Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

All people die. Some simply make mistakes that are more stupid than the mistakes of others. The important thing is the faith that they have in Jesus salvation at the time of death. Because, when they rise in the resurrection, they will be based on their faith in Jesus salvation, not on their stupidity in other areas.

There is zero proof or evidence that believing in Jesus is important. It's simply faith based Christian mythology, nothing more.

It's dishonest to present it as factual.

There is scientific and nature proof that God exists.

There is historical evidence in the history of how the Bible was written, the info in it, and the history of the nation of Israel that shows that God speaks through the Bible.

So, when God and His witnesses tell us something through the Bible, we either believe Him or not. It's as simple as that.

I believe God enough that, the things that He says are facts to me. So, I treat them as facts when I speak about them. Therefore, it is not dishonest for me, even though it might be dishonest for you.

[1715086643]

1715086643

[1715086643]

1715086643

[1715086643]

1715086643

[1715086643]

1715086643

[1715086643]

1715086643

[1715086643]

1715086643

[Bitcoinbee]

If you make a deeper study on the creation stated in the Bible comparing it to the Big bang theory it is a resemblance of creation making the two theory as one.  Everything started from nothing but silence and word and a lot of it follows after the silence.  The seven days in the Bible stating the creation is not what we call a 24 hours a day.  It is the sequence of time in creation making it more than billion of years to complete some parts of it.  The two theories come as one after the Higgs Boson has been discovered.

There is one thing missing in all this. We have intelligence and awareness. Nothing in BB Theory explains intelligence and awareness. But it has to if everything comes from BB.

Bible at least suggests that God is an entity. This means intelligence. Add the law of cause and effect which is totally supported by BB and by Bible, and you have a requirement for intelligence at the Beginning.

The book of Tora was never written in the beginning.  It was passed through out the ages by way of words through the tongue of men.  That is why it was short written when it comes to the description of the procedure in the creation because in the past no one would understand what a scientific process would means and would be.

[BADecker]

If you make a deeper study on the creation stated in the Bible comparing it to the Big bang theory it is a resemblance of creation making the two theory as one.  Everything started from nothing but silence and word and a lot of it follows after the silence.  The seven days in the Bible stating the creation is not what we call a 24 hours a day.  It is the sequence of time in creation making it more than billion of years to complete some parts of it.  The two theories come as one after the Higgs Boson has been discovered.

There is one thing missing in all this. We have intelligence and awareness. Nothing in BB Theory explains intelligence and awareness. But it has to if everything comes from BB.

Bible at least suggests that God is an entity. This means intelligence. Add the law of cause and effect which is totally supported by BB and by Bible, and you have a requirement for intelligence at the Beginning.

The book of Tora was never written in the beginning.  It was passed through out the ages by way of words through the tongue of men.  That is why it was short written when it comes to the description of the procedure in the creation because in the past no one would understand what a scientific process would means and would be.

We do not know that the information that Moses wrote in the first book of the Torah (Pentateuch), Genesis, was not previously written. Moses was a prince of Egypt for his first 40 years. Acts 7:22 tells us that he was powerful in word and deed. This means that he had access to libraries of books from around the world, since Egypt was possibly the greatest center of civilization in the world in the days of Moses.

The ancient cities of Byblos and Ugarit had lots of conflicting information about the beginning times, as did Egypt. Moses, looking for the truth, sorted it out, and even transcribed the first two chapters of Genesis from other written sources, since these chapters are not written in his style.

The Bible is not meant to be a history book of general history. It is meant to be a history that traces the ancestry of Jesus Christ from the Beginning to Israel to Jesus. In doing this, it briefly covers all times of the earth.

Consider the website, The Biblical Age of the Earth http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. This site CLEARLY shows that the earth is a little over 6,000 years old (maybe 6,200) according to the Bible.

If any of the modern archaeological dating systems are even a little correct, and the earth is much older than 6,200 years, this means that the Bible Beginning was really a new Beginning after Satan had destroyed an ancient earth/universe. This would mean that the Bible needs to be understood in a whole different light regarding its history.

The only Bible thing that I know that suggests that this idea is possible, is the wording in the beginning of Genesis where it says, "... and the earth was formless and void." The word "was" is the same word that the Hebrew people used for "became." God doesn't make things that are formless and void. So, it might be that the Beginning was God's remake of some former universe, and that the Revelation war in Heaven between Michael and Satan really happened before the Beginning, and destroyed the then universe.

Now, I am getting the feeling that maybe I shouldn't be posting this here like this, so take what I say here with a grain or two of salt... and study this on your own.

