Scientific proof that God exists?

[QuestionAuthority]

I love The Onion! 

That and jesus face apearing on toast its definitive proof that god exists. No for real now if God really wanted to make us belive he himself could just come to earth, appear as a giant god and say: Hey im God and yes i really exist.

He could never come to earth and talk to people because he would lose his mystery.

Kind of like the first time your girl farts in front of you and you realize rainbows and sunshine isn't the only thing that comes out of that ass.

[GannickusX]

I love The Onion! 

That and jesus face apearing on toast its definitive proof that god exists. No for real now if God really wanted to make us belive he himself could just come to earth, appear as a giant god and say: Hey im God and yes i really exist.

He could never come to earth and talk to people because he would lose his mystery.

Kind of like the first time your girl farts in front of you and you realize rainbows and sunshine isn't the only thing that comes out of that ass.

Why would someone think that rainbows and sunshine comes from the ass?? Anyways if God exists he is a cheeky deceiver and an Evil Genius

[QuestionAuthority]

I love The Onion! 

That and jesus face apearing on toast its definitive proof that god exists. No for real now if God really wanted to make us belive he himself could just come to earth, appear as a giant god and say: Hey im God and yes i really exist.

He could never come to earth and talk to people because he would lose his mystery.

Kind of like the first time your girl farts in front of you and you realize rainbows and sunshine isn't the only thing that comes out of that ass.

Why would someone think that rainbows and sunshine comes from the ass?? Anyways if God exists he is a cheeky deceiver and an Evil Genius

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/think-the-sun-shines-out-of-%28one%27s%29-ass

[rehnede]

What do you think?
Please share your opinion about this article.


101 Proofs For God

A growing list of common sense Proofs for God.

Proof for God, #65 Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam

 Genetic scientists seem to be in general agreement that we are all descendants of one woman and one man. This research was fairly recent, starting about 1978. They, of course, do not believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, but their conclusions are getting closer and closer.

In case you have not heard about this, it makes very interesting reading. But I think it raises a number of profound challenges to the Theory of Evolution.

The scientists base the above conclusions on the known facts of human reproduction, specifically on properties of the sperm and egg. .....
Full article read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/65-mitochondial-eve-and-y-chromosome.html

Its same as asking if "Scientific Proof that Ghosts exists ?"

[BADecker]

So anything that you dont like you call it off-topic, well thats one way to handle it

Lol.  This entire thread is offtopic.  BADecker was proven wrong 100+ pages ago.

He just posts so his priest won't kick him out of the cult.  Each member needs to try and convert so many souls each week.  

Now you are doing it. Rather than show any evidence for or against God like BADecker shows for God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, you attempt to badmouth him.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

This is a Biblical argument - off-topic - except for the last paragraph at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html where the author expresses that he believes God exists:

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

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page5.htm

Not sure what this has to do with proving the existence of God, except that, as a widely-held religion, Christianity (along with many of the other religions) is strong evidence that God exists, simply because this many people believe that He does.

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

Number 2 is wrong, "2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now." Doctors in hospitals all over the place can't explain why some people get well overnight, and others die for no known reason. Thus, miracles are not proven to NOT exist, and seem to. Since miracles can exist, so can God.

Number 3 is questionable, "3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely." Simply because consciousness seems to disappear as the brain deteriorates, doesn't mean that the elements of consciousness dissipate at the same time. In other words, consciousness may easily be held outside of the brain, and simply uses the brain for operating, just like you use your computer to get your post up on the forum. This leaves lots of room for the possibility that God exists, and doesn't prove He doesn't.

Number 4 is wrong, "4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World," because in most of the big evil, wars, there are opponents. And the same is true for lots of the little evil - fights between people one way or another. Number 4 simply brings to light the evidence that God has an opponent who is evil. The religions often call the evil one the devil.

Number 5 doesn't really even fit, "5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World," since, while I and others haven't debunked evolution at all, we have shown that there are so many holes in the evolutionary process as we know it, that there is no way to show that evolution produces anything other than a variety of changes, if that. In addition, even if science could come up with a viable evolutionary inanimate-to-life process, there is no way to tell if that is what really happened, because there are too many unknown variables that could have happened in the past. This shows the likelihood that God created it all.

