Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

I had hoped you would understand that the trails couldn't have been left by the big bang, because it never existed. Well, it exists after a fashion in the imagination of some scientists. But scientific law proves that God exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380,
while big bang is only theory.

Why don't you come right out and admit that you have a religion going for yourself in theories that are not known to be fact? At the same time, science fact has knowledge going for itself in proof that God exists.

Science has nothing to do with any God, nor is this a battle of who was there or not. You weren't there, nobody was there, not even the hebrews who wrote the old testament. However, while science admits to not knowing many things, you dumb asses claim to know, so you are the only ones who got a religion going for themselves. Science is pretty accurate, even regarding Big Bang, it was predicted a Background radiation would be found, but again, I have no expectances of you.

Yet, I have shown the scientific proof that God exists. Even if you can't understand the proof, you can Google the science laws that make up the elements of the proof, and see that they exist.

Here you are, dragging in the Hebrews and their religion, again. Does everything have to be religion for you?

The math regarding big bang might be reasonably accurate in itself, but there are all kinds of things that are possible that, if one of them were added to BB theory, the whole thing would collapse. As I have said, even if a form of big bang were PROVEN to be possible, that still wouldn't PROVE that the universe was formed that way.

The fact that there are at least 3 major forms of BB theory shows that big bang is simply something scientists play with. Drop the silly big bang idea. Get down to the facts of science law as listed in my links, above, and see how the universe was created.

We may not know much about God, but the fact that there is intelligence and emotion in the universe that He created, shows that He exists as a sentient being.

You have shown no scientific proof of a God, nobody has. You've shown proof of laws of physics and nature that exist and have already been proven. As for the religion thing, everything is religion when it involves God since Gods came up through religion, that's the main story, the revelation. Also, as I was saying, you are too ashamed to bring religion into discussion, because that is already a lost battle. So what are you, in the end? Because you are not a scientist and you also deny your religion, basically denying your god. You should make up for something, otherwise you're just a babbling donkey.

Do you understand the math behind big bang? Can you explain it? Can you begin to show where the "proof" in it is? No? I didn't think so.

There is nothing wrong with not being able to understand the proof for God. Lots of folks will not be able to understand the simple explanation. It's just like not being able to understand the math for big bang.

But here is the difference. The proof for God is backed up by scientific laws, while big bang is completely theory. And you know this.

The point? You would rather accept the make-believe science theory for big bang, yet you won't accept the scientific laws that show God.

For you it isn't about determining which is right. What it is about is accepting the laws/facts or accepting the theories/unknowns.

For you it is accepting the religion rather than the knowledge. And that is why you are constantly throwing religion into the mix.

Poor baby. You are so hung up on religion, that when the facts and knowledge stare you in the face, you would rather stick with your religion.

You know you're brain dead when you claim that your proof for God is backed up by scientific laws while the Big Bang is not. That's a whole different level of retard. Whatever you will say, you are the retard here mate, get used to it.

The major difference being, I have shown the scientific laws. Can you do the same?

The scientific laws I show are such great scientific laws, that they are among the basics of universe operation. How about yours?

Do you think I am picking on you by asking this of you? Not at all. And, you might even be able to show some scientific laws for big bang. But do it. Don't just babble about it.

Show some scientific laws for big bang, and explain how they work to prove big bang.

You sure are a bold little troll. I show the laws. You don't. But you keep on babbling like you have something to babble about. Come on, man. Be all that you can be and explain something about BB that isn't a bunch of theoretical unknowns.

[1713519294]

1713519294

[1713519294]

1713519294

[1713519294]

1713519294

[1713519294]

1713519294

[1713519294]

1713519294

[Horacewoodwood]

I had hoped you would understand that the trails couldn't have been left by the big bang, because it never existed. Well, it exists after a fashion in the imagination of some scientists. But scientific law proves that God exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380,
while big bang is only theory.

Why don't you come right out and admit that you have a religion going for yourself in theories that are not known to be fact? At the same time, science fact has knowledge going for itself in proof that God exists.

