Scientific proof that God exists?

[Vod]

There is no such thing as outer space. Sure, we see something. But we can't put our hands on it to test if it really exists, right?

Every astronaut is a liar in your fairy tale.  :/

[1713555820]

1713555820

[1713555820]

1713555820

[1713555820]

1713555820

[BADecker]

There is no such thing as outer space. Sure, we see something. But we can't put our hands on it to test if it really exists, right?

Every astronaut is a liar in your fairy tale.  :/

No astronaut ever grabbed a bunch of outer space and analyzed it. Extremely few have even been to outer space. The ISS is not in outer space.

[Vod]

No astronaut ever grabbed a bunch of outer space and analyzed it. Extremely few have even been to outer space. The ISS is not in outer space.

As long as you don't push your fairy tale on others. 

[BADecker]

No astronaut ever grabbed a bunch of outer space and analyzed it. Extremely few have even been to outer space. The ISS is not in outer space.

As long as you don't push your fairy tale on others. 

Such a thing I have never done. After all, if you don't like something that I post, you have the ability to place me on ignore. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

[BADecker]

Such a thing I have never done. After all, if you don't like something that I post, you have the ability to place me on ignore. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

Maybe.  Whatever helps your fairy tale.

So you don't believe in ignore. Do you happen to be in the same funny farm as noWmad13666?

[Vod]

So you don't believe in ignore.

I must be sad and pathetic in your fairy tale. 

[mx667]

Hmm, I don't have proof that God exists. But I disagree about the idea of life that come out of nothing. Isn't it strange to us that life is come out of atom and some particel ? What is the purpose of our lifes ? Are we going to eat, sleep, go to work and die ? Is there something beyond our death ? So I believe there are an explaination to all of those questions. I believe that God exists and create human, with a purpose.

[Vod]

But I disagree about the idea of life that come out of nothing.

So think about where your god came from.  Nothing?

[Vod]

There is no such thing as outer space.

Extremely few have even been to outer space.

Troll?   Troll.

[Astargath]

There is no such thing as outer space.

Extremely few have even been to outer space.

Troll?   Troll.

What?? Badecker doesn't believe in outer space??

[qwik2learn]

I am a little bit surprised why this is even a thing. Despite if god exists or not ... there can't be a SCIENTIFIC proof for the existence.

You make good points... unfortunately there can be scientific proof if you make up your own definition of "SCIENTIFIC".  

"Testable" and "observable"; for example, mediumship "is the only phenomenon that is directly relevant to the survival problem that can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control". That is interesting because it means there is evidence and a means to study it scientifically.

I posted a test and observations of telekinesis seen on camera and on EEG, but skeptics in this thread tried to dismiss the scientific evidence:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/

Skeptics in this thread see no fault in dismissing science that does not fit their own made-up definition.

In this thread: "skeptics" have no problem being critical of others' beliefs while neglecting to examine their own.

[Astargath]

I am a little bit surprised why this is even a thing. Despite if god exists or not ... there can't be a SCIENTIFIC proof for the existence.

You make good points... unfortunately there can be scientific proof if you make up your own definition of "SCIENTIFIC".  

"Testable" and "observable"; for example, mediumship "is the only phenomenon that is directly relevant to the survival problem that can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control". That is interesting because it means there is evidence and a means to study it scientifically.

I posted a test and observations of telekinesis seen on camera and on EEG, but skeptics in this thread tried to dismiss the scientific evidence:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/

Skeptics in this thread see no fault in dismissing science that does not fit their own made-up definition.

In this thread: "skeptics" have no problem being critical of others' beliefs while neglecting to examine their own.

Psychokinesis experiments have historically been criticized for lack of proper controls and repeatability. There is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis is a real phenomenon, and the topic is generally regarded as pseudoscience.
There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.

A panel commissioned in 1988 by the United States National Research Council to study paranormal claims concluded that "despite a 130-year record of scientific research on such matters, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extrasensory perception, mental telepathy or ‘mind over matter’ exercises... Evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence simply does not support the contention that these phenomena exist.