Number 6 is just goofy, "6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden," because it doesn't take into account the idea of a loving God giving our human machine bodies, and the whole of nature that supports us. There is no way to get anything like what we have in our bodies and nature if it hadn't been given to us. We enjoy life. It is a gift from Wherever. Because that "Wherever" is as great as it is, it fits the definition for the word "God."

Number 7 is inconclusive, "7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right," because it doesn't take into account the religious ideas of an enemy fighting against God and man. Number 7 is a religious argument that suggests that the author has examined and expresses all the possibility of why a "God" would or would not do something. Thus, the author is holding himself/herself up as God, by expressing that he/she knows enough about this to conclude that God doesn't exist. Thus, the author is self-contradictory, as well.

Number 8 is completely wrong, "8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause," because, even though the Big Bang might have been shown to be plausible, there are too many variables that could have existed in the distant past to absolutely KNOW that Big Bang is what happened for real. In addition, electric cosmos theory is proving far more practical than popular cosmological theory - http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Thus, the idea of the Great First Cause stands stronger than ever.

Number 9 is not even in the race, "9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force," because the odds are the fundamental thing that shows that the universe as we know it can't exist without a Great Something to have guided it all. Quantum math shows that there are countless probabilities behind everything, and in every direction. When quantum thinking is applied to the dimensions, dimensions that might be infinite but that we recognize only less than 30 of, the absolute NEED for something like God makes itself apparent.

Number 10 is wrong, "10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design," because the author is admitting intelligent design. Even if it is nature that is the Intelligent Designer, nobody gets design without a designer. This points to the existence of God more than ever.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html

This is a mishmash of ideas that are at times religious, and at times on-topic. Some of these ideas overlap with what is written above.

There you go

No, there YOU go.

 

[(oYo)]

I love The Onion! 
https://i.imgur.com/WD3o14O.jpg

That and jesus face apearing on toast its definitive proof that god exists. No for real now if God really wanted to make us belive he himself could just come to earth, appear as a giant god and say: Hey im God and yes i really exist.

He could never come to earth and talk to people because he would lose his mystery.

Kind of like the first time your girl farts in front of you and you realize rainbows and sunshine isn't the only thing that comes out of that ass.

Reminds me of something out of 'The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy in reference to the Babel fish:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.


The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”


“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”


“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[the joint]

So anything that you dont like you call it off-topic, well thats one way to handle it

Lol.  This entire thread is offtopic.  BADecker was proven wrong 100+ pages ago.

He just posts so his priest won't kick him out of the cult.  Each member needs to try and convert so many souls each week.  

Now you are doing it. Rather than show any evidence for or against God like BADecker shows for God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, you attempt to badmouth him.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

This is a Biblical argument - off-topic - except for the last paragraph at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html where the author expresses that he believes God exists:

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

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page5.htm

Not sure what this has to do with proving the existence of God, except that, as a widely-held religion, Christianity (along with many of the other religions) is strong evidence that God exists, simply because this many people believe that He does.

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

Number 2 is wrong, "2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now." Doctors in hospitals all over the place can't explain why some people get well overnight, and others die for no known reason. Thus, miracles are not proven to NOT exist, and seem to. Since miracles can exist, so can God.

Number 3 is questionable, "3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely." Simply because consciousness seems to disappear as the brain deteriorates, doesn't mean that the elements of consciousness dissipate at the same time. In other words, consciousness may easily be held outside of the brain, and simply uses the brain for operating, just like you use your computer to get your post up on the forum. This leaves lots of room for the possibility that God exists, and doesn't prove He doesn't.

Number 4 is wrong, "4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World," because in most of the big evil, wars, there are opponents. And the same is true for lots of the little evil - fights between people one way or another. Number 4 simply brings to light the evidence that God has an opponent who is evil. The religions often call the evil one the devil.

Number 5 doesn't really even fit, "5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World," since, while I and others haven't debunked evolution at all, we have shown that there are so many holes in the evolutionary process as we know it, that there is no way to show that evolution produces anything other than a variety of changes, if that. In addition, even if science could come up with a viable evolutionary inanimate-to-life process, there is no way to tell if that is what really happened, because there are too many unknown variables that could have happened in the past. This shows the likelihood that God created it all.

