Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

Scientific proof will not prove that God exists, because it cannot and would not possibly comprehend or explain it completely!

What is empty space? What is nothingness? What objectively is nothing, and what is it made of?

We material beings recognize material things. We even recognize energy. We can objectively analyze these things to some extent. But we can't seem to analyze nothing objectively. Yet nothing fills all the space between the subatomic particles of the atoms, and between the planets of outer space.

Since we can't analyze nothing because it is so foreign to us, and because we can't grab hold of it and place it under our microscope to examine it, how do we know that the thing that we call nothing even exists? Don't we know that nothing exists by measuring certain aspects of the relationships between things that we DO understand... material things?

For example. There is something between Mars and Earth. We can determine this by recognizing distance and size relationships between these two planets. What is the something that is between these two planets. Well, there is nothing there? So, the something is nothing, even though we don't really have a handle on what nothing is... even though we can't grab hold of nothing and analyze it. Yet we know it is there because we can measure the relationships between many thing that exist within this nothing.


Same with God. We can't grab hold of God and put Him under a microscope. But because of the actions of physics in the universe, we can know that He exists, even though we can't scientifically objectively understand anything about Him. The fact that cause and effect, entropy, and complexity exist in our universe the way they do, proves that God exists.

[BADecker]

But there are well over 25,000 hand copies of the New Testament from before the printing press.

Hand copied meant mistakes and cultural differences sneaked in with each generation, like evolution.

How many generations of the bible were written before the printing press eliminated errors?  50% of the bible could be mistakes.

500 pages and still no proof.  This thread is BD's legacy I suppose.

Isaiah and other Bible books in the Dead Sea Scrolls show us that the only Bible differences over more than 2,000 years were the gradual changes in the shapes of the letters that make up the Hebrew language.

The Hebrew people are/were probably the most meticulous people in the world. They copied the Bible exactly, because they knew that it was the Word of God, and that it was their duty under His commands to not change it.

You have heard of the infamous 666 number from the Revelation. Well, a few years ago, an archeologist found a copy of the of the Revelation while digging in an ancient Hebrew garbage pit. In this Revelation, the 666 number was written 616. For a while a bunch of scholars thought that here might be a correct writing and understanding of the 666 number... at least until it was pointed out to them that this copy was found in the dump... where it was thrown because the scribe made a mistake in copying it, and tossed it out, and started over.

That is how meticulous the Hebrew scribes were. All that writing by hand, and he had to throw it out because of a simple "jerk" of his pen that turned the middle 6 into a 1.

500 pages and still all kinds of proof that God exists... and all kinds of proof that Vod is ignorant and/or deceptive.

[BADecker]

The problem with this thinking is in the numbers. Before the printing press, there were only a handful of copies of any scientific work except a few of the better ones, like Aristotle. In addition, there were only a few copies of any religion other than Christianity. But there are well over 25,000 hand copies of the New Testament from before the printing press.

Today, copies of the Bible - especially the N.T. - outnumber any other book or manuscript by at least 2 to 1. Starting to seem like science is the weaker of the religions.

It doesn't have to do with odds. It is the Spirit of God getting His Word around to the peoples of the world.

The problem is that the flood is proven to be a hoax, the age of the earth and universe do not match the bible, at all and the other contradictions just prove it even further, god from the bible is scientifically proven to be a hoax.

There is no proof that the Great Flood of Noah's day didn't happen. There is no proof that the standard, accepted age of the universe is anything near correct. There are no contradictions in the Bible... although there might be many things that we don't understand, clearly.

The God that the Bible is referring to is the God of the universe that science has proven to exist.

[Astargath]

The problem with this thinking is in the numbers. Before the printing press, there were only a handful of copies of any scientific work except a few of the better ones, like Aristotle. In addition, there were only a few copies of any religion other than Christianity. But there are well over 25,000 hand copies of the New Testament from before the printing press.

Today, copies of the Bible - especially the N.T. - outnumber any other book or manuscript by at least 2 to 1. Starting to seem like science is the weaker of the religions.

It doesn't have to do with odds. It is the Spirit of God getting His Word around to the peoples of the world.

The problem is that the flood is proven to be a hoax, the age of the earth and universe do not match the bible, at all and the other contradictions just prove it even further, god from the bible is scientifically proven to be a hoax.

There is no proof that the Great Flood of Noah's day didn't happen. There is no proof that the standard, accepted age of the universe is anything near correct. There are no contradictions in the Bible... although there might be many things that we don't understand, clearly.

The God that the Bible is referring to is the God of the universe that science has proven to exist.

