Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

I think he doesnt know because sometimes he mentions the bible but when someone destroys the bible with facts and proofs he says that the bible has nothing to do with god so i dont know.

Sir, what about the evidence I have posted in this thread? Don't you think that skeptics should read it?

The Phoenix Journals gift you with facts and proofs of God; in my opinion, the Journals contain the best explanation of the Bible; the emphasis is on personal responsibility, and it is important to realize that God is not JEALOUS and is not wrathful. That is the only suggestion that I have for my brother BADecker.

There is no evidence of god, im sorry but there is no evidence of god at all,

Then how can you explain this?

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.

why do you think we dont study about god in history class?

I don't know. I certainly did not learn the above quoted information in my science class!

[BADecker]

I think he doesnt know because sometimes he mentions the bible but when someone destroys the bible with facts and proofs he says that the bible has nothing to do with god so i dont know.

Sir, what about the evidence I have posted in this thread? Don't you think that skeptics should read it?

The Phoenix Journals gift you with facts and proofs of God; in my opinion, the Journals contain the best explanation of the Bible; the emphasis is on personal responsibility, and it is important to realize that God is not JEALOUS and is not wrathful. That is the only suggestion that I have for my brother BADecker.

There is no evidence of god, im sorry but there is no evidence of god at all, why do you think we dont study about god in history class?

Here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 there is so much evidence in favor of the existence of God - evidence that scientists prove out using the scientific method for everything that they scientifically prove daily - that it becomes proof that God exists. The fact that you can deny the existence of God in front of our universe full of evidence in favor of Him, shows how great He has made mankind.

[Joshuar]

...But only those who are on God's side will let themselves believe these undeniable facts...

Wrong already.  I'm on God's side, i.e. I believe in God.

So much for your use of "only."

Two God-believing people:  1) BADecker, and 2) The Joint.

Two completely different perspectives:  1) BADecker's incorrect reasoning, and 2) the joint's correct reasoning.

It's far more reasonable and interesting seeing your arguments than that of BADecker's array of incorrect, inaccurate, and mostly plain false "information".

[bl4kjaguar]

It's far more reasonable and interesting seeing your arguments than that of BADecker's array of incorrect, inaccurate, and mostly plain false "information".

I am trying to go beyond what the joint and Herbert Spencer are saying:

If I succeed in proving the afterlife while failing to prove God, it is fine with me; at least the truth is known!

I am happy to agree with you that God exists within. I think that is where the "proof" of God will come from: within you!  

debating whether God exists in an empirical context is a flawed approach.

It is a flawed approach because God has no limitations.

God's WORD is very real and
I suspect that is a better topic for debate/discussion.

IS HATONN REAL?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT WHICH I OFFER IS VALID TRUTH?

Sir, where is the reply to the scientific evidence I have posted in this thread?

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS POWERFUL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!

[XinXan]

I think he doesnt know because sometimes he mentions the bible but when someone destroys the bible with facts and proofs he says that the bible has nothing to do with god so i dont know.

Sir, what about the evidence I have posted in this thread? Don't you think that skeptics should read it?

The Phoenix Journals gift you with facts and proofs of God; in my opinion, the Journals contain the best explanation of the Bible; the emphasis is on personal responsibility, and it is important to realize that God is not JEALOUS and is not wrathful. That is the only suggestion that I have for my brother BADecker.

There is no evidence of god, im sorry but there is no evidence of god at all,

Then how can you explain this?

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.

why do you think we dont study about god in history class?

I don't know. I certainly did not learn the above quoted information in my science class!

"Must be" what if its not. What you said there doesnt show anything, the fact is that we dont know exactly how life originated and you didnt explain it either so as i said before, no evidence of god

[XinXan]

It's far more reasonable and interesting seeing your arguments than that of BADecker's array of incorrect, inaccurate, and mostly plain false "information".

I am trying to go beyond what the joint and Herbert Spencer are saying:

If I succeed in proving the afterlife while failing to prove God, it is fine with me; at least the truth is known!

I am happy to agree with you that God exists within. I think that is where the "proof" of God will come from: within you!  

debating whether God exists in an empirical context is a flawed approach.

It is a flawed approach because God has no limitations.

God's WORD is very real and
I suspect that is a better topic for debate/discussion.

IS HATONN REAL?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT WHICH I OFFER IS VALID TRUTH?

Sir, where is the reply to the scientific evidence I have posted in this thread?

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!

Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?

