Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

BADecker, you are no better than the pseudo-skeptics as you have not provided a response to this evidence either!

Where is the REAL explanation for the evidence I have Presented? It will not be found by hiding from the facts of this case [Eisenbeiss]. As mentioned, your explanation Would entail a conspiracy without apparent motive. That needs to be explained.

To say that you could be lifted away on a cloud upon believing some concept is not only absurd and unbelievable, it also is not falsifiable, but this is not so with more generic hypotheses of the afterlife.

OF WHAT KIND OF STUFF ARE YOU MADE?

CLAY? A RIB BONE?
SORRY, YOU ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF “LIGHTED” GOD—INCREDIBLE MIND/ENERGY FROM WHICH CREATION SPRINGS FORTH.
YOU ARE “MAN”—YOU ARE MIND WITH 100% PURE POTENTIAL SO YOU BECOME WHAT IT IS YOU CREATE.

You can perhaps contribute as in “assist” another but you cannot “create” another. You can, however, produce helpless and hapless “others” by your own actions and collective mind-manipulations. You can even “cripple” another in mind and/or body by your various actions. However, each individual without damaged physical parts (that includes the brain) will finally create him-, her-self at whatever level of intelligence or desire recognized within self.

[1714990947]

1714990947

[1714990947]

1714990947

[bl4kjaguar]

Man used the concept of God to try and explain the world around him. Now that we(mankind) are gaining more knowledge, we now know that using God to describe things is no longer needed. It fits perfectly with the evolution of mankind and is also a reason why God doesn't exist.

There are few-to no "true", solid reasons for the existence of god, but there are a plethora for his lack of existence.

Sir, kindly reply to the evidence presented above or admit that you are ignoring it.

Right away I know your tall tale about "the evolution of mankind" is a fiction which you dare not specify with adequate detail (see above, especially the Pye article). Who is really telling us a fairy tale here???

Meta-biological (spiritual) evolution is more suited to the evolution of "man" today than ever before.

In my opinion, if anything, the return of the mysterious (and miraculous) has been greeted more quickly by women in our society than anyone else. You should definitely check out "The Way of the Wizard" and/or "Deepak Chopra The Essential DVD Collection" to better understand spiritual law and the role of the mysterious in your own life.

Look around; it's time for all sorts of wonderful things to begin to bloom and blossom and there are wonderful products out there (for Mind-Body healing).

[the joint]

Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel.

As if I don't believe in God or something.

Was that post in response to me?  There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post.  

Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it?

I agree. This is a good form of self-conditioning reinforcement.

You agree with what?

Again, who are you responding to?  I didn't even claim anything, so what are you agreeing with?

Is there someone standing behind me you keep talking to?

Sorry you are having a bad day. Perhaps things will turn around for you later if they haven't already.

I'm just trying to understand who you're talking with, because none of your responses are even close to the same topic as anything i wrote.

So, are you responding to me?

If so, wow dude.  It's like you actively try to be as off-topic and incomprehensible as possible. 

What's worse is you're proud of it.  What's worst is that you're good at it.

[QuestionAuthority]

Christians believe Jesus is a pedophile because they sing this song about him.

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Black and yellow, red and white
They're all precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

I guess he's pretty freaky.

[Joshuar]

Man used the concept of God to try and explain the world around him. Now that we(mankind) are gaining more knowledge, we now know that using God to describe things is no longer needed. It fits perfectly with the evolution of mankind and is also a reason why God doesn't exist.

There are few-to no "true", solid reasons for the existence of god, but there are a plethora for his lack of existence.

Sir, kindly reply to the evidence presented above or admit that you are ignoring it.

Right away I know your tall tale about "the evolution of mankind" is a fiction which you dare not specify with adequate detail (see above, especially the Pye article). Who is really telling us a fairy tale here???

Meta-biological (spiritual) evolution is more suited to the evolution of "man" today than ever before.

In my opinion, if anything, the return of the mysterious (and miraculous) has been greeted more quickly by women in our society than anyone else. You should definitely check out "The Way of the Wizard" and/or "Deepak Chopra The Essential DVD Collection" to better understand spiritual law and the role of the mysterious in your own life.

Look around; it's time for all sorts of wonderful things to begin to bloom and blossom and there are wonderful products out there (for Mind-Body healing).

