Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2017, 06:27:42 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 [422] 423 424 425 426 427 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Scientific proof that God exists?  (Read 758601 times)
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


View Profile
October 06, 2017, 05:53:27 AM
 #8421


However since you don't even understand entropy correctly, your assumptions can't be scientifically correct.

Actually, it's that you don't quite understand science correctly.

There are two parts to science:
1. That which is readily known;
2. Theory, which isn't readily known, although it may come close at times.

The part of entropy that you are talking about is theory.

The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known.

Your problem is that you constantly try to imply that entropy theory is readily known to be fact, when it is not. Consider your stupid idea that the beginning happens over and over. Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it, even though scientifically speaking, it might happen. Maybe the moon is made of green cheese, and all the tests of moon rocks are flawed in some way. Could happen, but not likely by a long shot.

Cool

1508524062
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508524062

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508524062
Reply with quote  #2

1508524062
Report to moderator
1508524062
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508524062

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508524062
Reply with quote  #2

1508524062
Report to moderator
1508524062
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508524062

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508524062
Reply with quote  #2

1508524062
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Neytiri
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28

newbie and proud


View Profile
October 06, 2017, 08:07:58 AM
 #8422

truely god exist he is the only creater of this world and we shall return to him

Λ SPARTA » 1 token » 300 Startups » SPARTAICO.com
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
October 06, 2017, 09:34:59 AM
 #8423


However since you don't even understand entropy correctly, your assumptions can't be scientifically correct.

Actually, it's that you don't quite understand science correctly.

There are two parts to science:
1. That which is readily known;
2. Theory, which isn't readily known, although it may come close at times.

The part of entropy that you are talking about is theory.

The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known.

Your problem is that you constantly try to imply that entropy theory is readily known to be fact, when it is not. Consider your stupid idea that the beginning happens over and over. Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it, even though scientifically speaking, it might happen. Maybe the moon is made of green cheese, and all the tests of moon rocks are flawed in some way. Could happen, but not likely by a long shot.

Cool



''Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it'' You mean God?

You simply didn't understand entropy correctly. You think that evolution can't happen because of entropy which again is simply wrong, evolution does not violate any scientific law. You also think people can't get smarter or we can't advance because of entropy which is again just plain wrong and there is plenty of evidence that we can indeed advance.

''The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known.'' You mean wrong? Just admit that you didn't understand entropy correctly lol, stop being so pathetic.



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
waichi
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30


View Profile
October 06, 2017, 10:13:06 AM
 #8424

The only scientific proof that God exist is us. The earth. The Sun. The water. We are the living scientific proof that God really exist. And he's watching over us.
protokol
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1194



View Profile
October 06, 2017, 11:57:19 AM
 #8425


And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...


How do you prove that empty space/nothing/outerspace exists? After all, you can't really grab hold of space/nothing/outerspace and analyze it chemically or electronically or something. You prove it is there by analyzing the material things within it or that it is inside of.

Same with God. We see no source for the complexity of the universe. Such complexity can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

Cool

You can easily show scientific evidence that empty space/nothing exists, I already mentioned one example - adding sodium chloride to water causes the volume of water to decrease.

You can use things like vacuum chambers to electronically or chemically analyze the vacuum, for example by measuring how quickly light passes through it. Quantum theory is another example of evidence for empty space in between subatomic particles - we can predict exactly how atoms will behave, based on our knowledge of their structure (i.e. a nucleus, with electron clouds very far away, and a huge amount of empty space between).

I don't know where you've got this idea from, you don't need to be able to grab hold of something to show it exists...  Roll Eyes

So BADecker, you understand that you can prove the existence of empty space?

The focus isn't proving that empty space exists. The focus is the way we prove that empty space exists. How do we prove that empty space exists?

We don't prove that empty space exists is by "grabbing hold" of empty space and analyzing it. We don't really even have a way of doing this "grabbing hold." Well, if not by "grabbing hold," then how do we prove empty space exists?

Here's how. We analyze material and energy, and the relationships between material and energy, and we can prove that empty space exists by this analysis, right?

Same with God. We analyze the relationships between material and energy in cause and effect activity, and we prove that God exists through this analysis. Complexity simply shows that God is definitely a Supreme Being. And Entropy shows that there was a beginning, which rules out that this is the way things always were.

The word "God" and its definitions are a weak word to use when considering the Supreme Being scientifically. As I have said in other posts, use "The Great First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Almighty Power," or any one of a number of words that better describe the Supreme Being.

