Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

Is anyone else reading this? Please tell me someone else is reading this. This guy is just too frigging stupid.

So, it comes down to this. You are unwilling or unable to disprove the existence of God, or to refute the universe full of evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 that shows god does indeed exist, so you badmouth me. Don't you realize that it is the trolls who do badmouthing, because they don't really understand? And this is what you are showing yourself to be more and more.

Come, now. Try to get back on topic and show some evidence or proof for or against the existence of God.

[darkota]

Is anyone else reading this? Please tell me someone else is reading this. This guy is just too frigging stupid.

So, it comes down to this. You are unwilling or unable to disprove the existence of God, or to refute the universe full of evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 that shows god does indeed exist, so you badmouth me. Don't you realize that it is the trolls who do badmouthing, because they don't really understand? And this is what you are showing yourself to be more and more.

Come, now. Try to get back on topic and show some evidence or proof for or against the existence of God.

So you wanna troll post? K, You're now on ignore. You're either a troll or a retard, most likely a combo of both. Either one, I don't care anymore, anyone else reading the posts on this page(and practically everyone you've ever made, since all have been refuted) sees just how uneducated, inconclusive, contradictory, and plain stupid you really are.

[BADecker]

Is anyone else reading this? Please tell me someone else is reading this. This guy is just too frigging stupid.

So, it comes down to this. You are unwilling or unable to disprove the existence of God, or to refute the universe full of evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 that shows god does indeed exist, so you badmouth me. Don't you realize that it is the trolls who do badmouthing, because they don't really understand? And this is what you are showing yourself to be more and more.

Come, now. Try to get back on topic and show some evidence or proof for or against the existence of God.

So you wanna troll post? K, You're now on ignore. You're either a troll or a retard, most likely a combo of both. Either one, I don't care anymore, anyone else reading the posts on this page(and practically everyone you've ever made, since all have been refuted) sees just how uneducated, inconclusive, contradictory, and plain stupid you really are.

Well, it should be nice not having to run around with this guy again. Whew! Trying to explain was a job. I know, I know. He didn't really want a logical explanation. He simply wanted to bash me. As I have often said, nobody can be forced to believe the strong evidence here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 or anywhere else... even if it jumps up and bites them in the left eye.

[bitsat alien]

I neither deny nor acknowledge the existence of a God as I can't prove or disprove a negative

[QuestionAuthority]

I don't know if God exists but I have proof Jesus does. He mowed my lawn yesterday.

[Buffer Overflow]

By the way, are you EVER going to present SOME even hint of scientific evidence for or against the existence of God, so that we can start to prove out to ourselves from your standpoint, whether or not God exists.

The OP stated proof of god, not evidence. Sorry, talking about evidence is off-topic I'm afraid.
Your rules remember, we must adhere to them.

[BADecker]

By the way, are you EVER going to present SOME even hint of scientific evidence for or against the existence of God, so that we can start to prove out to ourselves from your standpoint, whether or not God exists.

The OP stated proof of god, not evidence. Sorry, talking about evidence is off-topic I'm afraid.
Your rules remember, we must adhere to them.

The information here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows how evidence is the thing that provides the proof. Look at the first definition for "proof" in the link.

[BADecker]

I neither deny nor acknowledge the existence of a God as I can't prove or disprove a negative

Often, scientifically proving something is different than simply proving it. The scientific method can be so extremely boring to some people that they naturally are inclined to not want to do it.

Go to the link here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, read the first definition for the word "proof," then slowly read the rest of the post following the definitions. You will find that you don't need the boring, scientific method to find the proof that God exists.

The thing that the proof doesn't show out in the open is, a lot of the finer attributes of God. Many of these can be surmised from the evidence at the link. But they aren't explained out in the open, because many people find it hard to simply accept that God exists. Once people come to the understanding that God DOES exist, then they can go on to find which (if any) religions speak about Him accurately, or if He is trying to contact us in one way or another. But, in part because of the complexity of God, other topics about God should be created to discuss His various attributes, etc.

I can't promise that you will accept the strong evidence provided as proof for God. But many people have, and many more will. Have at it.

