Scientific proof that God exists?

[the joint]

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

I was hoping you would respond to my response to your post, shown here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10573928#msg10573928

[the joint]

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.

No, they don't.  Belief systems needn't be religious.  You really ought to stop shooting yourself in the foot by inventing definitions on the fly and subsequently changing those definitions whenever you feel like it. 

Again, whether or not you are correct in your belief about God's existence, you are absolutely terrible at rationalizing your beliefs.  The subtle tone of arrogance underlining every one of your posts further disservices your position.  You contradict yourself repeatedly and your arguments don't make sense.  I would stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, even if you got lucky by guessing correctly with 50/50 odds.

You really ought to learn what your atheist opponents are telling you most of the time, because they *are* correcting you in many instances.

[bitcool]

No such thing as electromagnetic life just so you know .....

What's your definition of "life"?  How many of these criteria has to be met?

1. Consume energy
2. Increase environment entropy
3. Has boundary
4. Can reproduce
5. Can die
....

Is computer virus a genuine life form?

[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

I was hoping you would respond to my response to your post, shown here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10573928#msg10573928

I will think on it and respond in a bit...

[edit]

You've taken a big jump away from empirical science, of which i admit i chased BADecker from the evolution thread to here.

And if you're suggesting that logic is incapable of making comment about reality..

I don't think that for a second, and did not mean to represent my position as such. I readily admit, we place faith, of such, in our perception of reality. Descartes' demon may well be real, and this world is a deception. And yes I do admit, as well I think most others, that I am taking my existence and my perception of the world on faith. There is an indefinite continuum from what we can say we know to what, at some point, we must assume.

I briefly looked through the pdf you posted, but at 56 pages, it would take considerable study to analyze. Fundamentally, my opinion is such concepts are most likely unknowable nonetheless fascinating to discuss. Anyone who claims to have an answer to an unsolvable problem, particularly in a stone age text, stifles this conversation. I perceive it as a credible threat to our species, whether we exist or not.

[nsimmons]

No such thing as electromagnetic life just so you know .....

What's your definition of "life"?  How many of these criteria has to be met?

1. Consume energy
2. Increase environment entropy
3. Has boundary
4. Can reproduce
5. Can die
....

Is computer virus a genuine life form?

I was having this conversation yesterday. The criteria you've given is required for an organism, a subset of life. The article I was discussing made a case for a self replicating, unbounded molecule as the first "life entity", making it a second subset of life, distinct from an organism. Following this logic, aa RNA virus is life like, as well as a computer virus, provided the ability for random mutation is present. I don't know if any software can truly make random sequencing errors like a nucleotide polymer.

That was my argument away.

About purely electromagnetic life, I would have to think hard about that, matter is just a collection of interactions with fields.

[bl4kjaguar]

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.

Your spiritual essence never dies; that essence is the higher self that persists.

The evidence speaks loudly and you do not address it.

There is actually no death in nature; there is only transformation.

[nsimmons]

Your spiritual essence never dies; that essence is the higher self that persists.

The evidence speaks loudly and you do not address it.

There is actually no death in nature; there is only transformation.

This is my point, more unsubstantiated claims. No argument, nothing interesting, nothing to refute. Every statement these two make is begging the question. A circular argument using the bible as the premise and conclusion ad infinitum.

Manifestly different from a real conversation; as the joint has been having.

[bl4kjaguar]

Did you miss this, nsimmons?
I did not hear you address this case so maybe you could explain the evidence that was presented... you can find it by searching the thread for Eisenbeiss. Looking forward to our conversation.

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments.  Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion.  Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

The joint, although I agree with what you say, I must take exception to your generalization.

Actually, I have asserted the position that God transcends evidence based on pure reason. These quotes are not exact but are close enough:

There is a mode of being as much transcending Intelligence and Will, as these transcend mechanical motion. Doubtless we are totally unable to imagine any such higher mode of being. But this is not a reason for questioning its existence; it is rather the reverse. The Ultimate Cause cannot in any respect be conceived because it is in every respect greater than can be conceived. And we may therefore rightly refrain from assigning to it any attributes whatever, on the ground that such attributes, derived as they must be from our own natures, are not elevations but degradations.

Again quoting Spencer:
"our minds are utterly unable to form even an approach to a conception of that which underlies all phenomena because of the incompetency of the Conditioned to grasp the Unconditioned".

However, I then turned around and showed this thread evidence for one of the core messages of spirituality--reincarnation:

aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
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.

I showed that the survival hypothesis is the simplest explanation for these events; that is a separate conversation, but maybe it is important to have it in this thread because it could elucidate the nature of life and God.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9491770#msg9491770

Fair enough This is a much more appropriate context for the topic of this debate.

[BADecker]

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

If you have total belief in the lack of belief, then you have total belief that you don't exist. Why? Because in everything that you do and are, you operate by belief. You don't know that anything, even regarding yourself and life, is fact. You may think that you know some things about yourself and life are fact, but because some of things you thought were fact in the past turned out to be different than you thought, how do you know that you know anything as fact? You don't. The things that work out the way you think they will are coincidences. Since you don't know anything as fact, you live totally by belief.

