Scientific proof that God exists?

[the joint]

[…]

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

(Red colorization mine.)


1.

[…]

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.

2. Mathematics, like the variables of the expression 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐², "exists in nature" (BADecker) insofar as consciousness exists in nature.

Except that we don't know for a fact that the consciousness is NOT a extra universal construct, and that the brain is simply learning how to work with something outside the universe.

"Universe" implies everything. Because of this, extra-universal is something that we cannot even begin to comprehend.

If something was real enough outside of reality/the Universe so as to be able to affect it, it would be inside reality.

You are right about one thing, we cannot comprehend something that is outside reality/the Universe.

So why have you made dozens of posts making claims to the contrary?

[bl4kjaguar]

Yo 'joint', how about adequately addressing this thread and the comments I have made about the Eisenbeiss case and other comments? Do you need a recap? I never heard an adequate reply to my comments either. The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is the Phoenix Journal called "Human the Science of Man" and supporting evidence in the rest of these volumes.

Is anyone on the same page? There is no adequate reply nor conversation on these topics that I bring up.

I am sure this thread deserves adequate discussion on the topic of God and that is why I am pointing out the banned Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals. I will appreciate discussion of this topic by referencing the poster to evidence of the WORD which gives TRUTH.

[the joint]

Yo 'joint', how about adequately addressing this thread and the comments I have made about the Eisenbeiss case and other comments? Do you need a recap? I never heard an adequate reply to my comments either. The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is the Phoenix Journal called "Human the Science of Man" and supporting evidence in the rest of these volumes.

Is anyone on the same page? There is no adequate reply nor conversation on these topics that I bring up.

I am sure this thread deserves adequate discussion on the topic of God and that is why I am pointing out the banned Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals. I will appreciate discussion of this topic by referencing the poster to evidence of the WORD which gives TRUTH.

Yes, I would need a recap to thoroughly reply to it.

Based upon this sentence, however...:

The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is...

...I would say that any reply I would make would likely be generally condensed to something along the lines of, "Any after-life evidence, or any empirical evidence in general, could only be used as corollary or suggestive evidence of God's existence if there previously exists some 'a priori' philosophical proof for God's existence, and the evidence would need to be framed within the context of that philosophical proof."

[tarzan2]

couldnt every one of these scientific "proofs" be used to demonstrate that god doesnt exist as well? its a circular argument
i quote "proofs" because science by definition does not attempt to prove anything.. it merely tries to demonstrate likely theorems to describe natural phenomena

[sdp]

Mitochondrial DNA evolution seems more complex than the OP article assumes:

Or if you want something bigger to pray to then we have SOL, our life enabling star.

Sol Invictus.  The unconquered sun.  This was for a brief time a competing monotheistic religion in the Roman empire.  Held on December 25th, there was the festival of the unconquered sun.  It had to compete with Jupiter and his gang that had been already established.  Call him Sol Invictus.

sdp

 

[bl4kjaguar]

Yo 'joint', how about adequately addressing this thread and the comments I have made about the Eisenbeiss case and other comments? Do you need a recap? I never heard an adequate reply to my comments either. The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is the Phoenix Journal called "Human the Science of Man" and supporting evidence in the rest of these volumes.

Is anyone on the same page? There is no adequate reply nor conversation on these topics that I bring up.

I am sure this thread deserves adequate discussion on the topic of God and that is why I am pointing out the banned Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals. I will appreciate discussion of this topic by referencing the poster to evidence of the WORD which gives TRUTH.

Yes, I would need a recap to thoroughly reply to it.

Based upon this sentence, however...:

The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is...

...I would say that any reply I would make would likely be generally condensed to something along the lines of, "Any after-life evidence, or any empirical evidence in general, could only be used as corollary or suggestive evidence of God's existence if there previously exists some 'a priori' philosophical proof for God's existence, and the evidence would need to be framed within the context of that philosophical proof."

Hi joint, you may wish to read my latest posts and references to better understand the form of the proof.

