Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

In the strict sense, God is hypothetical to people who haven't met Him, or to people who don't recognize that they have met Him.

Evidence is NOT proof. That's why we need faith. Same as the evolutionists need faith to believe that something as impossible as evolution might even have a chance of existing.

Quantum Mechanics is showing that nothing in science has been proven absolutely.

[BADecker]

Badecker, I'm gonna call you SBB(SunBakedBrick) from now on...as you are really living up the name exceptionally well.

I'm sure no-one wants to wade through almost two pages of text replies so I'm going to keep this short and sweet:
1. Your science of god and proof that you keep going on about.... is hogwash. You have NOT presented ANY scientific proof at all. You have a theory and opinion.

So in conclusion SBB, you have nothing....CE and complexity does NOT meet the requirements for explanation or proof of existence of god.

The end.

Another one! You don't like the idea of God, so you talk against me because I have found proof that He exists. If you don't explain in a scientific way how my proof is not proof, you are simply blabbing in a religious way. Come on. Find some scientific proof against my scientific proof. If you can't, start another religious thread somewhere, right? Like "Religious Proof for the Existence of God."

[Astargath]

Badecker it really is pointless trying to reason with you. Your delusions are irreversible. Wrong and irreversible.

And how dare you include me in your religious delusion.

I refute, refuse and spit on your so called authority over me....your god does not own me cos your silly book of old toilet paper says so. I could also write on a paper napkin that the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true.......There, you now belong to Him.

And once again you are arguing from a fallacy : https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

You want to see your god in everything...fine, go right ahead. But leave other people out of your delusions.

My delusions might be wrong and irreversible, but the fact that science proves that God exists isn't one of them.

The fact that God exists isn't religion. Religion is something that we don't really know, but have to take on faith or trust. Since I know that God exists, scientifically, it is you who are including yourself in potential non-facts, which you call a religion because you don't understand the science involved. So it isn't my religion. It's yours.

My authority over you is close to nothing. If you spit on it, and refuse it, then you must be accepting, or at least inviting, greater authority over you.

My God is the God of the universe. Are you trying to push yourself out of the universe? Just because you don't know that He owns you, doesn't mean He doesn't.

Just because you write on a napkin "the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true," doesn't mean that it is true. For example. You might think that you know that Big Bang is real. But if you don't understand BB math, you really only believe, and BB is really only a religion for you. Someone else who knows the math might know that BB could actually be real.

The point is, you are talking religion in this science thread.

You keep claiming that science proves god exists yet I have never seen a scientific theory, hypothesis or anything related to ''god'', have you? How come we have so many fake (as you claim) scientific theories like evolution with a ton of evidence behind it and yet not a single one for god, seems strange to me.

That's because we are at the conclusion of the proof. The evidence is so exceedingly overwhelming in C&E, entropy, and complexity, that you might as well waste time on formulating hypotheses and theories about it. Go ahead if you want.

If it's so exceedingly overwhelming, as you claim, again, why is there no scientific theory? Oh, because it's a waste of time, give me a break with your stupid excuses. How come we have a scientific theory for evolution then? Gravity? Oh yeah, scientists couldn't bother to make one for god, right? Who cares about a supernatural god that created the universe, am I right? They just didn't bother, that's what you are saying. You are a fucking joke lol.

LOL! See how well cause and effect works? You posted your post using all kinds of cause and effect operations, from your brain dictating what your fingers do at the keyboard, all the way up to the C&E flow of training that trained your brain to think of what to cause your fingers to type.

Thanks for asking a bunch of easy-to-answer questions.

BTW, when you have such an abundance of proof for the existence of God, like the scientists do, why would they want to make a theory for God? You ask such simplistic questions.

So let me understand it, you claim the evidence is so obvious, so extremely obvious that scientists don't even need to apply the scientific method to it? https://www.compellingtruth.org/scientists-believe-God.html
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

So, what's your point? You show some religious points about scientists. So what?

Interestingly, although some scientists do believe in god, there is a very significant difference on the percentage of scientists that believe in god vs the percentage of other people. ''specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God'' ''By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power'' Are you saying that the average americans are smarter than scientists hahaha, how is it possible that scientists believe less when there is such clear and obvious evidence out there?