[bl4kjaguar]

Hi XinXan, I am happy to chat with you; I will link you to some science papers... Please check them out and then tell me if we are in agreement!   Let's agree on the science of life before we discuss the 'after-life'.

I think he doesnt know because sometimes he mentions the bible but when someone destroys the bible with facts and proofs he says that the bible has nothing to do with god so i dont know.

Sir, what about the evidence I have posted in this thread? Don't you think that skeptics should read it?

The Phoenix Journals gift you with facts and proofs of God; in my opinion, the Journals contain the best explanation of the Bible; the emphasis is on personal responsibility, and it is important to realize that God is not JEALOUS and is not wrathful. That is the only suggestion that I have for my brother BADecker.

There is no evidence of god, im sorry but there is no evidence of god at all,

Then how can you explain this?

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.

why do you think we dont study about god in history class?

I don't know. I certainly did not learn the above quoted information in my science class!

"Must be" what if its not. What you said there doesnt show anything, the fact is that we dont know exactly how life originated and you didnt explain it either so as i said before, no evidence of god

Yockey explained why that quote is true, and it is true because that is simply what "stands to reason"; please go back to the source and you will see that this is what is said again and again in Yockey; here are some reviews:

A review of reviews of Yockey: http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199602/0116.html
A "very favorable" review of Yockey according to Yockey: http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho33.htm
Very helpful to check out this email from Yockey as well: http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof5.htm#Yockey

If you want to understand how life arose, why not start with the Pye article that I referenced? That is an interesting one! and I am eager to discuss it with you! 

[Joshuar]

It's far more reasonable and interesting seeing your arguments than that of BADecker's array of incorrect, inaccurate, and mostly plain false "information".

I am trying to go beyond what the joint and Herbert Spencer are saying:

If I succeed in proving the afterlife while failing to prove God, it is fine with me; at least the truth is known!

I am happy to agree with you that God exists within. I think that is where the "proof" of God will come from: within you!  

debating whether God exists in an empirical context is a flawed approach.

It is a flawed approach because God has no limitations.

God's WORD is very real and
I suspect that is a better topic for debate/discussion.

IS HATONN REAL?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT WHICH I OFFER IS VALID TRUTH?

Sir, where is the reply to the scientific evidence I have posted in this thread?

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!

Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?

There isn't. The entire concept of the "afterlife" came into being to explain what happens after we die...Just like we previously thought the sky was the heavens, or that the earth was the center of the universe so we thought/think death=afterlife.

The concept of the afterlife also applies the notions that souls exist, which they do not. Souls was used to describe the human mind, emotions, etc. Now we know it's our brain that coordinates the various workings of the human body, not the "soul". In short there is and can never be scientific "proof" of an afterlife, just as there is and scientific proof of a god. You can deduce yourself, logically, that a afterlife likely doesn't exist however.

[bl4kjaguar]

 Hi XinXan, I edited that post a bit; I think you will find the proof in the book "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN" (I may have quoted it already) and also at the "AECES TOP 40" website..

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!

Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?

[XinXan]

Hi XinXan, I edited that post a bit; I think you will find the proof in the book "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN" (I may have quoted it already) and also at the "AECES TOP 40" website..

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!

Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?

I could post hundreds if not thousands of articles and websites of science that explains how old is the earth, what is the evolution and how it works, how life "possibly" originated because science admits its mistakes but the religion people is always like " yeah god did it and i cant possibly be wrong" wich makes me really mad but then again why should i believe what 3 articles you quoted there instead of millions of scientists around the world?

[bl4kjaguar]

Hi Joshuar, I believe I have already responded to your fallacious "arguments".

The concept of the afterlife also applies the notions that souls exist, which they do not.

This fallacy is often stated in this way but what it really means is that belief in the afterlife is not supported by evidence.

[T]his notion of extraordinary claims and proof cannot be considered part of the scientific method. It is only possible to consider it a statement of how bias interferes with objectivity. When skeptics assert this notion, if they are not cynically trying to misdirect the discussion away from evidence they don't want to consider, and if they are being sincere, then they are actually demonstrating that they are refusing to consider the evidence objectively.

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.

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_extraordinary_claims

Just how do you intend to prove your statement that souls exist not, Joshuar?

[bl4kjaguar]

Hi XinXan, I edited that post a bit; I think you will find the proof in the book "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN" (I may have quoted it already) and also at the "AECES TOP 40" website..

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!

Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?