[XinXan]

I neither deny nor acknowledge the existence of a God as I can't prove or disprove a negative

Often, scientifically proving something is different than simply proving it. The scientific method can be so extremely boring to some people that they naturally are inclined to not want to do it.

Go to the link here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, read the first definition for the word "proof," then slowly read the rest of the post following the definitions. You will find that you don't need the boring, scientific method to find the proof that God exists.

The thing that the proof doesn't show out in the open is, a lot of the finer attributes of God. Many of these can be surmised from the evidence at the link. But they aren't explained out in the open, because many people find it hard to simply accept that God exists. Once people come to the understanding that God DOES exist, then they can go on to find which (if any) religions speak about Him accurately, or if He is trying to contact us in one way or another. But, in part because of the complexity of God, other topics about God should be created to discuss His various attributes, etc.

I can't promise that you will accept the strong evidence provided as proof for God. But many people have, and many more will. Have at it.

Evidence to disprove God and the bible can be found here:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

[BADecker]

I neither deny nor acknowledge the existence of a God as I can't prove or disprove a negative

Often, scientifically proving something is different than simply proving it. The scientific method can be so extremely boring to some people that they naturally are inclined to not want to do it.

Go to the link here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, read the first definition for the word "proof," then slowly read the rest of the post following the definitions. You will find that you don't need the boring, scientific method to find the proof that God exists.

The thing that the proof doesn't show out in the open is, a lot of the finer attributes of God. Many of these can be surmised from the evidence at the link. But they aren't explained out in the open, because many people find it hard to simply accept that God exists. Once people come to the understanding that God DOES exist, then they can go on to find which (if any) religions speak about Him accurately, or if He is trying to contact us in one way or another. But, in part because of the complexity of God, other topics about God should be created to discuss His various attributes, etc.

I can't promise that you will accept the strong evidence provided as proof for God. But many people have, and many more will. Have at it.

Evidence to disprove God and the bible can be found here:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.

[XinXan]

I neither deny nor acknowledge the existence of a God as I can't prove or disprove a negative

Often, scientifically proving something is different than simply proving it. The scientific method can be so extremely boring to some people that they naturally are inclined to not want to do it.

Go to the link here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, read the first definition for the word "proof," then slowly read the rest of the post following the definitions. You will find that you don't need the boring, scientific method to find the proof that God exists.

The thing that the proof doesn't show out in the open is, a lot of the finer attributes of God. Many of these can be surmised from the evidence at the link. But they aren't explained out in the open, because many people find it hard to simply accept that God exists. Once people come to the understanding that God DOES exist, then they can go on to find which (if any) religions speak about Him accurately, or if He is trying to contact us in one way or another. But, in part because of the complexity of God, other topics about God should be created to discuss His various attributes, etc.

I can't promise that you will accept the strong evidence provided as proof for God. But many people have, and many more will. Have at it.

Evidence to disprove God and the bible can be found here:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.

Could you refute anything that the author said? Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

[BADecker]

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.

Could you refute anything that the author said?

Yes, easily. But to do so here would be off-topic.

Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

The little children I was speaking about are the ones who are too young to understand concepts of "... Santa Claus, Unicorns ... "

I would include fetuses in this little-children group.

[Astargath]

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.

Could you refute anything that the author said?

Yes, easily. But to do so here would be off-topic.

Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

The little children I was speaking about are the ones who are too young to understand concepts of "... Santa Claus, Unicorns ... "

I would include fetuses in this little-children group.

How do you prove that fetuses know about the existance of God?

[Astargath]

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.

Could you refute anything that the author said?

Yes, easily. But to do so here would be off-topic.

Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

The little children I was speaking about are the ones who are too young to understand concepts of "... Santa Claus, Unicorns ... "

I would include fetuses in this little-children group.

Why would it be off-topic? Because you dont want to talk about it because obviously you cant refute shit

[BADecker]

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.

Could you refute anything that the author said?

Yes, easily. But to do so here would be off-topic.

Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

The little children I was speaking about are the ones who are too young to understand concepts of "... Santa Claus, Unicorns ... "

I would include fetuses in this little-children group.