Number 6 is just goofy, "6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden," because it doesn't take into account the idea of a loving God giving our human machine bodies, and the whole of nature that supports us. There is no way to get anything like what we have in our bodies and nature if it hadn't been given to us. We enjoy life. It is a gift from Wherever. Because that "Wherever" is as great as it is, it fits the definition for the word "God."

Number 7 is inconclusive, "7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right," because it doesn't take into account the religious ideas of an enemy fighting against God and man. Number 7 is a religious argument that suggests that the author has examined and expresses all the possibility of why a "God" would or would not do something. Thus, the author is holding himself/herself up as God, by expressing that he/she knows enough about this to conclude that God doesn't exist. Thus, the author is self-contradictory, as well.

Number 8 is completely wrong, "8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause," because, even though the Big Bang might have been shown to be plausible, there are too many variables that could have existed in the distant past to absolutely KNOW that Big Bang is what happened for real. In addition, electric cosmos theory is proving far more practical than popular cosmological theory - http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Thus, the idea of the Great First Cause stands stronger than ever.

Number 9 is not even in the race, "9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force," because the odds are the fundamental thing that shows that the universe as we know it can't exist without a Great Something to have guided it all. Quantum math shows that there are countless probabilities behind everything, and in every direction. When quantum thinking is applied to the dimensions, dimensions that might be infinite but that we recognize only less than 30 of, the absolute NEED for something like God makes itself apparent.

Number 10 is wrong, "10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design," because the author is admitting intelligent design. Even if it is nature that is the Intelligent Designer, nobody gets design without a designer. This points to the existence of God more than ever.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html

This is a mishmash of ideas that are at times religious, and at times on-topic. Some of these ideas overlap with what is written above.

There you go

No, there YOU go.

 

Here's a perfect example of your ridiculous thinking:

You say: 

... as a widely-held religion, Christianity (along with many of the other religions) is strong evidence that God exists, simply because this many people believe that He does.

Not at all.  There's a logical fallacy about this exact form of reasoning:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In no way does the fact that  more people believe in something make it more true.  Not at all.  Not even close.   

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

[the joint]

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

Oh, "nature" is entirely "supernatural" now?

No.  It isn't.  Nature is natural specifically because it isn't supernatural.

You should've taken my earlier suggestion and just reduce all your vocabulary to one word, and just repeat that word over and over.  It really doesn't matter what that word is or what it means because you're just going to have it mean whatever you want it to mean.

You're going on ignore for a while.  You make my eyes bleed. 

[GannickusX]

So anything that you dont like you call it off-topic, well thats one way to handle it

Lol.  This entire thread is offtopic.  BADecker was proven wrong 100+ pages ago.

He just posts so his priest won't kick him out of the cult.  Each member needs to try and convert so many souls each week.  

Now you are doing it. Rather than show any evidence for or against God like BADecker shows for God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, you attempt to badmouth him.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

This is a Biblical argument - off-topic - except for the last paragraph at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html where the author expresses that he believes God exists:

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

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page5.htm

Not sure what this has to do with proving the existence of God, except that, as a widely-held religion, Christianity (along with many of the other religions) is strong evidence that God exists, simply because this many people believe that He does.

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

And simply because someone says it exists doesnt mean it exists right?

Number 2 is wrong, "2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now." Doctors in hospitals all over the place can't explain why some people get well overnight, and others die for no known reason. Thus, miracles are not proven to NOT exist, and seem to. Since miracles can exist, so can God.

Not being able to explain something doesnt make it supernatural or a miracle, we just simply dont know some things

Number 3 is questionable, "3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely." Simply because consciousness seems to disappear as the brain deteriorates, doesn't mean that the elements of consciousness dissipate at the same time. In other words, consciousness may easily be held outside of the brain, and simply uses the brain for operating, just like you use your computer to get your post up on the forum. This leaves lots of room for the possibility that God exists, and doesn't prove He doesn't.

consciousness doesnt just seem to dissapear, it dissapears because we only have consciousness when we have a brain, chop your head off and write something and i will believe you.