Note that scientists have a reason for believing in God. It's because it is their religion.

Scientific proof for the existence of God is something that scientists use all the time in their scientific investigations, even though they don't realize they are doing it.
All scientists know that they are using cause and effect in their science.
They are all aware of degradation of their scientific operations... entropy.
They are all aware of complexity of atoms and molecules in even the simplest of their science projects.
They all use the above-listed scientific proof for the existence of God even though they don't realize that they are doing so.

Why would an average non-scientist American want to worship God like a dumb scientist who uses the proof for the existence of God, but can't even figure out that he is doing it?

You can't seem to talk science. Even your links are religious. You are in the wrong thread.

So you are smarter than most scientists, you understand the proof for god but they don't. Why not publish a paper, a scientific paper to make them understand the proof? How come the other scientists that do believe in god never published such paper? How come they didn't try to convince their partners about god using scientific proof? Seems really weird to me unless... wait for it.... there is no scientific proof for god, they know there isn't even if they believe in god and thus can't really publish a scientific paper about it or create a scientific theory. Who knows, right?

Scientists, themselves, state that they are just beginning to find out things about the universe. Why shouldn't I understand the scientific proof for the existence of God when others haven't even considered it? You don't understand the math for big bang. You believe because others talk about it. Why don't you understand the scientific proof for God when it is explained to you? Only because you don't want to.

But there are plenty of scientists who did consider it though and we still have no scientific theories about god. How do you explain that?

[BADecker]

Badecker it really is pointless trying to reason with you. Your delusions are irreversible. Wrong and irreversible.

And how dare you include me in your religious delusion.

I refute, refuse and spit on your so called authority over me....your god does not own me cos your silly book of old toilet paper says so. I could also write on a paper napkin that the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true.......There, you now belong to Him.

And once again you are arguing from a fallacy : https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

You want to see your god in everything...fine, go right ahead. But leave other people out of your delusions.

My delusions might be wrong and irreversible, but the fact that science proves that God exists isn't one of them.

The fact that God exists isn't religion. Religion is something that we don't really know, but have to take on faith or trust. Since I know that God exists, scientifically, it is you who are including yourself in potential non-facts, which you call a religion because you don't understand the science involved. So it isn't my religion. It's yours.

My authority over you is close to nothing. If you spit on it, and refuse it, then you must be accepting, or at least inviting, greater authority over you.

My God is the God of the universe. Are you trying to push yourself out of the universe? Just because you don't know that He owns you, doesn't mean He doesn't.

Just because you write on a napkin "the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true," doesn't mean that it is true. For example. You might think that you know that Big Bang is real. But if you don't understand BB math, you really only believe, and BB is really only a religion for you. Someone else who knows the math might know that BB could actually be real.

The point is, you are talking religion in this science thread.

You keep claiming that science proves god exists yet I have never seen a scientific theory, hypothesis or anything related to ''god'', have you? How come we have so many fake (as you claim) scientific theories like evolution with a ton of evidence behind it and yet not a single one for god, seems strange to me.

That's because we are at the conclusion of the proof. The evidence is so exceedingly overwhelming in C&E, entropy, and complexity, that you might as well waste time on formulating hypotheses and theories about it. Go ahead if you want.

If it's so exceedingly overwhelming, as you claim, again, why is there no scientific theory? Oh, because it's a waste of time, give me a break with your stupid excuses. How come we have a scientific theory for evolution then? Gravity? Oh yeah, scientists couldn't bother to make one for god, right? Who cares about a supernatural god that created the universe, am I right? They just didn't bother, that's what you are saying. You are a fucking joke lol.

LOL! See how well cause and effect works? You posted your post using all kinds of cause and effect operations, from your brain dictating what your fingers do at the keyboard, all the way up to the C&E flow of training that trained your brain to think of what to cause your fingers to type.

Thanks for asking a bunch of easy-to-answer questions.

BTW, when you have such an abundance of proof for the existence of God, like the scientists do, why would they want to make a theory for God? You ask such simplistic questions.