But understand one thing. Whatever He/It is, He/It is an entity that is supremely (probably infinitely) far advanced and capable beyond what we are.

Cool

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Guess I'll make that my sig, all the cool kids have one...
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


View Profile
October 06, 2017, 03:29:49 PM
 #8426


There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.



With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.
An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.



Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Cool
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
October 06, 2017, 03:40:32 PM
 #8427


There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.



With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.
An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.



Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Cool

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


View Profile
October 06, 2017, 07:31:04 PM
 #8428


There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.



With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.
An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.



Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Cool

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)

You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all.

Cool
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2170


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
October 06, 2017, 08:18:13 PM
 #8429

You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all.

You've never provided proof against the existence of the tooth fairy.   Undecided

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to prayers.
If you want your prayers answered, you must donate to 1CDyx8AUTiYXS1ThcBU3vy4SJWQq6pdFMH
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project
Florg
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Information Sponge


View Profile WWW
October 06, 2017, 10:21:26 PM
 #8430


There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.



With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.
An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.



Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Cool

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)

This was the one thing that I never really understood about origin arguments based on god.  If god existed in the beginning, then it to must have been created somehow, so it's also just as likely that the universe itself was there at the beginning. 

The best logical idea I have that allows for a god is that god exists outside of the universe, like a programmer running a simulation able to make tweaks.  However for such a large scale simulation then it is likely utilizing something like procedural generation where the programmer does not have full control. Even in that scenario we are left with the question of how the higher level univers of the gods was created.  Ultimately, it just ends up looping back on itself until you accept that SOMETHING is simply the original state.

Keep your private keys safe!

https://www.ledgerwallet.com/
Aljay7
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
October 06, 2017, 10:31:23 PM
 #8431

For example:look at your neighbor's house,ask him/her:did someone build your house?surely your neigbhor answered,YES,because does not exist if no one build it.Then look around you,your garden,the trees,the flowers,and all the living and non living things in the world,then ask your self:did someone create all of these?just the your neighbor's house,the answer is YES.(Genesis 1:1-31)

Another proof that god existed through the bible and explained and confirmed by science.
In harmony with the views of many scientists today, the ancient Hebrews also believed that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1. Also, some 3,500 years ago, God revealed to his servant Job that the earth ‘hangs on nothing,’ or is suspended in space. (Job 26:7) And finally, more than 2,500 years ago, the prophet Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle or sphere.—Isaiah 40:22.*

Yes, the Bible does harmonize with scientific truths about the natural world. In fact, the two fields of study are more than compatible—they beautifully complement each other. To disregard either one is to leave unopened a door to the knowledge of God.
Florg
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Information Sponge


View Profile WWW
October 06, 2017, 10:36:27 PM
 #8432

For example:look at your neighbor's house,ask him/her:did someone build your house?surely your neigbhor answered,YES,because does not exist if no one build it.Then look around you,your garden,the trees,the flowers,and all the living and non living things in the world,then ask your self:did someone create all of these?just the your neighbor's house,the answer is YES.(Genesis 1:1-31)

Another proof that god existed through the bible and explained and confirmed by science.
In harmony with the views of many scientists today, the ancient Hebrews also believed that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1. Also, some 3,500 years ago, God revealed to his servant Job that the earth ‘hangs on nothing,’ or is suspended in space. (Job 26:7) And finally, more than 2,500 years ago, the prophet Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle or sphere.—Isaiah 40:22.*

Yes, the Bible does harmonize with scientific truths about the natural world. In fact, the two fields of study are more than compatible—they beautifully complement each other. To disregard either one is to leave unopened a door to the knowledge of God.

I think it must be true that some sort of creative force exists.  I think it is a stretch to assume that that force is something sentient.  It's very possible that our universe is simply a natural program with base rules at the lowest level.  Then through endless different permutations and combinations different elements are formed, then molecules, and so forth.  It's simply an assumption to say that all of those are consciously designed. If you look around the universe, you will see that everything organizes down to the same simple shapes and physical behaviors.  Very complex things can arise from very simple parts.

Keep your private keys safe!

https://www.ledgerwallet.com/
Viiiii
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Dether-Für die weltweite Verbreitung von Ethereum


View Profile
October 06, 2017, 10:42:34 PM
 #8433

Just btw would the answer Yes, scientific proof that God exists! or No, scientific proof that God does not exists! change anything...poverty, injustice or any other men made problem we leave with? Would God suddenly keep his promise to protect the one who are in need?