Of course there is:
Age of the earth:
https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Age of the universe:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/29/how-do-we-know-the-age-of-the-universe/#473db16a6155
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

This is scientific proof, accepted by virtually all scientists, if this is not proof, I don't know what is.

There is also plenty of evidence that the flood didn't happen, in fact no history book talks about it anywhere.

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/twenty-one_reasons_noahs_worldwide_flood_never_happened
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

[Vod]

The God that the Bible is referring to is the God of the universe that science has proven to exist.

Then why was the bible written at least 80 years after this god died?

Five + generations of people forget about this god, then suddenly many people remember in great detail.   

The bible is a work of fiction. 

[udam]

can anyone believe in science all time.  more and more new theories have come to world with making false previous theories. People are thinking always scientific reason for every thing, but can every incident in world explain by science. I think finding proof for Gods doesn't important believe is important. 

[BADecker]

The God that the Bible is referring to is the God of the universe that science has proven to exist.

Then why was the bible written at least 80 years after this god died?

Five + generations of people forget about this god, then suddenly many people remember in great detail.  

The bible is a work of fiction.  

God didn't die.

People like you simply focused away from God, so He revealed Himself over and over, again and again so that some of them could be saved.

The Bible is the greatest truth.

[Astargath]

The God that the Bible is referring to is the God of the universe that science has proven to exist.

Then why was the bible written at least 80 years after this god died?

Five + generations of people forget about this god, then suddenly many people remember in great detail.  

The bible is a work of fiction.  

God didn't die.

People like you simply focused away from God, so He revealed Himself over and over, again and again so that some of them could be saved.

The Bible is the greatest truth.

Proved scientifically that the bible is false ^^ ^^^

[BADecker]

The God that the Bible is referring to is the God of the universe that science has proven to exist.

Then why was the bible written at least 80 years after this god died?

Five + generations of people forget about this god, then suddenly many people remember in great detail.  

The bible is a work of fiction.  

God didn't die.

People like you simply focused away from God, so He revealed Himself over and over, again and again so that some of them could be saved.

The Bible is the greatest truth.

Proved scientifically that the bible is false ^^ ^^^

Thank you for acknowledging that God exists.   

[Astargath]

The God that the Bible is referring to is the God of the universe that science has proven to exist.

Then why was the bible written at least 80 years after this god died?

Five + generations of people forget about this god, then suddenly many people remember in great detail.  

The bible is a work of fiction.  

God didn't die.

People like you simply focused away from God, so He revealed Himself over and over, again and again so that some of them could be saved.

The Bible is the greatest truth.

Proved scientifically that the bible is false ^^ ^^^

Thank you for acknowledging that God exists.   

By ignoring the scientific evidence you are acknowledging that the bible is a hoax, thank you for that.

Age of the earth:
https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Age of the universe:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/29/how-do-we-know-the-age-of-the-universe/#473db16a6155
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

This is scientific proof, accepted by virtually all scientists, if this is not proof, I don't know what is.

There is also plenty of evidence that the flood didn't happen, in fact no history book talks about it anywhere.

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/twenty-one_reasons_noahs_worldwide_flood_never_happened
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

Rip badecker.

[Vod]

Everything that BADecker thinks and types is based off the bible.

The bible has been proven to not be about a man that died in 0AD.

Everything in the bible is a lie.
 

[metall140s]

I think that the question is very interesting and i am interested in reading as many opinions as possible.

[BADecker]

Everything that BADecker thinks and types is based off the bible.

The bible has been proven to not be about a man that died in 0AD.

Everything in the bible is a lie.
 

You forgot to check the things that BADecker types against the Bible.

The Bible is definitely not about some guy who died in 0AD.

Everything in the Bible is truth. But you have to read the Bible to see what it says about the way the things that it says are truthful.

That being said, it sounds like you are among those who want to turn this topic into a religious topic, rather than the scientific topic that the title and OP express it to be. Or are you trying to tell us that science is a religion?

[BADecker]

Thank you for acknowledging that God exists.   

By ignoring the scientific evidence you are acknowledging that the bible is a hoax, thank you for that. - Blah, blah, blah. By ignoring the scientific evidence you are acknowledging that the Bible is fact.

Age of the earth: - Not known scientifically. The scientific writings about the age of the earth all tell you this right inside themselves, by the language they use, though many of them don't say it outright. It's in the way they talk about their findings regarding the age of the earth.
https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Age of the universe: - Not known scientifically. The scientific writings about the age of the universe all tell you this right inside themselves, by the language they use, though many of them don't say it outright. It's in the way they talk about their findings regarding the age of the universe.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/29/how-do-we-know-the-age-of-the-universe/#473db16a6155
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

This is scientific proof, accepted by virtually all scientists, if this is not proof, I don't know what is. - Scientists are people. Simple acceptance of something by a bunch of people doesn't make it factual. However, the idea that "... accepted by virtually all scientists ..." is accurate is entirely too generalized, and is completely wrong because of this. Sounds like you don't know what proof really is.

