Scientific proof that God exists?

[bitcollins85]

It's paradoxical. There is no proof that a god exists, yet there is no proof that a god doesn't exist.

[1715070655]

1715070655

[1715070655]

1715070655

[cryptodevil]

It's paradoxical. There is no proof that a god exists, yet there is no proof that a god doesn't exist.

There's no proof invisible pink unicorns aren't dancing around your house while you sleep, but that's no reason to put out bowls of sugar lumps.

Seriously, look at what actually happens in this thread. Someone points out the epic degree of intellectual dishonesty required to maintain a belief in something for which there is no, nor has there ever been, evidence whatsoever, and thus follows a flurry of fallacious posts from two theists arguing the toss over how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

[BADecker]

It's paradoxical. There is no proof that a god exists, yet there is no proof that a god doesn't exist.

There isn't absolute proof for anything. For example, when you toss some pure (even not so pure) sodium into a container of water, the resulting hydrogen and sodium hydroxide violently happens every time. Every person that does this simple thing in just the same way, gets exactly the same results every time. It can be done thousands of times, and the result is still the same. The question is, Is this proof that it will always happen this way? Or is this proof that it has only happened every time so far?

Under the above questioning, there is no absolute proof for anything.

Animals use simple machines that are in nature.

People make and use complex machines, all based on what they see in nature. If animals could think along the lines of there being a god or not, they would look at man and suggest that man was a god. Why? Because the advanced, complex machinery that man makes, and the advanced reasoning that he uses, is so significantly advanced beyond what animals can do, that mankind fits the dictionary definition of the word "god," at least with regard to animals.

The amazing thing is that man is unwilling to admit a God beyond himself, even though he sees the universe full of ultra-complex machinery that is way advanced beyond anything that he can make, or even reason out how it works correctly. If the animals could reason things just a little more than I listed above, they would see the God of the universe, even though mankind is unwilling to do so. This means that man would rather become stupid like the animals than reach out, take hold of God, and perhaps become like Him. And what's even more amazing is that mankind can't even see that God most certainly exists, even though there is no absolute proof for anything.

Strange. No proof that man exists, either.

[cryptodevil]

The amazing thing is that man is unwilling to admit a God beyond himself, even though he sees the universe full of ultra-complex machinery that is way advanced beyond anything that he can make, or even reason out how it works correctly.

Fuck I don't know why I am drawn in to even try and correct you on this but . . .

The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is an argument for the existence of God that may be summarized as follows: When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed. This act of comparing two objects and drawing similar conclusions based on similarities (while ignoring important differences) is a prime example of a false analogy.

Just because you see complexity you are unable to understand the origins of does not justify the extraordinary claim that an omnipotent super-being put it all together.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You simply provided proof of your ignorance and how you are even appealing to that ignorance as though it provides evidence of the validity of your extraordinary claim towards intelligent design and an intelligent designer.

You're not just ignorant, you're being wilfully, almost joyfully, ignorant. You find your own ignorance enormously satisfying because you are using it as a mental comfort-blanket full of myth, mystery and magic in order to dream up your very own Universe.

[BADecker]

The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is an argument for the existence of God that may be summarized as follows: When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed. This act of comparing two objects and drawing similar conclusions based on similarities (while ignoring important differences) is a prime example of a false analogy.

The reason that this kind of thinking is NOT false analogy is, all of man's complex machinery that he designs and invents comes from what he observes in nature.

Someday man may be able to put together the machinery of a tiger, from scratch. If he does, however, where will he have gotten the machinery ideas and basics? He will have gotten it all from the examples of complex machinery that exist in the universe, in nature.

If there is one thing that is readily observable it is, complex machinery does NOT simply come about out of nothing. Rather, it is the other way around. The more complex the machinery, the more the entropy.

There is NO evidence of machinery coming into being spontaneously. There is great evidence of entropy. More than likely, the idea of machinery coming into being spontaneously in the face of all the entropy evidence to the opposite, simply shows the entropy existing in the thinking of the people who think this way.

[cryptodevil]

You persistently, and erroneously, cite entropy to support your creationist argument when, the truth is, you are misrepresenting the concept.

PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen.

You claim that the natural order of things is not to become more complex, yet they can and do become more complex, so you crowbar in, not a rational explanation which employs an understanding of physics, chemistry and biology which easily serve to describe the process by which complexity arises but, instead, you declare ignorance of such things EXCEPT for your claim that you *know* it is an intelligent designer making this complexity?

As I said, you are misusing the term 'entropy'.

In actuality, as opposed to being in a state of complete disorder upon achieving maximum entropy, the universe has instead homogenized and become more uniform. In very simple terms, maximum entropy ≠ disorder, get it? It is on a basis similar to this that scientific educators have recognized that the disorder terminology, while simple and easy to comprehend, is an oversimplification at best, and a misleading false analogy at worst. As a result, disorder terminology has been largely phased out; most chemistry textbooks, for example, have removed (or at least heavily edited out) the disorder terminology.[2] Of utmost importance, entropy is an energetic phenomenon, and only tangentially has to do with the distribution of matter in a system.

[maku]

It's paradoxical. There is no proof that a god exists, yet there is no proof that a god doesn't exist.

Yet people try to prove over and over again that this case can be solved with science and reason. That is why we have always a huge discussion about nothing...

[cryptodevil]

Yet people try to prove over and over again that this case can be solved with science and reason. That is why we have always a huge discussion about nothing...

There is no 'case', there is only wild imagination summed up so perfectly by the end of your last sentence.

We might as well have them arguing the case for the existence of the train to Hogwarts.

[BADecker]

You persistently, and erroneously, cite entropy to support your creationist argument when, the truth is, you are misrepresenting the concept.

You keep on spouting this same old line, without examining the facts about practical entropy.

PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen.

In everything we see naturally, the 2nd Law appears to be at work. There might be theory or twisted math that suggests otherwise, but there is also supporting math.

The complex operations regarding action and reaction involved in the growing of a baby into a person cannot be followed. Therefore, the "baby" example above is meaningless. After all, you need to consider all kinds of things, including size of the baby and the single cell pre-fetus, and everything including the fact that the baby will get old and die one day.

This is a totally erroneous application of opposition to the 2nd Law.

You claim that the natural order of things is not to become more complex, yet they can and do become more complex, so you crowbar in, not a rational explanation which employs an understanding of physics, chemistry and biology which easily serve to describe the process by which complexity arises but, instead, you declare ignorance of such things EXCEPT for your claim that you *know* it is an intelligent designer making this complexity?

As I said, you are misusing the term 'entropy'.

The simple swinging pendulum shows that entropy acts throughout. The final times before entropy causes the state of the universe to be evenly distributed material and energy throughout, will be very lengthy? Why? Because, just like heat flows more rapidly between objects that have a great temperature difference, and even as heat flow between objects of similar temperature is much slower, even so the last moments of entropy will take an eternity, except for one thing...

... Let me contradict myself. Time is affected by entropy, as well. As time coalesces into uniformity, it will cause an apparent speeding up of the material/energy coalescing. Personally, I think we can see this happening in the increased rate of maturation of children.

The result will be non-existence of this whole universe, as predicted by the Revelation in the Bible.

In actuality, as opposed to being in a state of complete disorder upon achieving maximum entropy, the universe has instead homogenized and become more uniform. In very simple terms, maximum entropy ≠ disorder, get it? It is on a basis similar to this that scientific educators have recognized that the disorder terminology, while simple and easy to comprehend, is an oversimplification at best, and a misleading false analogy at worst. As a result, disorder terminology has been largely phased out; most chemistry textbooks, for example, have removed (or at least heavily edited out) the disorder terminology.[2] Of utmost importance, entropy is an energetic phenomenon, and only tangentially has to do with the distribution of matter in a system.

What does this have to do with anything? The entropy of order and disorder both will bring about a cataclysm that will entirely destroy all things in ways that we don't have a clue about.


The point is this. There are only two places we see complex machinery in this universe. They are: 1) man-made complex machinery, and; 2) the far greater complex machinery of the universe itself.