Another thing i just remembered from a good interview were a guy sad something like:...Since the human race as a historical species worshiped around 10000 different gods and monotheist believe in just one,...atheist just believe in one less. Tongue No offense, this joke also does not represent my way of believe.  
Decksperiment
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Uniting the Power of Sound & Ceation


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 12:30:13 AM
 #8434

From the light I came from the light I return to, all I have left is what I bring you.

I bring to you the Holy Spirit of the trinity, AKA: yourself.

Brahma, Visnu, and Shiva. (Ergo)

Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Keeping in MIND that the universe is a strictly MENTAL process, and does not in fact exist 'up there..'

For Shiva is the Holy Spirit, proving the Holy Spirit is Lucifer.

Now the church say god is the light, despite the fact that the particular light bearer they refer to is actually lucifer.. (hence tha vaticans latest telescopes name) so away take your babies to holly ground.. give them to the priest who knows lucifer is evil, just as america is evil.

One just needs to listen to how many times they mention the children..

They really are important these kiddies are they not?

Because with no baby sacrifice.. freemasonry is nothing.

Lucifer.. AKA Hades.. the dark destroyer.. experience the dark night of the soul. Realise Lucifer is the planet PLUTO, ruler of psychology, not the fuckin Sun.

Did I predict americas downfall, or create it?

Prediction is not a prediction when what is predicted is pre-ordered


BTC: 1654DECHaU4QyYXom9ooRBvt2zmULR3MfZ
sirazimuth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


born once atheist


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 01:39:01 AM
 #8435

The only scientific proof that God exist is us. The earth. The Sun. The water. We are the living scientific proof that God really exist. And he's watching over us.

apparently you never studied science... or what constitutes proof. just like my buddy BADecker   Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Grin


incoming pious word salad reply in 3..2...1.....


Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 02:15:37 AM
 #8436

The only scientific proof that God exist is us. The earth. The Sun. The water. We are the living scientific proof that God really exist. And he's watching over us.

apparently you never studied science... or what constitutes proof. just like my buddy BADecker   Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Grin


incoming pious word salad reply in 3..2...1.....

http://i.imgur.com/UrCSU2u.jpg

Apparently you never thought about the science you studied. It proves that God exists, and is supremely powerful, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Cool
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 06:44:36 AM
 #8437


And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...


Mediumship is a phenomenon that can be tested. A supernatural or discarnate entity can be shown to be the simplest explanation of certain evidence, like in the paper "The Problem of Seth's Origin" or the case of the dead chessmaster who communicated details of his life and played a game characteristic of the prior personality. The hypothesis that is used to explain the existence of this type of personality is called 'survival'.
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

The problem with this type of research is that it's not repeatable, and in terms of scientific evidence it's very flimsy. Similar to the articles you posted about Deepak Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, they have various theories (some of which do make sense) but it's mostly just speculation. And I don't tend to trust speculation very much when it comes from Deepak Chopra, who as I said is clueless about things like quantum entanglement...

Don't know much about Hameroff, I'll look him up.

Edit: Ah, Hameroff co-wrote the papers regarding the Orch-OR model of consciousness, with Roger Penrose. I've read a little into this hypothesis, and it is very interesting to say the least. But it is not conclusive evidence for any sort of consciousness controlled by quantum computation, their ideas have a lot of criticism.
Their theory is the best one on the market, it helps explain the clever behavior of paramecium.
The criticism of Penrose/Hameroff's theory is outdated, more recent papers provide new evidence.
Chopra is not clueless about science since according to Hameroff his view is the right one!

There are replication studies in Parapsychology. Also:
Mediumship can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control, see Cunningham's paper "The content source problem in modern mediumship research".
I expected a response from YOU, protokol.

Since you did not reply then it is implied that you agree with me that Chopra is right to say that consciousness drives evolution. Also, you did not dispute the idea that a discarnate being is the simplest explanation for cases like Seth and the dead chessmaster.

Orch-OR theory has been validated by evidence. You can even test it yourself (like a real skeptic) by ingesting qubits which will dramatically improve the performance of your local quantum computer or "brain".

A very strong and simple method is just to put Raw Sea Salt in a bottle, say two spoons in a half liter empty mineral bottle, then to fill it with a good cooking oil; then after 2 days waiting, you can just put ONE DROP on your tongue and feel the effects … I was very surprised to find it SO STRONG ! I let you try.

