Scientific proof that God exists?

[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?

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.

Well the scientific angle is a no go, because you keep changing the definition of words on the fly. Scientfic conversation is impossible when a clown starts doing that.

[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.

Well the scientific angle is a no go, because you keep changing the definition of words on the fly. Scientfic conversation is impossible when a clown starts doing that.

You are wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you appear to be wrong headed.

Even if I change the meanings of words on the fly (which I don't), that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that under the standard definitions of words, anyone who wants to see the proof that God exists can do so by examining the overwhelming evidences for the existence of God here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, that make up the proof.

[BADecker]

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.

God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.

If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary. How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.

When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyse any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist. That is how we know that they are all imaginary.

There is one thing wrong with what you say. Science is constantly using the evidences found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 to prove that God exists. The fact that many of the scientists try to ignore the existence of God, while at the same time proving that He exists, doesn't mean that the proof can be dispelled. It only means that some scientists don't want to acknowledge the truth that is staring them in the face.

On the other hand, there are many scientists who do recognize and accept the proven truth of God's existence.

[Buffer Overflow]

Now that you started changing the definition of words, nobody can believe a word you say. Not really sure why your still posting on here. It all gets labelled the same (even the truth) and pops straight in the bin.

[BADecker]

Now that you started changing the definition of words, nobody can believe a word you say. Not really sure why your still posting on here. It all gets labelled the same (even the truth) and pops straight in the bin.

C'mon. You are showing by your actions that you have changed the definition of your name. Your new definition that your actions prove out is Fluffer Overblow.    

Some of the major evidences that prove God exists are found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.



EDIT: Wow! Page 223 !

[the joint]

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.

Well the scientific angle is a no go, because you keep changing the definition of words on the fly. Scientfic conversation is impossible when a clown starts doing that.

You are wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you appear to be wrong headed.

Even if I change the meanings of words on the fly (which I don't), that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that under the standard definitions of words, anyone who wants to see the proof that God exists can do so by examining the overwhelming evidences for the existence of God here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, that make up the proof.

If he is wrong, then why is he right?

[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.

Well the scientific angle is a no go, because you keep changing the definition of words on the fly. Scientfic conversation is impossible when a clown starts doing that.

You are wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you appear to be wrong headed.

Even if I change the meanings of words on the fly (which I don't), that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that under the standard definitions of words, anyone who wants to see the proof that God exists can do so by examining the overwhelming evidences for the existence of God here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, that make up the proof.

If he is wrong, then why is he right?

He's still alive, isn't he?    

Why do you attempt to derail the topic of this thread?

[Astargath]

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.

God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.

If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary. How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.

When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyse any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist. That is how we know that they are all imaginary.

There is one thing wrong with what you say. Science is constantly using the evidences found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 to prove that God exists. The fact that many of the scientists try to ignore the existence of God, while at the same time proving that He exists, doesn't mean that the proof can be dispelled. It only means that some scientists don't want to acknowledge the truth that is staring them in the face.

On the other hand, there are many scientists who do recognize and accept the proven truth of God's existence.

An example of science using the evidences there?



Christians believe that a creator is essential. Scientists believe that the idea of a "creator" is pure mythology, and that the complexity arose through natural processes like evolution. Who is right?

You can actually answer this question yourself with a little logic. Here are the two options:

The complexity of life and the universe did arise completely spontaneously and without any intelligence. Nature created all the complexity we see today.
An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today because complexity requires intelligence to create it.
The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.
The problem with the second option is that it immediately creates an impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires intelligence. Therefore, God is impossible.

In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary.

[the joint]

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.

Well the scientific angle is a no go, because you keep changing the definition of words on the fly. Scientfic conversation is impossible when a clown starts doing that.

You are wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you appear to be wrong headed.

Even if I change the meanings of words on the fly (which I don't), that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that under the standard definitions of words, anyone who wants to see the proof that God exists can do so by examining the overwhelming evidences for the existence of God here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, that make up the proof.

If he is wrong, then why is he right?

He's still alive, isn't he?    

Why do you attempt to derail the topic of this thread?

How does one derail a thread by being 100% on topic?

[Daniel91]

Hi everybody!
As person who started this thread I really want to thank everybody for their contribution here.
I really appreciate the time and effort that you have devoted to answering the question if we can or can't prove that God exist.
I'm pretty busy with other commitments and do not consider myself an expert in this area (which is why I asked the above question) and that is why I am grateful to your posts from which I learned a lot.
I'm not forum moderator and have no authority to edit this discussion or block anybody, so I want to ask all participants to debate without insulting each other, to behave politely and use only arguments and facts here.
I still can not say that I am completely for one of the parties to this debate, but I personally want to thank each of you who participated in this discussion until now, specially BADecker  who really made great effort to explain his viewpoint here.
I hope in the future for a reasoned and civilized debate here, for the benefit of all interested followers and readers of this thread.

[ndnh]

God exists.
Scientific proof?


First we need a spiritual proof that Science exists.



(Then only we can go for 'scientific' proof, right?)

[elite3000]

If one were able to prove to you God exists, what would that look like? Would it be based in mathematics, physics, geology, etc.?

[XinXan]

If one were able to prove to you God exists, what would that look like? Would it be based in mathematics, physics, geology, etc.?

We cant prove god unless he proves himself and if he didnt yet why would he?

[elite3000]

whether the existence of god is fact or fiction, the religions of the world are almost certainly wrong.

[erikalui]

I believe that God does exist and don't need any proof for that. However, sometimes when crime keeps increasing, I ask God why isn't he helping the needy and the people who are suffering.

[Ibistru]

Some morons still believe in fairy tales LOL

[XinXan]

I believe that God does exist and don't need any proof for that. However, sometimes when crime keeps increasing, I ask God why isn't he helping the needy and the people who are suffering.

I dont understand how you believe in something and you dont need proof of it, that shows that you are either retarded or you really dont believe it

[bobc1994]

if god exists or doesn't. The question is how to prove it. The correct answer is, "We can't yet.

[BADecker]

If you don't understand or accept the stuff at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, you might as well throw out scientific proof for anything. Why? Because science is proving the stuff said at the link on a daily basis. The only thing that scientists may not be doing is expressing it that way.

[Buffer Overflow]

^ I'm surprised the mods haven't given you a warning about that link you keep spamming all over the thread. Spamming links is generally frowned upon.