There is no such thing as telekinesis and I don't know why you guys want to believe in magic so badly, you are going to die in 50 years and you will realize that magic did not affect your life whatsoever.

[sirazimuth]

I am a little bit surprised why this is even a thing. Despite if god exists or not ... there can't be a SCIENTIFIC proof for the existence.

You make good points... unfortunately there can be scientific proof if you make up your own definition of "SCIENTIFIC".  

"Testable" and "observable"; for example, mediumship "is the only phenomenon that is directly relevant to the survival problem that can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control". That is interesting because it means there is evidence and a means to study it scientifically.

I posted a test and observations of telekinesis seen on camera and on EEG, but skeptics in this thread tried to dismiss the scientific evidence:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/

Skeptics in this thread see no fault in dismissing science that does not fit their own made-up definition.

In this thread: "skeptics" have no problem being critical of others' beliefs while neglecting to examine their own.

the telekinesis nonsense is still being discussed?  Oh good lord!! . face palm
your link was a good laugh.
 look up the definition of gullible...
ya know, if I were a con artist, you would be my first mark...

[BADecker]

There is no such thing as outer space.

Extremely few have even been to outer space.

Troll?   Troll.

What?? Badecker doesn't believe in outer space??

The point wasn't outer space. The point had to do with science.

Very few people can PROVE that outer space exists. The average person only has the ability to listen to what others say about outer space. Sure, he can look at the stars, but what are they? Even the ISS isn't beyond that Van Allen belts, and is, therefore, not in outer space.

God, on the other hand, can be proven by multitudes of  people all over the place. Cause and effect is used by all the people all the time. And all they need to do is think about it to see that this is true.

Simple forms of entropy exist all over the place. The fact of old age is a simple form of entropy. Everyone understands entropy.

Complexity in the world is by far the most evident of the three. Any child can understand complexity.

Put these three together with a little thought, and they prove that God exists.

When scientists and wise people put these three together, they can't help but see that God exists.

But nobody knows what that is up there without building rockets to go and see. People might have all kinds of theories that it is outer space, but without the rockets, they could never prove it.

Regarding outer space, your average, everyday person doesn't know what it is without somebody telling him. But your average, everyday person can prove that God exists with all kinds of stuff that he uses daily.

[phreeksta]

There is no such thing as outer space.

Extremely few have even been to outer space.

Troll?   Troll.

What?? Badecker doesn't believe in outer space??

The point wasn't outer space. The point had to do with science.

Very few people can PROVE that outer space exists. The average person only has the ability to listen to what others say about outer space. Sure, he can look at the stars, but what are they? Even the ISS isn't beyond that Van Allen belts, and is, therefore, not in outer space.

God, on the other hand, can be proven by multitudes of  people all over the place. Cause and effect is used by all the people all the time. And all they need to do is think about it to see that this is true.

Simple forms of entropy exist all over the place. The fact of old age is a simple form of entropy. Everyone understands entropy.

Complexity in the world is by far the most evident of the three. Any child can understand complexity.

Put these three together with a little thought, and they prove that God exists.

When scientists and wise people put these three together, they can't help but see that God exists.

But nobody knows what that is up there without building rockets to go and see. People might have all kinds of theories that it is outer space, but without the rockets, they could never prove it.

Regarding outer space, your average, everyday person doesn't know what it is without somebody telling him. But your average, everyday person can prove that God exists with all kinds of stuff that he uses daily.

Once again ... the question here is SCIENTIFIC PROOF! Space was already explored and analyzed. We know exactly what out space is made of. And before we had rockets etc. we couldn't explain outer space completely, but we knew it was there because we could at least see it. And although no one is going every to the Sun ...  we still know it is there... because we can see it and put it in perspective.

You can't scientific prove god because you can't see or measure him. Just because someone said, that there is a god, doesn't mean there must be one. If I would tell you that I have an invisible toaster, would you believe me? Would you just take my word, because I said so? There is also no scientific proof for that.