So let me understand it, you claim the evidence is so obvious, so extremely obvious that scientists don't even need to apply the scientific method to it? https://www.compellingtruth.org/scientists-believe-God.html
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

So, what's your point? You show some religious points about scientists. So what?

Interestingly, although some scientists do believe in god, there is a very significant difference on the percentage of scientists that believe in god vs the percentage of other people. ''specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God'' ''By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power'' Are you saying that the average americans are smarter than scientists hahaha, how is it possible that scientists believe less when there is such clear and obvious evidence out there?

Note that scientists have a reason for believing in God. It's because it is their religion.

Scientific proof for the existence of God is something that scientists use all the time in their scientific investigations, even though they don't realize they are doing it.
All scientists know that they are using cause and effect in their science.
They are all aware of degradation of their scientific operations... entropy.
They are all aware of complexity of atoms and molecules in even the simplest of their science projects.
They all use the above-listed scientific proof for the existence of God even though they don't realize that they are doing so.

Why would an average non-scientist American want to worship God like a dumb scientist who uses the proof for the existence of God, but can't even figure out that he is doing it?

You can't seem to talk science. Even your links are religious. You are in the wrong thread.

So you are smarter than most scientists, you understand the proof for god but they don't. Why not publish a paper, a scientific paper to make them understand the proof? How come the other scientists that do believe in god never published such paper? How come they didn't try to convince their partners about god using scientific proof? Seems really weird to me unless... wait for it.... there is no scientific proof for god, they know there isn't even if they believe in god and thus can't really publish a scientific paper about it or create a scientific theory. Who knows, right?

Scientists, themselves, state that they are just beginning to find out things about the universe. Why shouldn't I understand the scientific proof for the existence of God when others haven't even considered it? You don't understand the math for big bang. You believe because others talk about it. Why don't you understand the scientific proof for God when it is explained to you? Only because you don't want to.

But there are plenty of scientists who did consider it though and we still have no scientific theories about god. How do you explain that?

Scientists don't generally make theories for something that has been scientifically proven, and especially something that is as self-evident as the existence of God. What is difficult to understand is why you would want a theory for God.

[Azat1988]

The problem of the relation between being and non-being is regarded as the initial philosophical problem. The central question of this problem: what is the beginning and foundation of the world - being or non-being. Within the paradigm of the philosophy of being, it is asserted that being is absolute, and non-existence is relative. According to the philosophy of non-being, non-being is original, and being is derivative and limited to non-being. For Abrahamic religions, to the question of what is the most basic, the book of Genesis answers: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (the visible world, the material

[Astargath]

Badecker it really is pointless trying to reason with you. Your delusions are irreversible. Wrong and irreversible.

And how dare you include me in your religious delusion.

I refute, refuse and spit on your so called authority over me....your god does not own me cos your silly book of old toilet paper says so. I could also write on a paper napkin that the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true.......There, you now belong to Him.

And once again you are arguing from a fallacy : https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

You want to see your god in everything...fine, go right ahead. But leave other people out of your delusions.

My delusions might be wrong and irreversible, but the fact that science proves that God exists isn't one of them.

The fact that God exists isn't religion. Religion is something that we don't really know, but have to take on faith or trust. Since I know that God exists, scientifically, it is you who are including yourself in potential non-facts, which you call a religion because you don't understand the science involved. So it isn't my religion. It's yours.

My authority over you is close to nothing. If you spit on it, and refuse it, then you must be accepting, or at least inviting, greater authority over you.

My God is the God of the universe. Are you trying to push yourself out of the universe? Just because you don't know that He owns you, doesn't mean He doesn't.

Just because you write on a napkin "the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true," doesn't mean that it is true. For example. You might think that you know that Big Bang is real. But if you don't understand BB math, you really only believe, and BB is really only a religion for you. Someone else who knows the math might know that BB could actually be real.

The point is, you are talking religion in this science thread.

You keep claiming that science proves god exists yet I have never seen a scientific theory, hypothesis or anything related to ''god'', have you? How come we have so many fake (as you claim) scientific theories like evolution with a ton of evidence behind it and yet not a single one for god, seems strange to me.

That's because we are at the conclusion of the proof. The evidence is so exceedingly overwhelming in C&E, entropy, and complexity, that you might as well waste time on formulating hypotheses and theories about it. Go ahead if you want.