There is also plenty of evidence that the flood didn't happen, in fact no history book talks about it anywhere. - Now you are getting really goofy. The greatest history book of all - the Bible - talks about the flood. In addition, there is a lot of written history about the Great Flood. One very common ancient written record about it besides the Bible, is the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/twenty-one_reasons_noahs_worldwide_flood_never_happened
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

Rip badecker.

But the funniest part of everything you say is that you seem to think that this is a personal thing. What's the matter? Don't you like me because I show you science that you can't refute? Don't you think that enough people already know that you are a deceitful troll? Or are you simply subtly putting your resumé out there for anybody who wants to hire a freelance troll? Do you think they will hire you when you troll around this way? Get back on topic, hey?

All the scientific proof that anybody needs to know that God exists is right here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

[Vod]

There can be no proof since you cannot test a god... much less repeatedly. 

[Astargath]

Thank you for acknowledging that God exists.   

By ignoring the scientific evidence you are acknowledging that the bible is a hoax, thank you for that. - Blah, blah, blah. By ignoring the scientific evidence you are acknowledging that the Bible is fact.

Age of the earth: - Not known scientifically. The scientific writings about the age of the earth all tell you this right inside themselves, by the language they use, though many of them don't say it outright. It's in the way they talk about their findings regarding the age of the earth.
https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Age of the universe: - Not known scientifically. The scientific writings about the age of the universe all tell you this right inside themselves, by the language they use, though many of them don't say it outright. It's in the way they talk about their findings regarding the age of the universe.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/29/how-do-we-know-the-age-of-the-universe/#473db16a6155
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

This is scientific proof, accepted by virtually all scientists, if this is not proof, I don't know what is. - Scientists are people. Simple acceptance of something by a bunch of people doesn't make it factual. However, the idea that "... accepted by virtually all scientists ..." is accurate is entirely too generalized, and is completely wrong because of this. Sounds like you don't know what proof really is.

There is also plenty of evidence that the flood didn't happen, in fact no history book talks about it anywhere. - Now you are getting really goofy. The greatest history book of all - the Bible - talks about the flood. In addition, there is a lot of written history about the Great Flood. One very common ancient written record about it besides the Bible, is the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/twenty-one_reasons_noahs_worldwide_flood_never_happened
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

Rip badecker.

But the funniest part of everything you say is that you seem to think that this is a personal thing. What's the matter? Don't you like me because I show you science that you can't refute? Don't you think that enough people already know that you are a deceitful troll? Or are you simply subtly putting your resumé out there for anybody who wants to hire a freelance troll? Do you think they will hire you when you troll around this way? Get back on topic, hey?

All the scientific proof that anybody needs to know that God exists is right here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails.

[BADecker]

But the funniest part of everything you say is that you seem to think that this is a personal thing. What's the matter? Don't you like me because I show you science that you can't refute? Don't you think that enough people already know that you are a deceitful troll? Or are you simply subtly putting your resumé out there for anybody who wants to hire a freelance troll? Do you think they will hire you when you troll around this way? Get back on topic, hey?

All the scientific proof that anybody needs to know that God exists is right here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails.

There you go. Getting silly again (Did you ever stop being silly?).

Since we don't know anything about outside-the-universe, the one thing that made the universe is Outside-The-Universe. But you knew that, because I already explained it to you. However, thank you for requesting this info again, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it already.

[Astargath]

But the funniest part of everything you say is that you seem to think that this is a personal thing. What's the matter? Don't you like me because I show you science that you can't refute? Don't you think that enough people already know that you are a deceitful troll? Or are you simply subtly putting your resumé out there for anybody who wants to hire a freelance troll? Do you think they will hire you when you troll around this way? Get back on topic, hey?

All the scientific proof that anybody needs to know that God exists is right here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails.

There you go. Getting silly again (Did you ever stop being silly?).

Since we don't know anything about outside-the-universe, the one thing that made the universe is Outside-The-Universe. But you knew that, because I already explained it to you. However, thank you for requesting this info again, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it already.

How does that answer the question of multiple causes? The thing or things that made the universe are outside the universe, the question is, can you prove it's just 1 ''thing'' and not multiple?

