always in contrast.
 Nowadays most people believed on any scientific facts than what was on the bible.
 Even though there are no proofs that god exist i still believed in Him.

[Vod]

Its hard to give proofs that god exist.
 God and science cant ride on the same boat.
 Because they always in contrast.
 Nowadays most people believed on any scientific facts than what was on the bible.
Even though there are no proofs that god exist i still believed in Him.

That makes you gullible.   

[mr_enoc]

Do i need to prove that there is one true God and HE really exist? As long as i am believing in him and believe with his promise, don't have to explain about it.

[Astargath]

Do i need to prove that there is one true God and HE really exist? As long as i am believing in him and believe with his promise, don't have to explain about it.

That doesn't mean what you believe is true.

[Vod]

Do i need to prove that there is one true God and HE really exist? As long as i am believing in him and believe with his promise, don't have to explain about it.

You don't need to explain your personal fairy tales, UNLESS you try to push them on others.  Then you can expect people to question your gullibility.

[BADecker]

Do i need to prove that there is one true God and HE really exist? As long as i am believing in him and believe with his promise, don't have to explain about it.

You don't need to explain your personal fairy tales, UNLESS you try to push them on others.  Then you can expect people to question your gullibility.

While this might be true, nobody is doing it. The fact that God exists is proven by science more and more every day.

[BADecker]

Do i need to prove that there is one true God and HE really exist? As long as i am believing in him and believe with his promise, don't have to explain about it.

That doesn't mean what you believe is true.

But science proves God exists way more than science proves that He doesn't exist.

[Vod]

But science proves God exists way more than science proves that He doesn't exist.

Your fairy tale science also believes the tooth fairy exists.

Prove it as per the thread title.  Otherwise, you are just giving away free candy for clean teeth.

[Przemax]

You asked for it.You do not want to give me a definition. I will use a dictionary and choose mine:

proof:

b :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

Process is like this. 1500 bc was written Bible that describes what God is. It was all proven to be able to exist by science.

This proof is strong because none of the witnesses back then 1500 bc could know it could happen. So by it not contradicting itself is a small proof. No forgery of evidence could be possible, because 1500 we had not know those forces.

Principles of reasoning (deduction) are given in the Exodus. Phareo was proclaiming himself a God. His magicians could make things attributed to God. God was playing with them until they had found that they cannot make life out of dirt.

That's how God see you - Babilonian scientism usurpers. You cannot make life. Hey... you cannot even find how that happened and prove it. Therefore by the principle of reasoning (deduction) the God of Moses is proven. By your unability to create life from dirt.

God sees you that you worship idols that you claim what they do, while they do not. Like wooden statues that are claimed to do something while it was blatantly obvious it was not so. Like quantum physics today. Its only theoretical. Like it was theoretical that carved wood make lighting, or fire or such. By the principle of reasoning(deduction) it is proof of God words remaining true.

Sins against man will be forgiven. Sins of blasphemy (taking place of God) will not be. So it would be wise to repent from your scientism idols.

Do not claim I have to use induction (from observation to reason) as well. I have used deduction and its perfectly logicly fitting with the definition. Principles of reasoning are not violated.

So in summary. Proof by my definition is true when definitions from one statement are the same as in other statements. They fit and interlock eachother therefore they prove eachother.

[qwik2learn]

You asked for it.You do not want to give me a definition. I will use a dictionary and choose mine:

proof:

b :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

Process is like this. 1500 bc was written Bible that describes what God is. It was all proven to be able to exist by science.

This proof is strong because none of the witnesses back then 1500 bc could know it could happen. So by it not contradicting itself is a small proof. No forgery of evidence could be possible, because 1500 we had not know those forces.

Principles of reasoning are given in the Exodus. Phareo was proclaiming himself a God. His magicians could make things attributed to God. God was playing with them until they had found that they cannot make life out of dirt.

That's how God see you - Babilonian scientism usurpers. You cannot make life. Hey... you cannot even find how that happened and prove it. Therefore by the principle of reasoning the God of Moses is proven. By your unability to create life from dirt.

God sees you that you worship idols that you claim that they do while they do not. By the principle of reasoning it is proof of God words remaining true.

Sins against man will be forgiven. Sins of blasphemy (taking place of God) will not be. So it would be wise to repent from your scientism idols.

You do not know when the OT books were compiled and in fact the Documentary Hypothesis has largely been discredited. What is known is that Bhagavad Gita is dated to around 3200 BC, so why not consider the God of Arjuna since that book is more ancient than the Bible? Why not consider other literature which pours forth wisdom and has less questionable origins? BADecker thinks that the Bible is consistent and factual all the way through from Genesis to Galatians, but you will not go so far? I already showed how Paul invented Christianity so I would suspect that the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong (this is already the consensus of Bible scholars) and that the OT was basically invented too.
You do not know about which sins will be forgiven; did God speak to you specifically about that?

