Scientific proof that God exists?

[frankenmint]

That's a cute guess.  And guesses aren't bad things.  But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.

These guys are getting really concrete:

http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.html

That link wasn't working in my browser.

However, I also want to say that while:
  1. I don't believe in any God and
  2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc)

I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything.  As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.

Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification.  Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death.  Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago.

Paired with the fact that religious cannon is always selected to match the favor of the organized religion it supports, hence the book of enoch is not included in the bible. 

Like an ant on a balloon who only sees the balloon as a flat surface to walk on - we will always be limited in perspective through our nanosecond of history on the geological timescale and limits on interplanetary travel, how could we expect to know what to observe elsewhere.  I think that if humans started seeing other planets and alien cultures, they would use those observations to adjust their own attitudes and perspectives on 'supernatural' and 'religion'

[1713968913]

1713968913

[1713968913]

1713968913

[1713968913]

1713968913

[bl4kjaguar]

What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice.

The case for the scientific method should itself be "scientific" and not merely rhetorical.

Unfortunately, the argument may not look as good to the unconvinced as it does to the believer.

Vod apparently does not realize that the repeated promises of benefits yet to come, with no likelihood that those promises will be fulfilled, can only produce a widespread cynicism about the claims for the scientific method.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Ultimately,
It is not the truth that makes you free. It is your possession of the power to discover the truth.

http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

[Decksperiment]

Scientific proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?

Say after me:

I AM

The sound is the proof you need. What more needs said?

The FSM hypothesis is not powerful enough to explain the evidence for survival:

Here is one example of high-quality evidence of the survival of the personality:

Dr. James Hyslop, professor of Logic and Ethics at Columbia University, and one of the most distinguished American psychical researchers, reported the following incident.

[...]

As Sir Wiliam Barrett concluded in his review of the case: "The simplest and most reasonable solution is that the information was derived from the mind of the deceased person."

2 page PDF:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_51-75/case56_soule-soul.pdf

Is FSM going to give us any information at all? I challenge you to explain the evidence using the FSM thesis.

please forgive me, but masonic literature is not what I would call any kind of proof, and since most ref's are from either the bible or from the 50's onwards, I can only assume they are of that kind of folks who would say anything to distract people from THAT truth. It's like, is Jesus God, or is God, God? 'Cause as I see it, Jesus is a human, and cant possibly have created that which went before he, Jesus, was born, fair enough he may be the son of god, but the world is much older.. after at least 62 thousand years after the first rite of initiation held in the pyramid of gizeh.

I do believe we, in a way, are reborn until we learn whatever it is we missed in the previous 'chance', or for whatever reason that escapes me at the moment - Post Cxx Annos Patebo.

We shall return..

[BADecker]

These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.

Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.

From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.

From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.

Actually, God gave man freedom in this universe. Not only that, but He made man His greatest creation. Then man turned his back on God, thereby creating entropy in God's universe. Why should God put more energy into something that man is going to destroy through entropy anyway?

God's plan is, instead of putting more energy into this universe, save man out of it. Make a new universe where man can't introduce entropy, and put man in there. Then, destroy the old universe in the lake of fire to get His energies back out of it.

[BADecker]

That's a cute guess.  And guesses aren't bad things.  But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.

These guys are getting really concrete:

http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.html

That link wasn't working in my browser.

However, I also want to say that while:
  1. I don't believe in any God and
  2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc)

I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything.  As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.

Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification.  Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death.  Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago.

Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly

Smartphone wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. No way to charge the battery, and no cell towers. 

[BADecker]

I do believe we, in a way, are reborn until we learn whatever it is we missed in the previous 'chance', or for whatever reason that escapes me at the moment - Post Cxx Annos Patebo.

We shall return..

And we remember all the things that we didn't miss? I must have been really ignorant last time. 'Cause I don't remember any of it. And the way some people in this thread think I am "dumb" this time, there probably won't be much for me to remember next time, either.

[jackjack]

That's a cute guess.  And guesses aren't bad things.  But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.

These guys are getting really concrete:

http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.html

That link wasn't working in my browser.

However, I also want to say that while:
  1. I don't believe in any God and
  2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc)

I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything.  As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.

Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification.  Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death.  Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago.

Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly

Smartphone wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. No way to charge the battery, and no cell towers. 

Solar cell + Airplane mode

That's not the point anyway. Are you really so stupid you don't see the point?

[BADecker]

That's a cute guess.  And guesses aren't bad things.  But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.

These guys are getting really concrete:

http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.html

That link wasn't working in my browser.

However, I also want to say that while:
  1. I don't believe in any God and
  2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc)

I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything.  As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.

Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification.  Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death.  Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago.

Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly

Smartphone wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. No way to charge the battery, and no cell towers.  

Solar cell + Airplane mode

That's not the point anyway. Are you really so stupid you don't see the point?

Oh come on. Almost everything you say is a joke. So why can't I joke a little?  

[BADecker]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science.  Don't you understand that?  Your house is built on a foundation of cards.

You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.

Doesn't change the point I just made.  Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot.  Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible.

I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.

 

You say "people" like you say "scientists." What I mean is, you can find loads of people who believe all different kinds of things, just like you can find many scientists who understand the same evidence in many different ways.

How does that answers to the fact that you base your feelings off a 2000 years book?
The guys back then would have thought the smartphone I'm writing this post on is godly if they have had any chance to see it.

