Scientific proof that God exists?

[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.
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.

I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!!

[1715148352]

1715148352

[1715148352]

1715148352

[1715148352]

1715148352

[bl4kjaguar]

Joshuar, there is no need to explain anything but the evidence I asked you about...

As I said earlier, the mind and hormones control our "personality".

I am aware that the latest theory of mind postulates a quantum link to the brain. Not only is life itself "more than just complicated chemistry", this is also true of the mind!

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

[Bubbsandbubbs3]

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.

As must we find out what created the big bang? What then created that? What then created that? Either way, something has always been there, don't pass God off as impossible. The same rule you put Him under also goes for everything.

[bitcoinluv79]

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.

As must we find out what created the big bang? What then created that? What then created that? Either way, something has always been there, don't pass God off as impossible. The same rule you put Him under also goes for everything.

The universe is something greater than we can understand. We believe all things must have a start and an end, but this cannot be applied for the universe. How was time created then? When/how did it all start? There are greater things we as humans just can't comprehend. A concept even greater than time must exist.

[XinXan]

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.
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.

I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!!

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, just philosofical thoughts or whatever you want to call it but that is not evidence and some of it is like this: Ghosts exist but they are invisible to us, now reject that, ofc you cant reject that because disproving something is pretty much impossible but then again you miss the phisical evidence, not just thoughts and vague theories that are not scientific

[Buffer Overflow]

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.

I can see that you are saying what you are saying. And, you are a little bit scientifically accurate. The branch of science that makes you accurate a little, is political science. Why political science? Because political science approves of propaganda and lies, like you are using.

Did you notice how you said "lol" above? This is because you want to show that you are happy in your ignorance as well as your propaganda, even if the lol you use is not the truth. The question asks itself. Are you really laughing? Or is lol part of your propaganda as well?

I was really laughing at your behavior. People like you know their wholly wrong, but continue argueing their false points anyway in hopes that if they repeat it enough, someone else even more ignorant than themselves would believe it.

You are laughing at yourself, because you know that I have presented clear evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 that proves God exists. All the world can see it. But only those who are on God's side will let themselves believe these undeniable facts.

Just so that you can see that you are wrong, in your statement, above, you used "their" incorrectly, and you spelled "argueing" incorrectly. What's the matter? Can't afford a grammatical checker or a spelling checker?

Never mind worrying about other peoples spelling.
You just concentrate on repairing your own logic circuit malfunctions.

[the joint]

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.
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.

I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!!

Hey, leave me out of this one.  I didn't make any claims about "souls," nor did I implicate any based upon my claims of Intelligent Design.

[the joint]

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.

As must we find out what created the big bang? What then created that? What then created that? Either way, something has always been there, don't pass God off as impossible. The same rule you put Him under also goes for everything.

The universe is something greater than we can understand. We believe all things must have a start and an end, but this cannot be applied for the universe. How was time created then? When/how did it all start? There are greater things we as humans just can't comprehend. A concept even greater than time must exist.

I can comprehend this just fine.  Asking something like "when was time created?" is simply a nonsense question.  Paradoxes like these are necessarily self-resolving.  We already know time is a relative function.  If you're thinking about time as purely linear, you're doing it wrong.

Let me give you a hint:  Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy.

[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.
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.

I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!!

Hey, leave me out of this one.  I didn't make any claims about "souls," nor did I implicate any based upon my claims of Intelligent Design.

You did not engage with the survival hypothesis. Just like Joshuar did not provide adequate reason.

[Buffer Overflow]

BADecker having a desperate swipe at the Quran now.
Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself.

Extremely difficult if not impossible to find mistake in Quran. Why? Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Quran, the perfect mistake. No mistakes in it. It all mistake.

[the joint]

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.
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.

I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!!

Hey, leave me out of this one.  I didn't make any claims about "souls," nor did I implicate any based upon my claims of Intelligent Design.

You did not engage with the survival hypothesis. Just like Joshuar did not provide adequate reason.

But I didn't make any claim about souls.  No claim means there is nothing for you to make a counterclaim against.

I can't be accused of not refuting a certain point in a debate I wasn't participating in.

[the joint]

BADecker having a desperate swipe at the Quran now.
Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself.

Extremely difficult if not impossible to find mistake in Quran. Why? Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Quran, the perfect mistake. No mistakes in it. It all mistake.

And he conveniently ignores that the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham.

[Bubbsandbubbs3]

BADecker having a desperate swipe at the Quran now.
Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself.

Extremely difficult if not impossible to find mistake in Quran. Why? Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Quran, the perfect mistake. No mistakes in it. It all mistake.

