Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

God, in the offer of freedom, has allowed people to do evil as well as good.

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it.

God is doing away with the evil, and He is doing away with the ability to do evil any longer.

Because of the tremendous greatness with which He set this universe up, the way He is doing away with evil is to destroy this universe.

God is offering the people who want to get out of the evil, the chance to join Him in the new universe He is setting up.

God, in the offer of freedom, is allowing people the opportunity to remain in the evil, by not believing in and accepting Him, so they essentially are destroyed right along with the rest of the evil when He completely dissolves this universe.

Where do you want to be? destroyed with the evil? or saved with the good? If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God.

[1714951730]

1714951730

[1714951730]

1714951730

[1714951730]

1714951730

[1714951730]

1714951730

[Buffer Overflow]

If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God.

So let's get this straight, you saying people must believe in god or they are automatically labeled as evil?

So someone that believes in god yet still kills people is better than a non-believer that lives a peaceful loving life?

Mmmmmmmmm.....

[Gimpeline]

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it.

If he dosnt like evil, why did he create it?

[darkota]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

God, in the offer of freedom, has allowed people to do evil as well as good. - That means god is not good

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it. - He obviously does like evil(And he tolerates it, if he didn't there would be no evil), because he continues to let evil room. Did he save any of those 6 million+ jews from getting slaughtered like barn animals by Hitler? No. + many more examples.

God is doing away with the evil, and He is doing away with the ability to do evil any longer. - No he is not, hundreds of thousands of people are murdered yearly.

Because of the tremendous greatness with which He set this universe up, the way He is doing away with evil is to destroy this universe. - So he's going to "destroy" this universe to do away with evil, really, that's your answer?

God is offering the people who want to get out of the evil, the chance to join Him in the new universe He is setting up. - Makes no sense, see XinXan's post, and the very chapter of Revealations itself is regarded as Symolic, not to be taken literally, just like Genesis. I advise you to take theology...

God, in the offer of freedom, is allowing people the opportunity to remain in the evil, by not believing in and accepting Him, so they essentially are destroyed right along with the rest of the evil when He completely dissolves this universe. - Again, see XinXan's post, by God allowing evil, that means he himself is not good.

Where do you want to be? destroyed with the evil? or saved with the good? If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God. - Again, see XinXan's post.

The purpose of XinXan's questions and the answers are there to illustrate that: God either doesn't exist, isn't "god"(Can't do all things), or he's not a good "god".

There's 3 answers and XinXan described it perfectly.

P.S. None of BADecker's statements made sense, at all.


And with that, so long. There's no further point in discussing this.

[Decksperiment]

I dunno why some may feel I'm an athiest, for I have clearly demonstrated what would be classed as 'scientific' facts, that the bible has hidden cabalistic maths, that are used in ritual's by most denominations, and most faiths, albeit in a different guise.. I must admit their is a higher scource in order to even have a comodom of sense to put what is clearly all over the web and not of my doing.. everything these different books say is the same story, no one faith or religion can claim it as it's own.

If you ask me, the only time people are are remembered, are when they are dead, only then do people talk about them.. and I guess they've been talking about god for centuries..

BY talking about that which you deem god, you create his existance..

[XinXan]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

God, in the offer of freedom, has allowed people to do evil as well as good. - That means god is not good

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it. - He obviously does like evil(And he tolerates it, if he didn't there would be no evil), because he continues to let evil room. Did he save any of those 6 million+ jews from getting slaughtered like barn animals by Hitler? No. + many more examples.

God is doing away with the evil, and He is doing away with the ability to do evil any longer. - No he is not, hundreds of thousands of people are murdered yearly.

Because of the tremendous greatness with which He set this universe up, the way He is doing away with evil is to destroy this universe. - So he's going to "destroy" this universe to do away with evil, really, that's your answer?

God is offering the people who want to get out of the evil, the chance to join Him in the new universe He is setting up. - Makes no sense, see XinXan's post, and the very chapter of Revealations itself is regarded as Symolic, not to be taken literally, just like Genesis. I advise you to take theology...

God, in the offer of freedom, is allowing people the opportunity to remain in the evil, by not believing in and accepting Him, so they essentially are destroyed right along with the rest of the evil when He completely dissolves this universe. - Again, see XinXan's post, by God allowing evil, that means he himself is not good.

Where do you want to be? destroyed with the evil? or saved with the good? If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God. - Again, see XinXan's post.

The purpose of XinXan's questions and the answers are there to illustrate that: God either doesn't exist, isn't "god"(Can't do all things), or he's not a good "god".

There's 3 answers and XinXan described it perfectly.

P.S. None of BADecker's statements made sense, at all.


And with that, so long. There's no further point in discussing this.