Anyway, for the scientists, it is THE PROOF THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE SEA SALT, and that when immersed in oil, it migrates to the oil ! And it has an immediate (after 2-3 minutes) effect on our human body after ingestion. You can even just put the oil on your skin and the ORMEs will make there way to your blood and you will also feel them very strongly after a short while.
That’s amazing no ? This ORMES/ORMUS are for real, and just next and whitin us.
qwik2learn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 07:06:25 AM
 #8438

  Ultimately, it just ends up looping back on itself until you accept that SOMETHING is simply the original state.
That is correct, something must be the first cause since an infinite chain of causation is unthinkable.
The origin will always involve self-existence, but self-existence itself is inconceivable (unthinkable).
Regarding the origin, it is easy to see that ALL explanations are inconceivable and literally unthinkable.
This is all detailed in Herbert Spencer's treatise "First Principles". Spencer was agnostic.
protokol
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1194



View Profile
October 08, 2017, 10:06:59 AM
 #8439


And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...


Mediumship is a phenomenon that can be tested. A supernatural or discarnate entity can be shown to be the simplest explanation of certain evidence, like in the paper "The Problem of Seth's Origin" or the case of the dead chessmaster who communicated details of his life and played a game characteristic of the prior personality. The hypothesis that is used to explain the existence of this type of personality is called 'survival'.
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

The problem with this type of research is that it's not repeatable, and in terms of scientific evidence it's very flimsy. Similar to the articles you posted about Deepak Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, they have various theories (some of which do make sense) but it's mostly just speculation. And I don't tend to trust speculation very much when it comes from Deepak Chopra, who as I said is clueless about things like quantum entanglement...

Don't know much about Hameroff, I'll look him up.

Edit: Ah, Hameroff co-wrote the papers regarding the Orch-OR model of consciousness, with Roger Penrose. I've read a little into this hypothesis, and it is very interesting to say the least. But it is not conclusive evidence for any sort of consciousness controlled by quantum computation, their ideas have a lot of criticism.
Their theory is the best one on the market, it helps explain the clever behavior of paramecium.
The criticism of Penrose/Hameroff's theory is outdated, more recent papers provide new evidence.
Chopra is not clueless about science since according to Hameroff his view is the right one!

There are replication studies in Parapsychology. Also:
Mediumship can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control, see Cunningham's paper "The content source problem in modern mediumship research".
I expected a response from YOU, protokol.

Since you did not reply then it is implied that you agree with me that Chopra is right to say that consciousness drives evolution. Also, you did not dispute the idea that a discarnate being is the simplest explanation for cases like Seth and the dead chessmaster.

Orch-OR theory has been validated by evidence. You can even test it yourself (like a real skeptic) by ingesting qubits which will dramatically improve the performance of your local quantum computer or "brain".

A very strong and simple method is just to put Raw Sea Salt in a bottle, say two spoons in a half liter empty mineral bottle, then to fill it with a good cooking oil; then after 2 days waiting, you can just put ONE DROP on your tongue and feel the effects … I was very surprised to find it SO STRONG ! I let you try.

Anyway, for the scientists, it is THE PROOF THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE SEA SALT, and that when immersed in oil, it migrates to the oil ! And it has an immediate (after 2-3 minutes) effect on our human body after ingestion. You can even just put the oil on your skin and the ORMEs will make there way to your blood and you will also feel them very strongly after a short while.
That’s amazing no ? This ORMES/ORMUS are for real, and just next and whitin us.

OK I didn't reply, but not because I agree with Chopra. You are jumping to conclusions my friend, something that people like Chopra do... And yourself.

Your link about "ormus water" is full of spelling and grammar mistakes. This leads me to believe it is not a reliable source, and some of the chemistry is sketchy at best. It literally says
Quote
If you look in any physics or chemistry text book for an explanation of what’s going on here, you will look in vain.

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

Orch-OR is an interesting hypothesis, like I said, but there is not enough evidence for the concept to be taken as fact. This is similar to other hypotheses, such as string theory or the multiverse theory. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is not enough evidence to say you are right.

Guess I'll make that my sig, all the cool kids have one...
protokol
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1194



View Profile
October 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
 #8440

Your quote about sea salt and oil, having an effect on our bodies can easily be considered an anecdotal quote caused by the placebo effect.

Chopra's idea about consciousness driving evolution could be true, but the evidence is lacking. Also like I said, he is considered a laughing stock in the science community, because he misunderstands actual quantum theories, that have been proven by actual quantum physicists.

Guess I'll make that my sig, all the cool kids have one...
Pages: « 1 ... 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 [422] 423 424 425 426 427 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!