How do you prove that fetuses know about the existance of God?

Well, I don't know if one can call it proof in the regular sense of the word. But from the standpoint of the cause and effect evidence aspect as listed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, fetuses are much closer to the building blocks of nature that are putting them together. They are such because their higher thinking has not developed to ride above a lot of automatic physical operations yet. They are still in the formation phases, where the part that will develop into consciousness is sitting right inside the cause and effect formation processes, processes that go back to the Great First Cause.

Now, saying this short paragraph in the way I have, leaves lots of room for interpretation and misinterpretation. Please, before you respond, think about what I have said, and try to understand how it is that fetuses and little children understand that God exists without being aware that they understand it.

[BADecker]

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.

Could you refute anything that the author said?

Yes, easily. But to do so here would be off-topic.

Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

The little children I was speaking about are the ones who are too young to understand concepts of "... Santa Claus, Unicorns ... "

I would include fetuses in this little-children group.

Why would it be off-topic? Because you dont want to talk about it because obviously you cant refute shit

It would be off-topic because the author of that site is talking about the Bible, and one, basic, specific religion. He isn't talking about the general existence of god except briefly, in indirect ways.

If you want to downplay Christianity, that is entirely a separate subject from proving or disproving the existence of God scientifically.

[Buffer Overflow]

It would be off-topic because the author of that site is talking about the Bible, and one, basic, specific religion.

You don't stop talking about this bible on this thread! Why stop now?

[Astargath]

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.

Could you refute anything that the author said?

Yes, easily. But to do so here would be off-topic.

Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

The little children I was speaking about are the ones who are too young to understand concepts of "... Santa Claus, Unicorns ... "

I would include fetuses in this little-children group.

Why would it be off-topic? Because you dont want to talk about it because obviously you cant refute shit

It would be off-topic because the author of that site is talking about the Bible, and one, basic, specific religion. He isn't talking about the general existence of god except briefly, in indirect ways.

If you want to downplay Christianity, that is entirely a separate subject from proving or disproving the existence of God scientifically.

Since you keep posting your shitty arguments and ''proofs'' :

Answers from religious doctrine are rarely adequate for nonbelievers. In fact, many fervent believers in God reject the argument about God’s timelessness because even timeless beings need explanations for their existence. But if God is the creator of all things, and yet also requires cause, we face an infinite regress of causes. The only way to avoid this infinite regress problem is to state — as Christian theology has always done — that God is the first cause and is entirely self existent, meaning the reason for God’s existence is contained within the very definition of God.
While this viewpoint certainly may be attractive, it still fails to convince skeptics who are more likely to favor the idea that the universe contains within itself the reason for its own existence. If that could be true of God, why couldn’t it be true of the universe? There is certainly reason to be skeptical about the common sense intuition that everything must have a cause or that everything must have a reason to be as it is. This perennial assumption has been challenged by the physics of the 20th century that uncovered a mysterious quantum world where things often do not appear to have reason to be the way they are.
The common sense assumption that everything must have a cause or a reason to be as it is also suffers from what is called the fallacy of composition. This fallacy comes about when we assume that properties of the parts apply to the whole. For example, just because every member of the human race has a mother, we cannot infer that the human race itself has a mother. Similarly, a collection of spherical things would not itself have to be spherical. In discussions about the origins of the universe, we would say that just because every individual part of the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the entire universe has a cause.
The realization that our universe had some sort of beginning has opened up exciting new conversations about origins. In some ways, a universe with a beginning seems to beg for a cause. But if the universe came into being from nothing , it becomes deeply problematic to speak of anything having caused the universe to exist. Some cosmologists would argue that our universe is the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation. Such fluctuations do not have causes in the traditional sense, so they argue this does away with our universe needing a cause. But there is a significant problem that  the vacuum that fluctuates is not nothing. Quantum vacuums — which are what you get when you remove from space all the particles and energy — are real. They have activity, laws and rules. Our universe may have fluctuated into existence from such a vacuum, but the vacuum remains unexplained.
Cosmologist Lee Smolin suggests in Life of the Cosmos, that black holes can give birth to new universes. He proposes that our present universe emerged out of a black hole in some other “meta-universe.” And perhaps our universe is presently birthing new universes. Such a process, while clearly speculative, provides a caution against extrapolating from common sense notions of causality to philosophical conclusions about the nature of all of reality.

