Scientific proof that God exists?

[the joint]

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, all I do is talk about science. I don't mention religion at all. Yet, all your responses following that post up to this one, talk about religion. Is science such a religion to all of you, that if someone comes along with science that doesn't limit itself to the way you religiously look at science, then he is really talking religion rather than science?

The point is becoming clearer. You simply aren't interested in the truth. All along I thought you people were scientifically minded people. Now it turns out that you are religiously minded people, and you have your own, little brand of science that is your religion.

How interesting you are. You are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in real science. All you are interested in is your brand of thinking that looks like science, but really isn't. You kids really have a weird religion.



EDIT: The post by the joint, directly above this post, isn't included in my little rant in this post.

Poorly.  You talk about Science poorly.  I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane.  You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue.  For example, you've continuously called Science a religion.  It's not.  Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate.  When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.

People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions.  The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.  

If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.

Edit:  And thanks lol

[BADecker]

I love it. I'm finally getting through to you kids. Even Decky, who already believes that God exists, has been touch by a bunch of my points that he can't answer.

Keep struggling, you guys (and gal(s)). You just might wake up to the fact that God loves you and has made you, because it is wonderful to be alive, so you can experience the greatness of it.

Just a little further, now. Some of you are actually on the verge of making it. Your irritation proves it, because you don't have any answers that are on-point oriented.

      (I just have to smile in joy that you guys are finally coming around.)

No, your reasons for believing what you do are terrible, just as they have always been.  People are getting irritated and aren't responding "on-point" because, well...how else do you tell someone that something doesn't make sense except to tell them it doesn't make sense?

Your arguments make no sense.  It's glaringly obvious, like a horrific car crash.  You might believing in something which is true (i.e. God exists), but you would serve yourself much better by listening to others critique your reasoning.   Your reasoning deserves to be critiqued because it's simply terrible.   When you type, its almost as if you don't think the rules of logic apply to you and you can bend them to your will.

In my experience, atheists generally have poor reasons for not believing in God, and Christians generally have even worse reasons for actually believing in Him.

You would do well to listen to the atheists here when they point out the flaws in your reasoning.  Those flaws do exist, and you should focus more on that than on the faulty reasoning of others.  From what I can tell, every atheist in this thread has a far better understanding of both logic and the Scientific Method than you do.  By a mile.

Now even you are starting to do it. You say that my reasoning is bad and that my explanations of it are terrible.

The main point of this thread has to do with proof for God. Sure, many of us have gotten sidetracked all over the place at times, but some of the greatest talking against me, personally, is coming about now when I finally proved the existence of God, using scientific reasoning.

It all revolves around this clear post of mine - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Since then, nobody is even trying to speak logically about my proofs. Nobody is even attempting to explain how my proofs are wrong. Everyone is simply doing a character assassination of me, or almost.

I must be really hitting a nerve here.

[XinXan]

So this is your proof:
There you have it. The evidences for God are in the machine-like qualities of the universe (machines have makers), the fact of cause and effect as the example of design, the evidences of the majorities of people being at least religious, and the fact of the strength of frustrated people who embrace the religion of atheism.

Such strength of faith you have! You are willing and able to push the untold quadrillions of pieces of evidence for the existence of God out of your life, and embrace the extremely fewer pieces of evidence that suggest that God doesn't exist. God would like to have people of your strength of faith in His Kingdom.

God is our friend. Come and join us in seeking Him, so that we can find a clarification of the reasons He has caused us to exist.

The evidence of god is in the machine-like qualities of the universe (what?) You say machines have makers but makers also have makers so the question arrives, where does god come from then if anything has to be made by something else. Other "evidence" of God is that people believe in God? So because people believe in ghosts, ghosts must exist right? The religion of atheism?? Atheism is simply not believing in God nothing more and nothing else. Of course the proofs for god non existing are few, no shit. what proofs do you have for the non existence of ghosts? Quadrilions of pieces for the existance of god? More like quadrilions of pieces of existance for evolution

[BADecker]

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, all I do is talk about science. I don't mention religion at all. Yet, all your responses following that post up to this one, talk about religion. Is science such a religion to all of you, that if someone comes along with science that doesn't limit itself to the way you religiously look at science, then he is really talking religion rather than science?