[BADecker]

There is no such thing as outer space.

Extremely few have even been to outer space.

Troll?   Troll.

What?? Badecker doesn't believe in outer space??

The point wasn't outer space. The point had to do with science.

Very few people can PROVE that outer space exists. The average person only has the ability to listen to what others say about outer space. Sure, he can look at the stars, but what are they? Even the ISS isn't beyond that Van Allen belts, and is, therefore, not in outer space.

God, on the other hand, can be proven by multitudes of  people all over the place. Cause and effect is used by all the people all the time. And all they need to do is think about it to see that this is true.

Simple forms of entropy exist all over the place. The fact of old age is a simple form of entropy. Everyone understands entropy.

Complexity in the world is by far the most evident of the three. Any child can understand complexity.

Put these three together with a little thought, and they prove that God exists.

When scientists and wise people put these three together, they can't help but see that God exists.

But nobody knows what that is up there without building rockets to go and see. People might have all kinds of theories that it is outer space, but without the rockets, they could never prove it.

Regarding outer space, your average, everyday person doesn't know what it is without somebody telling him. But your average, everyday person can prove that God exists with all kinds of stuff that he uses daily.

Once again ... the question here is SCIENTIFIC PROOF! Space was already explored and analyzed. We know exactly what out space is made of. And before we had rockets etc. we couldn't explain outer space completely, but we knew it was there because we could at least see it. And although no one is going every to the Sun ...  we still know it is there... because we can see it and put it in perspective.

You can't scientific prove god because you can't see or measure him. Just because someone said, that there is a god, doesn't mean there must be one. If I would tell you that I have an invisible toaster, would you believe me? Would you just take my word, because I said so? There is also no scientific proof for that.

You can prove God because you can see and measure the things that exist. These things, by their existence, prove the existence of God, without laying hands on God... something which is impossible, anyway.

[qwik2learn]

I am a little bit surprised why this is even a thing. Despite if god exists or not ... there can't be a SCIENTIFIC proof for the existence.

You make good points... unfortunately there can be scientific proof if you make up your own definition of "SCIENTIFIC".  

"Testable" and "observable"; for example, mediumship "is the only phenomenon that is directly relevant to the survival problem that can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control". That is interesting because it means there is evidence and a means to study it scientifically.

I posted a test and observations of telekinesis seen on camera and on EEG, but skeptics in this thread tried to dismiss the scientific evidence:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/

Skeptics in this thread see no fault in dismissing science that does not fit their own made-up definition.

In this thread: "skeptics" have no problem being critical of others' beliefs while neglecting to examine their own.

Psychokinesis experiments have historically been criticized for lack of proper controls and repeatability. There is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis is a real phenomenon, and the topic is generally regarded as pseudoscience.
There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.

A panel commissioned in 1988 by the United States National Research Council to study paranormal claims concluded that "despite a 130-year record of scientific research on such matters, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extrasensory perception, mental telepathy or ‘mind over matter’ exercises... Evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence simply does not support the contention that these phenomena exist.

There is no such thing as telekinesis and I don't know why you guys want to believe in magic so badly, you are going to die in 50 years and you will realize that magic did not affect your life whatsoever.

There is no "convincing" evidence to those who are prejudiced against the idea and choose to misrepresent the evidence. I post this link a lot in this thread but since "skeptics" are refusing to consider its content I have to paste some key paragraphs and bold font to get them to read even a small fraction of this valuable link:

Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence

Parapsychological Research

A prominent skeptic's FAQ makes this incorrect claim about parapsychology:

"And, there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science."
http://www.randi.org/jr/faq.html
According to parapsychologist Dean Radin, the truth is:

A meta-analysis of the database, published in 1989, examined 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years. The effect size was found to be very small, but remarkably consistent, resulting in an overall statistical deviation of approximately 15 standard errors from a chance effect. The probability that the observed effect was actually zero (i.e., no psi) was less than one part in a trillion, verifying that human consciousness can indeed affect the behavior of a random physical system.
http://www.deanradin.com/para2.html#ninea
That's 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years demonstrating odds of a trillion to one in favor of psychokinesis being real.
In another case, Chris Carter in "Research of the Skeptics", tells of a skeptic who made entirely unsupportable statements about the supposed lack of evidence for psi phenomena.