[Bitcoinbee]

If you make a deeper study on the creation stated in the Bible comparing it to the Big bang theory it is a resemblance of creation making the two theory as one.  Everything started from nothing but silence and word and a lot of it follows after the silence.  The seven days in the Bible stating the creation is not what we call a 24 hours a day.  It is the sequence of time in creation making it more than billion of years to complete some parts of it.  The two theories come as one after the Higgs Boson has been discovered.

There is one thing missing in all this. We have intelligence and awareness. Nothing in BB Theory explains intelligence and awareness. But it has to if everything comes from BB.

Bible at least suggests that God is an entity. This means intelligence. Add the law of cause and effect which is totally supported by BB and by Bible, and you have a requirement for intelligence at the Beginning.

The book of Tora was never written in the beginning.  It was passed through out the ages by way of words through the tongue of men.  That is why it was short written when it comes to the description of the procedure in the creation because in the past no one would understand what a scientific process would means and would be.

We do not know that the information that Moses wrote in the first book of the Torah (Pentateuch), Genesis, was not previously written. Moses was a prince of Egypt for his first 40 years. Acts 7:22 tells us that he was powerful in word and deed. This means that he had access to libraries of books from around the world, since Egypt was possibly the greatest center of civilization in the world in the days of Moses.

The ancient cities of Byblos and Ugarit had lots of conflicting information about the beginning times, as did Egypt. Moses, looking for the truth, sorted it out, and even transcribed the first two chapters of Genesis from other written sources, since these chapters are not written in his style.

The Bible is not meant to be a history book of general history. It is meant to be a history that traces the ancestry of Jesus Christ from the Beginning to Israel to Jesus. In doing this, it briefly covers all times of the earth.

Consider the website, The Biblical Age of the Earth http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. This site CLEARLY shows that the earth is a little over 6,000 years old (maybe 6,200) according to the Bible.

If any of the modern archaeological dating systems are even a little correct, and the earth is much older than 6,200 years, this means that the Bible Beginning was really a new Beginning after Satan had destroyed an ancient earth/universe. This would mean that the Bible needs to be understood in a whole different light regarding its history.

The only Bible thing that I know that suggests that this idea is possible, is the wording in the beginning of Genesis where it says, "... and the earth was formless and void." The word "was" is the same word that the Hebrew people used for "became." God doesn't make things that are formless and void. So, it might be that the Beginning was God's remake of some former universe, and that the Revelation war in Heaven between Michael and Satan really happened before the Beginning, and destroyed the then universe.

Now, I am getting the feeling that maybe I shouldn't be posting this here like this, so take what I say here with a grain or two of salt... and study this on your own.

yes it is difficult to have it here since we all know is about egypts history not knowing that before egypt there was this summerian civilization.  so when was the time of moses? after the summerians ? or before?

[Buffer Overflow]

All people die. Some simply make mistakes that are more stupid than the mistakes of others. The important thing is the faith that they have in Jesus salvation at the time of death. Because, when they rise in the resurrection, they will be based on their faith in Jesus salvation, not on their stupidity in other areas.

There is zero proof or evidence that believing in Jesus is important. It's simply faith based Christian mythology, nothing more.

It's dishonest to present it as factual.

There is scientific and nature proof that God exists.

There is historical evidence in the history of how the Bible was written, the info in it, and the history of the nation of Israel that shows that God speaks through the Bible.

So, when God and His witnesses tell us something through the Bible, we either believe Him or not. It's as simple as that.

I believe God enough that, the things that He says are facts to me. So, I treat them as facts when I speak about them. Therefore, it is not dishonest for me, even though it might be dishonest for you.

1) Strawman. I never once mentioned God. Plus it's pointless going over your failed scientific theory AGAIN. Not that it's got anything to do with what I said.

2) Yeah, yeah, ALL holy books claim to be "the word of God", all with their own fabricated evidence. Since nobody knows what the word of God is, how do we know what are the correct words of God? We don't and cannot know.

3) Fallacy here. You've made the conclusion that that God is tell us through the bible, then gave us the option of believing him or not.  Spot the obvious deception.

4) Sounds like your struggling with being honest even with yourself.

    

[BADecker]

All people die. Some simply make mistakes that are more stupid than the mistakes of others. The important thing is the faith that they have in Jesus salvation at the time of death. Because, when they rise in the resurrection, they will be based on their faith in Jesus salvation, not on their stupidity in other areas.