Uhh...ok...

[Decksperiment]

Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel.

As if I don't believe in God or something.

Was that post in response to me?  There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post.  

Can you please read what you're responding to before responding to it?

I agree. This is a good form of self-conditioning reinforcement.

You agree with what?

Again, who are you responding to?  I didn't even claim anything, so what are you agreeing with?

Is there someone standing behind me you keep talking to?

Sorry you are having a bad day. Perhaps things will turn around for you later if they haven't already.

I'm just trying to understand who you're talking with, because none of your responses are even close to the same topic as anything i wrote.

So, are you responding to me?

If so, wow dude.  It's like you actively try to be as off-topic and incomprehensible as possible.  

What's worse is you're proud of it.  What's worst is that you're good at it.

Still trying to appear as different members? Your joke's wore that thin, we can see through the veil.. if I'm wrong, I dont care, for supporting paedofeelya's by giving them the time of day is as bad as being one..

Cant discuss scientific proof of god, no, just made up masonic bullshit, not one shred of evidence yet huh?

Still not including the tree's eh?

None of ya.. I mean the BaDICKer Vod Oyo The Joint scam ring of course..

We'd need god just to figure out who's NOT in this ring..

Same old shit is boring.. same crappy bible shit, same, look, i am opposite of what your saying.. nah.. you's played yourself's..

Ps, thanks for keeping this thread at the top of this sub-forum

Still nae tip for you though.. 

[bl4kjaguar]

Man used the concept of God to try and explain the world around him. Now that we(mankind) are gaining more knowledge, we now know that using God to describe things is no longer needed. It fits perfectly with the evolution of mankind and is also a reason why God doesn't exist.

There are few-to no "true", solid reasons for the existence of god, but there are a plethora for his lack of existence.

Sir, kindly reply to the evidence presented above or admit that you are ignoring it.

Uhh...ok...

Thanks for your agreement; I hope you find this evidence coinvincing. I appreciate a tip, or, at the very least, an attempt to refute the Eisenbeiss case. You can find out more about the relationship between Science and Religion by reading "First Principles" by Herbert Spencer, an agnostic (linked below); here are some choice quotes:

Be there or be there not any other revelation, we have a veritable revelation in Science — a continuous disclosure of the established order of the Universe. This disclosure it is the duty of every one to verify as far as in him lies; and having verified, to receive with all humility.

You can verify for yourself that materialism is false.

Under all changes of form, certain elements of religious belief remain constant.

We must conclude that the religious sentiment is either directly created or is developed by the slow action of natural causes, and whichever conclusion we adopt requires us to treat the religious sentiment with respect.

So, there: atheism, humanism, and materialism are all false based on the evidence provided.

Still nae tip for you though..  

Please tip me if you appreciate my posts.

[bl4kjaguar]

For the same reason mainstream science doesn't go looking for Hansel and Gretel.  For the same reason we don't look to the sky for giant beanstocks....

Your rhetoric: how does it stand up to the evidence?
Will you be the first to propose a reasonable explanation for the AECES top 40?

So I am here to tell you: it is very instructive to read Spencer and understand his point that there is a kernel of truth in everything.
Will you do the reading to find out where science and religion truly meet?

the disagreements between [Science and Religion] have been consequences of their incompleteness; and as they reach their final forms they come into harmony.

Your assertions about science: How do they stand up to the true nature of that system?

Science has yet to justify its religious propositions about Space, Time, Matter, Motion, and Force (see Spencer's First Principles).

the beliefs which Science has forced upon Religion, have been intrinsically more religious than those which they supplanted.

http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm

Looks to me like atheists (humanists) have a lot of explaining to do.

[Joshuar]

Man used the concept of God to try and explain the world around him. Now that we(mankind) are gaining more knowledge, we now know that using God to describe things is no longer needed. It fits perfectly with the evolution of mankind and is also a reason why God doesn't exist.

There are few-to no "true", solid reasons for the existence of god, but there are a plethora for his lack of existence.

Sir, kindly reply to the evidence presented above or admit that you are ignoring it.

Uhh...ok...