Science has nothing to do with any God, nor is this a battle of who was there or not. You weren't there, nobody was there, not even the hebrews who wrote the old testament. However, while science admits to not knowing many things, you dumb asses claim to know, so you are the only ones who got a religion going for themselves. Science is pretty accurate, even regarding Big Bang, it was predicted a Background radiation would be found, but again, I have no expectances of you.

Yet, I have shown the scientific proof that God exists. Even if you can't understand the proof, you can Google the science laws that make up the elements of the proof, and see that they exist.

Here you are, dragging in the Hebrews and their religion, again. Does everything have to be religion for you?

The math regarding big bang might be reasonably accurate in itself, but there are all kinds of things that are possible that, if one of them were added to BB theory, the whole thing would collapse. As I have said, even if a form of big bang were PROVEN to be possible, that still wouldn't PROVE that the universe was formed that way.

The fact that there are at least 3 major forms of BB theory shows that big bang is simply something scientists play with. Drop the silly big bang idea. Get down to the facts of science law as listed in my links, above, and see how the universe was created.

We may not know much about God, but the fact that there is intelligence and emotion in the universe that He created, shows that He exists as a sentient being.

You have shown no scientific proof of a God, nobody has. You've shown proof of laws of physics and nature that exist and have already been proven. As for the religion thing, everything is religion when it involves God since Gods came up through religion, that's the main story, the revelation. Also, as I was saying, you are too ashamed to bring religion into discussion, because that is already a lost battle. So what are you, in the end? Because you are not a scientist and you also deny your religion, basically denying your god. You should make up for something, otherwise you're just a babbling donkey.

Do you understand the math behind big bang? Can you explain it? Can you begin to show where the "proof" in it is? No? I didn't think so.

There is nothing wrong with not being able to understand the proof for God. Lots of folks will not be able to understand the simple explanation. It's just like not being able to understand the math for big bang.

But here is the difference. The proof for God is backed up by scientific laws, while big bang is completely theory. And you know this.

The point? You would rather accept the make-believe science theory for big bang, yet you won't accept the scientific laws that show God.

For you it isn't about determining which is right. What it is about is accepting the laws/facts or accepting the theories/unknowns.

For you it is accepting the religion rather than the knowledge. And that is why you are constantly throwing religion into the mix.

Poor baby. You are so hung up on religion, that when the facts and knowledge stare you in the face, you would rather stick with your religion.

You know you're brain dead when you claim that your proof for God is backed up by scientific laws while the Big Bang is not. That's a whole different level of retard. Whatever you will say, you are the retard here mate, get used to it.

The major difference being, I have shown the scientific laws. Can you do the same?

The scientific laws I show are such great scientific laws, that they are among the basics of universe operation. How about yours?

Do you think I am picking on you by asking this of you? Not at all. And, you might even be able to show some scientific laws for big bang. But do it. Don't just babble about it.

Show some scientific laws for big bang, and explain how they work to prove big bang.

You sure are a bold little troll. I show the laws. You don't. But you keep on babbling like you have something to babble about. Come on, man. Be all that you can be and explain something about BB that isn't a bunch of theoretical unknowns.

That is precisely what you did, you've shown some laws, you have not proved anything and you should know better then that. We don't live in caves anymore, any type of God proof would have been known by now by the entire world, especially by the different religions around the world. There is no God proof and whether you are a complete retard or just a hypocrite, the truth remains the same. Obviously, you are one of them, and it is neither arguable, nor debatable. I don't think you are picking on me and no I will not show you some scientific laws for the big bang. That is information a 12 year old kid could get with a quick google search, it logically stands at the basics of the Big Bang, otherwise, if it were only for mathematics, nobody would waste time actually tracing the Big Bang back when the universe was merely 450.000 years old. You may deny that evidence, but certainly it will not make it less true, it will simply make you even more retarded, if that is even possible. And for the last time, the ones that have to prove something, and we are talking about solid, powerful, concrete evidence, is you because you claim to know exactly who and when created the universe. That is a very serious claim and can only be backed up with such evidence. Stop wasting your time and go fucking pray, your faith would be much more respected than the bullshit that you keep posting in your links and the insolence of calling your waste of time 'scientific research', a great offence to any scientist who ever lived on this planet. You can keep acting like an apologist piece of shit, or you can start getting real. The 'science' bullshit won't work here, nor anywhere else.