The point is becoming clearer. You simply aren't interested in the truth. All along I thought you people were scientifically minded people. Now it turns out that you are religiously minded people, and you have your own, little brand of science that is your religion.

How interesting you are. You are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in real science. All you are interested in is your brand of thinking that looks like science, but really isn't. You kids really have a weird religion.



EDIT: The post by the joint, directly above this post, isn't included in my little rant in this post.

Poorly.  You talk about Science poorly.  I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane.  You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue.  For example, you've continuously called Science a religion.  It's not.  Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate.  When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.

People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions.  The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.  

If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.

Edit:  And thanks lol

There are all kinds of people who, if you used the strict scientific method with them, they wouldn't have a clue as to what you were talking about. This is because the term "science" has taken on new meaning among the masses. People even call their electric range in their kitchen, science.

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, what definitions have I invented? That's why I have the dictionary definitions listed... just to show that the definitions are not mine. However, that isn't what you are posting against me about. What you are really posting against me about is the fact that you can actually use the sientific method in the link I listed to prove God. And, I explain it so that an average, non-scientific type of person, can understand it as well.

I may not have used terminology exactly the same way that a pure scientist would for explaining some science project wherein he used strict scientific method speech. But if I or you did such, the people would really be all mixed up. I am speaking their language.

[BADecker]

So this is your proof:
There you have it. The evidences for God are in the machine-like qualities of the universe (machines have makers), the fact of cause and effect as the example of design, the evidences of the majorities of people being at least religious, and the fact of the strength of frustrated people who embrace the religion of atheism.

Such strength of faith you have! You are willing and able to push the untold quadrillions of pieces of evidence for the existence of God out of your life, and embrace the extremely fewer pieces of evidence that suggest that God doesn't exist. God would like to have people of your strength of faith in His Kingdom.

God is our friend. Come and join us in seeking Him, so that we can find a clarification of the reasons He has caused us to exist.

The evidence of god is in the machine-like qualities of the universe (what?) You say machines have makers but makers also have makers so the question arrives, where does god come from then if anything has to be made by something else. Other "evidence" of God is that people believe in God? So because people believe in ghosts, ghosts must exist right? The religion of atheism?? Atheism is simply not believing in God nothing more and nothing else. Of course the proofs for god non existing are few, no shit. what proofs do you have for the non existence of ghosts? Quadrilions of pieces for the existance of god? More like quadrilions of pieces of existance for evolution

He is God, remember? He isn't "made" by any method we would even have an inkling of. Perhaps in His existence He isn't made at all. Perhaps he simply always existed. We are so remote and so tiny in our little spot in the universe that, how can we understand anything about God, except when He reveals Himself to us, and that which He "wills" us to understand?

Atheism is a religion because, to suggest that there is no god, one needs to completely ignore the tremendous quantity of evidences that I have pointed out in my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. When all these evidences are ignored, the belief that there is no God becomes a religious belief, because there are way more evidences for God than against Him.

We haven't gotten to the point of whether or not evolution is God. Because of the greatness of the things listed in my link, God exists.

God exists. Our job should be finding out about Him, not trying to play with all the "stuff" of the universe to figure things out that we may not even be able to understand.

[Buffer Overflow]

@BADecker  How do you feel about the ancient gods? I'll pick one at random, let's say Thor? Do you believe in Thor?

[BADecker]

@BADecker  How do you feel about the ancient gods? I'll pick one at random, let's say Thor? Do you believe in Thor?

What do you mean by the question "Do you believe in Thor?"

I believe that the real Thor was a capable person who people idolized. After he died, the story about him changed somewhat, over time.

Does anybody know about the real Thor? I haven't even been interested in him enough to look him up for scientific or archaeological details about who he really was.

But that isn't really what this thread is about, is it?

[XinXan]

@BADecker  How do you feel about the ancient gods? I'll pick one at random, let's say Thor? Do you believe in Thor?

What do you mean by the question "Do you believe in Thor?"

I believe that the real Thor was a capable person who people idolized. After he died, the story about him changed somewhat, over time.

Does anybody know about the real Thor? I haven't even been interested in him enough to look him up for scientific or archaeological details about who he really was.

But that isn't really what this thread is about, is it?

Actually it is. Why dont you believe in THOR? There are quadrilions of evidence of his existance? Can you prove that god thor does not exist?

