Scientific proof that God exists?

[nsimmons]

Can someone direct me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that proves there is a God?

Science is too limited in scope to comment upon the matter.

There are published proof(s) for God, although not peer-reviewed.  Although, you could say that it(they) have been informally peer-reviewed.  Christopher Langan's paper at www.ctmu.org is one (third bullet point; click on "here").  I've found it infallible so far, to the extent which I understand it and have analyzed it.

Edit: I should also mention that I'm familiar with many critiques of his theory.  I have not found any that are credible.

Edit 2:  Direct link to the theory is here: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

The word your looking for is falsifiable. You can't peer review a proof of god. The hypothesis can not be proven false. Methodology can't be duplicated. A proof of god is not a mathematical proof with universally defined axioms. Religious zealots cant even agree amongst their own sects on what god is.

Perhaps no two people can agree on what God is, what He looks like, where He lives, and a host of other things one might think about God. Yet, because the dictionary definitions of God are very generalized, people can easily agree that He exists, even when they don't agree on much of anything about Him.

To me, the evidence for God in the universe is overwhelming. For example, we can make mechanical arms. But we can't make a real arm out of flesh and blood. We might be able to help and direct nature into growing one. But we can't make one. We wouldn't know how to start, because the technology that exists in an arm is way beyond us.

All of that and more(creating a human arm), will be possible within the next 200 years. We've come a long way with stem cell research, cloning, and the like. Next step would probably be fast forwarding evolution(Starting with proteins, then forming single cell bacteria, then forming small animals from that, etc etc).

It's aleady happened. Synthetic life form.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

We are god now. Please send your tithings this way. I'll send you a tax receipt.

[bitcool]

Just watched Morgan Freeman's latest wormhole, our ocean is alive. One huge life form connected by microbes and a nerve system. There you have it, the God who raised us.

Electromagnetic life forms predates hydrocarbon based life forms billions of years, they exist in the stars, metal cores of planets, galaxies and the vast span of the intergalactic space. They are many orders of magnitude more advanced than us. They are God.

[the joint]

Can someone direct me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that proves there is a God?

Science is too limited in scope to comment upon the matter.

There are published proof(s) for God, although not peer-reviewed.  Although, you could say that it(they) have been informally peer-reviewed.  Christopher Langan's paper at www.ctmu.org is one (third bullet point; click on "here").  I've found it infallible so far, to the extent which I understand it and have analyzed it.

Edit: I should also mention that I'm familiar with many critiques of his theory.  I have not found any that are credible.

Edit 2:  Direct link to the theory is here: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

The word your looking for is falsifiable. You can't peer review a proof of god. The hypothesis can not be proven false. Methodology can't be duplicated. A proof of god is not a mathematical proof with universally defined axioms. Religious zealots cant even agree amongst their own sects on what god is.

"Falsifiable" isn't the word I was looking for; I indeed meant "infallible."  It seems you're under the assumption that falsifiability only applies to empiricism.  It doesn't.  There are other kinds of falsifiability.  For example, you can falsify a proposition by showing its inverse to be true.  With specific regard to the reference I provided which proposes a model that implies intelligent design, you would be able to falsify the model by citing an example of something that should be explained by the model but isn't.  And if the model is correct, it falsifies your assertion that God does not exist (again because it is the inverse).

And if you're suggesting that logic is incapable of making comment about reality or (specifically) intelligent design without physical evidence and an empirical approach, that's self-apparently nuts.  Notice, for example, that the scientific method cannot even falsify its own assumptions because it cannot subject them to empirical falsification.  One of these assumptions is that we live in a Positivistic Universe.  Empirical falsification of this assumption would require evidence acquired through observation in a Universe that is totally absent of any observers.  General logic, however, can prove that a Positivistic Universe cannot exist right off the bat as result of the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which essentially states that all things reduce to a common medium.  Unlike classical scientists, quantum theorists make no such assumption of a Positivistic Universe.  Ever wonder why academia hasn't yet figured out a way to reconcile the disparities between classical and quantum physics?  Well, that's a huge reason why.

[darkota]

Just watched Morgan Freeman's latest wormhole, our ocean is alive. One huge life form connected by microbes and a nerve system. There you have it, the God who raised us.

Electromagnetic life forms predates hydrocarbon based life forms billions of years, they exist in the stars, metal cores of planets, galaxies and the vast span of the intergalactic space. They are many orders of magnitude more advanced than us. They are God.

No such thing as electromagnetic life just so you know. It's the affects of electromagnetic radiation on life. Just because something is complex, doesn't mean some god created it. In fact, it's most likely the opposite(that no god created it). Thousands of years ago human beings couldn't dream of exploring space through high powered telescopes, the very sky itself was a thing of immense mystery. Now we know more about, and know it has nothing to do with god or "the heavens". The same will be said for everything else today that we find mysterious. Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

[Buffer Overflow]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

[qwerty555]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

Religious folks themselves have 4 main and diverse interpretations of God as per the Baylor Study

1 authoritarian

2 bevenolent

3 Critical or

4 Distant  

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/graphics/religious_bel/flash.htm

click  "four Gods"  then "turn all religions on"  bottom left and you will see that in the USA belief in each of the 4 interpretations is split almost equally if averaged out. ie.  one persons God may not be the same as anothers.

each to their own if it gives them benefit...