The point we are looking for is proof for or of God. Since:
A. All man's machinery is taken from his examination of the machinery of the universe;
B. The universe's machinery is way more complex than man's, even beyond understanding;
C. The flow of cause and effect that directs man into making complex machinery comes from the machinery of the universe, as well;

D. The result is that Whatever or Whoever God is, be God the universe itself or Something Else, either inside or outside of the universe or both, God most certainly does exist, by definition of the word "God" combined with the machinery we see in the nature of the universe.



EDIT: Consider the ability of mankind to think. Since the universe directs the cause and effect actions of man, and since the result of some of that cause and effect is that man can think, how can the universe give thinking to man without having it imbedded in the universe itself in the first place?

[bl4kjaguar]

There is NO evidence of machinery coming into being spontaneously.

There is great evidence of entropy.

There is NO evidence that someone has "received salvation".

As far as we can see, the law of karma applies, and there are no saviors.

YOU have a most cherished purpose to serve in the assistance of BIRTH of God awareness and knowledge upon your Earth plane. What may that be? Many of you still are asking. YOU only need to DESIRE to know and serve God, our Creator within Creation, and since YOU are his temple, WITHIN you, will your wisdom, knowledge and purpose be revealed. Remember, there is NO separation. You ones have simply forgotten your Divine Spiritual Heritage, YOUR ONENESS WITH ALL!

YOU DESIRE GOD'S MERCY AND FORGIVENESS? THEN YOU MUST
PETITION GOD WITHIN YOU TO GUIDE, PROTECT AND SUSTAIN YOU
WITH LOVE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE POWER OF YOUR WILL AND HIS
WILL AS ONE!
God IS ALL-FORGIVING MERCY. So then, chelas, forgiveness and mercy must
begin within SELF since that is where GOD resides.

Mine scribe, Druthea, watched with some amusement a "Christian" TV Minister on the
yesterday. He was speaking about his perception of God's "Grace". He said words to
the effect, "You need do NOTHING to receive God's Blessings and Grace". (Sounds a
bit like the "just BE" philosophy of many New Agers, does it not?) "We humans
believe we must "work" to earn God's Grace. This is NOT true. We must accept
CHRIST as our Savior. HE has taken our burden for us." There is the catch; Christ has
taken responsibility for YOU! Do you see how deceptive the adversary is? "God will
take care of you. You need do nothing. You are not responsible. Christ is your
Savior"...ad nauseam!

I am not YOUR savior. YOU are your Savior. And the good news is YOU will EARN
your way into God's Grace by standing responsible for self and obeying THE LAWS
OF GOD/CREATION. It is really so simple, chelas. You see, GRACE also is a
wondrous quality of EFFORTLESS GIVING AND REGIVING BY GOD!

All “SAVIORS” are by identification and definition “PHONY”. There are no “saviors” to save anything or more specifically anyone! If there is going to be any “saving” going on--you will do it for yourself. This includes your Constitution and your nation.

WHO has judged the Bible to be the greatest book ever written and distributed? You
have equally as many on your planet who would disclaim that designation.

GOD IS LOVE; HE ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE OF THAT WHICH YOU WILL
AND SET ASIDE THAT WHICH YOU CHOOSE. HE DOES NOT DENOUNCE
NOR INSULT OF YOUR OPINIONS, ALBEIT WRONG. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT
TO READ OF THE AVAILABLE MATERIALS OF TRUTH THEN SO BE IT. "IF
THE DOG BE DEAD, WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO KICK IT?"

[bank of bits]

There is no real scientific proof of God.
Furthermore, would it really be faith if there was proof?

[bl4kjaguar]

There is no real scientific proof of God.
Furthermore, would it really be faith if there was proof?

The question now is to self. "Are you ready to release the adversary?" If so, then ALL of your TRUST and FAITH must be directed toward GOD who exists within YOU. Therein will your freedom from the bondage of limited physical adversarial perception be earned. Did you read that clearly? YOU WILL EARN YOUR SPIRITUAL UNITY BY ACCESSING THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD WITHIN YOU. And your "proof" will be forthcoming through FAITH and the return of your free-will to God. For your "proof "of God's existence and "coming" will be revealed WITHIN YOU! FOR THERE IS WHERE EXISTS THE KINGDOM OF GOD…WITHIN YOU!!