[Buffer Overflow]

@BADecker  How do you feel about the ancient gods? I'll pick one at random, let's say Thor? Do you believe in Thor?

What do you mean by the question "Do you believe in Thor?"

I believe that the real Thor was a capable person who people idolized. After he died, the story about him changed somewhat, over time.

Does anybody know about the real Thor? I haven't even been interested in him enough to look him up for scientific or archaeological details about who he really was.

But that isn't really what this thread is about, is it?

Well this thread is about god, and Thor was a god. The thread didn't specify which god.
Why are you rejecting this god yet believe yours is the true one?
Surely your being Atheist towards the god Thor? Logical right

[Buffer Overflow]

It all revolves around this clear post of mine - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Since then, nobody is even trying to speak logically about my proofs. Nobody is even attempting to explain how my proofs are wrong. Everyone is simply doing a character assassination of me, or almost.

Well I spotted two holes in your "proof" speech straight away, but what's the point in engaging in a conversion about it?
Your mind is closed. Your eyes are blinkered. Your god exists, and everyone else is wrong. Period. End of conversation.

That's the reason nobody is bothering with it. They know they are just wasting their time.

[1986]

@BADecker  How do you feel about the ancient gods? I'll pick one at random, let's say Thor? Do you believe in Thor?

What do you mean by the question "Do you believe in Thor?"

I believe that the real Thor was a capable person who people idolized. After he died, the story about him changed somewhat, over time.

Does anybody know about the real Thor? I haven't even been interested in him enough to look him up for scientific or archaeological details about who he really was.

Pretty sure none of the Viking gods were based on real people and had mythologies built upon them. I think they're just typical made up god myths though I suppose some of them may have originally been based on people buy mythologized. This may have happened to Jesus though.

[Decksperiment]

BADecker: Is the only proof the people need that bible is shit. Just read BADeckers posts.. no truth, no evidence, no proof, just shite spoutin from the most un-educated bible basher in history. Someone needs to tell him we're only entertaining him to see what more shite he'll spout about his jewish diety.. imagine.. a christian jew.. wow.. he's prob got a cross with a photo of himself stuck to jesus's face just to remind himself of his one fatal flaw.. he's a fuckin idiot, As his 'evidence' proves. Yeah BADecker, we know you are.. now hurry up and crucify yourself, saves us doing it for ya..

[Lauda]

Let me just put this here:
Do not be fearful of challenging your own beliefs, it can lead to great enlightenment. Think for a moment, if you were born in a different region of the world and your guardians taught you different beliefs than you have now, would you still hold the same beliefs you do today?
Most likely not, so wouldn't that mean your beliefs are largely based on your region and upbringing? Sometimes in the 'school of life' it is not only important to continue learning, but to unlearn that which does not agree with you anymore. Go within.

I've met a few interesting open-minded ones in my time,  and had some interesting conversations. And I'm sure we both walked away better off from it.

Such people stand out and I believe are much more intelligent than the other group, even though in practice it might not be shown.
Open-minded people would gladly accept what I've just quoted and this would lead to a great discussion. The piece that was quoted pretty much shows us that religion isn't anything special. Any "god" who will punish you for thinking for yourself, is not really a "god".

I'd also just say that meditation is much better (actually has benefits) than praying.

[foxbitcoin]

Knowing that at one point in time no cells existed, the only possible logical conclusion is that a supernatural event occurred during the creation of the first living cell.

[the joint]

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, all I do is talk about science. I don't mention religion at all. Yet, all your responses following that post up to this one, talk about religion. Is science such a religion to all of you, that if someone comes along with science that doesn't limit itself to the way you religiously look at science, then he is really talking religion rather than science?

The point is becoming clearer. You simply aren't interested in the truth. All along I thought you people were scientifically minded people. Now it turns out that you are religiously minded people, and you have your own, little brand of science that is your religion.

How interesting you are. You are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in real science. All you are interested in is your brand of thinking that looks like science, but really isn't. You kids really have a weird religion.



EDIT: The post by the joint, directly above this post, isn't included in my little rant in this post.

Poorly.  You talk about Science poorly.  I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane.  You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue.  For example, you've continuously called Science a religion.  It's not.  Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate.  When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.

People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions.  The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.  

If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.