Thanks for your agreement; I hope you find this evidence coinvincing. I appreciate a tip, or, at the very least, an attempt to refute the Eisenbeiss case. You can find out more about the relationship between Science and Religion by reading "First Principles" by Herbert Spencer, an agnostic (linked below); here are some choice quotes:

Be there or be there not any other revelation, we have a veritable revelation in Science — a continuous disclosure of the established order of the Universe. This disclosure it is the duty of every one to verify as far as in him lies; and having verified, to receive with all humility.

You can verify for yourself that materialism is false.

Under all changes of form, certain elements of religious belief remain constant.

We must conclude that the religious sentiment is either directly created or is developed by the slow action of natural causes, and whichever conclusion we adopt requires us to treat the religious sentiment with respect.

So, there: atheism, humanism, and materialism are all false based on the evidence provided.

Still nae tip for you though..  

Please tip me if you appreciate my posts.

It's not an agreement. In fact most of what you typed I highly disagree with, but I won't get into that any longer.

Scientific theories are/have/will be tested, peer reviewed, and gone over many times, at least making them plausible. Religion is just blind faith in a random thing someone made in the past to explain things they couldn't understand.

[BADecker]

Scientific theories are/have/will be tested, peer reviewed, and gone over many times, at least making them plausible. Religion is just blind faith in a random thing someone made in the past to explain things they couldn't understand.

Yet, the testing has produced so few results with regard to the interpretations which become theory adjustments, that there almost isn't any reasons to go on, except for the applications to the real world that the results of the testing provide, results that are produce by practical application of the tests, through engineering.

As long as "science" continues to come up with fantastic, stupid theories like Big Bang, 13 or 14 billion year universe, life from evolution, dark matter and dark energy, the sun and stars being powered by nuclear reactions, molten core of the earth, and multitudes of other fantastic things that it can't begin to prove by any stretch of the imagination, science is more of a religion than science, even though it uses the scientific method to test out and produce many results.

Science theory of today is far more a religion than any of the other religions of the world, and its god is the scientific theorist.

[Joshuar]

Scientific theories are/have/will be tested, peer reviewed, and gone over many times, at least making them plausible. Religion is just blind faith in a random thing someone made in the past to explain things they couldn't understand.

Yet, the testing has produced so few results with regard to the interpretations which become theory adjustments, that there almost isn't any reasons to go on, except for the applications to the real world that the results of the testing provide, results that are produce by practical application of the tests, through engineering.

As long as "science" continues to come up with fantastic, stupid theories like Big Bang, 13 or 14 billion year universe, life from evolution, dark matter and dark energy, the sun and stars being powered by nuclear reactions, molten core of the earth, and multitudes of other fantastic things that it can't begin to prove by any stretch of the imagination, science is more of a religion than science, even though it uses the scientific method to test out and produce many results.

Science theory of today is far more a religion than any of the other religions of the world, and its god is the scientific theorist.

You really, really need to go learn and study before saying things like that. Earlier on you said that we didn't know what the wind was, to which I embarrassingly corrected you. Now, you're saying that we don't know that the sun is fueled by fusion reactions, which we have basically replicated on earth already. The atomic bomb hello, have you ever heard of it? Ever heard of nuclear power plants that are operating right now and utilize Fission? Ever hear of Volcanos, and how they release the "molten minerals" that are trapped in the Earth's crusts? Wow, I thought you had more knowledge than this honestly.

Now I know the reason why you believe in the bible mumbo jumbo, because you have no clue of what's going on in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/fusionsteps.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/volcano2.htm

and a plethora more, google it, or take a trip to a nuclear power plant/volcano and see it up close, that should tell you that science is more accurate and trusthworthy than a religion that was created in the past to explain things that we already know now. Goodluck.

[BADecker]

Scientific theories are/have/will be tested, peer reviewed, and gone over many times, at least making them plausible. Religion is just blind faith in a random thing someone made in the past to explain things they couldn't understand.

Yet, the testing has produced so few results with regard to the interpretations which become theory adjustments, that there almost isn't any reasons to go on, except for the applications to the real world that the results of the testing provide, results that are produce by practical application of the tests, through engineering.