[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.

No, they don't.  Belief systems needn't be religious.  You really ought to stop shooting yourself in the foot by inventing definitions on the fly and subsequently changing those definitions whenever you feel like it.  

Again, whether or not you are correct in your belief about God's existence, you are absolutely terrible at rationalizing your beliefs.  The subtle tone of arrogance underlining every one of your posts further disservices your position.  You contradict yourself repeatedly and your arguments don't make sense.  I would stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, even if you got lucky by guessing correctly with 50/50 odds.

You really ought to learn what your atheist opponents are telling you most of the time, because they *are* correcting you in many instances.

A belief that sits on the shelf, so to speak, simply ready to be expressed should the need arise, may not be a religion. Belief systems are always religious when you live them.

Atheism is a way of life. Some of the aspects of atheism may be simply beliefs among certain atheists. They may simply sit there, as beliefs, not being lived or used, but ready to be expressed if there is prompting or need. However, the whole structure of an atheist's life revolves around atheism all the time. If it doesn't, he isn't an atheist. Atheism is, therefore, a religion.

[qwerty555]

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'.

all atheists are not humanists ,some are selfish , rotten, cruel, derranged and destructive as are many believers in a God.

There are many sub sections on belief and generalisations placing all non believers in the atheism "box"  is too simplistic.

Many non believers, non Christians , non practising Christians and Christians in name  by default due to their parents or community are actually practising large elements of this lifestyle in this day and age.

Apathetic agnosticism

Apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence ( or absence of it) has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[6]

To further the debate on the theory that religion is a comfort for the poor and the disempowered here are some links. I would suggest that the weight of evidence suggests that mainstream religions and believing in God has a positive influence in many/most of the poorest Nations and communities. Radicalisation and fanatisism has the opposite and severely negative effect

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116449/religion-provides-emotional-boost-world-poor.aspx

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/do-countries-lose-religion-as-they-gain-wealth-1.1310451

[(oYo)]

[BADecker]

Everyone instinctively knows about God and sin. The suggestion by a person who has just heard defining details about God and sin, that he now has learned something new, is simply his automatic method to attempt to talk his way out of something... to make excuses for what he knows deep down anyway.

There are many, and have always been those, who receive and received the message of their salvation with gladness. The message about God and sin is a thing that needs to be brought to our awareness so that we can receive the message of God our Savior properly.

Perhaps you know about the later life of the Eskimo in the picture. Did he turn and repent and believe the good news of his salvation through Jesus? Or did he wander off remaining in his natural unsaved state?

[cryptodevil]

Everyone instinctively knows about God and sin.

Bullshit. This is just more of the same arbitrary declaration of a 'fact' you like to pull out of your arse.

I had to explain to my children the meaning of the word 'sin'. They were appalled. They know the difference between what is right and wrong, just and unjust and they are kind and compassionate human beings. But they do not believe in any of the theist nonsense you spout because there is no way to justify a belief in it in the first place. So I would be reduced to indoctrinating them through lies and delusions, instead of educating them and encouraging them to question every 'normalised' social construct.

To teach them that there are actions which would otherwise be benign that are considered as 'sinful' by one group of , "We're more special than you" people, whilst also explaining to them that there also exists a whole range of other 'sinful' acts which are declared thusly by a different group of, "We're more special than you" people, results in them, rightly, considering that much of the world is quite insane and mentally unstable.

[Buffer Overflow]

Perhaps you know about the later life of the Eskimo in the picture. Did he turn and repent and believe the good news of his salvation through Jesus? Or did he wander off remaining in his natural unsaved state?

Without hearing the priests' response I don't think we can know.
If the priest was honest he would of replied "I told you that because it's a fear ploy we use to encourage new members to join up. Our main agenda is to maintain the power and wealth of the church, and we will stop at nothing to achieve that."
A much more likely scenario however is he would of lied, "Join us this Sunday and be saved or burn forever in eternal flames. Oh, and remember to bring your wallet."

[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'.

all atheists are not humanists ,some are selfish , rotten, cruel, derranged and destructive as are many believers in a God.

There are many sub sections on belief and generalisations placing all non believers in the atheism "box"  is too simplistic.

Many non believers, non Christians , non practising Christians and Christians in name  by default due to their parents or community are actually practising large elements of this lifestyle in this day and age.

Apathetic agnosticism

Apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence ( or absence of it) has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[6]

To further the debate on the theory that religion is a comfort for the poor and the disempowered here are some links. I would suggest that the weight of evidence suggests that mainstream religions and believing in God has a positive influence in many/most of the poorest Nations and communities. Radicalisation and fanatisism has the opposite and severely negative effect

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116449/religion-provides-emotional-boost-world-poor.aspx

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/do-countries-lose-religion-as-they-gain-wealth-1.1310451

I am not defending evil actions; see below my post. I ask you to address the theory that we are souls. I have a source that atheists are humanists Since what else could they be? See chapter one linked below.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=796079.msg8962914#msg8962914

I wish only to make you aware of that material that fits my opinion.
The truth is that man lacks knowledge and believes in lies. When presented with truth, what will you do? I would present an apathetic person with the truth that I have found. Man's condition is temporary, as evidenced by Eisenbeiss.