Martin Gardner wrote:

How can the public know that for fifty years skeptical psychologists have been trying their best to replicate classic psi experiments, and with notable unsuccess? It is this fact more than any other that has led to parapsychology’s perpetual stagnation. Positive evidence keeps coming from a tiny group of enthusiasts, while negative evidence keeps coming from a much larger group of skeptics.

But as Honorton pointed out, “Gardner does not attempt to document this assertion, nor could he. It is pure fiction. Look for the skeptics’ experiments and see what you find.” For the most part, skeptics have simply criticized from the sidelines, and have produced no experimental research of their own.

(From Research of the Skeptics by Chris Carter at skepticalinvestigations.org)

Top

The Double Standard

Skeptics apply different standards of proof for parapsychological research and mainstream science. They justify this double standard by claiming that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is a fallacy which is exposed in the chapter on Skeptical Fallacies. That chapter explains that when skeptics apply this double standard, they are simply demonstrating they prefer to disbelieve parapsychological research because that research contradicts their strongly held beliefs and not because there is any objective scientific reason to doubt it. Since there is no objective scientific way to identify an extraordinary claim it is based on personal belief rather than scientific facts. Ultimately, it is hypocritical for a skeptic who claims to require scientific evidence before accepting a belief to use this double standard to reject parapsychological research in order to maintain his belief that ESP does not exist.

The Wikipedia article for Remote Viewing gives an example of this type of skeptical misdirection.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

[qwik2learn]

I am a little bit surprised why this is even a thing. Despite if god exists or not ... there can't be a SCIENTIFIC proof for the existence.

You make good points... unfortunately there can be scientific proof if you make up your own definition of "SCIENTIFIC".  

"Testable" and "observable"; for example, mediumship "is the only phenomenon that is directly relevant to the survival problem that can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control". That is interesting because it means there is evidence and a means to study it scientifically.

I posted a test and observations of telekinesis seen on camera and on EEG, but skeptics in this thread tried to dismiss the scientific evidence:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/

Skeptics in this thread see no fault in dismissing science that does not fit their own made-up definition.

In this thread: "skeptics" have no problem being critical of others' beliefs while neglecting to examine their own.

the telekinesis nonsense is still being discussed?  Oh good lord!! . face palm
your link was a good laugh.
 look up the definition of gullible...
ya know, if I were a con artist, you would be my first mark...

What exactly is so funny about the anomalous EEG spikes that were observed while the TK is caught on camera? I can tell that these anomalous phenomena are related because they happened simultaneously. Don't forget to check out the video of the TK; this magician claims that the TK is not a trick; you can browse his page on Wikipedia for more details.

[Vod]

Nobody can PROVE any god exists.  The average person only has the ability to listen to what others say about a god. Sure, he can look at the bible, but what is it? Just more words from people that can't prove it.

Space, on the other hand, can be proven by multitudes of people all over the place   Cause and effect is used by all the people all the time. And all they need to do is think about it to see that this is true.

Simple forms of entropy exist all over the place. The fact of old age is a simple form of entropy. Everyone understands entropy.

Complexity in the world is by far the most evident of the three. Any child can understand complexity.

Put these three together with a little thought, and they prove that science is true, and space exists.

When scientists and wise people put these three together, they can't help but see that space exists.

[Vod]

^ ^

See?  Just by replacing a few words I can show how my brainwashed buddy doesn't have any proof at all.  He just talks in circles.




If you simply think some god exists for some reason or other, that's okay. People make mistakes all over the place.

But if you are adamant that god exists, and forcefully express it like some of the brainwashed people in this thread, contradicting yourself and science all over the place, you are either a pure propagandist, or you should be in a funny farm.