There is zero proof or evidence that believing in Jesus is important. It's simply faith based Christian mythology, nothing more.

It's dishonest to present it as factual.

There is scientific and nature proof that God exists.

There is historical evidence in the history of how the Bible was written, the info in it, and the history of the nation of Israel that shows that God speaks through the Bible.

So, when God and His witnesses tell us something through the Bible, we either believe Him or not. It's as simple as that.

I believe God enough that, the things that He says are facts to me. So, I treat them as facts when I speak about them. Therefore, it is not dishonest for me, even though it might be dishonest for you.

1) Strawman. I never once mentioned God. Plus it's pointless going over your failed scientific theory AGAIN. Not that it's got anything to do with what I said.

2) Yeah, yeah, ALL holy books claim to be "the word of God", all with their own fabricated evidence. Since nobody knows what the word of God is, how do we know what are the correct words of God? We don't and cannot know.

3) Fallacy here. You've made the conclusion that that God is tell us through the bible, then gave us the option of believing him or not.  Spot the obvious deception.

4) Sounds like your struggling with being honest even with yourself.

    

Too bad you don't understand enough about life and reality, to say nothing about history, to even begin to know what you are talking about. That being said, there is a chance that you know a lot more than you act like you do, and are simply playing a game for some reason.

[Crazygreek]

God is everything. I believe in god.

Believers don't need any proofs? I am confused, this world is so strange..

[Buffer Overflow]

God is everything. I believe in god.

Believers don't need any proofs? I am confused, this world is so strange..

That's why it's called faith.

[BADecker]

God is everything. I believe in god.

Believers don't need any proofs? I am confused, this world is so strange..

That's why it's called faith.

But when believers have some proof along with their faith, their faith is strengthened greatly. That's why you have so little faith in life. You haven't accepted the proof that God exists, yet.

[Buffer Overflow]

God is everything. I believe in god.

Believers don't need any proofs? I am confused, this world is so strange..

That's why it's called faith.

But when believers have some proof along with their faith, their faith is strengthened greatly. That's why you have so little faith in life. You haven't accepted the proof that God exists, yet.

It depends what you mean by "faith". When regarding religious stuff, the usual definition of "faith" used by both religious and non-religious alike is: belief in the absence of proof.

If you had proof it would no longer be called "faith", it would be referred to as "knowing". So the Christian faith would change to the Christian knowing.
Doesn't sound right does it.

If your just going reply with your usual silly word gymnastics games, spinning them all around in your favour, please don't bother replying.

[Gimpeline]

God is everything. I believe in god.

Believers don't need any proofs? I am confused, this world is so strange..

That's why it's called faith.

But when believers have some proof along with their faith, their faith is strengthened greatly. That's why you have so little faith in life. You haven't accepted the proof that God exists, yet.

Since there is no proof, how can we accept it?
Can you link to the scientific paper that proves God? Not just some weirdo that wrote an article like  Hovind, Ray "Bananaman" Comfort or those nuts, but the scientific paper?
You can find a few databases here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_databases_and_search_engines
Just put a link to the proof and I'll read it

[Buffer Overflow]

BADlogic's scientific proof never passed the peer review stage, by both athiests and thiests.

[Gimpeline]

You can download Kent Hovind's doctoral thesis that he made when he bought his doctor title here
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
recommended reading. Its absolutely hilarious

[BADecker]

God is everything. I believe in god.

Believers don't need any proofs? I am confused, this world is so strange..

That's why it's called faith.

But when believers have some proof along with their faith, their faith is strengthened greatly. That's why you have so little faith in life. You haven't accepted the proof that God exists, yet.

Since there is no proof, how can we accept it?
Can you link to the scientific paper that proves God? Not just some weirdo that wrote an article like  Hovind, Ray "Bananaman" Comfort or those nuts, but the scientific paper?
You can find a few databases here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_databases_and_search_engines
Just put a link to the proof and I'll read it

Proof isn't proof to anyone that will not look at it. Proof isn't proof to anyone who can deny it in his mind.

Do the research. Cause and effect, coupled with complex universe, coupled with universal entropy - all of them scientific facts - prove that Something that fits the dictionary definition of "God" exists.

The things written in the Bible, along with the history of how the Bible came into being, along with the nation of Israel, show that there is more to the Bible than that it is simply a book.

Once one understands that God exists, and that he has spoken through the words of the Bible, then one is strengthened to have faith that God will do what He says He will... just like He has done in the past.

[QuestionAuthority]

BADlogic's scientific proof never passed the peer review stage, by both athiests and thiests.