As long as "science" continues to come up with fantastic, stupid theories like Big Bang, 13 or 14 billion year universe, life from evolution, dark matter and dark energy, the sun and stars being powered by nuclear reactions, molten core of the earth, and multitudes of other fantastic things that it can't begin to prove by any stretch of the imagination, science is more of a religion than science, even though it uses the scientific method to test out and produce many results.

Science theory of today is far more a religion than any of the other religions of the world, and its god is the scientific theorist.

You really, really need to go learn and study before saying things like that. Earlier on you said that we didn't know what the wind was, to which I embarrassingly corrected you.

You didn't correct me at all. You simply said some stuff. You really need to study about the difference between theory and actuality.

Now, you're saying that we don't know that the sun is fueled by fusion reactions, which we have basically replicated on earth already. The atomic bomb hello, have you ever heard of it? Ever heard of nuclear power plants that are operating right now and utilize Fission?

There you go again, mixing up the issue. And it is intentional.

What does the fact that nuclear reactions exist, have to do with whether or not the sun operates by nuclear reactions? Nothing. You are either completely non-scientific, or else you want simple minded people to believe that scientists can determine things just by saying them. We have never been to the sun, have never scooped out part of it to analyze it, have not determined that there is absolutely not other method by which the sun can operate. In fact, electric cosmos theory fits the operation of the sun far better than nuclear theory.

Now I know the reason why you believe in the bible mumbo jumbo, because you have no clue of what's going on in the world.

Read the Bible. It fits the things observed in nature, and in the actual sociology of mankind, far better than any scientific observations or theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/fusionsteps.html

and hundreds more, google it, or take a trip to a nuclear power plant and see it up close, that should tell you that science is more accurate and trusthworthy than a religion that was created in the past to explain things that we already know now. Goodluck.

There you go again, listing more neat ideas that have absolutely no fact to back what is being suggested by the ideas. In fact, the only reasons that many of the theories are still theories is that many scientists keep wanting them to be theories, and keep on saying that they are theories, so that people think that they are theories, when in fact they have been debunked as theories over and over, again and again, time after time... like the idea of life from evolution.

When science can show that there is no possible other way that the sun can operate, then some of your reference material that the sun is nuclear might be accurate. However, even then, if the steps for the nuclear reactions in the sun haven't been proven, such ideas are simply ideas only. There might be other, different, steps.

Simply because science has provided a plausible method that shows that the sun could be nuclear, doesn't mean that the sun IS nuclear. It all lies in the realm of theory or ideas. When theory or ideas are touted as fact, they become religion or at least similar to religion.

[Joshuar]

Scientific theories are/have/will be tested, peer reviewed, and gone over many times, at least making them plausible. Religion is just blind faith in a random thing someone made in the past to explain things they couldn't understand.

Yet, the testing has produced so few results with regard to the interpretations which become theory adjustments, that there almost isn't any reasons to go on, except for the applications to the real world that the results of the testing provide, results that are produce by practical application of the tests, through engineering.

As long as "science" continues to come up with fantastic, stupid theories like Big Bang, 13 or 14 billion year universe, life from evolution, dark matter and dark energy, the sun and stars being powered by nuclear reactions, molten core of the earth, and multitudes of other fantastic things that it can't begin to prove by any stretch of the imagination, science is more of a religion than science, even though it uses the scientific method to test out and produce many results.

Science theory of today is far more a religion than any of the other religions of the world, and its god is the scientific theorist.

You really, really need to go learn and study before saying things like that. Earlier on you said that we didn't know what the wind was, to which I embarrassingly corrected you.

You didn't correct me at all. You simply said some stuff. You really need to study about the difference between theory and actuality.

Now, you're saying that we don't know that the sun is fueled by fusion reactions, which we have basically replicated on earth already. The atomic bomb hello, have you ever heard of it? Ever heard of nuclear power plants that are operating right now and utilize Fission?

There you go again, mixing up the issue. And it is intentional.

What does the fact that nuclear reactions exist, have to do with whether or not the sun operates by nuclear reactions? Nothing. You are either completely non-scientific, or else you want simple minded people to believe that scientists can determine things just by saying them. We have never been to the sun, have never scooped out part of it to analyze it, have not determined that there is absolutely not other method by which the sun can operate. In fact, electric cosmos theory fits the operation of the sun far better than nuclear theory.

Now I know the reason why you believe in the bible mumbo jumbo, because you have no clue of what's going on in the world.