I couldnt really understand most of his arguments but here comes this: if heaven really exists and heaven is a place that allows no evil then there is no frewill there and since humans have the potential for evil it would mean that we would be robots in heaven since no human will ever be able to do evil things again and if that is possible why god couldnt do that since the begining?

[username18333]

There is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist. Being an atheist and wanting to force everyone to be one is the same as believing in a religion and wanting to force people to believe in it.

Right on!

However, nobody is required to believe that the evidence is ever enough. People simply are built so they can make their own choice about accepting the evidence or not. Great pain and great pleasure make it more difficult to deny the evidence, whatever it may be, about anything. Without great pain or great pleasure one can talk himself/herself into believing almost anything... right in the face of abundant evidence to the opposite.

People who deny the great abundance of evidences for God all around us, have the ability to do so. In some cases, they know down deep that they are lying to themselves. In other cases, they are simply using a section of their mentality in a forceful way. Yet, in times of great pleasure or great pain, the evidence for God becomes more of a reality to them. "There are no atheists in the foxholes."

The truth is, the atheist is a person of great faith. Why? There are abundant evidences for God in nature all around us... including within ourselves... just the fact that something as marvelous as the human machine can exist. In the face of these great evidences, the atheist still believes (at least on the outside) that God doesn't exist. Such faith as that, especially when found in the high I.Q. atheists, is great faith. God would really like such people on His side.

People of great faith, even atheists, often do great things.

(Red colorization mine.)

Attempt to discover an existentially nihilist perspective of the colorized text above with that below.

3. Existential Nihilism

While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of [180‒219 EA] it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself--all action, suffering, and feeling--is ultimately senseless and empty.

In The Dark Side: Thoughts on the Futility of Life (1994), Alan Pratt demonstrates that existential nihilism, in one form or another, has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition from the beginning. The Skeptic Empedocles' observation that "the life of mortals is so mean a thing as to be virtually un-life," for instance, embodies the same kind of extreme pessimism associated with existential nihilism. In antiquity, such profound pessimism may have reached its apex with Hegesis. Because miseries vastly outnumber pleasures, happiness is impossible, the philosopher argues, and subsequently advocates suicide. Centuries later during the Renaissance, William Shakespeare eloquently summarized the existential nihilist's perspective when, in this famous passage near the end of Macbeth, he has Macbeth pour out his disgust for life:

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

In the twentieth century, it's the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the [160 EA]s and [170 EA]s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness. Jean-Paul Sartre's ([125‒200 EA]) defining preposition for the movement, "existence precedes essence," rules out any ground or foundation for establishing an essential self or a human nature. When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being "thrown" into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning. It's a situation that's nothing short of absurd. Writing from the enlightened perspective of the absurd, Albert Camus ([133‒180 EA]) observed that Sisyphus' plight, condemned to eternal, useless struggle, was a superb metaphor for human existence (The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942).

[…]

(Red colorization mine.)

[Gimpeline]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

[username18333]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

Even if fiction, “God” exists no less than the character Macbeth of Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Macbeth.

[sitael]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

Agree, this thread is a mess, I wish I had better english to contribute.. what about this post?

I personally dislike term "God" simply because it's connected with religion(s) so I prefer "Creator" or "Designer".. Is it even possible for us to talk about something beyond space and time without any personification? The Signs of God's Existence documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

I watched it all, here are references for their "proof":

Golden ratio discovered in quantum world: Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htm

Solid-state physics: Golden ratio seen in a magnet:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7287/full/464362a.html

Is there connection between golden ratio and God? Do we at least know what's consciousness? And what about Noetic sciences?

http://www.noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/

Is there even a way to scientifically prove God's existence?

[username18333]

[…]

Is there even [a] way to [scientifically] pro[ve] God's existence?

Science is often thought to proceed by our logically deducing the laws that govern the world.  But it's not that simple; there are limits to what we can deduce, especially about things in which we cannot directly participate.  Radioactive decay is a good example of this.  We can't use a microscope to watch the events that make an element decay.  The process is quite mysterious.  But what we can do is make a simple theory of how decay might work, and then use that theory to make a prediction of what measurements we can expect.  That's the way science proceeds: by making theories that lead to predictions.  Sometimes these predictions turn out to be wrong.  That's fine: it means we must tinker with the theory, perhaps discard it outright, or maybe realise that it's completely okay under certain limited circumstances.  The hallmark of a good scientific theory is not what it seems to explain, but rather what it predicts.  After all, a theory that says the universe just appeared yesterday, complete with life on earth, fossils and so on, in a sense "explains" everything beautifully by simply defining it to be so; but it predicts absolutely nothing.  So from a scientific point of view it is not a very useful theory, because it contains nothing that allows its truth to be tested.  On the other hand, while it's arguable that the theory of quantum mechanics explains anything at all, it certainly does predict a huge number of different phenomena that have been observed; and that's what makes it a very useful theory.