[qwik2learn]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

[Karmakid]

There are already much proofs to be specific scientific proofs of god being a fake fairy tale story which is believe by some people,dont include me there because i still believe in god

[Horacewoodwood]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

[Horacewoodwood]

If I was to be capable of proving to you that does God exist, what would that look? What truth of science would it be based when gathering information? Mathematics, physics, geology, etc. I ask since it seems to me that most Atheists expect the answer to be endowed in science. Or nothing. I had an issue outside about what I believed could be demonstrated by science, and it seems that science cannot solve the enigma; the philosopher's teaching is the more suitable tool.

No, atheists do not expect God to be proved by science. They actually do not expect anything to prove God, since they don't believe in it. Nothing can, actually, prove God since the only way God proves himself is through revelation. Otherwise, even God claims it, it's a matter of pure faith and nothing else more. That is why this topic is flawed from the beginning, it's just deist or creationist topic. The only one keeping it alive and running is the deluded Badecker with his proof of cause and effect, this law of nature that nobody else has ever heard of before. We must kneel to him, because he finally discovered it! Bring in the Nobel Prize!

[BADecker]

That is precisely what you did, you've shown some laws, you have not proved anything and you should know better then that. We don't live in caves anymore, any type of God proof would have been known by now by the entire world, especially by the different religions around the world. There is no God proof and whether you are a complete retard or just a hypocrite, the truth remains the same. Obviously, you are one of them, and it is neither arguable, nor debatable. I don't think you are picking on me and no I will not show you some scientific laws for the big bang. That is information a 12 year old kid could get with a quick google search, it logically stands at the basics of the Big Bang, otherwise, if it were only for mathematics, nobody would waste time actually tracing the Big Bang back when the universe was merely 450.000 years old. You may deny that evidence, but certainly it will not make it less true, it will simply make you even more retarded, if that is even possible. And for the last time, the ones that have to prove something, and we are talking about solid, powerful, concrete evidence, is you because you claim to know exactly who and when created the universe. That is a very serious claim and can only be backed up with such evidence. Stop wasting your time and go fucking pray, your faith would be much more respected than the bullshit that you keep posting in your links and the insolence of calling your waste of time 'scientific research', a great offence to any scientist who ever lived on this planet. You can keep acting like an apologist piece of shit, or you can start getting real. The 'science' bullshit won't work here, nor anywhere else.

Actually, you only have two choices. Either you know that God exists, or you don't know if He exists or not. Why? You either understand my proof and the evidence of nature that prove He exists. Or you understand that you don't know that He doesn't exist.

Nobody can know that God doesn't exist. Why not? Because nobody has checked every spot in the universe to see that God isn't there. He would have to be God, Himself, to be able to check out the whole universe to see if God was off in some other galaxy doing some other stuff.

Because of this, anyone who says that God DOESN'T exist, is retarded, hasn't thought it through, or is lying. Which one are you?:
1. Retarded;
2. Haven't thought it through;
3. Lying.

You don't seem to be retarded. After all, you write eloquently enough, and with some knowledge and understanding.

By now, after all the discussions that we have had, you must have thought it through... at least somewhat.

That only leaves lying. For whatever reason, you find it purposeful to lie.

Come on, now. Admit that you know that God might exist somewhere in the galaxy that you haven't examined closely, yet.

[qwik2learn]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.

Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.

Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".

Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-God

[Elsada]

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

I really believe in God  and The universe and human had been created by God .