Ultimately belief in God or even which type of God is a matter of FAITH

I have no faith , nor need for a God since a very young age after travelling extensively but I do not need to attack or erode others beliefs provided they are not using that to improperly promote or gain advantage by their belief over those that do not believe. The belief itself does not make them better humans but may have contributed to their overall sense of good values and behavior. Coversely in many cases it can be argued ( and I have seen this ) that it actually makes them worse, intolerant of others beliefs , arrogant and superior outlooks and a host of other unsavoury characteristics.

At a stretch I could be persuaded to consider the possibility of a distant God like a being or group of entities that may or may not still exist but even if I did what relevance to my short life based on the DISTANT definition would that make provided I have already gained a very reasonable set of values and behaviour for the environment and cirumstances that I live in? .. effectively none.

So
- There will be no unquestionable solid scientific proof of the existance or continued  existance of a single God

- Belief is purely a matter of faith

- non belief is no better or worse for humanity provided a set of moral, fair, compassionate and reasonable values are taught and practised by both sides.

- using any belief system to promote conflict, war, agression, inequality is wrong and unacceptable in these times.

If I had to pidgeon hole my beliefs it would probably be close to secular humanism although I am not a follower of any group( but mention it so others may consider it) nor have any need for the safety net that belonging to a group, religous or otherwise, ... social, spiritual and financial that comes with that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

and if God is essential to you there is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism

and the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Be happy!!!!!

[bl4kjaguar]

All atheists are presumably humanists Since what else could they be?

Humanists do not agree with with rebirth even though the evidence is strong; one may search this thread for 'Eisenbeiss'.

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

Hey RodeoX I think you missed this post.

[bl4kjaguar]

Ultimately belief in God or even which type of God is a matter of FAITH

- Belief is purely a matter of faith

- non belief is no better or worse for humanity provided a set of moral, fair, compassionate and reasonable values are taught and practised by both sides.

- using any belief system to promote conflict, war, agression, inequality is wrong and unacceptable in these times.

If I had to pidgeon hole my beliefs it would probably be close to secular humanism although I am not a follower of any group( but mention it so others may consider it) nor have any need for the safety net that belonging to a group, religous or otherwise, ... social, spiritual and financial that comes with that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

and if God is essential to you there is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism

and the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Be happy!!!!!

See my post above. Are you aware of the evidence for rebirth?

[BADecker]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

Religious folks themselves have 4 main and diverse interpretations of God as per the Baylor Study

1 authoritarian

2 bevenolent

3 Critical or

4 Distant  

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/graphics/religious_bel/flash.htm

click  "four Gods"  then "turn all religions on"  bottom left and you will see that in the USA belief in each of the 4 interpretations is split almost equally if averaged out. ie.  one persons God may not be the same as anothers.

each to their own if it gives them benefit...

Ultimately belief in God or even which type of God is a matter of FAITH

I have no faith , nor need for a God since a very young age after travelling extensively but I do not need to attack or erode others beliefs provided they are not using that to improperly promote or gain advantage by their belief over those that do not believe. The belief itself does not make them better humans but may have contributed to their overall sense of good values and behavior. Coversely in many cases it can be argued ( and I have seen this ) that it actually makes them worse, intolerant of others beliefs , arrogant and superior outlooks and a host of other unsavoury characteristics.

At a stretch I could be persuaded to consider the possibility of a distant God like a being or group of entities that may or may not still exist but even if I did what relevance to my short life based on the DISTANT definition would that make provided I have already gained a very reasonable set of values and behaviour for the environment and cirumstances that I live in? .. effectively none.

So
- There will be no unquestionable solid scientific proof of the existance or continued  existance of a single God

- Belief is purely a matter of faith

- non belief is no better or worse for humanity provided a set of moral, fair, compassionate and reasonable values are taught and practised by both sides.

- using any belief system to promote conflict, war, agression, inequality is wrong and unacceptable in these times.

If I had to pidgeon hole my beliefs it would probably be close to secular humanism although I am not a follower of any group( but mention it so others may consider it) nor have any need for the safety net that belonging to a group, religous or otherwise, ... social, spiritual and financial that comes with that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

and if God is essential to you there is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism

and the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Be happy!!!!!

Actually, no two people have quite the exact same belief. This means that there are as many diverse religions as there are people. The only difference is the true Christian faith. All Christians who believe in Jesus salvation, have the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Since there is one Holy Spirit, He maintains them all in the same religion, even though they do not understand how He does it, or know that He is doing it, or have outer differing thoughts about aspects of their religion.