Edit:  And thanks lol

There are all kinds of people who, if you used the strict scientific method with them, they wouldn't have a clue as to what you were talking about. This is because the term "science" has taken on new meaning among the masses. People even call their electric range in their kitchen, science.

In my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, what definitions have I invented? That's why I have the dictionary definitions listed... just to show that the definitions are not mine. However, that isn't what you are posting against me about. What you are really posting against me about is the fact that you can actually use the sientific method in the link I listed to prove God. And, I explain it so that an average, non-scientific type of person, can understand it as well.

I may not have used terminology exactly the same way that a pure scientist would for explaining some science project wherein he used strict scientific method speech. But if I or you did such, the people would really be all mixed up. I am speaking their language.

1)  Science has "not" taken on new meaning among the masses.  Among the stupid, maybe.  Among the educated, no.  

2)  That's pretty amazing that you think you can use the Scientific Method to prove God, because it's a logical impossibility.  This is the proof in the pudding that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Science. Science is an inductive method of knowledge acquisition.  By definition, no inductive method has or could ever have the capacity to conclude about something so Universal.  

Any single time that you have ever said there is physical evidence and proof for God, you are necessarily wrong 100% of the time.  This can't be debated, it's a logical rule.  Sorry, try again.

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

3)  You are in no way speaking the language of a scientist, because point #2 demonstrates you don't even understand how data turns into theory.  And, the reality is backwards of what you stated.  People are "all mixed up" precisely because you aren't speaking anyone's language.  You toss out words that everybody else already knows and can understand just fine.  You take those words, butcher them to death, extract some weird meaning that not only makes it impossible for anyone else to understand what you're saying, but renders your ideas completing meaningless to everyone else except you.

Stop pretending you know anything about Science.  You don't, and that's because you don't know the real definition of it, and therefore you can't distinguish between what is scientific and what isn't.  



Edit: Oh, about that link you posted.  Yeah, I saw that.  Good job for referencing definitions for consensus.  I mean that, because that's something you should do....

...but then you went ahead and said something along the lines of, "Oh look! The data I have fits definition #1!"   And definition #1 of "proof" was: "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

And in no way did your data actually constitute proof of anything according to definition #1.  The so-called "evidence" that you think proves God is so insufficient that it could never say anything about God one way or the other.  

That's where an understanding of logic and sound inference comes into play, but you don't have that. There is not a single shred of physical evidence for God's existence, and that's because it's theoretically impossible for there to ever be any.

[interbtc]

what created  god? Can't have something come from nothing, apparently.

[the joint]

what created  god? Can't have something come from nothing, apparently.

The question "what created God?" is a nonsense question.  We can't even ask "what came before time?" and get a sensible answer.

That being said, true, something can't come from nothing, but the null set is not nothing, despite it containing nothing.

[Joshuar]

what created  god? Can't have something come from nothing, apparently.

The question "what created God?" is a nonsense question.  We can't even ask "what came before time?" and get a sensible answer.

That being said, true, something can't come from nothing, but the null set is not nothing, despite it containing nothing.

The "null set is not nothing, despite it containing nothing", can that be compared to an empty, airless Box? It contains nothing but is still "something".

[XinXan]

what created  god? Can't have something come from nothing, apparently.

The question "what created God?" is a nonsense question.  We can't even ask "what came before time?" and get a sensible answer.

That being said, true, something can't come from nothing, but the null set is not nothing, despite it containing nothing.

The "null set is not nothing, despite it containing nothing", can that be compared to an empty, airless Box? It contains nothing but is still "something".

I dont know what you want to say, but the box always contains something even if it is airless.

[Joshuar]

what created  god? Can't have something come from nothing, apparently.

The question "what created God?" is a nonsense question.  We can't even ask "what came before time?" and get a sensible answer.

That being said, true, something can't come from nothing, but the null set is not nothing, despite it containing nothing.

The "null set is not nothing, despite it containing nothing", can that be compared to an empty, airless Box? It contains nothing but is still "something".

I dont know what you want to say, but the box always contains something even if it is airless.

I was trying to make a comparison between what he said which I assumed was talking about before the "big bang"(which is losing support compared to the "timeless" universe theory), where there was supposedly "nothing". Maybe thered be particles floating around, but I don't mean a literal box. And I don't believe in the idea that there can't ever be nothing, it's nonsensical. Even new theories regarding the "origins" of the universe display that the universe itself may have always been "something".