[Horacewoodwood]

That is precisely what you did, you've shown some laws, you have not proved anything and you should know better then that. We don't live in caves anymore, any type of God proof would have been known by now by the entire world, especially by the different religions around the world. There is no God proof and whether you are a complete retard or just a hypocrite, the truth remains the same. Obviously, you are one of them, and it is neither arguable, nor debatable. I don't think you are picking on me and no I will not show you some scientific laws for the big bang. That is information a 12 year old kid could get with a quick google search, it logically stands at the basics of the Big Bang, otherwise, if it were only for mathematics, nobody would waste time actually tracing the Big Bang back when the universe was merely 450.000 years old. You may deny that evidence, but certainly it will not make it less true, it will simply make you even more retarded, if that is even possible. And for the last time, the ones that have to prove something, and we are talking about solid, powerful, concrete evidence, is you because you claim to know exactly who and when created the universe. That is a very serious claim and can only be backed up with such evidence. Stop wasting your time and go fucking pray, your faith would be much more respected than the bullshit that you keep posting in your links and the insolence of calling your waste of time 'scientific research', a great offence to any scientist who ever lived on this planet. You can keep acting like an apologist piece of shit, or you can start getting real. The 'science' bullshit won't work here, nor anywhere else.

Actually, you only have two choices. Either you know that God exists, or you don't know if He exists or not. Why? You either understand my proof and the evidence of nature that prove He exists. Or you understand that you don't know that He doesn't exist.

Nobody can know that God doesn't exist. Why not? Because nobody has checked every spot in the universe to see that God isn't there. He would have to be God, Himself, to be able to check out the whole universe to see if God was off in some other galaxy doing some other stuff.

Because of this, anyone who says that God DOESN'T exist, is retarded, hasn't thought it through, or is lying. Which one are you?:
1. Retarded;
2. Haven't thought it through;
3. Lying.

You don't seem to be retarded. After all, you write eloquently enough, and with some knowledge and understanding.

By now, after all the discussions that we have had, you must have thought it through... at least somewhat.

That only leaves lying. For whatever reason, you find it purposeful to lie.

Come on, now. Admit that you know that God might exist somewhere in the galaxy that you haven't examined closely, yet.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the poison of religion and to even consider such a mindset, morally you are on the same level with Islam. You either admit that God is real, or you are wrong. That is the capacity of religious fanatics after thousands of years of evolution, to impose their view on the world, to have it as they want it, to act like Gods do. No God in any religion has met perfection, almost all of them are tyrannic, dictatorial, slave owners. They kill at their will, they condemn thoughts, they interfere with free will and if you do not acknowledge them, you'll suffer for eternity. They also love you somehow. Of course, religious people have their ways of cherry picking the writings about Gods, especially nowadays when morality has evolved. Religious people could not go against scientific research, that would have been madness, so instead of that, they went ahead and claimed each and every scientific research proves how great their God is, without any evidence of a God of course. We can clearly observe how Badecker, without any proof to back him up, gives a ultimatum for his claim: you either believe in his God, or you are wrong. There is no way he could be wrong even though he has absolutely nothing but assumptions based on physical an natural laws which he so badly interprets. Yet, he finds that he has the authority to impose his delusional view on each and every human being on this planet. That is how religion has poisoned and is still poisoning humanity. Someone once asked Christopher Hitchens where does evil come from, if there is no God, to which he replied with 'religion'. Take a while and think about that.

P.S. Badecker here wonders why do I bring religion into subject so often. Well, it's simple: religious people are defined as those who believe in a supernatural creator, they have faith that creator exists, that it made the whole world and us. Atheists, on the other side, are exactly the opposite of that, so calling atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position.

[Horacewoodwood]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.

Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.

Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".

Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-God

I am sorry, atheism does not claim moral laws or to know exactly what is the cause of the existence, therefore it acts as truth by admitting the lack of knowledge. Religion does not admit to that, it claims to know precisely who created us, why and when. Of course not all atheists are rational since not all people are rational but that doesn't affect our subject with anything. As for the link you have provided, my dear friend, the first comment says absolutely everything about it. It simply explains to you why NDEs are not scientifically valid proofs of the after life or God because of the lack of information. Maybe one day, science will be able to track down and measure these NDEs and will find a clear answer, whatever that answer would it be. But until then, they are not considered proof for near death experience or God.

[exemplaar]

You want scientific proof that God exists?