If it's so exceedingly overwhelming, as you claim, again, why is there no scientific theory? Oh, because it's a waste of time, give me a break with your stupid excuses. How come we have a scientific theory for evolution then? Gravity? Oh yeah, scientists couldn't bother to make one for god, right? Who cares about a supernatural god that created the universe, am I right? They just didn't bother, that's what you are saying. You are a fucking joke lol.

LOL! See how well cause and effect works? You posted your post using all kinds of cause and effect operations, from your brain dictating what your fingers do at the keyboard, all the way up to the C&E flow of training that trained your brain to think of what to cause your fingers to type.

Thanks for asking a bunch of easy-to-answer questions.

BTW, when you have such an abundance of proof for the existence of God, like the scientists do, why would they want to make a theory for God? You ask such simplistic questions.

So let me understand it, you claim the evidence is so obvious, so extremely obvious that scientists don't even need to apply the scientific method to it? https://www.compellingtruth.org/scientists-believe-God.html
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

So, what's your point? You show some religious points about scientists. So what?

Interestingly, although some scientists do believe in god, there is a very significant difference on the percentage of scientists that believe in god vs the percentage of other people. ''specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God'' ''By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power'' Are you saying that the average americans are smarter than scientists hahaha, how is it possible that scientists believe less when there is such clear and obvious evidence out there?

Note that scientists have a reason for believing in God. It's because it is their religion.

Scientific proof for the existence of God is something that scientists use all the time in their scientific investigations, even though they don't realize they are doing it.
All scientists know that they are using cause and effect in their science.
They are all aware of degradation of their scientific operations... entropy.
They are all aware of complexity of atoms and molecules in even the simplest of their science projects.
They all use the above-listed scientific proof for the existence of God even though they don't realize that they are doing so.

Why would an average non-scientist American want to worship God like a dumb scientist who uses the proof for the existence of God, but can't even figure out that he is doing it?

You can't seem to talk science. Even your links are religious. You are in the wrong thread.

So you are smarter than most scientists, you understand the proof for god but they don't. Why not publish a paper, a scientific paper to make them understand the proof? How come the other scientists that do believe in god never published such paper? How come they didn't try to convince their partners about god using scientific proof? Seems really weird to me unless... wait for it.... there is no scientific proof for god, they know there isn't even if they believe in god and thus can't really publish a scientific paper about it or create a scientific theory. Who knows, right?

Scientists, themselves, state that they are just beginning to find out things about the universe. Why shouldn't I understand the scientific proof for the existence of God when others haven't even considered it? You don't understand the math for big bang. You believe because others talk about it. Why don't you understand the scientific proof for God when it is explained to you? Only because you don't want to.

But there are plenty of scientists who did consider it though and we still have no scientific theories about god. How do you explain that?

Scientists don't generally make theories for something that has been scientifically proven, and especially something that is as self-evident as the existence of God. What is difficult to understand is why you would want a theory for God.

If it is self-evident everyone would agree that god exists. If god was scientifically proven as you claim then scientists would have no problem in saying god is real and that they have proof, yet they don't. Even the ones that believe in god don't usually say the have proved his existence scientifically.

The arguments you make for the existence of god are not scientific, sure entropy exists or cause and effect but after that is just assumptions that all together point to a god and not to something else. There is no way to test it, therefore it's not scientific.

If you see a house that has a a smaller ''house'' that says ''dog'' and also has a bowl of food in front of it, you would say that there is a dog around there. You can prove there is a house and that there is a bowl of food, in this case you can even go there and check if there is indeed a dog. You can't do that in your argument, you can't go and check if god is there and just like the dog, god might not be there.  Funny that dog backwards is god.

[Ciben]

Fuck off, also, to me, God existing is irrelevant, I am purely Anarchist on this point.

[KingScorpio]

What do you think?
Please share your opinion about this article.


101 Proofs For God

A growing list of common sense Proofs for God.

Proof for God, #65 Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam

 Genetic scientists seem to be in general agreement that we are all descendants of one woman and one man. This research was fairly recent, starting about 1978. They, of course, do not believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, but their conclusions are getting closer and closer.