Read the Bible. It fits the things observed in nature, and in the actual sociology of mankind, far better than any scientific observations or theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/fusionsteps.html

and hundreds more, google it, or take a trip to a nuclear power plant and see it up close, that should tell you that science is more accurate and trusthworthy than a religion that was created in the past to explain things that we already know now. Goodluck.

There you go again, listing more neat ideas that have absolutely no fact to back what is being suggested by the ideas. In fact, the only reasons that many of the theories are still theories is that many scientists keep wanting them to be theories, and keep on saying that they are theories, so that people think that they are theories, when in fact they have been debunked as theories over and over, again and again, time after time... like the idea of life from evolution.

When science can show that there is no possible other way that the sun can operate, then some of your reference material that the sun is nuclear might be accurate. However, even then, if the steps for the nuclear reactions in the sun haven't been proven, such ideas are simply ideas only. There might be other, different, steps.

Simply because science has provided a plausible method that shows that the sun could be nuclear, doesn't mean that the sun IS nuclear. It all lies in the realm of theory or ideas. When theory or ideas are touted as fact, they become religion or at least similar to religion.

I tried to keep it as simple and easy to understand as possible for you. The things I presented are not theories. They are actually happening right now as we speak. Volcanos prove there is molten lava at the Earth's core. Nuclear Bombs that harness Fission, Atomic Bombs, Hydrogen Bombs, Splitting up the atom. All those things are related to the processes that happen in the Sun every second. Consider Fission, Fusion's brother.

Even when regarding theories, they are much more trusthworthy than any religous text in any "holy" book on earth. As I said earlier, all religions are based upon lies, myth, and generally illogical things used by people in the past to describe nature and the world around them. That's it. Religion has no basis in fact. Have you ever seen god? I remember you saying that the only thing you have is faith, that isn't fact, that's just your belief, your opinion(Obviously wrong). The bible is one of the most incorrect, inaccurate, and plain deceptive "holy" books I've ever read. Everything in there regarding "nature", specifically creation, has been proved irrevocably wrong.

It's sad to see your only source of information is in a book that is full of inaccuracies, entirely filled with false/wrong information, mistranslations, edited text, and that was written by generally uneducated people thousands of years ago(And highly edited since then).

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scientists-creating-mini-sun-on-earth-in-clean-198214

[matrix zion]

this sort of debate is very useful & productive if nobody loses their temper.

[Joshuar]

this sort of debate is very useful & productive if nobody loses their temper.

I know, read the last 20 pages. BADecker has been shown wrong on everything quite honestly, over and over and over again. He's trolling, there's no other way to explain it, but it's interesting to see his clueless replies at times.

[BADecker]

I tried to keep it as simple and easy to understand as possible for you. The things I presented are not theories. They are actually happening right now as we speak. Volcanos prove there is molten lava at the Earth's core. Nuclear Bombs that harness Fission, Atomic Bombs, Hydrogen Bombs, Splitting up the atom. All those things are related to the processes that happen in the Sun every second. Consider Fission, Fusion's brother.

I agree. The things you presented are not theories. They are ideas, presently in the realm of fiction.

Volcanoes don't prove that molten anything comes up from the core through 2,000 miles of supposed mantle to get to the surface.

Because you or anyone else says that nuclear processes are related to what goes on in the sun, doesn't necessarily make it so.

Even when regarding theories, they are much more trusthworthy than any religous text in any "holy" book on earth. As I said earlier, all religions are based upon lies, myth, and generally illogical things used by people in the past to describe nature and the world around them. That's it. Religion has no basis in fact. Have you ever seen god? I remember you saying that the only thing you have is faith, that isn't fact, that's just your belief, your opinion(Obviously wrong). The bible is one of the most incorrect, inaccurate, and plain deceptive "holy" books I've ever read. Everything in there regarding "nature", specifically creation, has been proved irrevocably wrong.

Oh, now people are supposed to believe YOU when you say that religious texts are based on lies, etc.

Now you are not being factual. I have said that it is the scientists and those who believe unproven science have only faith. My faith is not blind faith because there are multitudes of facts from the Bible and nature that show the things that I believe in. The things at the link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 show this. The Bible is not inaccurate. Rather, it is the people who do not understand the ways that the Bible is correct who are inaccurate.