Go and research flat earth! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg19009786#msg19009786

[Horacewoodwood]

You want scientific proof that God exists?

Go and research flat earth! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg19009786#msg19009786

Get out of here monkey, for real. That's the trolling area, now fuck off over there.

[BADecker]

That is precisely what you did, you've shown some laws, you have not proved anything and you should know better then that. We don't live in caves anymore, any type of God proof would have been known by now by the entire world, especially by the different religions around the world. There is no God proof and whether you are a complete retard or just a hypocrite, the truth remains the same. Obviously, you are one of them, and it is neither arguable, nor debatable. I don't think you are picking on me and no I will not show you some scientific laws for the big bang. That is information a 12 year old kid could get with a quick google search, it logically stands at the basics of the Big Bang, otherwise, if it were only for mathematics, nobody would waste time actually tracing the Big Bang back when the universe was merely 450.000 years old. You may deny that evidence, but certainly it will not make it less true, it will simply make you even more retarded, if that is even possible. And for the last time, the ones that have to prove something, and we are talking about solid, powerful, concrete evidence, is you because you claim to know exactly who and when created the universe. That is a very serious claim and can only be backed up with such evidence. Stop wasting your time and go fucking pray, your faith would be much more respected than the bullshit that you keep posting in your links and the insolence of calling your waste of time 'scientific research', a great offence to any scientist who ever lived on this planet. You can keep acting like an apologist piece of shit, or you can start getting real. The 'science' bullshit won't work here, nor anywhere else.

Actually, you only have two choices. Either you know that God exists, or you don't know if He exists or not. Why? You either understand my proof and the evidence of nature that prove He exists. Or you understand that you don't know that He doesn't exist.

Nobody can know that God doesn't exist. Why not? Because nobody has checked every spot in the universe to see that God isn't there. He would have to be God, Himself, to be able to check out the whole universe to see if God was off in some other galaxy doing some other stuff.

Because of this, anyone who says that God DOESN'T exist, is retarded, hasn't thought it through, or is lying. Which one are you?:
1. Retarded;
2. Haven't thought it through;
3. Lying.

You don't seem to be retarded. After all, you write eloquently enough, and with some knowledge and understanding.

By now, after all the discussions that we have had, you must have thought it through... at least somewhat.

That only leaves lying. For whatever reason, you find it purposeful to lie.

Come on, now. Admit that you know that God might exist somewhere in the galaxy that you haven't examined closely, yet.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the poison of religion and to even consider such a mindset, morally you are on the same level with Islam. You either admit that God is real, or you are wrong. That is the capacity of religious fanatics after thousands of years of evolution, to impose their view on the world, to have it as they want it, to act like Gods do. No God in any religion has met perfection, almost all of them are tyrannic, dictatorial, slave owners. They kill at their will, they condemn thoughts, they interfere with free will and if you do not acknowledge them, you'll suffer for eternity. They also love you somehow. Of course, religious people have their ways of cherry picking the writings about Gods, especially nowadays when morality has evolved. Religious people could not go against scientific research, that would have been madness, so instead of that, they went ahead and claimed each and every scientific research proves how great their God is, without any evidence of a God of course. We can clearly observe how Badecker, without any proof to back him up, gives a ultimatum for his claim: you either believe in his God, or you are wrong. There is no way he could be wrong even though he has absolutely nothing but assumptions based on physical an natural laws which he so badly interprets. Yet, he finds that he has the authority to impose his delusional view on each and every human being on this planet. That is how religion has poisoned and is still poisoning humanity. Someone once asked Christopher Hitchens where does evil come from, if there is no God, to which he replied with 'religion'. Take a while and think about that.

P.S. Badecker here wonders why do I bring religion into subject so often. Well, it's simple: religious people are defined as those who believe in a supernatural creator, they have faith that creator exists, that it made the whole world and us. Atheists, on the other side, are exactly the opposite of that, so calling atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position.

There you go, again, talking religion. Get back on topic and talk science. And, not the science of religion. Rather, as the topic title says, the science of the proof for the existence of God.

