Scientific proof that God exists?

[IadixDev]

Greek philosophy is not about natural observation. Rational Philosophy is not about observation. Euclidian geometry is not about observation. Socratic method is not about obszrvation. I posted about this in previous post.

Read plato  ( rationalism, pre christianism) vs aristotle natural science, empirism, metaphysics.

Natural science is different from rational philosophy and mathematics.

I don't care about what they had taught you ok? Plato was a pagan not a christian. And there were a lot of people that wanted to found a logos in nature, objects, forms and such.

There were a variety of schools of thoughts before greeks, persian, indian, babylonian, asyrian, egyptian and so on and so forth.

None of it, not even aristotle or arabs were scientific, no matter anyone had told you. Science is a method of inquiry based on the scientific method. And thats it. Anything else you say about the science is just unprovable sophistry ok?

Why would I idolise a man? Thats a paganry. Leave that to yourself ok? Im far from a notion that one man can change the world ok? If you do you are a pagan and your god is not my God, so why would I care about what you think, if Im right, on what proves his existance? You can prove the existance of your god, you need to indentify him first. My God is the God of the Bible.

You love the idea, that is being pushed, because thats a christian bashing. It has no substance at all. Nada. Nicht. Makes no sense. Make sense only to people wanting to bash christian on the face.

Plato was 400bc so he could hardly be a Christian.

Platonism and neo platonism influenced greatly Christian theology.

Most early christian were stoics who had lot of respect for plato.

Jesus was hellenistic, lot of part of the bible are plain platonism - neo platonism.

All science as we know it today is developpement from aristotle and arabs, that's just history lol

Im not Christian basher, but people just self proclaiming themselves as Christian without even reading their bible are the one who are brainwashed.

They are not Christian, actually act on the opposite of what's is told in the bible that they dont even read or understand.

Just exploiting religion to give some pseudo consistence to any non sense they are saying, playing victim of christian bashing when people put some actual truth in front of their eyes .. while they bash everyone left and right without remorse .. very christian indeed lol

[1715179853]

1715179853

[1715179853]

1715179853

[1715179853]

1715179853

[1715179853]

1715179853

[IadixDev]

A famous paper recently showed that the claimed results of most scientific studies are simply false:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
So why should we BLINDLY trust mainstream opinion of scientists (an opinion based in ignorance)? Stick to hard evidence and you will be fine. I have disclosed the evidence, so anyone who doubts it can debate the facts with me.
In my opinion, the scientists who reject survival are also wrong, but the brightest scientists like Wallace did find evidence and cocncluded that survival is real.

Industrial empirism is killing science

If it's good enough to make money with it selling pseudo therapy or iPhone then it's truth lol

[Przemax]

Greek philosophy is not about natural observation. Rational Philosophy is not about observation. Euclidian geometry is not about observation. Socratic method is not about obszrvation. I posted about this in previous post.

Read plato  ( rationalism, pre christianism) vs aristotle natural science, empirism, metaphysics.

Natural science is different from rational philosophy and mathematics.

I don't care about what they had taught you ok? Plato was a pagan not a christian. And there were a lot of people that wanted to found a logos in nature, objects, forms and such.

There were a variety of schools of thoughts before greeks, persian, indian, babylonian, asyrian, egyptian and so on and so forth.

None of it, not even aristotle or arabs were scientific, no matter anyone had told you. Science is a method of inquiry based on the scientific method. And thats it. Anything else you say about the science is just unprovable sophistry ok?

Why would I idolise a man? Thats a paganry. Leave that to yourself ok? Im far from a notion that one man can change the world ok? If you do you are a pagan and your god is not my God, so why would I care about what you think, if Im right, on what proves his existance? You can prove the existance of your god, you need to indentify him first. My God is the God of the Bible.

You love the idea, that is being pushed, because thats a christian bashing. It has no substance at all. Nada. Nicht. Makes no sense. Make sense only to people wanting to bash christian on the face.

Plato was 400bc so he could hardly be a Christian.

Platonism and neo platonism influenced greatly Christian theology.

One question. Do you have a monopoly for the truth? You seems to act like if you did. You speak authoritative with no explanation what so ever other than - thats the established position. I do not care what established positions are. When you can not explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS without labeling its just lame.

Platon influenced nothing but platonists.

Words of Jesus christ are enough to be christian. No need for Platon. If someone is incorporating platon to christianity he is an apostate.

And yes. I think catholics are apostates. Thats the end of the subject.

Most early christian were stoics who had lot of respect for plato.

The sons of millers and bakers were studying in a greek college? Thats absurd. Early christians were flying pigs. Prove me Im wrong.

Jesus was hellenistic, lot of part of the bible are plain platonism - neo platonism.

Why do you need to label Jesus? Jesus was Jesus - the greatest being ever lived, living and that will live. I suggest you to talk to him and meet him personaly, he will enjoy you labeling him.