[BADecker]

It would be off-topic because the author of that site is talking about the Bible, and one, basic, specific religion.

You don't stop talking about this bible on this thread! Why stop now?

My Bible talk mostly has been in response to people like you who keep on bringing up the Bible when they should be staying on-topic like I was when I produced the proofs for God found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Now that I have gone past most responding to Bible questions, why do you bring it up again?

It is YOU who doesn't want to remain on-topic. Since you really seem to want Bible answers, read it.

[BADecker]

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.

Could you refute anything that the author said?

Yes, easily. But to do so here would be off-topic.

Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

The little children I was speaking about are the ones who are too young to understand concepts of "... Santa Claus, Unicorns ... "

I would include fetuses in this little-children group.

Why would it be off-topic? Because you dont want to talk about it because obviously you cant refute shit

It would be off-topic because the author of that site is talking about the Bible, and one, basic, specific religion. He isn't talking about the general existence of god except briefly, in indirect ways.

If you want to downplay Christianity, that is entirely a separate subject from proving or disproving the existence of God scientifically.

Since you keep posting your shitty arguments and ''proofs'' :

Answers from religious doctrine are rarely adequate for nonbelievers. In fact, many fervent believers in God reject the argument about God’s timelessness because even timeless beings need explanations for their existence. But if God is the creator of all things, and yet also requires cause, we face an infinite regress of causes. The only way to avoid this infinite regress problem is to state — as Christian theology has always done — that God is the first cause and is entirely self existent, meaning the reason for God’s existence is contained within the very definition of God.
While this viewpoint certainly may be attractive, it still fails to convince skeptics who are more likely to favor the idea that the universe contains within itself the reason for its own existence. If that could be true of God, why couldn’t it be true of the universe? There is certainly reason to be skeptical about the common sense intuition that everything must have a cause or that everything must have a reason to be as it is. This perennial assumption has been challenged by the physics of the 20th century that uncovered a mysterious quantum world where things often do not appear to have reason to be the way they are.
The common sense assumption that everything must have a cause or a reason to be as it is also suffers from what is called the fallacy of composition. This fallacy comes about when we assume that properties of the parts apply to the whole. For example, just because every member of the human race has a mother, we cannot infer that the human race itself has a mother. Similarly, a collection of spherical things would not itself have to be spherical. In discussions about the origins of the universe, we would say that just because every individual part of the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the entire universe has a cause.
The realization that our universe had some sort of beginning has opened up exciting new conversations about origins. In some ways, a universe with a beginning seems to beg for a cause. But if the universe came into being from nothing , it becomes deeply problematic to speak of anything having caused the universe to exist. Some cosmologists would argue that our universe is the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation. Such fluctuations do not have causes in the traditional sense, so they argue this does away with our universe needing a cause. But there is a significant problem that  the vacuum that fluctuates is not nothing. Quantum vacuums — which are what you get when you remove from space all the particles and energy — are real. They have activity, laws and rules. Our universe may have fluctuated into existence from such a vacuum, but the vacuum remains unexplained.
Cosmologist Lee Smolin suggests in Life of the Cosmos, that black holes can give birth to new universes. He proposes that our present universe emerged out of a black hole in some other “meta-universe.” And perhaps our universe is presently birthing new universes. Such a process, while clearly speculative, provides a caution against extrapolating from common sense notions of causality to philosophical conclusions about the nature of all of reality.

In the first place, the scientific evidences/proofs I show at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 don't have anything to do with religions.

What the people are talking about in your above post, is God. They may not call Him God, or even "Him." But, by some of the definitions for the word "God," what they are explaining are certain aspects of God. Since they are talking within the arena of details, such language should be saved for other threads that examine those points about God. The way they bring those points together might even be the beginnings of one or more new religions.

However, thank you for helping us to prove that God exists by your above post.