In case you have not heard about this, it makes very interesting reading. But I think it raises a number of profound challenges to the Theory of Evolution.

The scientists base the above conclusions on the known facts of human reproduction, specifically on properties of the sperm and egg. .....
Full article read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/65-mitochondial-eve-and-y-chromosome.html

best proof there is, is throgh observable anomalies in reality, this however doesnt proof "a" god it proves only that the universe is more than just matter, energy, and organisms fighting and cooperating for survival

[Zelti]

Especially if they are science-minded, and God-minded at the same time. They will, at least, have a chance to combine all kinds of truths that they would completely miss in a public school.

[BADecker]

Badecker it really is pointless trying to reason with you. Your delusions are irreversible. Wrong and irreversible.

And how dare you include me in your religious delusion.

I refute, refuse and spit on your so called authority over me....your god does not own me cos your silly book of old toilet paper says so. I could also write on a paper napkin that the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true.......There, you now belong to Him.

And once again you are arguing from a fallacy : https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

You want to see your god in everything...fine, go right ahead. But leave other people out of your delusions.

My delusions might be wrong and irreversible, but the fact that science proves that God exists isn't one of them.

The fact that God exists isn't religion. Religion is something that we don't really know, but have to take on faith or trust. Since I know that God exists, scientifically, it is you who are including yourself in potential non-facts, which you call a religion because you don't understand the science involved. So it isn't my religion. It's yours.

My authority over you is close to nothing. If you spit on it, and refuse it, then you must be accepting, or at least inviting, greater authority over you.

My God is the God of the universe. Are you trying to push yourself out of the universe? Just because you don't know that He owns you, doesn't mean He doesn't.

Just because you write on a napkin "the Flying Spaghetti Monster owns everything in the universe. Its written...therefore it must be true," doesn't mean that it is true. For example. You might think that you know that Big Bang is real. But if you don't understand BB math, you really only believe, and BB is really only a religion for you. Someone else who knows the math might know that BB could actually be real.

The point is, you are talking religion in this science thread.

You keep claiming that science proves god exists yet I have never seen a scientific theory, hypothesis or anything related to ''god'', have you? How come we have so many fake (as you claim) scientific theories like evolution with a ton of evidence behind it and yet not a single one for god, seems strange to me.

That's because we are at the conclusion of the proof. The evidence is so exceedingly overwhelming in C&E, entropy, and complexity, that you might as well waste time on formulating hypotheses and theories about it. Go ahead if you want.

If it's so exceedingly overwhelming, as you claim, again, why is there no scientific theory? Oh, because it's a waste of time, give me a break with your stupid excuses. How come we have a scientific theory for evolution then? Gravity? Oh yeah, scientists couldn't bother to make one for god, right? Who cares about a supernatural god that created the universe, am I right? They just didn't bother, that's what you are saying. You are a fucking joke lol.

LOL! See how well cause and effect works? You posted your post using all kinds of cause and effect operations, from your brain dictating what your fingers do at the keyboard, all the way up to the C&E flow of training that trained your brain to think of what to cause your fingers to type.

Thanks for asking a bunch of easy-to-answer questions.

BTW, when you have such an abundance of proof for the existence of God, like the scientists do, why would they want to make a theory for God? You ask such simplistic questions.

So let me understand it, you claim the evidence is so obvious, so extremely obvious that scientists don't even need to apply the scientific method to it? https://www.compellingtruth.org/scientists-believe-God.html
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

So, what's your point? You show some religious points about scientists. So what?

Interestingly, although some scientists do believe in god, there is a very significant difference on the percentage of scientists that believe in god vs the percentage of other people. ''specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God'' ''By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power'' Are you saying that the average americans are smarter than scientists hahaha, how is it possible that scientists believe less when there is such clear and obvious evidence out there?

Note that scientists have a reason for believing in God. It's because it is their religion.

Scientific proof for the existence of God is something that scientists use all the time in their scientific investigations, even though they don't realize they are doing it.
All scientists know that they are using cause and effect in their science.
They are all aware of degradation of their scientific operations... entropy.
They are all aware of complexity of atoms and molecules in even the simplest of their science projects.
They all use the above-listed scientific proof for the existence of God even though they don't realize that they are doing so.