[username18333]

There is no real scientific proof of God.
Furthermore, would it really be faith if there was proof?

⁶ Therefore we are alway bolde, though we knowe that whiles we are at home in the bodie, we are absent from the Lord. ⁷ (For we walke by faith, and not by sight.)

² I know a man in Christ aboue fourteene yeeres agone, (whether he were in the body, I can not tell, or out of the body, I can not tell: God knoweth) which was taken vp into the thirde heauen. ³ And I knowe such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I can not tell: God knoweth) ⁴ How that he was taken vp into Paradise, and heard words which cannot be spoken, which are not possible for man to vtter. ⁵ Of such a man will I reioyce: of my selfe will I not reioyce, except it bee of mine infirmities.

No, “it” (bank of bits) would still be biblical (i.e., Christ-esque) faith.

[KonstantinosM]

An infinite number of unfalsifiable hypotheses.

I chose to believe.

In the gigantic dildo in the sky, who will one day smite all the religious right in the face.

[the joint]

Yet people try to prove over and over again that this case can be solved with science and reason. That is why we have always a huge discussion about nothing...

There is no 'case', there is only wild imagination summed up so perfectly by the end of your last sentence.

We might as well have them arguing the case for the existence of the train to Hogwarts.

Deferring to scientific evidence for God or a lack thereof in support of an argument is a waste of time because there is no amount of evidence that could prove or disprove the existence of a monotheistic god in the first place.  Monotheistic gods are, by definition, beyond the scope of empiricism. 

Whenever I watch religious debates -- and because of YouTube, I've seen a lot -- the same scenario tends to unfold over and over again.  The religious tend to use some form of retarded logic to try to turn religious texts into some scientific account, and atheists rightfully jump all over them for it.  But then, instead of simply shutting up, the atheists can't help but toss in their own form of retarded logic and make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence.  Then the religious, who already jumped on board the retard wagon, try to rebut the atheists' counterpoint as though it's actually a tenable position.  It's not.

So, we have one group of people making BS claims, and another group making BS counterclaims about which the first group then makes its own BS counterclaims. 

If you're going to debate God's existence, great.  Just leave empiricism out of it.

[olliec420]

After all these years and all things we have learned about the way things work how can any person with a brain in their head believe there is a magical man in the sky why sees and knows everything you do.  The story they told you about santa clause was a lie and the story they told you about god is also a lie.  They just never told you it was a lie like they did about santa.  And they are laughing all the way to the bank.

[oblivi]

No, not to my knowledge no. The closest i saw as the news on how they discovered computer code in physics, pretty interesting.

[the joint]

After all these years and all things we have learned about the way things work how can any person with a brain in their head believe there is a magical man in the sky why sees and knows everything you do.  The story they told you about santa clause was a lie and the story they told you about god is also a lie.  They just never told you it was a lie like they did about santa.  And they are laughing all the way to the bank.

What would you say about intelligent design if it were demonstrated that reality is a mental construct?

[BADecker]

Yet people try to prove over and over again that this case can be solved with science and reason. That is why we have always a huge discussion about nothing...

There is no 'case', there is only wild imagination summed up so perfectly by the end of your last sentence.

We might as well have them arguing the case for the existence of the train to Hogwarts.

Deferring to scientific evidence for God or a lack thereof in support of an argument is a waste of time because there is no amount of evidence that could prove or disprove the existence of a monotheistic god in the first place.  Monotheistic gods are, by definition, beyond the scope of empiricism.  

Whenever I watch religious debates -- and because of YouTube, I've seen a lot -- the same scenario tends to unfold over and over again.  The religious tend to use some form of retarded logic to try to turn religious texts into some scientific account, and atheists rightfully jump all over them for it.  But then, instead of simply shutting up, the atheists can't help but toss in their own form of retarded logic and make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence.  Then the religious, who already jumped on board the retard wagon, try to rebut the atheists' counterpoint as though it's actually a tenable position.  It's not.

So, we have one group of people making BS claims, and another group making BS counterclaims about which the first group then makes its own BS counterclaims.  