Number 4 is wrong, "4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World," because in most of the big evil, wars, there are opponents. And the same is true for lots of the little evil - fights between people one way or another. Number 4 simply brings to light the evidence that God has an opponent who is evil. The religions often call the evil one the devil.

God is supposed to be a supernatarul and omnipotent therefore he shouldnt have any enemies

Number 5 doesn't really even fit, "5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World," since, while I and others haven't debunked evolution at all, we have shown that there are so many holes in the evolutionary process as we know it, that there is no way to show that evolution produces anything other than a variety of changes, if that. In addition, even if science could come up with a viable evolutionary inanimate-to-life process, there is no way to tell if that is what really happened, because there are too many unknown variables that could have happened in the past. This shows the likelihood that God created it all.

Yeah because its easier to believe God created it all than believing evolution is just an incomplete theory? That has some holes but also has overwhelming evidence

Number 6 is just goofy, "6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden," because it doesn't take into account the idea of a loving God giving our human machine bodies, and the whole of nature that supports us. There is no way to get anything like what we have in our bodies and nature if it hadn't been given to us. We enjoy life. It is a gift from Wherever. Because that "Wherever" is as great as it is, it fits the definition for the word "God."

I dont know wtf are you saying here

Number 7 is inconclusive, "7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right," because it doesn't take into account the religious ideas of an enemy fighting against God and man. Number 7 is a religious argument that suggests that the author has examined and expresses all the possibility of why a "God" would or would not do something. Thus, the author is holding himself/herself up as God, by expressing that he/she knows enough about this to conclude that God doesn't exist. Thus, the author is self-contradictory, as well.

God shouldnt let any enemy posion us then.

Number 8 is completely wrong, "8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause," because, even though the Big Bang might have been shown to be plausible, there are too many variables that could have existed in the distant past to absolutely KNOW that Big Bang is what happened for real. In addition, electric cosmos theory is proving far more practical than popular cosmological theory - http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Thus, the idea of the Great First Cause stands stronger than ever.

No it doesnt, the idea of God being the first cause is something that has absolutly no proofs or evidence other than some philosophical thoughts

Number 9 is not even in the race, "9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force," because the odds are the fundamental thing that shows that the universe as we know it can't exist without a Great Something to have guided it all. Quantum math shows that there are countless probabilities behind everything, and in every direction. When quantum thinking is applied to the dimensions, dimensions that might be infinite but that we recognize only less than 30 of, the absolute NEED for something like God makes itself apparent.

You are saying that there are countless possibilities yet you want to believe just one of them, why?

Number 10 is wrong, "10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design," because the author is admitting intelligent design. Even if it is nature that is the Intelligent Designer, nobody gets design without a designer. This points to the existence of God more than ever.

How do you know nothing gets a design without a designer, do you know everything that is in the universe and you know that everything has a designer?

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html

This is a mishmash of ideas that are at times religious, and at times on-topic. Some of these ideas overlap with what is written above.

There you go

No, there YOU go.

 

[Joshuar]

Don't worry, BADecker told me before that we didn't know what caused the wind(We do). He also told me we basically didn't know where lava from volcanos come from(We do). He also doubted the existence of atomic(Nuclear/fission) power, which means he has obviously never heard of a nuclear power plant or the atomic bomb.

So it's just that BADecker is seriously uneducated about the world around him, and because of that, he just uses the most simple(And incorrect) explanation he can find for things(Aka "god made it").

If it be more plausible if he believed in a god, but his specific belief in the christian god is what turns all his arguments into literal garbage.

[BADecker]

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

Oh, "nature" is entirely "supernatural" now?

No.  It isn't.  Nature is natural specifically because it isn't supernatural.

You should've taken my earlier suggestion and just reduce all your vocabulary to one word, and just repeat that word over and over.  It really doesn't matter what that word is or what it means because you're just going to have it mean whatever you want it to mean.

You're going on ignore for a while.  You make my eyes bleed.  

You are finally starting to understand that the only understanding of why things exist, and the only proof for their existence, is the fact that they do exist. We have no other proof.

This means, that as far as our understanding goes, all of nature is supernatural. This points at the existence of God more than ever.



