Scientific proof that God exists?

[the joint]

So then according to your logic, the devil has some power over god, since he created destruction. And also, you contradicted yourself, again, you said earlier that God created nature which you believe to be supernatural. The definition of destruction is: the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired. That can pertain to death, disease, etc, all of which are apart of nature. But, you said the devil created destruction not god, but then you earlier said that god created nature...Which one is it? You're basically putting the devil in the bible on parity with god in the bible. Wow, are you really this clueless?

Besides that, have you honestly even read the bible to which you mindlessly believe in? The god in the bible has destroyed more innocent people than Satan did. Yes read that again, the god in the bible has killed more innocent people than the devil in the bible. He's killed innocent children, old women, old men, young men, animals, but not young women, he left them to get raped.

Face it, he's an evil god. Your own words are hurting your nonsensical argument.

Read this and go through your dear bible, http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

You are completely mistaken.

What God? You seem to believe that God exists after all. Since you believe He exists, why don't you start some new threads regarding His attributes and the way things work, so that people can find out all about Him? That way we can save this thread for what it asks, scientific proof that God exists, as I have at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

[1714610715]

1714610715

[1714610715]

1714610715

[1714610715]

1714610715

[BADecker]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

The Math Induction Strategy

Mathematical Induction works like this: Suppose you want to prove a theorem in the form "For all integers n greater than equal to a, P(n) is true". P(n) must be an assertion that we wish to be true for all n = a, a+1, ...; like a formula. You first verify the initial step. That is, you must verify that P(a) is true. Next comes the inductive step. Here you must prove "If there is a k, greater than or equal to a, for which P(k) is true, then for this same k, P(k+1) is true."

Since you have verified P(a), it follows from the inductive step that P(a+1) is true, and hence, P(a+2) is true, and hence P(a+3) is true, and so on. In this way the theorem has been proved.

(Red colorization mine.)

“The problem with the idea of proof is” (BADecker) that infinite physical evidence cannot be considered, simultaneously, by a finite physical system.

Yet the qualities of the finite system can strongly suggest that there is an infinite system.

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

[BADecker]

So then according to your logic, the devil has some power over god, since he created destruction. And also, you contradicted yourself, again, you said earlier that God created nature which you believe to be supernatural. The definition of destruction is: the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired. That can pertain to death, disease, etc, all of which are apart of nature. But, you said the devil created destruction not god, but then you earlier said that god created nature...Which one is it? You're basically putting the devil in the bible on parity with god in the bible. Wow, are you really this clueless?

Besides that, have you honestly even read the bible to which you mindlessly believe in? The god in the bible has destroyed more innocent people than Satan did. Yes read that again, the god in the bible has killed more innocent people than the devil in the bible. He's killed innocent children, old women, old men, young men, animals, but not young women, he left them to get raped.

Face it, he's an evil god. Your own words are hurting your nonsensical argument.

Read this and go through your dear bible, http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

You are completely mistaken.

What God? You seem to believe that God exists after all. Since you believe He exists, why don't you start some new threads regarding His attributes and the way things work, so that people can find out all about Him? That way we can save this thread for what it asks, scientific proof that God exists, as I have at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

The list isn't complete.   

[XinXan]

So then according to your logic, the devil has some power over god, since he created destruction. And also, you contradicted yourself, again, you said earlier that God created nature which you believe to be supernatural. The definition of destruction is: the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired. That can pertain to death, disease, etc, all of which are apart of nature. But, you said the devil created destruction not god, but then you earlier said that god created nature...Which one is it? You're basically putting the devil in the bible on parity with god in the bible. Wow, are you really this clueless?

Besides that, have you honestly even read the bible to which you mindlessly believe in? The god in the bible has destroyed more innocent people than Satan did. Yes read that again, the god in the bible has killed more innocent people than the devil in the bible. He's killed innocent children, old women, old men, young men, animals, but not young women, he left them to get raped.

Face it, he's an evil god. Your own words are hurting your nonsensical argument.

Read this and go through your dear bible, http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

You are completely mistaken.

What God? You seem to believe that God exists after all. Since you believe He exists, why don't you start some new threads regarding His attributes and the way things work, so that people can find out all about Him? That way we can save this thread for what it asks, scientific proof that God exists, as I have at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

The list isn't complete.   

Maybe, but it has all your fallacies in it

[BADecker]

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

The list isn't complete.   