[BADecker]

But the funniest part of everything you say is that you seem to think that this is a personal thing. What's the matter? Don't you like me because I show you science that you can't refute? Don't you think that enough people already know that you are a deceitful troll? Or are you simply subtly putting your resumé out there for anybody who wants to hire a freelance troll? Do you think they will hire you when you troll around this way? Get back on topic, hey?

All the scientific proof that anybody needs to know that God exists is right here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails.

There you go. Getting silly again (Did you ever stop being silly?).

Since we don't know anything about outside-the-universe, the one thing that made the universe is Outside-The-Universe. But you knew that, because I already explained it to you. However, thank you for requesting this info again, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it already.

How does that answer the question of multiple causes? The thing or things that made the universe are outside the universe, the question is, can you prove it's just 1 ''thing'' and not multiple?

Yes, I can prove just one "thing." The "thing" is outside-the-universe. If we were able to understand it as more than one thing, it would be part of the universe, simply by the fact of us being able to understand it that sufficiently.

What does this mean? It means that if you and I were in that outside-the-universe "realm," and we were part of it enough that we could understand it, there might be countless "things" that we would "see" and understand. But since we are not "out there," and don't have any understanding whatsoever of "it," the only thing we know is one "thing"... outside-the-universe.

The only two ways that this can be different are:
1. The universe Maker in some way allows information about outside-the-universe to come to us inside the universe, thereby telling us what the situation is outside-the-universe;
2. We find something within the universe that shows that the universe spontaneously made itself.

Number 1 is a religious idea, and would only be part of this topic if the OP and title had set it up that way. But it is easy to start other topics.

Number 2 is something that we have no example of even within the universe. Everything within the universe is made by something else. Just the idea of something spontaneously making itself doesn't fit with anything that we know. C&E is part of the example of this. So, there is no way to show that the universe might have made itself. Saying such would be directing towards a religion or philosophical thing.

Since I have said all this before, I have something to thank you for. The fact that you ask the question again, shows that my previous explanations weren't clear enough for you. And if they weren't clear enough for you, they probably weren't clear enough for at least a few other people, as well. So, you have given me chance to clarify. And every time I get to clarify, I get the way to explain situated in my mind. So, thank you for this.

[Astargath]

But the funniest part of everything you say is that you seem to think that this is a personal thing. What's the matter? Don't you like me because I show you science that you can't refute? Don't you think that enough people already know that you are a deceitful troll? Or are you simply subtly putting your resumé out there for anybody who wants to hire a freelance troll? Do you think they will hire you when you troll around this way? Get back on topic, hey?

All the scientific proof that anybody needs to know that God exists is right here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails.

There you go. Getting silly again (Did you ever stop being silly?).

Since we don't know anything about outside-the-universe, the one thing that made the universe is Outside-The-Universe. But you knew that, because I already explained it to you. However, thank you for requesting this info again, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it already.

How does that answer the question of multiple causes? The thing or things that made the universe are outside the universe, the question is, can you prove it's just 1 ''thing'' and not multiple?

Yes, I can prove just one "thing." The "thing" is outside-the-universe. If we were able to understand it as more than one thing, it would be part of the universe, simply by the fact of us being able to understand it that sufficiently.

What does this mean? It means that if you and I were in that outside-the-universe "realm," and we were part of it enough that we could understand it, there might be countless "things" that we would "see" and understand. But since we are not "out there," and don't have any understanding whatsoever of "it," the only thing we know is one "thing"... outside-the-universe.

The only two ways that this can be different are:
1. The universe Maker in some way allows information about outside-the-universe to come to us inside the universe, thereby telling us what the situation is outside-the-universe;
2. We find something within the universe that shows that the universe spontaneously made itself.

Number 1 is a religious idea, and would only be part of this topic if the OP and title had set it up that way. But it is easy to start other topics.

Number 2 is something that we have no example of even within the universe. Everything within the universe is made by something else. Just the idea of something spontaneously making itself doesn't fit with anything that we know. C&E is part of the example of this. So, there is no way to show that the universe might have made itself. Saying such would be directing towards a religion or philosophical thing.

Since I have said all this before, I have something to thank you for. The fact that you ask the question again, shows that my previous explanations weren't clear enough for you. And if they weren't clear enough for you, they probably weren't clear enough for at least a few other people, as well. So, you have given me chance to clarify. And every time I get to clarify, I get the way to explain situated in my mind. So, thank you for this.

Uhmm ....... ok ....... badecker, are you ok? I know at this point you have to desperately try to say something but come on.

We don't know what's outside the universe, then how can you claim it was god who created the universe if god should be outside the universe? Does the outside of the universe only allow room for 1 god? This is not proving that the universe wasn't caused by multiple causes, your argument is still bad.