The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.

And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.

[tspacepilot]

The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.

Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago".

For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament.  I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube.  It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear.

And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.

Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics!  If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too.  Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe.

[the joint]

Supernatural is a term used to explain what the science still can not explain. Only closed minded people think science can explain everything and can not think outside the box.

Science can explain everything.  Look at all that was unknown when god was first invented.  Soon, science will explain everything.

Unfortunately, this is impossible.  The problem of inductive reasoning is very real and will always set a limit of knowledge beyond which the scientific method is forever unable to explore.

[the joint]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science.  Don't you understand that?  Your house is built on a foundation of cards.

You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.

Doesn't change the point I just made.  Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot.  Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible.

I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.

 

Ironically, the scientific method is based upon assumptions that are a priori invalid, and the knowledge of the invalidity of these assumptions was known before the existence of the scientific method.   One such assumption is the assertion of a Positivistic Universe.   This assumption has been known to be provably wrong for thousands of years. 

[Decksperiment]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science.  Don't you understand that?  Your house is built on a foundation of cards.

You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.

Doesn't change the point I just made.  Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot.  Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible.

I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.

 

You say "people" like you say "scientists." What I mean is, you can find loads of people who believe all different kinds of things, just like you can find many scientists who understand the same evidence in many different ways.

How does that answers to the fact that you base your feelings off a 2000 years book?
The guys back then would have thought the smartphone I'm writing this post on is godly if they have had any chance to see it.

The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.

And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.

I know I keep butting in, but there is proof of the first rite of initiation held in the giza pyramid dated 64.000 yeras ago, aka the rite of mithras. This proves why science cant explain with a satisfactory answer, how to move stones not just the size of stonehenge, but the plethora of megalithic structures all over the world.

There is a record of caves in easter island with the ancient human's remains packed in so tightly, it is said that they got in that position by choice whilst still alive, such is the positioning of the bodies. Akin to the stones of the pyramid, the bodies were so tightly packed, they filled the tiniest of space, so much were they pertified of what they were trying to escape.

This makes the age of the bible and trying to figure out that books age and or origins a joke.

Immanuel Velikovsky - Bonds of the Past.avi

Like I said, the angels and demons are either elemental celestial beings/entities or cardinal points..

I myself remember the dreams of running from fireballs falling from the skies..

Considering how many tunes in the guise of books there are in the world, I think we'd be pretty bloody stupid to believe in just one, hence the re-creation by adaption, which is irelevant, for all have been tampered with by the victors of ages responsible for changing said book..

When I said I follow star maps? I was'nt kiddin

[tspacepilot]

Ironically, the scientific method is based upon assumptions that are a priori invalid, and the knowledge of the invalidity of these assumptions was known before the existence of the scientific method.   One such assumption is the assertion of a Positivistic Universe.   This assumption has been known to be provably wrong for thousands of years. 

The joint, would you go ahead and lay out that 1000s-of-years-old proof for us please?

[BADecker]

The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.

Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago".

For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament.  I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube.  It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear.

And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.

Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics!  If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too.  Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe.

Laugh at your own imagination. Nobody was there then. Nobody knows. The Bible is witnesses recounting what they witnessed, not scientists recounting things they didn't witness.

[tspacepilot]

The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.

Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago".

For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament.  I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube.  It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear.

And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.

Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics!  If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too.  Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe.

Laugh at your own imagination. Nobody was there then. Nobody knows. The Bible is witnesses recounting what they witnessed, not scientists recounting things they didn't witness.

Wait a minute, how can it be that both "nobody was there" and that "witneses recounted what they witnessed"?

Are you going to tell me next that these bible dudes have explained to you about the "time dimension"?

Seriously, try that free yale course by Christine Hayes on OT.  It's really good.  She doesn't hate the bible, she loves it AND she explains the context of each of the OT books.  It's a wonderful lecture series (and it's on YouTube).  You might be surprised that the "electromagnetic spectrum" never comes up!

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi

As to what people witnessed, there amazing artifacts from ancient Egyptian kings dating back to about 6000 years ago.  So, in your theory, I guess some o fthose people were around before the Earth was created?

[BADecker]

The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.

Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago".

For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament.  I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube.  It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear.

And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.

Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics!  If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too.  Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe.

Laugh at your own imagination. Nobody was there then. Nobody knows. The Bible is witnesses recounting what they witnessed, not scientists recounting things they didn't witness.

Wait a minute, how can it be that both "nobody was there" and that "witneses recounted what they witnessed"?

Are you going to tell me next that these bible dudes have explained to you about the "time dimension"?

Seriously, try that free yale course by Christine Hayes on OT.  It's really good.  She doesn't hate the bible, she loves it AND she explains the context of each of the OT books.  It's a wonderful lecture series (and it's on YouTube).  You might be surprised that the "electromagnetic spectrum" never comes up!

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi

As to what people witnessed, there amazing artifacts from ancient Egyptian kings dating back to about 6000 years ago.  So, in your theory, I guess some o fthose people were around before the Earth was created?

Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago.

[BADecker]

There's only ONE reason why people think that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. It's because some scientists who haven't been there then have said so, over and over until people believe it from hearing it so often.

[bl4kjaguar]

I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too.  Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe.

Why is it that the gravitational constant cannot change over time?

I guess you haven't heard Sheldrake's controversial TED talk.

[BADecker]

The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk - http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/ .