Why would an average non-scientist American want to worship God like a dumb scientist who uses the proof for the existence of God, but can't even figure out that he is doing it?

You can't seem to talk science. Even your links are religious. You are in the wrong thread.

So you are smarter than most scientists, you understand the proof for god but they don't. Why not publish a paper, a scientific paper to make them understand the proof? How come the other scientists that do believe in god never published such paper? How come they didn't try to convince their partners about god using scientific proof? Seems really weird to me unless... wait for it.... there is no scientific proof for god, they know there isn't even if they believe in god and thus can't really publish a scientific paper about it or create a scientific theory. Who knows, right?

Scientists, themselves, state that they are just beginning to find out things about the universe. Why shouldn't I understand the scientific proof for the existence of God when others haven't even considered it? You don't understand the math for big bang. You believe because others talk about it. Why don't you understand the scientific proof for God when it is explained to you? Only because you don't want to.

But there are plenty of scientists who did consider it though and we still have no scientific theories about god. How do you explain that?

Scientists don't generally make theories for something that has been scientifically proven, and especially something that is as self-evident as the existence of God. What is difficult to understand is why you would want a theory for God.

If it is self-evident everyone would agree that god exists. If god was scientifically proven as you claim then scientists would have no problem in saying god is real and that they have proof, yet they don't. Even the ones that believe in god don't usually say the have proved his existence scientifically.

People don't always accept things that are self-evident. Rather, they accept things that they want to accept.

Some scientists ignore the proof for God, because God doesn't match their brand of scientific formulation methods.

Billions of people all over the world know that God exists, because they see His machine universe, and know by practical experience that machines have makers. Some of these people are scientists.

The arguments you make for the existence of god are not scientific, sure entropy exists or cause and effect but after that is just assumptions that all together point to a god and not to something else. There is no way to test it, therefore it's not scientific.

If the things I say are not scientific, you should certainly be able to show scientific arguments that easily refute them. Yet, all you can say is, "I rebutted your points," or, "Blah, blah, blah you aren't scientific." You can't explain the science of your rebuttals, because you don't have any that you understand, and therefore you wouldn't know if you had a rebuttal or not, or if I was using sound science or not.

If you see a house that has a a smaller ''house'' that says ''dog'' and also has a bowl of food in front of it, you would say that there is a dog around there. You can prove there is a house and that there is a bowl of food, in this case you can even go there and check if there is indeed a dog. You can't do that in your argument, you can't go and check if god is there and just like the dog, god might not be there.  Funny that dog backwards is god.

Are you telling me that science doesn't know that empty space exists? The dog might be out to the vet the day you look for him. Or, as you are looking for him in his little house, he might be on the roof of the big house, looking down at you, ready to jump and chew you to pieces.

The methods I use are essentially flawless for proving the existence of God. If they weren't, you could point out a flaw in scientific fashion. Since you can't do it, you are unscientific, and wouldn't know science if it jumped up and awarded you $10 million in a sweepstakes.

[Astargath]

''you could point out a flaw in scientific fashion.'' Easy, as I said your ''proof'' is not scientific because it cannot be tested or falsified. Unless you can tell me what experiment I can perform that would confirm your assumptions that entropy+complexity+c&e = god. Is there such an experiment? Can you test or falsify god? If not, it's not a scientific proof.

[BADecker]

''you could point out a flaw in scientific fashion.'' Easy, as I said your ''proof'' is not scientific because it cannot be tested or falsified. Unless you can tell me what experiment I can perform that would confirm your assumptions that entropy+complexity+c&e = god. Is there such an experiment? Can you test or falsify god? If not, it's not a scientific proof.

My proof is used every day in millions of circumstances. The only thing people don't do is consider such usage a test... at least not very often, percentage-wise.

For example. You get into your car, start the engine, and drive away. Cause and effect works throughout the whole operation; as the fuel burns, a simple form of entropy is taking place; and the whole car is complex enough that you would have an impossible task on your hands, if you ever tried to build one just like it, all by yourself, from scratch.

But if you wanted to test, you could doubt that the car would work this time, and anxiously await the proof that it did work, as you turned the key.