It's sad to see your only source of information is in a book that is full of inaccuracies, entirely filled with false/wrong information, mistranslations, edited text, and that was written by generally uneducated people thousands of years ago(And highly edited since then).

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scientists-creating-mini-sun-on-earth-in-clean-198214

See, there you go again, making assumptions about people of past ages, assumptions that you don't know are accurate, because you were never there. Ignore the man, Graham Hancock, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcPgIphDWGY. Rather, focus on the evidences he and many others are providing that people of the prehistoric past were probably more intelligent, and possibly further advanced than we are today.

Scientists and engineers creating what they call a mini-sun here on earth, only shows that they can do this thing that they are doing. It doesn't prove that the sun or stars are nuclear.

It is way sadder to see that some people want to see things proven so badly, that they make up stories that say things have been proven out by science, when in reality science hasn't proven much of anything. Why not believe the Bible witnesses?

[vokain]

Would you like to explain how to scientificly measure your ''evidence'' because im a bit lost, thanks.

To translate, because he's that brainwashed BADecker has rewritten the definition of a scientist so it fits his religion better, kind of like how religious people try to re-write history and everything else in order to make the world try and fit in their respective religions, why do you think that they always try to wipe out other cultures' and beliefs? Too bad for him the real world doesn't ever work like that, otherwise why would all these other religions and beliefe systems exist in the first place if his was so perfect?

It's mostly that standard modern scientists don't WANT to explain that they are proving God exists, more and more all the time in the things of science that they prove. The ones who DO express how science proves the existence of God, are ignored by the universities, or worse, ostracized. It's all a political ploy to tear down the strength of our religious nation, so that the politicians can more easily control the wealth of the people, and take over the world.

Yet the proof for the existence of God is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg8331233#msg8331233.

My professors at Indiana beg to differ. "Can science and religion coexist" is a common theme here.

[BADecker]

Would you like to explain how to scientificly measure your ''evidence'' because im a bit lost, thanks.

To translate, because he's that brainwashed BADecker has rewritten the definition of a scientist so it fits his religion better, kind of like how religious people try to re-write history and everything else in order to make the world try and fit in their respective religions, why do you think that they always try to wipe out other cultures' and beliefs? Too bad for him the real world doesn't ever work like that, otherwise why would all these other religions and beliefe systems exist in the first place if his was so perfect?

It's mostly that standard modern scientists don't WANT to explain that they are proving God exists, more and more all the time in the things of science that they prove. The ones who DO express how science proves the existence of God, are ignored by the universities, or worse, ostracized. It's all a political ploy to tear down the strength of our religious nation, so that the politicians can more easily control the wealth of the people, and take over the world.

Yet the proof for the existence of God is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg8331233#msg8331233.

My professors at Indiana beg to differ. "Can science and religion coexist" is a common theme here.

You seem to be using a definition for "science" that the joint would not agree with. Of course, true science and God coexist. God made the universe. Thus, the things of true science exist right along side of God.

What isn't correct among scientists is often the fictional stories that they make up about science. For example. The Big Bang theory is a fictional story. There is absolutely no scientific basis in fact for it. Why not? Because there are too many unknown variables that could negate the whole BB theory. One would need a proper kind of time viewer to say BB was anything like fact.

Outside of the actual proven things of science - the lab work, the observations - the rest of it is almost pure fiction.

Bible is eye witness reports.

[Joshuar]

Would you like to explain how to scientificly measure your ''evidence'' because im a bit lost, thanks.

To translate, because he's that brainwashed BADecker has rewritten the definition of a scientist so it fits his religion better, kind of like how religious people try to re-write history and everything else in order to make the world try and fit in their respective religions, why do you think that they always try to wipe out other cultures' and beliefs? Too bad for him the real world doesn't ever work like that, otherwise why would all these other religions and beliefe systems exist in the first place if his was so perfect?

It's mostly that standard modern scientists don't WANT to explain that they are proving God exists, more and more all the time in the things of science that they prove. The ones who DO express how science proves the existence of God, are ignored by the universities, or worse, ostracized. It's all a political ploy to tear down the strength of our religious nation, so that the politicians can more easily control the wealth of the people, and take over the world.