[Przemax]

You asked for it.You do not want to give me a definition. I will use a dictionary and choose mine:

proof:

b :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

Process is like this. 1500 bc was written Bible that describes what God is. It was all proven to be able to exist by science.

This proof is strong because none of the witnesses back then 1500 bc could know it could happen. So by it not contradicting itself is a small proof. No forgery of evidence could be possible, because 1500 we had not know those forces.

Principles of reasoning are given in the Exodus. Phareo was proclaiming himself a God. His magicians could make things attributed to God. God was playing with them until they had found that they cannot make life out of dirt.

That's how God see you - Babilonian scientism usurpers. You cannot make life. Hey... you cannot even find how that happened and prove it. Therefore by the principle of reasoning the God of Moses is proven. By your unability to create life from dirt.

God sees you that you worship idols that you claim that they do while they do not. By the principle of reasoning it is proof of God words remaining true.

Sins against man will be forgiven. Sins of blasphemy (taking place of God) will not be. So it would be wise to repent from your scientism idols.

You do not know when the OT books were compiled and in fact the Documentary Hypothesis has largely been discredited. What is known is that Bhagavad Gita is dated to around 3200 BC, so why not consider the God of Arjuna since that book is more ancient than the Bible.

According to Bible you rejected God. Yeah. God was speaking to people since begining. I have no reason not to believe it was once a holy book inspired by God. Why would I?

You do not know about which sins will be forgiven; did God speak to you specifically about that?

Yes. I had read it personally. So you can say he spoken to me using the words of High and only priest Jesus. lol

[qwik2learn]

The Bible is not fit for worship, consider that the story of Isaac has no real compassion, it is just YHWH getting what he wants, but a good father would not behave that way. Ritual child sacrifice is Satanic.

It turns out that your opinions about the history of the Bible are subject to criticism:

The consensus around the documentary hypothesis has partly collapsed in the last decades of the 20th century.[5] The groundwork was laid with the investigation of the origins of the written sources in oral compositions, implying that the creators of J and E were collectors and editors and not authors and historians.[31] Rolf Rendtorff (1925–2014), building on this insight, argued that the basis of the Pentateuch lay in short, independent narratives, gradually formed into larger units and brought together in two editorial phases, the first Deuteronomic, the second Priestly.[32] This led to the current position which sees only two major sources in the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomist (confined to the Book of Deuteronomy) and the Priestly (confined to the books Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers).[33]

The majority of scholars today continue to recognise Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of Josiah as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses.[34] Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain.[35] The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.[33] The final Torah is increasingly seen as a product of the Persian period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place it somewhat later, in the Hellenistic (333–164 BCE) or even Hasmonean (140–37 BCE) periods[36]


So consider the facts, perhaps you have been blinded from the truth because of your faith in that book.

[Przemax]

The Bible is not fit for worship, consider that the story of Isaac has no real compassion, it is just YHWH getting what he wants, but a good father would not behave that way. Ritual child sacrifice is Satanic.

It turns out that your opinions about the history of the Bible are subject to criticism:

The consensus around the documentary hypothesis has partly collapsed in the last decades of the 20th century.[5] The groundwork was laid with the investigation of the origins of the written sources in oral compositions, implying that the creators of J and E were collectors and editors and not authors and historians.[31] Rolf Rendtorff (1925–2014), building on this insight, argued that the basis of the Pentateuch lay in short, independent narratives, gradually formed into larger units and brought together in two editorial phases, the first Deuteronomic, the second Priestly.[32] This led to the current position which sees only two major sources in the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomist (confined to the Book of Deuteronomy) and the Priestly (confined to the books Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers).[33]

The majority of scholars today continue to recognise Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of Josiah as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses.[34] Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain.[35] The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.[33] The final Torah is increasingly seen as a product of the Persian period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place it somewhat later, in the Hellenistic (333–164 BCE) or even Hasmonean (140–37 BCE) periods[36]


So consider the facts, perhaps you have been blinded from the truth because of your faith in that book.

I do not believe this book. I believe in the message of this book, not literally everything as a manual. Jews have abandoned God many times. I believe Jesus words were true. And we should not abandon God again... He does not deserve to be abandoned. In order to understand NT you have to read OT. Thats why I still think its Holy book. Even if its sometimes gruesome and mixed up.

If I would believe in a book I would call God being a book... You just use a sophistry here. Words are meaningful as long as they have meaning in sentences and stories. You can nitpick some word or sentence and call its meaningless.... Well... they could be. But with the whole story they have a huge meaning.

[Astargath]

You asked for it.You do not want to give me a definition. I will use a dictionary and choose mine:

proof:

b :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

Process is like this. 1500 bc was written Bible that describes what God is. It was all proven to be able to exist by science.