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

No, “God” is, metaphorically speaking, the antithesis of “the theory of quantum mechanics” (Koks).

[BADecker]

If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God.

So let's get this straight, you saying people must believe in god or they are automatically labeled as evil?

So someone that believes in god yet still kills people is better than a non-believer that lives a peaceful loving life?

Mmmmmmmmm.....

No. People who do not believe in God are not necessarily labelled as evil. After all, you seem to not believe in God, at least on the outside. Do you label yourself as evil? You are simply trying to mess around when you talk like this. Unbelievers ARE evil. They are not necessarily labelled as evil.

"Someone that believes in God?..." What does that mean? Even demons believe that God exists. They believe in God, but they are not on His side... in favor of Him. Rather, they are against Him. Those who do not believe in God, are against Him simply by not acknowledging the One who holds their life in His hands.

If a person who makes any mistakes, even murder, turns from his mistakes, and turns from his unbelief in the Savior, Jesus (regarding the fact that Jesus' work on the cross saves people from eternal death by giving them forgiveness for their mistakes), yes, he is better than a sweet, dainty, would-never-hurt-a-fly type of person who never does any evil other than not believing in God for salvation.

Why is the mistake-maker better? He is and will be forgiven by faith in Jesus. The "good seeming" person has at least two mistakes inside him. He has the mistake of not being able to keep himself alive, and he has the mistake of not accepting the salvation that God offers... especially if he does not even acknowledge that God exists. But, if he turns to accept Jesus, the salvation from God, he will be saved like the other.

[username18333]

If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God.

So let's get this straight, you saying people must believe in god or they are automatically labeled as evil?

So someone that believes in god yet still kills people is better than a non-believer that lives a peaceful loving life?

Mmmmmmmmm.....

Galatians 3

Geneva⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the trueth, to whome Iesus Christ before was described in your sight, and among you crucified?. . . ²³ But before faith came, we were kept vnder the Law, as vnder a garison, and shut vp vnto that faith, which should afterward be reueiled. ²⁴ Wherefore the Lawe was our scholemaster to bring vs to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. ²⁵ But after that faith is come, we are no longer vnder a scholemaster. ²⁶ For ye are al the sonnes of God by faith, in Christ Iesus. ²⁷ For all ye that are baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Iewe nor Grecian: there is neither bonde nor free: there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Iesus. ²⁹ And if ye be Christes, then are ye Abrahams seede, and heires by promise.

(Red colorization mine.)

[BADecker]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

God, in the offer of freedom, has allowed people to do evil as well as good. - That means god is not good

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it. - He obviously does like evil(And he tolerates it, if he didn't there would be no evil), because he continues to let evil room. Did he save any of those 6 million+ jews from getting slaughtered like barn animals by Hitler? No. + many more examples.

God is doing away with the evil, and He is doing away with the ability to do evil any longer. - No he is not, hundreds of thousands of people are murdered yearly.

Because of the tremendous greatness with which He set this universe up, the way He is doing away with evil is to destroy this universe. - So he's going to "destroy" this universe to do away with evil, really, that's your answer?

God is offering the people who want to get out of the evil, the chance to join Him in the new universe He is setting up. - Makes no sense, see XinXan's post, and the very chapter of Revealations itself is regarded as Symolic, not to be taken literally, just like Genesis. I advise you to take theology...

God, in the offer of freedom, is allowing people the opportunity to remain in the evil, by not believing in and accepting Him, so they essentially are destroyed right along with the rest of the evil when He completely dissolves this universe. - Again, see XinXan's post, by God allowing evil, that means he himself is not good.

Where do you want to be? destroyed with the evil? or saved with the good? If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God. - Again, see XinXan's post.

The purpose of XinXan's questions and the answers are there to illustrate that: God either doesn't exist, isn't "god"(Can't do all things), or he's not a good "god".

There's 3 answers and XinXan described it perfectly.

P.S. None of BADecker's statements made sense, at all.


And with that, so long. There's no further point in discussing this.

I couldnt really understand most of his arguments but here comes this: if heaven really exists and heaven is a place that allows no evil then there is no frewill there and since humans have the potential for evil it would mean that we would be robots in heaven since no human will ever be able to do evil things again and if that is possible why god couldnt do that since the begining?

You have some preconceived notions about God while at the same time you (and science) don't understand some of the basics of the laws of the universe.

My wording, above, isn't exactly individual arguments. They are a sequence. The whole point of it is, God ABSOLUTELY IS preventing the evil. This earth, this life, even this universe is being taken out of existence so that the evil will not only be prevented, but also destroyed. The New Universe that God is making is the place that won't have any evil. God is God. The New Universe will have universal physics laws that are different than these. There will be freedom as well as no ability to do evil. God can do it.