Maybe, but it has all your fallacies in it

If the list had the biggest fallacy of all, it wouldn't be worthy anything... even though it isn't worth much as it is. The biggest fallacy? Itself.

[GannickusX]

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

The list isn't complete.   

Maybe, but it has all your fallacies in it

If the list had the biggest fallacy of all, it wouldn't be worthy anything... even though it isn't worth much as it is. The biggest fallacy? Itself.

You dont know what to say anymore seems, and you are just posting a bunch of nonsense, too bad you cant keep posting your link full of fallacies anymore, you gotta find something else to spam now.

[BADecker]

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

The list isn't complete.   

Maybe, but it has all your fallacies in it

If the list had the biggest fallacy of all, it wouldn't be worthy anything... even though it isn't worth much as it is. The biggest fallacy? Itself.

You dont know what to say anymore seems, and you are just posting a bunch of nonsense, too bad you cant keep posting your link full of fallacies anymore, you gotta find something else to spam now.

If you say my stuff at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is fallacies, there are only two reasons for it:
1. You are simply against the truth;
2. You are against the truth and aren't smart enough to think your way through it, or probably even out of a wet paper bag.

[Buffer Overflow]

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

The list isn't complete.   

Maybe, but it has all your fallacies in it

If the list had the biggest fallacy of all, it wouldn't be worthy anything... even though it isn't worth much as it is. The biggest fallacy? Itself.

You dont know what to say anymore seems, and you are just posting a bunch of nonsense, too bad you cant keep posting your link full of fallacies anymore, you gotta find something else to spam now.

If you say my stuff at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is fallacies, there are only two reasons for it:
1. You are simply against the truth;
2. You are against the truth and aren't smart enough to think your way through it, or probably even out of a wet paper bag.

Or 3. Understand god cannot be proven by science.

[GannickusX]

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

The list isn't complete.   

Maybe, but it has all your fallacies in it

If the list had the biggest fallacy of all, it wouldn't be worthy anything... even though it isn't worth much as it is. The biggest fallacy? Itself.

You dont know what to say anymore seems, and you are just posting a bunch of nonsense, too bad you cant keep posting your link full of fallacies anymore, you gotta find something else to spam now.

If you say my stuff at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is fallacies, there are only two reasons for it:
1. You are simply against the truth;
2. You are against the truth and aren't smart enough to think your way through it, or probably even out of a wet paper bag.

You are commiting a fallacy right there:
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.

You only provide two options but in reality im saying your stuff in that link is all fallacies because thats what it is, fallacies.

[the joint]

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

The list isn't complete.   

Maybe, but it has all your fallacies in it

If the list had the biggest fallacy of all, it wouldn't be worthy anything... even though it isn't worth much as it is. The biggest fallacy? Itself.

You dont know what to say anymore seems, and you are just posting a bunch of nonsense, too bad you cant keep posting your link full of fallacies anymore, you gotta find something else to spam now.

If you say my stuff at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is fallacies, there are only two reasons for it:
1. You are simply against the truth;
2. You are against the truth and aren't smart enough to think your way through it, or probably even out of a wet paper bag.

Here, you are committing the logical fallacy of "false dichotomy" by claiming there are only two options when in fact there are others.

This fallacy is explicitly listed among the others as shown here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[XinXan]

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

This makes me smile lol

The list isn't complete.   

Maybe, but it has all your fallacies in it

If the list had the biggest fallacy of all, it wouldn't be worthy anything... even though it isn't worth much as it is. The biggest fallacy? Itself.

You dont know what to say anymore seems, and you are just posting a bunch of nonsense, too bad you cant keep posting your link full of fallacies anymore, you gotta find something else to spam now.

If you say my stuff at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is fallacies, there are only two reasons for it:
1. You are simply against the truth;
2. You are against the truth and aren't smart enough to think your way through it, or probably even out of a wet paper bag.

Here, you are committing the logical fallacy of "false dichotomy" by claiming there are only two options when in fact there are others.

This fallacy is explicitly listed among the others as shown here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I wonder how is he going to respond to this, my guess is that he will ignore it or try to decieve the conversation to something else wich is a another fallacy btw haha. Thanks for the wikipedia link, hopefully it helps badecker understand how much crap he talks.

[bl4kjaguar]

Skepticism of psychic phenomena is based more on a religion of materialism than on hard science.
The burden of proof has shifted to skeptics of an afterlife.

Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

"This account of quantum consciousness explains things like near-death experiences, astral projection, out of body experiences, and even reincarnation without needing to appeal to religious ideology."