EDIT: I wouldn't want your brain to be overwhelmed with a great reality like the supernatural quality of everything. Put me on ignore, 'cause the truth might just drive you mad. You need to condition yourself to the truth so that you can take it.

[Joshuar]

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

Oh, "nature" is entirely "supernatural" now?

No.  It isn't.  Nature is natural specifically because it isn't supernatural.

You should've taken my earlier suggestion and just reduce all your vocabulary to one word, and just repeat that word over and over.  It really doesn't matter what that word is or what it means because you're just going to have it mean whatever you want it to mean.

You're going on ignore for a while.  You make my eyes bleed.  

You are finally starting to understand that the only understanding of why things exist, and the only proof for their existence, is the fact that they do exist. We have no other proof.

This means, that as far as our understanding goes, all of nature is supernatural. This points at the existence of God more than ever.

Even Descartes would frown at what I just read(And he was wrong in his philosophy/for assuming that the mind is automatically metaphysical, but wont get into that). What you've said makes no sense, at all, you're claiming that something exists because you can see/hear/taste it with your five senses, all of which may be misleading you causing you to believe that these things exist when they don't(Your perception of things), matter itself might not even exist, so you cannot prove your own existence by just looking at something and saying it exists,(This is basic philosophy). Ever heard of Schizophrenia where those with it can see things that aren't really there? You should really look it up.

Wait actually no, let's go with what you said. So god created disease, he created deformities, he created all those negative things that are around in the world today(And to which you classify as "supernatural"), but you consider him a good god? Quite clearly that means he is an evil one. Thanks for proving yourself wrong BADecker, again.

[(oYo)]

Want to make an easy cool $1mil? (Originally it was only 1/4mil but has since been increased to a full mil.)

We are willing to pay any individual *$250,000 if they can produce empirical evidence which proves that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://boingboing.net/2005/08/19/boing-boings-250000.html

Or you could go for the original challenge from Dr. Kent Hovind worth $250k.

Creation Science Evangelism founder Kent Hovind has a cool quarter of a million smackers on the line for “anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.”

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/08/19/i-will-pay-you-to-prove-me-wrong/

Whoever wins could post the results here in this thread and then this thread could be closed once and for all. So what do you say folks? Put you mouth where the money is!

[BADecker]

So anything that you dont like you call it off-topic, well thats one way to handle it

Lol.  This entire thread is offtopic.  BADecker was proven wrong 100+ pages ago.

He just posts so his priest won't kick him out of the cult.  Each member needs to try and convert so many souls each week.  

Now you are doing it. Rather than show any evidence for or against God like BADecker shows for God at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, you attempt to badmouth him.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

This is a Biblical argument - off-topic - except for the last paragraph at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html where the author expresses that he believes God exists:

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

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page5.htm

Not sure what this has to do with proving the existence of God, except that, as a widely-held religion, Christianity (along with many of the other religions) is strong evidence that God exists, simply because this many people believe that He does.

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

And simply because someone says it exists doesnt mean it exists right? Right. Mine wasn't a claim of existence or non-existence. Mine was a claim countering the absolute impossibility of existence.

Number 2 is wrong, "2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now." Doctors in hospitals all over the place can't explain why some people get well overnight, and others die for no known reason. Thus, miracles are not proven to NOT exist, and seem to. Since miracles can exist, so can God.

Not being able to explain something doesnt make it supernatural or a miracle, we just simply dont know some things Exactly! My point entirely with regard to scientific observation. I was countering a definitive statement.

Number 3 is questionable, "3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely." Simply because consciousness seems to disappear as the brain deteriorates, doesn't mean that the elements of consciousness dissipate at the same time. In other words, consciousness may easily be held outside of the brain, and simply uses the brain for operating, just like you use your computer to get your post up on the forum. This leaves lots of room for the possibility that God exists, and doesn't prove He doesn't.

consciousness doesnt just seem to dissapear, it dissapears because we only have consciousness when we have a brain, chop your head off and write something and i will believe you. We don't know this. We don't know for a fact that conscious doesn't go elsewhere.