Nobody is without religion. Why not? Because nobody knows for a fact what will happen even one instant into the future. Everyone bases his life on hope, hope that the next instant will be at least as good as the last. This is a religion of fate in those who don't have any formal religion. A religion of fate is definitely a religion of faith. The faith is in the experiences of the past, that the future will be at least as good as the past, because nobody knows anything about any of his future. This religion of fate may be automatic in a person who doesn't accept any formal religion.

In everything that people do, they operate by faith, because nobody knows what the future is going to bring, even a nano second into the future.

[BADecker]

All atheists are presumably humanists Since what else could they be?

Humanists do not agree with with rebirth even though the evidence is strong; one may search this thread for 'Eisenbeiss'.

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

Hey RodeoX I think you missed this post.

The evidence for rebirth does not exist. What exists is the fact that there are similarities between people in life, evidence of genetic memory, and evidence that people can make stories.

[BADecker]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulating the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

 

[bl4kjaguar]

All atheists are presumably humanists Since what else could they be?

Humanists do not agree with with rebirth even though the evidence is strong; one may search this thread for 'Eisenbeiss'.

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

Hey RodeoX I think you missed this post.

The evidence for rebirth does not exist. What exists is the fact that there are similarities between people in life, evidence of genetic memory, and evidence that people can make stories.

That explanation is far from simple as has already been discussed. Search this thread for Eisenbeiss.

Also, your explanation of why everyone needs a ' savior ' is very complicated; it relies on an infallible text and is not open to debate. I already mentioned how faith makes more sense when you have more knowledge, so why do you exclusively trust the doctrine of Paul and ignore the serious possibility that man has changed the teachings?
Where is the REAL explanation for the evidence I have Presented? It will not be found by hiding from the facts of this case. As mentioned, your explanation Would entail a conspiracy without apparent motive. That needs to be explained.

[BADecker]

That explanation is far from simple as has already been discussed. Search this thread for Eisenbeiss.

Also, your explanation of why everyone needs a ' savior ' is very complicated; it relies on an infallible text and is not open to debate. I already mentioned how faith makes more sense when you have more knowledge, so why do you exclusively trust the doctrine of Paul and ignore the serious possibility that man has changed the teachings?
Where is the REAL explanation for the evidence I have Presented? It will not be found by hiding from the facts of this case. As mentioned, your explanation Would entail a conspiracy without apparent motive. That needs to be explained.

Short and to the point.

Everyone needs a savior from death, except if he wants to stay dead.

Why? Because nobody can keep himself from dying. If people could, there would be thousands of people over 200 years old. People don't die just for the fun of it. Rather, they are forced into it, by old age.

I would like to see clear evidence of anyone over 200 years old. Do you have such evidence? If you do, how about a 500-year-old?

It is illogical to the point of laughable that all 150,000 of the people that die everyday want to die. Rather, it is extremely logical that many of them die despite what they want.

If people die because they can't save themselves, then if they want to stay alive, they need a savior. The savior would have to be very knowledge and powerful to keep people alive, especially if he were going to keep them alive spiritually, and make them physically alive at a later date.

Modern medicine doesn't have this ability. Not by a long shot.

What's so hard to understand about this? It is quite simple and straightforward. Don't tell me that all the people that die, really want to die, and simply don't know that this is what they want. That would be insane.

[Buffer Overflow]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

 

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

[BADecker]

That explanation is far from simple as has already been discussed. Search this thread for Eisenbeiss.

Also, your explanation of why everyone needs a ' savior ' is very complicated; it relies on an infallible text and is not open to debate. I already mentioned how faith makes more sense when you have more knowledge, so why do you exclusively trust the doctrine of Paul and ignore the serious possibility that man has changed the teachings?
Where is the REAL explanation for the evidence I have Presented? It will not be found by hiding from the facts of this case. As mentioned, your explanation Would entail a conspiracy without apparent motive. That needs to be explained.

Bible evidence is that Paul hasn't changed the teaching of Jesus Christ. In fact, the evidence is that Paul upholds the teachings of Jesus.

In the few places that their teachings might appear to be at odds, the two of them are talking to different groups of people who have different customs, and the teachings are made to fit the customs of each group while maintaining the basic teachings similarly for both groups.

The main Christianity teachings are the same between the two. Among them are:
-     Jesus, death and resurrection for the saving of souls
-     A final resurrection for all the dead
-     Salvation to a joyous, eternal life with God for all those who do the work of God, which is believing in Jesus for salvation
-     Damnation for all those who do not do the work of God, i.e., believe in Jesus for their salvation.

[BADecker]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

 

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

[Buffer Overflow]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

 

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

[BADecker]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

 

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion.

[Buffer Overflow]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

 

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion.

I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air.

[nsimmons]

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

 

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion.

I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air.

This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot.

I caught this just a few weeks ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8s