The replication of NDEs satisfies the scientific method.

They found that stimulating one spot - the "God spot" - the angular gyrus in the right cortex - repeatedly caused out-of-body experiences.

Atheists believe in an afterlife after having NDEs

Atheists have deathbed experiences and near-death experiences just like everyone else does. The philosophy of Positivism, founded by the famous atheist named A. J. Ayer, is the philosophy that anything not verifiable by the senses is nonsense. Because NDEs mark the end of the senses, Positivists believe the survival of the senses after death is nonsense. But this philosophy has been challenged by its founder A. J. Ayer himself. Later in life, Ayer had a NDE where he saw a red light. Ayer's NDE made him a changed man: "My recent experiences, have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death ... will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be."

People having NDEs have brought back scientific discoveries.

A non-NDE example comes from Antony Flew, a champion of atheist beliefs for more than 50 years. In a news article titled "Atheist Discovers 'The Science of God'": "One of Britain's most prominent atheists has decided that God might exist after all. Professor Antony Flew now believes there is scientific evidence supporting the theory of some sort of intelligence behind the creation the universe. Professor Flew, 81, a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Reading, said that this was the only explanation for the origin of life ... "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots - cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said in his new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

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.

Contact with "the dead" have occurred under scientific controls.

On Oct. 4, 1999, the University of Arizona announced a study conducted by Dr. Gary Schwartz: "UA Researchers Look Beyond the Grave" concerning scientific evidence supporting a theory of the existence of a Universal Living Memory. This was achieved by testing highly qualified psychic mediums to see if they could contact the dead. The success of this study is important in that it supports NDE research in providing a scientific foundation toward investigating the survival of consciousness after death.

[bl4kjaguar]

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?!

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.

[Vod]

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?!

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.

There is no proof of the afterlife.  A body starts dying, the brain is deprived of oxygen and starts firing neurons at random, the brain interprets that as reality.

Certainly not proof. 

[XinXan]

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?!

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.

There is no proof of the afterlife.  A body starts dying, the brain is deprived of oxygen and starts firing neurons at random, the brain interprets that as reality.

Certainly not proof. 

There is an experiment but i dont rememner its name now, wich made you have "god experiencies" pretty much made you have hallucinations that some people believed it was god who was talking to them, obviously was not it was just the stimulation of the brain in that certain way, i dont remember exactly how tho.

[BADecker]

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?!

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.

There is no proof of the afterlife.  A body starts dying, the brain is deprived of oxygen and starts firing neurons at random, the brain interprets that as reality.

Certainly not proof.  

Yes, but if you ask a dead guy for the proof of an afterlife, you won't get any answer, either. This doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It simply means that the afterlife isn't for those living in this life.

Blakjag has all kinds of info that suggests there is an afterlife. What Blakjag is wrong about is what that afterlife consists of. A medium gets info from somewhere. We don't know who or what is transferring the info.

The important thing that Blakjag is missing regarding this thread, he could be proving that God exists, like the title of the thread requests. Rather, he wants to go off into a lot of unproven, suggestive ideas that are beyond the scope of the topic.

Most of the folks who post a lot here, and don't believe in God, are way off topic. Much of what they do is badmouth God believers, or say that there is no proof for God when the stuff that I present at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows that at the very least, if a person can barely think, the odds are that God exists, by a long shot. Anyone who looks at the link info and is a bit of a thinker, can see the proof that God exists. Nobody shows proof that God DOESN"T exist.

The thinking, intelligent unbelievers are simply liars, because there is no other way to interpret the info at the link than to see that God exists.



EDIT: Some say that there is no way that anybody could prove that God doesn't exist. Well, this is another piece of evidence suggesting that He does exist.

[XinXan]

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?!

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.

There is no proof of the afterlife.  A body starts dying, the brain is deprived of oxygen and starts firing neurons at random, the brain interprets that as reality.

Certainly not proof.  

Yes, but if you ask a dead guy for the proof of an afterlife, you won't get any answer, either. This doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It simply means that the afterlife isn't for those living in this life.

Blakjag has all kinds of info that suggests there is an afterlife. What Blakjag is wrong about is what that afterlife consists of. A medium gets info from somewhere. We don't know who or what is transferring the info.

The important thing that Blakjag is missing regarding this thread, he could be proving that God exists, like the title of the thread requests. Rather, he wants to go off into a lot of unproven, suggestive ideas that are beyond the scope of the topic.