Badecker never had to respond to logical nonbelievers.

[BADecker]

BADlogic's scientific proof never passed the peer review stage, by both athiests and thiests.

Badecker never had to respond to logical nonbelievers.

Since the logical nonbelievers don't have a logical rebuttal to the proof that God exists, there is nothing to respond to.

[Bitcoinbee]

BADlogic's scientific proof never passed the peer review stage, by both athiests and thiests.

Badecker never had to respond to logical nonbelievers.

Since the logical nonbelievers don't have a logical rebuttal to the proof that God exists, there is nothing to respond to.

maybe, but and it is really a big deal if anyone doesn't believed in God and does not also believed in a creator for the existence of everything.  Then where did we came from? From nothing that turned into a bubble and expanded into a big boom and there we were at.  Who the someone did that bubble?

[QuestionAuthority]

BADlogic's scientific proof never passed the peer review stage, by both athiests and thiests.

Badecker never had to respond to logical nonbelievers.

Since the logical nonbelievers don't have a logical rebuttal to the proof that God exists, there is nothing to respond to.

maybe, but and it is really a big deal if anyone doesn't believed in God and does not also believed in a creator for the existence of everything.  Then where did we came from? From nothing that turned into a bubble and expanded into a big boom and there we were at.  Who the someone did that bubble?

If this mess was actually created by something instead of being a random accident, then the creator is either an incredible fuck up or a sadistic piece of shit. I don't feel quite like worshipping either option.

[Buffer Overflow]

BADlogic's scientific proof never passed the peer review stage, by both athiests and thiests.

Badecker never had to respond to logical nonbelievers.

Since the logical nonbelievers don't have a logical rebuttal to the proof that God exists, there is nothing to respond to.

maybe, but and it is really a big deal if anyone doesn't believed in God and does not also believed in a creator for the existence of everything.  Then where did we came from? From nothing that turned into a bubble and expanded into a big boom and there we were at.  Who the someone did that bubble?

True science that follows the scientific method cannot prove or disprove God. It cannot now, and never will. Why? The same reason you cannot fly. Your not designed to fly, and science isn't designed to prove God.

Science is great, but like most things people can and do abuse it.This is when something called pseudoscience pops up. Pseudoscience to the untrained eye looks and feels just like science, but isn't really because it doesn't adhere to the scientific method.

Most of the time people make genuine mistakes, but not in BADlogic's case. He knows full well it's pseudoscience, yet continues to lie. This should give you a red warning flag straight away.

As for is a big deal if we believe in God or not. Well I guess that's up to the individual, but from Gods point of view is it a big deal? Science cannot answer that for you, nor can the circular logic based "the bible is the word of God, because bible says so" fallacy book.
Why not use your logic?
Does God give preference to one band of religious followers than another? No.
Does God give preference to those that worship him? No.
Does God give preference to atheists? No.

This only leaves us with two logical conclusions:
Either God doesn't exist, or God doesn't care what you believe in.

Take your pick.

[BADecker]

BADlogic's scientific proof never passed the peer review stage, by both athiests and thiests.

Badecker never had to respond to logical nonbelievers.

Since the logical nonbelievers don't have a logical rebuttal to the proof that God exists, there is nothing to respond to.

maybe, but and it is really a big deal if anyone doesn't believed in God and does not also believed in a creator for the existence of everything.  Then where did we came from? From nothing that turned into a bubble and expanded into a big boom and there we were at.  Who the someone did that bubble?

This is a reasonable point. Some day science will find something that shows that Big Bang was impossible. Right now there are at least 3 solid forms of BB Theory. This shows that science doesn't know for a fact that BB was real.

Evolution from inanimate materials to life is mathematically impossible. It is so firmly impossible that we don't have any logical way to even begin to show how something like evolution could even start to be possible. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0.

When you combine the scientific facts of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy, you get a result that says that God exists. If God didn't exist, at least one of these 3 scientific facts would have to NOT exist as well. Since they all exist, God MUST exist.

All our machinery, chemistry and physics comes from what we see in nature. We build our machinery based on nature and what we find in nature. Nature still has natural machinery that is greater than anything that we can build. Since it is machinery, our example of building our machinery shows that machines need to have intelligent makers. The machinery of nature is no different. The Maker of the machinery of nature is God.

The thing that I don't understand is why intelligent scientists would want to fight against God. Since they know that He exists, why not accept the truth and build science around the fact of God? In all their scientific logic, the fundamental foundation of it, that God does not exist, is not logical.