You are so religion oriented that you can't even talk science. Look at the scientific proof for God here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Take your religion talk over to one of the religious threads.

[BADecker]

You want scientific proof that God exists?
Go and research flat earth! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg19009786#msg19009786

Take your 2,300 year-old world-view back to the Flat Earth thread where it belongs, you mentally stunted nigger.

Besides, exemplaar would see the same thing on flat earth or globe earth if he used the things that the Bible says. So, it's irrelevant for the flat earth topic, and certainly off topic here.

[ananas99]

You want scientific proof that God exists?
Go and research flat earth! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg19009786#msg19009786

Take your 2,300 year-old world-view back to the Flat Earth thread where it belongs, you mentally stunted nigger.

Besides, exemplaar would see the same thing on flat earth or globe earth if he used the things that the Bible says. So, it's irrelevant for the flat earth topic, and certainly off topic here.

It will be necessary to unite with believing people and a test who believes in a flat land. I would like to see how they agreed.

[BADecker]

You want scientific proof that God exists?
Go and research flat earth! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg19009786#msg19009786

Take your 2,300 year-old world-view back to the Flat Earth thread where it belongs, you mentally stunted nigger.

Besides, exemplaar would see the same thing on flat earth or globe earth if he used the things that the Bible says. So, it's irrelevant for the flat earth topic, and certainly off topic here.

It will be necessary to unite with believing people and a test who believes in a flat land. I would like to see how they agreed.

The only time people can agree is when they say that they don't agree. Otherwise they have a difference of opinion at least a little.

[qwik2learn]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.

Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.

Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".

Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-God

I am sorry, atheism does not claim moral laws or to know exactly what is the cause of the existence, therefore it acts as truth by admitting the lack of knowledge. Religion does not admit to that, it claims to know precisely who created us, why and when. Of course not all atheists are rational since not all people are rational but that doesn't affect our subject with anything. As for the link you have provided, my dear friend, the first comment says absolutely everything about it. It simply explains to you why NDEs are not scientifically valid proofs of the after life or God because of the lack of information. Maybe one day, science will be able to track down and measure these NDEs and will find a clear answer, whatever that answer would it be. But until then, they are not considered proof for near death experience or God.

Actually NDEs and reincarnation cases as well as other related phenomena can be considered to be objective experiences. The lack of quantitative methods does not prevent one from concluding that survival is real, I conclude that survival is the simplest explanation for the totality of the evidence based on over 100 points and cases, if you have an open mind then you will look into them and see for yourself.

[BADecker]

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.

From Cosmoquotes:

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penzias

Yes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth. There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere?

Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.

Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.

Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".

Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-God

I am sorry, atheism does not claim moral laws or to know exactly what is the cause of the existence, therefore it acts as truth by admitting the lack of knowledge. Religion does not admit to that, it claims to know precisely who created us, why and when. Of course not all atheists are rational since not all people are rational but that doesn't affect our subject with anything. As for the link you have provided, my dear friend, the first comment says absolutely everything about it. It simply explains to you why NDEs are not scientifically valid proofs of the after life or God because of the lack of information. Maybe one day, science will be able to track down and measure these NDEs and will find a clear answer, whatever that answer would it be. But until then, they are not considered proof for near death experience or God.

Actually NDEs and reincarnation cases as well as other related phenomena can be considered to be objective experiences. The lack of quantitative methods does not prevent one from concluding that survival is real, I conclude that survival is the simplest explanation for the totality of the evidence based on over 100 points and cases, if you have an open mind then you will look into them and see for yourself.

Besides, if NDEs are not simply demon spirits playing with a person's weakened mind as he is near death, then they are probably only ancestral memories superimposed on electrons that have been passed down form the parents, and locked into neuron DNA of the dying person, and are being read by the mind of the dying person as he becomes more sensitive to tiny things near death.