Why doesn't God simply do away with the evil here? Because He built a universe where people are so deeply embedded with part of His nature, at the same time that people themselves spiritually are integrally woven into the laws of the universe in ways way beyond understanding of science at present, that if He simply destroyed the evil, He would have to destroy the people. Rather, God is giving us this short life to allow us the time to decide if we want to continue to be evil, or if we would rather join Him with the good in the New Universe.

God's idea behind making a free universe, where people had the freedom to do evil, was not so that they would do the evil, but so that they would use their freedom to show greater love for Him by NOT doing the evil. If the ability to do evil was not present, there would not be the ability to show the greater love.

The fact that God prepared the way out of the evil through faith in Him and in the salvation that His Son, Jesus, provides, shows that He is saving people from the evil. People, by not accepting the salvation that God provides, or by not accepting that God even exists right in the face of all the evidence to the opposite, show that they would rather remain in the evil.

[BADecker]

If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God.

So let's get this straight, you saying people must believe in god or they are automatically labeled as evil?

So someone that believes in god yet still kills people is better than a non-believer that lives a peaceful loving life?

Mmmmmmmmm.....

Galatians 3

Geneva⁽ⁱ⁾ . . . ²³ But before faith came, we were kept vnder the Law, as vnder a garison, and shut vp vnto that faith, which should afterward be reueiled. ²⁴ Wherefore the Lawe was our scholemaster to bring vs to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. ²⁵ But after that faith is come, we are no longer vnder a scholemaster. ²⁶ For ye are al the sonnes of God by faith, in Christ Iesus. ²⁷ For all ye that are baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Iewe nor Grecian: there is neither bonde nor free: there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Iesus. ²⁹ And if ye be Christes, then are ye Abrahams seede, and heires by promise.

(Red colorization mine.)

Exactly!!!

And that is why the whole God thing is nonsense to so many people. They refuse to accept Him by faith, the only real way He can be accepted. This means that they remain in the evil, simply because they don't accept the only way out of the evil, the salvation that God's son, Jesus, provides.

The Geneva Bible was written a long time ago. While its language is similar to ours, it is also different. This is because it is a translation from other languages. If you are interested in reading online more clearly, I would recommend the English Standard Version (ESV), or the New English Standard Version (NESV). You can find these online at http://www.biblegateway.com/ where you can read right online.

[username18333]

[…]

The Geneva Bible was written a long time ago. While its language is similar to ours, it is also different. This is because it is a translation from other languages. If you are interested in reading online more clearly, I would recommend the English Standard Version (ESV), or the New English Standard Version (NESV). You can find these online at http://www.biblegateway.com/ where you can read right online.

I recommend the Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament (IHOT) and the Interlinear Greek New Testament (IGNT).

[BADecker]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

Agree, this thread is a mess, I wish I had better english to contribute.. what about this post?

I personally dislike term "God" simply because it's connected with religion(s) so I prefer "Creator" or "Designer".. Is it even possible for us to talk about something beyond space and time without any personification? The Signs of God's Existence documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

I watched it all, here are references for their "proof":

Golden ratio discovered in quantum world: Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htm

Solid-state physics: Golden ratio seen in a magnet:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7287/full/464362a.html

Is there connection between golden ratio and God? Do we at least know what's consciousness? And what about Noetic sciences?

http://www.noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/

Is there even way to proof God's existence?

Here is probably the simplest explanation about what Quantum Mechanics really is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo. When you finish watching this less-than-two-minutes video, you will see that quantum mechanics can be used to prove anything and to work anything. It can actually be used to prove and work things that are opposite of each other... if you want to work hard enough at making it do so.

[BADecker]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

[BADecker]

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it.

If he dosnt like evil, why did he create it?

Just for you...

God didn't create evil. He gave some of the sentient beings He created the freedom to cause evil, so that they could prove their love for God by NOT doing evil. God didn't suggest that they do the evil. He told (and tells) them not to do it.

We are so far away from understanding the greatness of God and His love for us, that we have a difficult time understanding how great a thing it is to not do evil in the face of being able to do evil.

[username18333]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

The Math Induction Strategy

Mathematical Induction works like this: Suppose you want to prove a theorem in the form "For all integers n greater than equal to a, P(n) is true". P(n) must be an assertion that we wish to be true for all n = a, a+1, ...; like a formula. You first verify the initial step. That is, you must verify that P(a) is true. Next comes the inductive step. Here you must prove "If there is a k, greater than or equal to a, for which P(k) is true, then for this same k, P(k+1) is true."

Since you have verified P(a), it follows from the inductive step that P(a+1) is true, and hence, P(a+2) is true, and hence P(a+3) is true, and so on. In this way the theorem has been proved.

(Red colorization mine.)

“The problem with the idea of proof is” (BADecker) that infinite physical evidence cannot be considered, simultaneously, by a finite physical system.