Most of the folks who post a lot here, and don't believe in God, are way off topic. Much of what they do is badmouth God believers, or say that there is no proof for God when the stuff that I present at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows that at the very least, if a person can barely think, the odds are that God exists, by a long shot. Anyone who looks at the link info and is a bit of a thinker, can see the proof that God exists. Nobody shows proof that God DOESN"T exist.

The thinking, intelligent unbelievers are simply liars, because there is no other way to interpret the info at the link than to see that God exists.



EDIT: Some say that there is no way that anybody could prove that God doesn't exist. Well, this is another piece of evidence suggesting that He does exist.

Thats just another fallacy, suggesting that because you cant disprove something means it exists. You are just full of fallacies man, we are trying to explain it to you but you choose to ignore it.

[BADecker]

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?!

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.

There is no proof of the afterlife.  A body starts dying, the brain is deprived of oxygen and starts firing neurons at random, the brain interprets that as reality.

Certainly not proof.  

Yes, but if you ask a dead guy for the proof of an afterlife, you won't get any answer, either. This doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It simply means that the afterlife isn't for those living in this life.

Blakjag has all kinds of info that suggests there is an afterlife. What Blakjag is wrong about is what that afterlife consists of. A medium gets info from somewhere. We don't know who or what is transferring the info.

The important thing that Blakjag is missing regarding this thread, he could be proving that God exists, like the title of the thread requests. Rather, he wants to go off into a lot of unproven, suggestive ideas that are beyond the scope of the topic.

Most of the folks who post a lot here, and don't believe in God, are way off topic. Much of what they do is badmouth God believers, or say that there is no proof for God when the stuff that I present at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows that at the very least, if a person can barely think, the odds are that God exists, by a long shot. Anyone who looks at the link info and is a bit of a thinker, can see the proof that God exists. Nobody shows proof that God DOESN"T exist.

The thinking, intelligent unbelievers are simply liars, because there is no other way to interpret the info at the link than to see that God exists.



EDIT: Some say that there is no way that anybody could prove that God doesn't exist. Well, this is another piece of evidence suggesting that He does exist.

Thats just another fallacy, suggesting that because you cant disprove something means it exists. You are just full of fallacies man, we are trying to explain it to you but you choose to ignore it.

No, the things that you are trying to do are these. You are trying to get me to capitulate into your fallacies so that you have comfort in the idea that one of the few people who shows proof for God was wrong after all. You are trying to get me to suggest that I am wrong when I am not to keep the political and scientific status quo as it is. Common understanding of the things shown at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 proves that I am right.

What's your big hang-up, anyway. If you broke your arm, you wouldn't simply say, "I don't believe it," and get on with life with a broken arm like nothing ever happened. No. You would get the arm taken care of, by the medical if at all possible. Why do you keep on resisting the knowledge that God exists when it has been proven to you, when you can prove it to yourself?

Wake up and see that God really DOES exist so that you can go the next step and see the good that He is all about... FOR YOU.

[Buffer Overflow]

Why do you keep on resisting the knowledge that God exists when it has been proven to you, when you can prove it to yourself?

If you have proof of god then you have lost your faith in god. You cannot have proof and faith at the same time.
Why are you insisting people lose their faith in existence of god?

Wake up and see that God really DOES exist so that you can go the next step and see the good that He is all about... FOR YOU.

What next step? There is no next step.

[BADecker]

Why do you keep on resisting the knowledge that God exists when it has been proven to you, when you can prove it to yourself?

If you have proof of god then you have lost your faith in god. You cannot have proof and faith at the same time.
Why are you insisting people lose their faith in existence of god?

As I explained to you the last time you said this, faith doesn't have to be blind faith.

For example, if you hold up your closed hand and say, "I have a folded up $5 dollar bill in my closed hand," some people have faith that you are telling the truth. Others think that you are lying.

Those who have faith that you are holding a $5, can see your hand and you for a fact. So, they can have faith that the $5 might be there, 'cause they don't know you very well. Others who know you better, can see that you are there, and that you are holding up your hand (facts), but because they know you, they know that there is great probability that you are lying. Thus they have faith that there is NOT a $5 in your hand.

Wake up and see that God really DOES exist so that you can go the next step and see the good that He is all about... FOR YOU.

What next step? There is no next step.

Besides the above, you can't read very well, can you. Too much meth, right? Destroyed your abilities to think straight, right?