[Horacewoodwood]

That is precisely what you did, you've shown some laws, you have not proved anything and you should know better then that. We don't live in caves anymore, any type of God proof would have been known by now by the entire world, especially by the different religions around the world. There is no God proof and whether you are a complete retard or just a hypocrite, the truth remains the same. Obviously, you are one of them, and it is neither arguable, nor debatable. I don't think you are picking on me and no I will not show you some scientific laws for the big bang. That is information a 12 year old kid could get with a quick google search, it logically stands at the basics of the Big Bang, otherwise, if it were only for mathematics, nobody would waste time actually tracing the Big Bang back when the universe was merely 450.000 years old. You may deny that evidence, but certainly it will not make it less true, it will simply make you even more retarded, if that is even possible. And for the last time, the ones that have to prove something, and we are talking about solid, powerful, concrete evidence, is you because you claim to know exactly who and when created the universe. That is a very serious claim and can only be backed up with such evidence. Stop wasting your time and go fucking pray, your faith would be much more respected than the bullshit that you keep posting in your links and the insolence of calling your waste of time 'scientific research', a great offence to any scientist who ever lived on this planet. You can keep acting like an apologist piece of shit, or you can start getting real. The 'science' bullshit won't work here, nor anywhere else.

Actually, you only have two choices. Either you know that God exists, or you don't know if He exists or not. Why? You either understand my proof and the evidence of nature that prove He exists. Or you understand that you don't know that He doesn't exist.

Nobody can know that God doesn't exist. Why not? Because nobody has checked every spot in the universe to see that God isn't there. He would have to be God, Himself, to be able to check out the whole universe to see if God was off in some other galaxy doing some other stuff.

Because of this, anyone who says that God DOESN'T exist, is retarded, hasn't thought it through, or is lying. Which one are you?:
1. Retarded;
2. Haven't thought it through;
3. Lying.

You don't seem to be retarded. After all, you write eloquently enough, and with some knowledge and understanding.

By now, after all the discussions that we have had, you must have thought it through... at least somewhat.

That only leaves lying. For whatever reason, you find it purposeful to lie.

Come on, now. Admit that you know that God might exist somewhere in the galaxy that you haven't examined closely, yet.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the poison of religion and to even consider such a mindset, morally you are on the same level with Islam. You either admit that God is real, or you are wrong. That is the capacity of religious fanatics after thousands of years of evolution, to impose their view on the world, to have it as they want it, to act like Gods do. No God in any religion has met perfection, almost all of them are tyrannic, dictatorial, slave owners. They kill at their will, they condemn thoughts, they interfere with free will and if you do not acknowledge them, you'll suffer for eternity. They also love you somehow. Of course, religious people have their ways of cherry picking the writings about Gods, especially nowadays when morality has evolved. Religious people could not go against scientific research, that would have been madness, so instead of that, they went ahead and claimed each and every scientific research proves how great their God is, without any evidence of a God of course. We can clearly observe how Badecker, without any proof to back him up, gives a ultimatum for his claim: you either believe in his God, or you are wrong. There is no way he could be wrong even though he has absolutely nothing but assumptions based on physical an natural laws which he so badly interprets. Yet, he finds that he has the authority to impose his delusional view on each and every human being on this planet. That is how religion has poisoned and is still poisoning humanity. Someone once asked Christopher Hitchens where does evil come from, if there is no God, to which he replied with 'religion'. Take a while and think about that.

P.S. Badecker here wonders why do I bring religion into subject so often. Well, it's simple: religious people are defined as those who believe in a supernatural creator, they have faith that creator exists, that it made the whole world and us. Atheists, on the other side, are exactly the opposite of that, so calling atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position.

There you go, again, talking religion. Get back on topic and talk science. And, not the science of religion. Rather, as the topic title says, the science of the proof for the existence of God.

You are so religion oriented that you can't even talk science. Look at the scientific proof for God here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Take your religion talk over to one of the religious threads.

I don't think you read or understood what I said, but I shall make it short in order to stop wasting both our times. For decent people, it precisely demonstrates the poison of religion through your example. As for you, it says 'Fuck off, you are a piece of shit that imposes his religion to people. You do not deserve attention you christian whore.' Science does not prove God and most probably never will. Amen and case closed with this retard.