Number 4 is wrong, "4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World," because in most of the big evil, wars, there are opponents. And the same is true for lots of the little evil - fights between people one way or another. Number 4 simply brings to light the evidence that God has an opponent who is evil. The religions often call the evil one the devil.

God is supposed to be a supernatarul and omnipotent therefore he shouldnt have any enemies That might seem logical. But because we are so extremely limited in our observation and knowledge of things around us, why are we so bold that we try to outguess something as great as God?

Number 5 doesn't really even fit, "5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World," since, while I and others haven't debunked evolution at all, we have shown that there are so many holes in the evolutionary process as we know it, that there is no way to show that evolution produces anything other than a variety of changes, if that. In addition, even if science could come up with a viable evolutionary inanimate-to-life process, there is no way to tell if that is what really happened, because there are too many unknown variables that could have happened in the past. This shows the likelihood that God created it all.

Yeah because its easier to believe God created it all than believing evolution is just an incomplete theory? That has some holes but also has overwhelming evidence Evolution by some parts of its definition has been proven to exist. Evolution by its inanimate-to-life process definition not only has not been proven, but doesn't even have a plausible process in place whereby it could have happened. This means that it is a fiction in this way. Even if we had a plausible inanimate-to-life process in place for evolution, we would still need a time-viewer to be sure that this is the way it happened.

Number 6 is just goofy, "6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden," because it doesn't take into account the idea of a loving God giving our human machine bodies, and the whole of nature that supports us. There is no way to get anything like what we have in our bodies and nature if it hadn't been given to us. We enjoy life. It is a gift from Wherever. Because that "Wherever" is as great as it is, it fits the definition for the word "God."

I dont know wtf are you saying here What is a loving relationship with God like? Lots of religious people act like they have it. All of life is a gift, even though there is some bad in life. You have gifts from God, not because He hates you, but because He wants a loving relationship with you.

Number 7 is inconclusive, "7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right," because it doesn't take into account the religious ideas of an enemy fighting against God and man. Number 7 is a religious argument that suggests that the author has examined and expresses all the possibility of why a "God" would or would not do something. Thus, the author is holding himself/herself up as God, by expressing that he/she knows enough about this to conclude that God doesn't exist. Thus, the author is self-contradictory, as well.

God shouldnt let any enemy posion us then. God gave us greatness in that He gave us part of Himself. We are God's children. When you continue to fight against the existence of God, it is you who are poisoning yourself. God is trying to keep you from it.

Number 8 is completely wrong, "8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause," because, even though the Big Bang might have been shown to be plausible, there are too many variables that could have existed in the distant past to absolutely KNOW that Big Bang is what happened for real. In addition, electric cosmos theory is proving far more practical than popular cosmological theory - http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Thus, the idea of the Great First Cause stands stronger than ever.

No it doesnt, the idea of God being the first cause is something that has absolutly no proofs or evidence other than some philosophical thoughts Standing alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. But when combined with the machine-like qualities of nature in the presence of the entropy that is all around us, there is absolutely no other explanation than God, the Great First Cause.

Number 9 is not even in the race, "9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force," because the odds are the fundamental thing that shows that the universe as we know it can't exist without a Great Something to have guided it all. Quantum math shows that there are countless probabilities behind everything, and in every direction. When quantum thinking is applied to the dimensions, dimensions that might be infinite but that we recognize only less than 30 of, the absolute NEED for something like God makes itself apparent.

You are saying that there are countless possibilities yet you want to believe just one of them, why? Simply because the countless possibilities don't allow anything to exist by probability. The only thing left is God.

Number 10 is wrong, "10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design," because the author is admitting intelligent design. Even if it is nature that is the Intelligent Designer, nobody gets design without a designer. This points to the existence of God more than ever.

How do you know nothing gets a design without a designer, do you know everything that is in the universe and you know that everything has a designer? Take man out of the universe, and the question is irrelevant. Put man in the universe, and we see man design things, even something simple like the wheel. All man's designs are taken out of nature one way or another. There is design in nature. Man has proven that it takes intelligence to design.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html

This is a mishmash of ideas that are at times religious, and at times on-topic. Some of these ideas overlap with what is written above.

There you go

No, there YOU go.

 

Thanks for helping me prove the existence of God even more.