If you're going to debate God's existence, great.  Just leave empiricism out of it.

The only reason no amount of evidence could ever prove or disprove the existence of God is, people who are strong willed can always say that there still isn't enough evidence. That's the only reason.

This means that NOTHING that has been proven ever really has been proven to everybody. In court trials, where the evidence is overwhelming, the jury can still say, the evidence doesn't prove it.

The idea that the evidence of the machine-like nature of the universe doesn't have anything to do with proving God, is simply a belief held by people who have the agenda of not wanting God to be proven. God could walk right up to those people, slap them in the face, or kiss them on the cheek, and then do all kinds of miracles right in front of them, some of which would incite pain, others of which would incite pleasure, and they still wouldn't believe.

Modern science as it exists in its popular fashion, at its core, has no FACT for how this marvelous thing that we call the universe could have ever come into existence. All of the modern scientific explanations for this are science fiction. The evidence of this is that certain relatively obscure scientists have found that red-shift in stars doesn't have anything to do with the distance that stars are away from us, or the speed at which they are traveling away. Red-shift stars have been observed in multiple cases to exist right along side of other stars that are relatively close. This means that the Big Bang Theory is no longer even a theory. It exists as a theory only in the minds of believers in the Big Bang God. To see the evidence for this, Google "electric sun" or "electric cosmos" or "electric universe," and study the results.

There is only one other idea that makes sense for the existence of the universe (as though Big Bang ever really made sense). That idea is God. Since we know relatively nothing regarding the marvels in the universe and nature (we are still just scratching the surface), and since the marvels have machine-like quality to them, and since we know from personal experience that the person who has greater smarts and ingenuity usually is able to develop the greater more-complex machinery, so it goes that the Maker of the universe machinery fits the definition of God.

[cryptodevil]

But then, instead of simply shutting up, the atheists can't help but toss in their own form of retarded logic and make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in God because of a lack of scientific evidence. 

So you protest against this on the basis that 'god' cannot be held to the same degree of critical analysis as, well, EVERYTHING we know about our reality because, as you say, this 'god' character is by definition 'beyond the rules of Nature'. Trouble is, this definition is solely by way of attributes WE HUMANS have given the concept of a monotheistic 'god'.

To employ the special pleading fallacy, which you are, is only honest if you are also acknowledging that the reason you are employing special pleading is because our imagination has chosen to attribute 'his' characteristics as such in order to explain away the fact we are proposing the existence of an 'intelligent designer' when no empiric measurement can ever be applied because we say 'he' is beyond our reality.

The process of defining the characteristics or, for that matter, mere existence of something outside our reality, other than simply admitting you're 'making shit up' with your imagination, is farcical in the extreme.

To protest against the Atheist who, rightly, says there is no reason to believe in the existence of a proposed 'god' is to, by definition, accept the potential existence of ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ANYBODY EVER DREAMS UP because, after all, the 'retarded logic' of dismissing claims towards the existence of that for which exists attributes beyond our reality, according to you, is wrong, therefore: [insert any fanciful supernatural notion here and apply some special pleading fallacy liberally as though it is equally as valid as dismissal of same for lack of evidence]

If we're going down that road, I'm with Konstantinos and his 'hypothesis' concerning the giant black dildo of smiteyness. Because, hey, you can't disprove me!!!!111!!!!1!!!!!! :superrolleyes:

@BADecker You're an idiot abusing what little you know of actual science in order to twist it to your own reality. Stop citing shit as though you even understand it in the first place. Your tiresome 'entropy' screeching keeps falling down over this inconvenient fact I have already cited: "Of utmost importance, entropy is an energetic phenomenon, and only tangentially has to do with the distribution of matter in a system."

As I said, I just wish I could unsubscribe to this shit thread. Sure, I could simply refuse to ever post it in again but the trouble is, sometimes when it appears for the umpteenth time in my list, I remember that I once was so brainwashed that I couldn't see the reality of the situation and it was the rational and reasonable words of others which allowed me to break my conditioning and free my mind from this juvenile and intellectually dishonest system of unquestioning 'faith'. So every now and then I suck it up and try again with you, only for you to show yourself to be beyond help it would seem.