This proof is strong because none of the witnesses back then 1500 bc could know it could happen. So by it not contradicting itself is a small proof. No forgery of evidence could be possible, because 1500 we had not know those forces.

Principles of reasoning (deduction) are given in the Exodus. Phareo was proclaiming himself a God. His magicians could make things attributed to God. God was playing with them until they had found that they cannot make life out of dirt.

That's how God see you - Babilonian scientism usurpers. You cannot make life. Hey... you cannot even find how that happened and prove it. Therefore by the principle of reasoning (deduction) the God of Moses is proven. By your unability to create life from dirt.

God sees you that you worship idols that you claim what they do, while they do not. Like wooden statues that are claimed to do something while it was blatantly obvious it was not so. Like quantum physics today. Its only theoretical. Like it was theoretical that carved wood make lighting, or fire or such. By the principle of reasoning(deduction) it is proof of God words remaining true.

Sins against man will be forgiven. Sins of blasphemy (taking place of God) will not be. So it would be wise to repent from your scientism idols.

Do not claim I have to use induction (from observation to reason) as well. I have used deduction and its perfectly logicly fitting with the definition. Principles of reasoning are not violated.

So in summary. Proof by my definition is true when definitions from one statement are the same as in other statements. They fit and interlock eachother therefore they prove eachother.

God was proven the be able to exist by science, when?

''This proof is strong because none of the witnesses back then 1500 bc could know it could happen'' What did they know exactly?

''God sees you that you worship idols that you claim what they do, while they do not.'' Like prayer? Which does not work?

So in summary you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and don't want to admit that you just believe in it because you do.

[Przemax]

You asked for it.You do not want to give me a definition. I will use a dictionary and choose mine:

proof:

b :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

Process is like this. 1500 bc was written Bible that describes what God is. It was all proven to be able to exist by science.

This proof is strong because none of the witnesses back then 1500 bc could know it could happen. So by it not contradicting itself is a small proof. No forgery of evidence could be possible, because 1500 we had not know those forces.

Principles of reasoning (deduction) are given in the Exodus. Phareo was proclaiming himself a God. His magicians could make things attributed to God. God was playing with them until they had found that they cannot make life out of dirt.

That's how God see you - Babilonian scientism usurpers. You cannot make life. Hey... you cannot even find how that happened and prove it. Therefore by the principle of reasoning (deduction) the God of Moses is proven. By your unability to create life from dirt.

God sees you that you worship idols that you claim what they do, while they do not. Like wooden statues that are claimed to do something while it was blatantly obvious it was not so. Like quantum physics today. Its only theoretical. Like it was theoretical that carved wood make lighting, or fire or such. By the principle of reasoning(deduction) it is proof of God words remaining true.

Sins against man will be forgiven. Sins of blasphemy (taking place of God) will not be. So it would be wise to repent from your scientism idols.

Do not claim I have to use induction (from observation to reason) as well. I have used deduction and its perfectly logicly fitting with the definition. Principles of reasoning are not violated.

So in summary. Proof by my definition is true when definitions from one statement are the same as in other statements. They fit and interlock eachother therefore they prove eachother.

God was proven the be able to exist by science, when?

''This proof is strong because none of the witnesses back then 1500 bc could know it could happen'' What did they know exactly?

''God sees you that you worship idols that you claim what they do, while they do not.'' Like prayer? Which does not work?

So in summary you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and don't want to admit that you just believe in it because you do.

No no no. You use projection unto me. Very common psychological flaw. You my friend do not know what I am talking about. I have told you what I have ment. Modern science is compatible with describtion of God in the Genesis of what he do and govern.

If you think thats easy just look at science theories. They are incompatible with science in 30 years. And here you have full compatibility 3500 past.

You devote your life, your time, your efforts, your beliefs, you adjust your world view based on sci-fi scientism. Thats worshipping it.

[Vod]

Modern science is compatible with describtion of God in the Genesis of what he do and govern.

Modern science has proven your god did not flood the earth, nor did your god create the universe 6,000 years ago.

You are living in a fairy tale.

[Przemax]

Modern science is compatible with describtion of God in the Genesis of what he do and govern.

Modern science has proven your god did not flood the earth, nor did your god create the universe 6,000 years ago.

You are living in a fairy tale.

And it will soon to be revealed it was a scam like 99,999999999999999% of scientific "discoveries".

There is no such thing as modern scientific consensus. There is an academia consensus. Those are very corrupted bunch of guys. If you do not see that science stands in the brink of paradigm shift you know not of science mr. "science".

[Vod]

And it will soon to be revealed it was a scam like 99,999999999999999% of scientific "discoveries".

That's all your religion is - the promise of something happening "soon".

Of course, nothing ever does, since it is a fairy tale.