[BADecker]

Want to make an easy cool $1mil? (Originally it was only 1/4mil but has since been increased to a full mil.)

We are willing to pay any individual *$250,000 if they can produce empirical evidence which proves that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://boingboing.net/2005/08/19/boing-boings-250000.html

Or you could go for the original challenge from Dr. Kent Hovind worth $250k.

Creation Science Evangelism founder Kent Hovind has a cool quarter of a million smackers on the line for “anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.”

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/08/19/i-will-pay-you-to-prove-me-wrong/

Whoever wins could post the results here in this thread and then this thread could be closed once and for all. So what do you say folks? Put you mouth where the money is!

I wonder if the constellation, Andromeda, has any electrons in it. Could somebody please prove it for me?

[BADecker]

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

Oh, "nature" is entirely "supernatural" now?

No.  It isn't.  Nature is natural specifically because it isn't supernatural.

You should've taken my earlier suggestion and just reduce all your vocabulary to one word, and just repeat that word over and over.  It really doesn't matter what that word is or what it means because you're just going to have it mean whatever you want it to mean.

You're going on ignore for a while.  You make my eyes bleed.  

You are finally starting to understand that the only understanding of why things exist, and the only proof for their existence, is the fact that they do exist. We have no other proof.

This means, that as far as our understanding goes, all of nature is supernatural. This points at the existence of God more than ever.

Even Descartes would frown at what I just read(And he was wrong in his philosophy/for assuming that the mind is automatically metaphysical, but wont get into that). What you've said makes no sense, at all, you're claiming that something exists because you can see/hear/taste it with your five senses, all of which may be misleading you causing you to believe that these things exist when they don't(Your perception of things), matter itself might not even exist, so you cannot prove your own existence by just looking at something at saying it exists,(This is basic philosophy. ) Ever heard of Schizophrenia where those with it can see things that aren't really there? You should really look it up.

All proof for anything is based on the fact that the elements of that proof exist. So, if you attempt to prove that those elements of proof exist, you need other elements of proof to prove them. But what about those elements of proof? How far do you have to go before you get to some elements that are so foundational that they don't need proof of existence? So far, the only two things that we can possibly come up with are God and the supernatural.

Wait actually no, let's go with what you said. So god created disease, he created deformities, he created all those negative things that are around in the world today(And to which you classify as "supernatural"), but you consider him a good god? Quite clearly that means he is an evil one. Thanks for proving yourself wrong BADecker, again.

God created many elements, all of them good, but some that could be manipulated into evil if someone had a mind to do such. God's enemy, the devil (a formerly good angel who corrupted himself), did exactly that. In his desire to create something, he created the only thing that was not created by God... destruction. That's why his name is Destroyer in the Revelation in the Bible.

[Joshuar]

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

Oh, "nature" is entirely "supernatural" now?

No.  It isn't.  Nature is natural specifically because it isn't supernatural.

You should've taken my earlier suggestion and just reduce all your vocabulary to one word, and just repeat that word over and over.  It really doesn't matter what that word is or what it means because you're just going to have it mean whatever you want it to mean.

You're going on ignore for a while.  You make my eyes bleed.  

You are finally starting to understand that the only understanding of why things exist, and the only proof for their existence, is the fact that they do exist. We have no other proof.

This means, that as far as our understanding goes, all of nature is supernatural. This points at the existence of God more than ever.

Even Descartes would frown at what I just read(And he was wrong in his philosophy/for assuming that the mind is automatically metaphysical, but wont get into that). What you've said makes no sense, at all, you're claiming that something exists because you can see/hear/taste it with your five senses, all of which may be misleading you causing you to believe that these things exist when they don't(Your perception of things), matter itself might not even exist, so you cannot prove your own existence by just looking at something at saying it exists,(This is basic philosophy. ) Ever heard of Schizophrenia where those with it can see things that aren't really there? You should really look it up.

All proof for anything is based on the fact that the elements of that proof exist. So, if you attempt to prove that those elements of proof exist, you need other elements of proof to prove them. But what about those elements of proof? How far do you have to go before you get to some elements that are so foundational that they don't need proof of existence. So far, the only two things that we can possibly come up with are God and the supernatural.