And he conveniently ignores that the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham.

Actually that's because Jacob and Whatsisface the Muslim guy were half-brothers. Then the religion split. So not all of the Qu'ran is a lie, if you believe the Old Testament.

[BADecker]

BADecker having a desperate swipe at the Quran now.
Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself.

Extremely difficult if not impossible to find mistake in Quran. Why? Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Quran, the perfect mistake. No mistakes in it. It all mistake.

And he conveniently ignores that the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham.

Just tryin' to get me to say something, eh? Why? After all, you know the Quran didn't even exist until more than 500 years after the Bible declared itself to be the all-time Word of God, up to and including the end of our universe in the lake of fire, and the beginning of the new universe that God is creating.

The only way that my info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 doesn't prove the existence of God, is a future thing. When this universe is gone, it won't be remembered or brought to mind by anybody, not even God (although He could dredge it up if He really wanted). That's the only way my stuff won't be evidence that proves the existence of God.

[BADecker]

BADecker having a desperate swipe at the Quran now.
Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself.

Extremely difficult if not impossible to find mistake in Quran. Why? Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Quran, the perfect mistake. No mistakes in it. It all mistake.

And he conveniently ignores that the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham.

Actually that's because Jacob(1) and Whatsisface(2) the Muslim guy were half-brothers. Then the religion split. So not all of the Qu'ran is a lie, if you believe the Old Testament.

Isaac¹^^     Ishmael²^^

[Bubbsandbubbs3]

BADecker having a desperate swipe at the Quran now.
Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself.

Extremely difficult if not impossible to find mistake in Quran. Why? Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Quran, the perfect mistake. No mistakes in it. It all mistake.

And he conveniently ignores that the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham.

Actually that's because Jacob(1) and Whatsisface(2) the Muslim guy were half-brothers. Then the religion split. So not all of the Qu'ran is a lie, if you believe the Old Testament.

Isaac¹^^     Ishmael²^^

lol thanks for the fix

[BADecker]

BADecker having a desperate swipe at the Quran now.
Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself.

Extremely difficult if not impossible to find mistake in Quran. Why? Quran is perfection of mistakes. In other words, it is entire mistake. Quran, the perfect mistake. No mistakes in it. It all mistake.

And he conveniently ignores that the Quran and the Bible are virtually identical up until the house of Abraham.

Actually that's because Jacob(1) and Whatsisface(2) the Muslim guy were half-brothers. Then the religion split. So not all of the Qu'ran is a lie, if you believe the Old Testament.

Isaac¹^^     Ishmael²^^

lol thanks for the fix

Just helpin' out where I can. Some people volunteer at the library. Some at the old-age center. Most of us here in the Off-Topic section volunteer right here, but might never think of volunteering where it really counts.

[Buffer Overflow]

The only way that my info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 doesn't prove the existence of God, is a future thing. When this universe is gone, it won't be remembered or brought to mind by anybody, not even God (although He could dredge it up if He really wanted). That's the only way my stuff won't be evidence that proves the existence of God.

We don't have to wait that long. We can just use some simple level 1 foundation style beginners logic and "your stuff" evaporates into non-proof.

[BADecker]

The only way that my info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 doesn't prove the existence of God, is a future thing. When this universe is gone, it won't be remembered or brought to mind by anybody, not even God (although He could dredge it up if He really wanted). That's the only way my stuff won't be evidence that proves the existence of God.

We don't have to wait that long. We can just use some simple level 1 beginners logic and "your stuff" evaporates into non-proof.

The part about not having to wait that long is true. You will die within a short hundred years. The next thing you will see is Jesus calling you out of the grave (even if you are cremated). Then you will take your place in the afterlife, and my link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 will have been proven true with finality... all in short order... probably less than your 100-year lifetime.

[Buffer Overflow]

The only way that my info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 doesn't prove the existence of God, is a future thing. When this universe is gone, it won't be remembered or brought to mind by anybody, not even God (although He could dredge it up if He really wanted). That's the only way my stuff won't be evidence that proves the existence of God.

We don't have to wait that long. We can just use some simple level 1 beginners logic and "your stuff" evaporates into non-proof.

The part about not having to wait that long is true. You will die within a short hundred years. The next thing you will see is Jesus calling you out of the grave (even if you are cremated). Then you will take your place in the afterlife, and my link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 will have been proven true with finality... all in short order... probably less than your 100-year lifetime.

We are all praying you can pull through this BADecker.
Remember we are on your side. We are here to help you.