Yet the proof for the existence of God is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg8331233#msg8331233.

My professors at Indiana beg to differ. "Can science and religion coexist" is a common theme here.

You seem to be using a definition for "science" that the joint would not agree with. Of course, true science and God coexist. God made the universe. Thus, the things of true science exist right along side of God.

What isn't correct among scientists is often the fictional stories that they make up about science. For example. The Big Bang theory is a fictional story. There is absolutely no scientific basis in fact for it. Why not? Because there are too many unknown variables that could negate the whole BB theory. One would need a proper kind of time viewer to say BB was anything like fact.

Outside of the actual proven things of science - the lab work, the observations - the rest of it is almost pure fiction.

Bible is eye witness reports.

You realize that everything you've said so far has been wrong and everyone that took part in this thread has also told you that? Everything about the bible, science. Literally everything. It's amusing to watch you type pure nonsense and lies with such false confidence. Ignorance is bliss, lol.

[bl4kjaguar]

It's not an agreement. In fact most of what you typed I highly disagree with, but I won't get into that any longer.

I do not think you have gotten into the evidence at all; it seems like you have ignored it.
Here is your chance to disprove spirits and the afterlife: simply provide the most parsimonious explanation for the Eisenbeiss case or give an adequate reason for rejecting that evidence.

Giving adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence said to prove something exists is equivalent to proving the thing doesn't exist. Therefore, a skeptic can disprove the existence of spirits and the afterlife by giving adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence said to demonstrate their existence.

This shouldn't be a problem. Most skeptics claim to believe only what is proved. It is implicit in this claim that they will not believe what is not proved. If they don't believe in spirits and the afterlife, then they should be able to explain why they reject the evidence that is said to demonstrate their existence. In fact, most skeptics have no reluctance to explain why they reject the evidence for spirits and the afterlife. Many of their arguments are discussed right here in this chapter on skeptical fallacies.

Scientific theories are/have/will be tested, peer reviewed, and gone over many times, at least making them plausible.

This is a skeptical fallacy and it is addressed at the skeptical fallacies page; in short, Karl Popper disagrees with you:

An analysis of the history of science shows that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof when people are unwilling to objectively assess evidence that contradicts their strongly held beliefs, and this has been an persistent obstacle to progress.

The chapter A Summary of Evidence has a link to a skeptic's definition of scientific proof. At the time of this writing, that definition makes no mention of special requirements for extraordinary claims. What is interesting about that chapter is that the evidence for the afterlife which it outlines is, in fact, extraordinary. The evidence which proves the afterlife includes evidence from both observations in the field and experiments. Anyone who doubts this proof should look at that chapter and follow the links and read the references that give a full account of the evidence.

Belief in the Afterlife is Falsifiable and is Scientific

The philosopher Karl Popper wrote that for a theory to be scientific it must be supportable by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is evidence from either observation or experiment. Popper stated that a theory that is supported by empirical evidence is not just consistent with the evidence but must pass a test which if it failed would demonstrate the theory is false. The theory must be falsifiable.

In short, for a theory to be scientific it must be supportable by evidence. For a theory to be supported by evidence it must pass a test that could demonstrate the theory is false.

An essay written by Karl Popper explaining this philosophy can be found at:

Science, Pseudo-Science, and Falsifiability by Karl Popper
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html

The theory of the afterlife has passed tests that could falsify it, and therefore it is supported by empirical evidence, which is to say, belief in the afterlife is scientific.

Religion is just blind faith in a random thing someone made in the past to explain things they couldn't understand.

Surely you can admit that at the core of religion is a kernel of truth, as discussed at length in Spencer's treatise "First Principles". Any concept used to explain creation must involve self-existence, and this is literally unthinkable, so you would not be able to understand the creation anyway; God is simply a word that refers you to this mystery; God dwells WITHIN YOU and so YOU are also creator. The materialist theory of life is no longer scientific; I refer you to my "Bonus Link" and the Origin of Life Prize.

Is life to be explained ONLY by its chemistry? The fact that inheritance is particulate, linear and digital shows that life must be more than just complicated chemistry.

Kindly reference these texts and I will talk to you again when you at least feel like addressing the scientific evidence for the afterlife.