Wait actually no, let's go with what you said. So god created disease, he created deformities, he created all those negative things that are around in the world today(And to which you classify as "supernatural"), but you consider him a good god? Quite clearly that means he is an evil one. Thanks for proving yourself wrong BADecker, again.

God created many elements, all of them good, but some that could be manipulated into evil if someone had a mind to do such. God's enemy, the devil (a formerly good angel who corrupted himself), did exactly that. In his desire to create something, he created the only thing that was not created by God... destruction. That's why his name is Destroyer in the Revelation in the Bible.

Not true. Things that hinder another living organism such as a disease, has no "good" elements to it, and god created that disease as you say, which is why your god is an evil god. Innocent children, people, die from diseases and ailments everyday, you said it yourself, god created everything right? So then he created these diseases that lead to the deaths of innocent millions every year. What a good god you have (sarcasm).

[CryptoConfusion]

most of the "scientific" and "inelligent" arguments for proof of god have made me LOL my ass off.. anyone seen that vid where the man is claiming god exists and proof can be found by holding a banana?.. "look how naturally the banana fits into the human hand, it can only of been god" or something like that.. lol

[BADecker]

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

Oh, "nature" is entirely "supernatural" now?

No.  It isn't.  Nature is natural specifically because it isn't supernatural.

You should've taken my earlier suggestion and just reduce all your vocabulary to one word, and just repeat that word over and over.  It really doesn't matter what that word is or what it means because you're just going to have it mean whatever you want it to mean.

You're going on ignore for a while.  You make my eyes bleed.  

You are finally starting to understand that the only understanding of why things exist, and the only proof for their existence, is the fact that they do exist. We have no other proof.

This means, that as far as our understanding goes, all of nature is supernatural. This points at the existence of God more than ever.

Even Descartes would frown at what I just read(And he was wrong in his philosophy/for assuming that the mind is automatically metaphysical, but wont get into that). What you've said makes no sense, at all, you're claiming that something exists because you can see/hear/taste it with your five senses, all of which may be misleading you causing you to believe that these things exist when they don't(Your perception of things), matter itself might not even exist, so you cannot prove your own existence by just looking at something at saying it exists,(This is basic philosophy. ) Ever heard of Schizophrenia where those with it can see things that aren't really there? You should really look it up.

All proof for anything is based on the fact that the elements of that proof exist. So, if you attempt to prove that those elements of proof exist, you need other elements of proof to prove them. But what about those elements of proof? How far do you have to go before you get to some elements that are so foundational that they don't need proof of existence. So far, the only two things that we can possibly come up with are God and the supernatural.

Wait actually no, let's go with what you said. So god created disease, he created deformities, he created all those negative things that are around in the world today(And to which you classify as "supernatural"), but you consider him a good god? Quite clearly that means he is an evil one. Thanks for proving yourself wrong BADecker, again.

God created many elements, all of them good, but some that could be manipulated into evil if someone had a mind to do such. God's enemy, the devil (a formerly good angel who corrupted himself), did exactly that. In his desire to create something, he created the only thing that was not created by God... destruction. That's why his name is Destroyer in the Revelation in the Bible.

Not true. Things that hinder another living organism such as a disease, has no "good" elements to it, and god created that disease as you say, which is why your god is an evil god. Innocent children, people, die from diseases and ailments everyday, you said it yourself, god created everything right? So then he created these diseases that lead to the deaths of innocent millions every year. What a good god you have (sarcasm).

I could agree with you that disease has no good (but it might have some good that we are not aware of).

Since I didn't say that God created disease, why are you trying to say that I essentially said that God is evil? (Thank you for agreeing with me that God exists. People need to know that God exists so that they have reason to seek Him for their salvation.)

[BADecker]

most of the "scientific" and "inelligent" arguments for proof of god have made me LOL my ass off.. anyone seen that vid where the man is claiming god exists and proof can be found by holding a banana?.. "look how naturally the banana fits into the human hand, it can only of been god" or something like that.. lol

I can understand your position. The U.S. warned the Japanese government that it was going to make examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese just laughed. Now they are some of the greatest nuclear theorists around.

It is only after you start examining things that you might become interested in not laughing,