All atheists are humanists; also, the Eisenbeiss case strongly supports survival, which humanists reject, so I conclude that all atheists are mistaken.

Further, we now know that life is more than just complicated chemistry and this also undermines humanism.

[Vod]

[vokain]

Mitochondrial DNA evolution seems more complex than the OP article assumes:

Or if you want something bigger to pray to then we have SOL, our life enabling star.

Sol Invictus.  The unconquered sun.  This was for a brief time a competing monotheistic religion in the Roman empire.  Held on December 25th, there was the festival of the unconquered sun.  It had to compete with Jupiter and his gang that had been already established.  Call him Sol Invictus.

sdp

 

“For three days, December 22nd , 23rd, and 24th, the Sun rises on the exact same latitudinal (declinations) degree. This is the only time in the year that the Sun actually stops its movement northward or Southward in our sky. On the morning of December 25th the Sun moves one degree northward beginning its annual journey back to us in the Northern Hemisphere, ultimately bringing our spring. Anything steadily moving all year long that suddenly stops moving for three days was considered to have died. Therefore, God’s Sun who was dead for three days, moves onedegree northward on December 25th and is symbolically born again.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/atlantean_conspiracy/atlantean_conspiracy44.htm

And happy Easter:

The Book of Mark is the Book of Mars. The planet/archetype Mars is the ruler of Aries which makes the Book of Mark, in zodiacal terms, the Book of Aries. The word “arise” comes from Aries [Horus:Sun, Aries:Arise; horizon], as it is the first house of the zodiac where the sun arises during the spring equinox/Easter.
 
Aries month is April which comes from the Latin “aperio,” meaning to open or begin. Just as Aries is the first zodiacal sign, April was (and still is in many cultures) the first month of the calendar year. To the ancients, the spring equinox was a more appropriate calendrical beginning because it is when the daytime hours officially overtake the nighttime hours. The Sun is resurrected, its light triumphs over darkness, and Gaia begins to bloom again.

But I'd prefer to pray to where the Sun comes from

[the joint]

Yo 'joint', how about adequately addressing this thread and the comments I have made about the Eisenbeiss case and other comments? Do you need a recap? I never heard an adequate reply to my comments either. The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is the Phoenix Journal called "Human the Science of Man" and supporting evidence in the rest of these volumes.

Is anyone on the same page? There is no adequate reply nor conversation on these topics that I bring up.

I am sure this thread deserves adequate discussion on the topic of God and that is why I am pointing out the banned Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals. I will appreciate discussion of this topic by referencing the poster to evidence of the WORD which gives TRUTH.

Yes, I would need a recap to thoroughly reply to it.

Based upon this sentence, however...:

The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is...

...I would say that any reply I would make would likely be generally condensed to something along the lines of, "Any after-life evidence, or any empirical evidence in general, could only be used as corollary or suggestive evidence of God's existence if there previously exists some 'a priori' philosophical proof for God's existence, and the evidence would need to be framed within the context of that philosophical proof."

Hi joint, you may wish to read my latest posts and references to better understand the form of the proof.

All atheists are humanists; also, the Eisenbeiss case strongly supports survival, which humanists reject, so I conclude that all atheists are mistaken.

Further, we now know that life is more than just complicated chemistry and this also undermines humanism.

I'll take a look at it.  But again, it's a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be empirical proof of God.  Empirical proof or "evidence" is only relevant to things that are observable.  By definition, an "intelligent designer of reality" has non-observable components.  Therefore, you can't prove God with evidence.  The best you can do is a logical proof, and then find suggestive or corollary evidence to support it after the fact.

To make an analogy, when you have a thought you are exposed to the non-observable content and meaning of that thought.  Others around you might be able to do an empirical neurological analysis of your brain at the time you're having a thought, and certain types of electrical and neuronal activity will suggest that you are indeed having a thought.  As a result, they can find suggestive, corollary evidence that you are having a thought, but they wouldn't be able to make this suggestion if you didn't know your thought existed in the first place so as to be able to link brain activity to it.

[BADecker]

No scientific proof that the joint exists.