I could post hundreds if not thousands of articles and websites of science that explains how old is the earth, what is the evolution and how it works, how life "possibly" originated because science admits its mistakes but the religion people is always like " yeah god did it and i cant possibly be wrong" wich makes me really mad but then again why should i believe what 3 articles you quoted there instead of millions of scientists around the world?

I say read it ALL and then you can judge in wisdom of knowledge. Don't let anger get in the way because God is NOT ANGRY, HE IS NOT JEALOUS EITHER.

If you find something that I post to be in conflict with any other information, please make that known! I have made every effort to remove such conflicts from the information I present here humbly.

[XinXan]

Hi XinXan, I edited that post a bit; I think you will find the proof in the book "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN" (I may have quoted it already) and also at the "AECES TOP 40" website..

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!

Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?

I could post hundreds if not thousands of articles and websites of science that explains how old is the earth, what is the evolution and how it works, how life "possibly" originated because science admits its mistakes but the religion people is always like " yeah god did it and i cant possibly be wrong" wich makes me really mad but then again why should i believe what 3 articles you quoted there instead of millions of scientists around the world?

I say read it ALL and then you can judge in wisdom of knowledge. Don't let anger get in the way because God is NOT ANGRY, HE IS NOT JEALOUS EITHER.

Why dont you read this instead http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html


And judge by yourself

[bl4kjaguar]

Why dont you read this instead http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html


And judge by yourself

Sure, I will do that as soon as you acknowledge this FACT:

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.

Alternatively, you may dispute this by providing YOUR interpretation of Yockey's information.

Why are you bringing up the Bible? This thread is about science.

[XinXan]

Why dont you read this instead http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html


And judge by yourself

Sure, I will do that as soon as you acknowledge this FACT:

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.

Alternatively, you may dispute this by providing YOUR interpretation of Yockey's information.

Why are you bringing up the Bible? This thread is about science.

But yet again you dont have any evidence of that. For example when scientists accepted evolution, they didnt accept it because someone said it, they accepted it because there is evidence like fosils and a lot of different methods of dating their age, DNA proofs.

You dont have any of that just a quote from some guy who i really dont give a fuck about

[Joshuar]

Hi Joshuar, I believe I have already responded to your fallacious "arguments".

The concept of the afterlife also applies the notions that souls exist, which they do not.

This fallacy is often stated in this way but what it really means is that belief in the afterlife is not supported by evidence.

[T]his notion of extraordinary claims and proof cannot be considered part of the scientific method. It is only possible to consider it a statement of how bias interferes with objectivity. When skeptics assert this notion, if they are not cynically trying to misdirect the discussion away from evidence they don't want to consider, and if they are being sincere, then they are actually demonstrating that they are refusing to consider the evidence objectively.

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.

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_extraordinary_claims

Just how do you intend to prove your statement that souls exist not, Joshuar?

How do you intend to prove they do exist? I've given the reason for why we have the concept of souls, to try and explain who we are essentially(emotions, personality, thoughts), all of which we now know today as coming from the brain. Belief in the soul stemmed from the fact that they could not previously explain those things(emotions, personality, thoughts etc) and they used the concept of soul to incorrectly do so.

At least do your research as to where these faulty words come from, and besides that it's impossible to fully prove or disprove a entirely theoretical concept such as the soul. With that in mind, it is however logically possible to put the soul into the same category as, " The earth is flat, Earth is center of the universe, Santa Claus exists, The toothfairy exists, Goku just fought Omega Shenron in Central Park) aka fiction.

The flawed concept of the soul is not synonymous with the concept of Consciousness, if that's what you have twisted up btw.

[bl4kjaguar]

Why dont you read this instead http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html


And judge by yourself

Sure, I will do that as soon as you acknowledge this FACT:

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.

Alternatively, you may dispute this by providing YOUR interpretation of Yockey's information.

Why are you bringing up the Bible? This thread is about science.

But yet again you dont have any evidence of that. For example when scientists accepted evolution, they didnt accept it because someone said it, they accepted it because there is evidence like fosils and a lot of different methods of dating their age, DNA proofs.

You dont have any of that just a quote from some guy who i really dont give a fuck about

Many scientists agreed:
"This is a work that no one interested in the fundamental relationship between physics and biology can ignore."

This is proven according to the best understanding of information theory and biology; Yockey is a bit of a celebrity; he shows us that idols have feet of clay.

Information theory is the mathematical foundation of molecular biology.
In fact, I have all the latest evidence to support this quote:

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.

For example, here is a big piece of evidence:

By analyzing the evolution of such codes by means of coding
theory I showed that the existence of mitochondrial and other codes that
differ in a few assignments from the standard genetic code is a required
consequence of that evolution.