[BADecker]

Perhaps you know about the later life of the Eskimo in the picture. Did he turn and repent and believe the good news of his salvation through Jesus? Or did he wander off remaining in his natural unsaved state?

Without hearing the priests' response I don't think we can know.
If the priest was honest he would of replied "I told you that because it's a fear ploy we use to encourage new members to join up. Our main agenda is to maintain the power and wealth of the church, and we will stop at nothing to achieve that."
A much more likely scenario however is he would of lied, "Join us this Sunday and be saved or burn forever in eternal flames. Oh, and remember to bring your wallet."

It's not generally that simple. Consider the life of a priest. While there are a few of them that live in luxury, it's very few. Odds are that a priest/missionary to the Eskimos has real faith in what he believes. Why? He might get his meals on a regular basis. He might be supplied by the Church with enough furs to make it through the cold lands. He might even have a roof over his head at all times that he wants. But other than the basics, odds are he is living in poverty. Why move to the cold lands to start a church? Odds are he believes what he is teaching.

If a priest believes what he is teaching to be true, does that make it the truth? Not necessarily. A lie is a lie even if it is told in good faith. So, we are back to square one.

The fact that the universe and nature operate with machine-like properties that are way beyond our understanding in some cases, and the fact that machines have makers, suggests that the Maker of the universe is God, simply by the dictionary definition of the word God.

The fact that everything in the universe that we have seen operates by cause and effect shows that, whatever It was that was great enough to cause things of such complexity as life, and the human mind and understanding, especially after thousands of years of causes that have effects which are the causes of other effects, and so on, right down to this day, must be the Absolute King of billiards.

Couple the above with the fact that peoples of most nations feel sin and God in their hearts enough that they invent all kinds of religions worldwide, shows us that there is definitely a God, and that He is definitely extremely powerful.

The fact that there are proclaimed atheists who seem to believe their own atheism proclamation, shows that God is way beyond our understanding, except that He reveals Himself to us. The atheist realizes that he can't recognize anything about God on his own, so, because he doesn't like the discipline required by the religions, he just gives up on God.

When an atheist gives up on God, he is turning his back on the one thing that can save him from death. And since nobody really understands the depth of human consciousness, nobody really realizes the depth and fury of the destruction that will happen to him if he allows Himself to die. But God knows all about this, and that is why He sent the Savior, Jesus, to give mankind the chance to be saved.

Often a priest knows about some of this. He may not understand the machine-like quality of the universe. He may not understand the ultra-complex cause-and-effect workings God set up in the universe. But he DOES feel God in his heart. And he knows about death. And that is often his reason for becoming a missionary in the hard life, because he empathizes and sympathizes with those who have not had a chance to hear that there is hope in the Savior, Jesus.

[BADecker]

Everyone instinctively knows about God and sin.

Bullshit. This is just more of the same arbitrary declaration of a 'fact' you like to pull out of your arse.

I had to explain to my children the meaning of the word 'sin'. They were appalled. They know the difference between what is right and wrong, just and unjust and they are kind and compassionate human beings. But they do not believe in any of the theist nonsense you spout because there is no way to justify a belief in it in the first place. So I would be reduced to indoctrinating them through lies and delusions, instead of educating them and encouraging them to question every 'normalised' social construct.

To teach them that there are actions which would otherwise be benign that are considered as 'sinful' by one group of , "We're more special than you" people, whilst also explaining to them that there also exists a whole range of other 'sinful' acts which are declared thusly by a different group of, "We're more special than you" people, results in them, rightly, considering that much of the world is quite insane and mentally unstable.

What in the world kind of description of sin did you give to your children? Basically, sin is the breaking of the law. In the case of people who don't have formal religion or formal law, sin is the breaking of the natural laws of doing what is just and right... laws written in our hearts. Sinning also includes making mistakes.

Sin is simply the result of imperfection. Even death is a sin on our part even though it was perpetrated on us by our first parents. We follow in their footsteps by dying as well as sinning in other ways.



EDIT: From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin?s=t:

sin1
[sin]

noun
1. transgression of divine law:
the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense:
It's a sin to waste time.

verb (used without object), sinned, sinning.
4. to commit a sinful act.
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.
verb (used with object), sinned, sinning.
6. to commit or perform sinfully:
He sinned his crimes without compunction.
7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning:
He sinned his soul to perdition.

[Buffer Overflow]

When an atheist gives up on God, he is turning his back on the one thing that can save him from death.

He/she hasn't turned their back on god, because they simply don't believe a god exists to turn their back on.
If you turn your back on something your acknowledging it exists, which atheists don't in the case of a god.

[BADecker]

When an atheist gives up on God, he is turning his back on the one thing that can save him from death.

He/she hasn't turned their back on god, because they simply don't believe a god exists to turn their back on.
If you turn your back on something your acknowledging it exists, which atheists don't in the case of a god.

In the face of the great evidences for God that exist in the universe all around us, the only way an atheist can truly be an atheist is to be a vegetable. Atheism is a religion that some people would rather maintain than succumb to the evidence for God all around them.