[bl4kjaguar]

Good day to everyone; I am bumping this thread because I have posted a lot of truth here.

For some reason, the joint and BADecker have yet to respond to my posts.

I will not stop posting the truth about man and God in this thread; it is too important!

Those of you who hold back that which you know to be TRUTH, do a disservice to your fellow man. In your state of fear or false allegiance, you are simply among the many controlled puppets actually working FOR the "elite". Surely a few moments of quiet reflection would counsel the folly of such a path!

I say, here and now, that the ONLY way to regain ANY true freedom is to speak out and turn this mess around. Call upon God for assistance and protection AND YOU WILL HAVE IT! If you dwell upon fear, it will consume your life and, moreover, expedite the death of your physical body.

Dwell upon that which you know to be true, and share your unique knowledge with the world. Many wait until they are literally on their deathbed to speak out, for in their final moments they finally feel that they haven't anything left to lose.

Speak out NOW and do something TRULY meaningful with your life!

ONE PERSON CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

The joint,

You may wish to read my latest posts and references to better understand the form of the proof.

All atheists are humanists; also, the Eisenbeiss case strongly supports survival, which humanists reject, so I conclude that all atheists are mistaken.

Further, we now know that life is more than just complicated chemistry and this also undermines humanism.

BADecker,

I advise you not to call my GOD the devil until you know EXACTLY what is going on.

God's messenger Hatonn delivers a message that is both literal and rational; this is what a spiritual teaching should look like.

By the way, I still disagree with you about a "jealous/wrathful God"; God is love, and you have called my God the Devil without even so much as pointing out where God's messenger is telling you to do evil.

I am making this post so that others may also share TRUTH in this thread.

[bl4kjaguar]

The Greatest Story Never Told...

Skepticism of psychic phenomena is based more on a religion of materialism than on hard science.

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.

Now, if the Ancient Astronaut theory is all bunkum, why are NASA officials advocating it?

I started reasoning that if all of what the Ancient Astronaut proponents said occurred were true, then there should be biological evidence of it. Taking the old texts and scriptures at face value is not enough; there has to be other evidence to collaborate it and I believe I have found it.

It is nice to be confident about your world, it makes us feel secure, but putting horse blinders on may distract us from seeing the truth and dealing with it. It takes more intelligence to not believe in evolution, than it takes to believe in it, I have found. Those who are fanatics in its belief remind me so of the church that has kept man in the dark for ages. I am not a Creationists per se, but they have certainly hit the mark on many things by bringing up issues in science that are an embarrassment to the Saganite gendre.

[bl4kjaguar]

he could disprove the possibility of the soul's survival after death

It is doubtful that one could adequately explain the evidence for survival in this manner; I think the Eisenbeiss case is too strongly supportive of the survival hypothesis.

Skeptics have not provided an adequate response to the observations of professor Eisenbeiss.

Did you miss this, nsimmons?
I did not hear you address this case so maybe you could explain the evidence that was presented... you can find it by searching the thread for Eisenbeiss. Looking forward to our conversation.

I showed this thread evidence for one of the core messages of spirituality--reincarnation:

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss. [Reference the AECES Top 40 Site]

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

[the joint]

...For some reason, the joint and BADecker have yet to respond to my posts...

Yes, I did.

I'll take a look at it.  But again, it's a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be empirical proof of God.  Empirical proof or "evidence" is only relevant to things that are observable.  By definition, an "intelligent designer of reality" has non-observable components.  Therefore, you can't prove God with evidence.  The best you can do is a logical proof, and then find suggestive or corollary evidence to support it after the fact.

To make an analogy, when you have a thought you are exposed to the non-observable content and meaning of that thought.  Others around you might be able to do an empirical neurological analysis of your brain at the time you're having a thought, and certain types of electrical and neuronal activity will suggest that you are indeed having a thought.  As a result, they can find suggestive, corollary evidence that you are having a thought, but they wouldn't be able to make this suggestion if you didn't know your thought existed in the first place so as to be able to link brain activity to it.