[bl4kjaguar]

How do you intend to prove they do exist?

1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website.
2) Showing a trend of observations supporting the "survival hypothesis"; such a hypothesis allows a theoretical grasp on the subject. A good link to get started.
3) Also, I will use theoretical physics to back this up; found in "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".

You are beginning to know how God builds visible bodies by
compressing long waves of low potential into short high ones and then reverses that
process so that visible ones again become invisible. Science has practiced that method
of compressing waves but does not KNOW that it has been practicing it. Science
merely says, "Matter seemingly emerges from space and is then swallowed up by
space, but it may be that man will never be able to solve this great mystery of the
creative process of matter." We will slowly build up a complete explanation of this
process of Nature. Please bear with us.

4) Here is a template for how this science may progress; there is a lot of work to do in expanding the survival hypothesis, but this helps to show how the science can be done in this field. This is the kind of evidence that would need to be explained by that science.
5) I will see if you can adequately explain the actual observations that were recorded in Eisenbeiss on AECES top 40. I think this is the most powerful case, and your explanation for it is inadequate. You do not provide an adequate reason to reject the evidence, and so you do not disprove the conclusion (from parsimony) that the source was communicating factual information that had "survived" death.

At least do your research as to where these faulty words come from, and besides that it's impossible to fully prove or disprove a entirely theoretical concept such as the soul.

You keep repeating this, but it has already been addressed:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_afterlife_belief_scientific

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.

[Joshuar]

How do you intend to prove they do exist?

1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website.
2) Showing a trend of observations supporting the "survival hypothesis"; such a hypothesis allows a theoretical grasp on the subject. A good link to get started.
3) Also, I will use theoretical physics to back this up; found in "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".

You are beginning to know how God builds visible bodies by
compressing long waves of low potential into short high ones and then reverses that
process so that visible ones again become invisible. Science has practiced that method
of compressing waves but does not KNOW that it has been practicing it. Science
merely says, "Matter seemingly emerges from space and is then swallowed up by
space, but it may be that man will never be able to solve this great mystery of the
creative process of matter." We will slowly build up a complete explanation of this
process of Nature. Please bear with us.

4) Here is a template for how this science may progress; there is a lot of work to do in expanding the survival hypothesis, but this helps to show how the science can be done in this field. This is the kind of evidence that would need to be explained by that science.
5) I will see if you can adequately explain the actual observations that were recorded in Eisenbeiss on AECES top 40. I think this is the most powerful case, and your explanation for it is inadequate. You do not provide an adequate reason to reject the evidence, and so you do not disprove the conclusion (from parsimony) that the source was communicating factual information that had "survived" death.

At least do your research as to where these faulty words come from, and besides that it's impossible to fully prove or disprove a entirely theoretical concept such as the soul.

You keep repeating this, but it has already been addressed:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_afterlife_belief_scientific

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.

When I clicked on your links, I expected to see a well thought out hypothesis and experiments that were peer reviewed,  but what I got was a 1990s website designed and written by what seems like a middle schooler.

This is the first paragraph on that website, which contains so many logical fallacies and inaccuracies...I can't even begin to explain:

"A person is seen as a physical body and an etheric personality entangled in a symbiotic relationship with the physical body functioning as an avatar for personality. This relationship is seen as enabling the personality, which has a primarily etheric point of view, to experience the physical aspect of reality from the physical body's perspective. It is speculated that the purpose of this is to enable the personality to have experiences in the physical venue with the expectation of gaining understanding about the operation of reality given the constraints of physical principles.
The personality is seen as having evolved separately from the physical body, and when the physical body is no longer able to sustain life, the personality must return its focus of attention to the etheric in a process referred to as “transition”; colloquially as  “death” and “dying.”"

As I said earlier, the mind and hormones control our "personality". Happiness, Sadness, Anger, Greed, all those are determined by Hormones. Even your sex drive is determined by the hormone, Oxycotin(Also dubbed the "love hormone". Please go take basic biology...It's kind of annoying and dissapointing to have to explain these things when the information is readily available to you, but oh, you choose to believe in absolutely nonsensical theories presented on an obscure website that looks like it was created by a guy "high out of his mind".

You're worse than BADecker honestly, he at least believes in the bible, while it's also entirely false and full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and general nonsense, is a hell of a lot more plausible than the absolute garbage contained in those links.

[master sato]

if the "God theory" was the accepted theory for the creation of the Universe, we'd still have to find out where God came from as well.