As has been pointed out, the fact that these three are in the same universe, and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three (if it could even exist at all), proves God by the continual operation of all three in the same universe.

The proof that it is God and not complex happenstance, is the intelligent design in everything. We are the example of what it takes to have intelligent design. The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching, is the proof that the designer is greater than we, so that He matches our definition of the word "God."

Thank you for helping to prove God exists.

[Nonbaca]

in my opinion this is not entirely correct

[Ikpirijor7]

The concept of “Natural Selection”, sometimes used synonymous with “Survival of the Fittest”, is often touted as the magic process that when added to mutation will result in advancing steps of higher and higher species and the success of evolution.[1] But I encourage you to read up on what Natural Selection is all about and see that it will NOT lead to evolution. Check out the examples that are given, and see for yourself what a fanciful argument this is for evolution of molecules to man. Actually you can't even start with molecules because Natural Selection ONLY works on a species once it can reproduce.

What they actually mean by "natural selection" is what we believers in God totally accept and we call it adaption to the environment. It’s a wonderful God-given quality in Nature that creatures have that allows them to better survive. But it is never a process that will give you a new species.
you can read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2013/05/35-natural-selection.html

[KingScorpio]

look volks the universe has indeed some form of inteligent imperative i can also proof that if you would at least listen.

[Astargath]

''you could point out a flaw in scientific fashion.'' Easy, as I said your ''proof'' is not scientific because it cannot be tested or falsified. Unless you can tell me what experiment I can perform that would confirm your assumptions that entropy+complexity+c&e = god. Is there such an experiment? Can you test or falsify god? If not, it's not a scientific proof.

My proof is used every day in millions of circumstances. The only thing people don't do is consider such usage a test... at least not very often, percentage-wise.

For example. You get into your car, start the engine, and drive away. Cause and effect works throughout the whole operation; as the fuel burns, a simple form of entropy is taking place; and the whole car is complex enough that you would have an impossible task on your hands, if you ever tried to build one just like it, all by yourself, from scratch.

But if you wanted to test, you could doubt that the car would work this time, and anxiously await the proof that it did work, as you turned the key.

As has been pointed out, the fact that these three are in the same universe, and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three (if it could even exist at all), proves God by the continual operation of all three in the same universe.

The proof that it is God and not complex happenstance, is the intelligent design in everything. We are the example of what it takes to have intelligent design. The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching, is the proof that the designer is greater than we, so that He matches our definition of the word "God."

Thank you for helping to prove God exists.

Ye ye, it's not cause and effect or entropy what you have to prove, it's that the 3 of them combined = god. Each one of them exists but the assumption that all of them combined lead to god is not proven, it's just assumed by you. ''and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three'' The universe would be different without many things, that's not proof.

'' is the intelligent design in everything'' Then you have to prove that everything is intelligently designed, human bodies have a lot of flaws http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body
These flaws certainly do not indicate ''intelligent design''.

''The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching'' the processor in the computer you used to write this, likely contains billions of transistors. It's so complex no single individual can possibly understand it as a whole, but humans made it. Not to mention the fact that an even more complex being would be needed for god to exist and so on to infinity.

[RenatoVillarinJr]

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

[belphegory]

SBB strikes again! Thanks for the laugh bud, appreciate it.

"You can't refute my scientific proof with your scientific proof so therefore god exists" Rofl!

Its amazing the twists and turns and double backs and hairpin turns you guys have to justify your nonsense fairytales.

And exactly what Asgarth said in his post before mine is what I have been saying all along.

I've had a good chuckle at your responses SBB....you have been so overwhelmed and shot down more times than I can count in this thread alone, never mind the Health and Religion thread. Yet you continue to hang in there grimly, like your "dog" hanging onto its last meager bone. Got to give you props for sticking it out.

[Antonina]

If the Bible, the Koran, and other scriptures are not that God. If there is no God, there is no way. Our civilization is still very young, and much more we can not explain.

[Rieri]

i haven't read all thread, but i have an easy question: why a perfect entity had the urge to create men?

honestly i have a bunch of simple questions since my childhood that never got a satisfing answers; maybe someone here could shake my opinions ...