.

[bl4kjaguar]

Hi Joint,

The Eisenbeiss case supplies evidence that all atheists are mistaken; if this is only "suggestive" of God, that is fine with me because man already has TRUTH sufficient to back up an adequate and complete understanding of professor Eisenbeiss' observations. The best explanation will incorporate all of the data, and I am supplying that TRUTH right here.

Inspired writings are suggestive of a higher truth, and they can be gauged by way of the content-source problem. Such an analysis suggests that the Phoenix Journals are true; Phoenix Journals also provide one with a better understanding of the content-source problem, so I am promoting this content in order to educate readers about the true nature of rebirth.

So, I conclude that it is a lie to say that God does not exist or that God cannot be evidenced scientifically; the simplest and most adequate understanding of the evidence for survival demands something like God, and by the way, you can read the scientific proof in the Journal called "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".

[XinXan]

All ''proofs'' for god end up being the same thing, philosophical thoughts that are not proof of anything. There is no scientific proof of God right now, if there was all the scientists would talk about it wouldnt they? Why would 90% of the scientists deny the existence of god? One thing is for sure tho, The Bible God definitely does not exist.

[the joint]

Hi Joint,

The Eisenbeiss case supplies evidence that all atheists are mistaken; if this is only "suggestive" of God, that is fine with me because man already has TRUTH sufficient to back up an adequate and complete understanding of professor Eisenbeiss' observations. The best explanation will incorporate all of the data, and I am supplying that TRUTH right here.

Inspired writings are suggestive of a higher truth, and they can be gauged by way of the content-source problem. Such an analysis suggests that the Phoenix Journals are true; Phoenix Journals also provide one with a better understanding of the content-source problem, so I am promoting this content in order to educate readers about the true nature of rebirth.

So, I conclude that it is a lie to say that God does not exist or that God cannot be evidenced scientifically; the simplest and most adequate understanding of the evidence for survival demands something like God, and by the way, you can read the scientific proof in the Journal called "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".

You can conclude, but you would be wrong.

You're committing an inductive fallacy.  Specifically, you are holding up evidence to a preconceived notion of God which you haven't proven to be true, but which you must assume to be true if you are to confirm that the evidence proves God exists.

This is exactly why it is impossible for there to be any empirical proof of God's existence. 

Simply put, you can't say evidence proves God unless you already know what God is, but at the same time you can't know what God is until you've proven it.

[bl4kjaguar]

All ''proofs'' for god end up being the same thing, philosophical thoughts that are not proof of anything. There is no scientific proof of God right now, if there was all the scientists would talk about it wouldnt they? Why would 90% of the scientists deny the existence of god? One thing is for sure tho, The Bible God definitely does not exist.

Why do you deny that life is more than complicated chemistry when this is the latest understanding of information theory and biology?

Oh, it is because you have not read the truth that I referenced for you.

[XinXan]

All ''proofs'' for god end up being the same thing, philosophical thoughts that are not proof of anything. There is no scientific proof of God right now, if there was all the scientists would talk about it wouldnt they? Why would 90% of the scientists deny the existence of god? One thing is for sure tho, The Bible God definitely does not exist.

Why do you deny that life is more than complicated chemistry when this is the latest understanding of information theory and biology?

Why do you think its more than that? Do you have any proofs for your afirmations or just vague thoughts and conclusions that you make

[bl4kjaguar]

All ''proofs'' for god end up being the same thing, philosophical thoughts that are not proof of anything. There is no scientific proof of God right now, if there was all the scientists would talk about it wouldnt they? Why would 90% of the scientists deny the existence of god? One thing is for sure tho, The Bible God definitely does not exist.

Why do you deny that life is more than complicated chemistry when this is the latest understanding of information theory and biology?

Why do you think its more than that? Do you have any proofs for your afirmations or just vague thoughts and conclusions that you make

The proofs come from Yockey; I have linked you to enough papers already.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10872930#msg10872930

There is no point in discussing science with you when you ignore the references, just like with the joint and BADecker.