All science as we know it today is developpement from aristotle and arabs, that's just history lol

Why do you say so? They are not the same, hence they are not the same. End of the subject. To accept your view on the role of the Aristoteles I would have to be Aristotelian to believe you. Its a circular logic.

Im not Christian basher

Yes you are. You are implying, not directly as every sophist do, that everything scientific is of everybody else but the christians. Thats just unfactual. And actualy you can see for yourself that science of the west is better, that was invented by christian puritans, because other types of science was never existant.

, but people just self proclaiming themselves as Christian without even reading their bible are the one who are brainwashed.

Yes. I have never met a catholic that was Christian in your sense of the word. Are you implying im not a christian?

[IadixDev]

I dont claim to have as much monopoly on truth and legitimity to bash everyone left and right on the basis of self proclaimed flawless christianism and monopoly on belief on the one god of the bible as you do lol

Ha .. the straw in the eyes ..

I already explained in my own words lol

But then if it's just your own word, it's not the bible, and it's not christianism lol

Plato influenced the whole occident, including christianism. You know who even coined the term of sophist that you seem to love to throw around so much right ? Most likely not ..

Yes im implying you are everything but a christian. I guess it's even more than implying at this stage.

Just playing victim of christian bashing while you dont even read the bible lol

[Przemax]

I dont claim to have as much monopoly on truth and legitimity to bash everyone left and right on the basis of self proclaimed flawless christianism and monopoly on belief on the one god of the bible as you do lol

I already explained in my own words lol

But then if it's just your own word, it's not the bible, and it's not christianism lol

Plato influenced the whole occident, including christianism. You know who even coined the term of sophist that you seem to love to throw around so much right ? Most likely not ..

Yes im implying you are everything but a christian. I guess it's even more than implying at this stage.

Just playing victim of christian bashing while you dont even read the bible lol

You are not a christian basher like a woman basher that says that woman are worthless is not.

Logic worth of Aristotelian.

And yes I know what sophism means. You deliberatly try to include some wrong facts as the truth with a logic that seems plausible at the first sight. You do not know what christianity means. Yes I know who coined it Socrates.

And yes I have read the bible. Have you? If you would you would have no reason to believe I have not read it.

The only person that is claiming to have superior morality is you.

[IadixDev]

And you know that socrate didn't write a word and all we know about socrate was wrote by plato right ..

See that make you a platonist lol

Doh    

It's already at least two time I showed you piece of the bible that you seemed to ignore ..

I dont claim any superiority on anything lol

I read the bible and many other things, im an humble student of the light, my spirit is free as the air

Im not the one bashing everything left and right because it doesnt correspond to my own self proclaimed christian faith lol

[Przemax]

And you know that socrate didn't write a word and all we know about socrate was wrote by plato right ..

See that make you a platonist lol

Doh    

It's already at least two time I showed you piece of the bible that you seemed to ignore ..

I dont claim any superiority on anything lol

You claim superiority as you have say of a stray in the eye.

Now you are eristic. Does that make me a Shoppenhauerist to point it out to you? Its not my fault you are using the the acadamia education to destroy my points. My points remain valid. Im pointing to you that you are doing it, and I want you to consider Im a worthy adversary on arguments here.

Yes I as well had a formal higher education in philosophy and I hate labeling.

What bible pieces I had ignored? Point it out to me.

Im not bashing anything. Could you please stop labeling and name calling and throwing a mind shortcuts?

P.S I might be too harsh about the metaphysics and arab culture. Im not the enemy of it, neither I claim it to be wrong because I dont know much about alchemy for example. Its not wrong its just unscientific. Im sorry if you might feel hurt by my words. I have not claimed everything I say is what a christian should do. I sin. I repent using some words that I might not use.

Im not the enemy of meditation, I am just a person that is very sceptical to say it has anything to do with God. And thats my message.

I try for nothing to be my enemy - thats a hard goal to make. My only adversary is the adversary of the God - Satan. And Im not saying someone is Godless. Christ said not to do that. Im just pointing out thats a possibility that you might be cooperative with the adversary unknowingly or knowingly.

my spirit is free as the air Smiley

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I hope you won't call me Goetheist now. And yes I know that Goethe had wrote the Faust.

[IadixDev]

Im not an academic ..

You re the one throwing sophistry around 3 times a post, which is a platonist concept that you claim being paganism ..

That's how socratic method works ..


You ignored the piece about self discipline of the body

The one about the scale of the Lord

The one about witnessing wickeds and siner with your eyes while remaining in the Lord shadow


And that's only a few but at this stage I guess you already contradicted much more bible sayings ..

You are bashing hinduism, catholics,  methaphysics, arab,jesuits, cabalist, free mason, sophists and what's not ..

That's quite a stray you got here, im just doing a service to you as showing it while you complain about christian bashing...

That's what jesus said no ?

[Przemax]

Im not an academic ..

You re the one throwing sophistry around 3 times a post, which is a platonist concept that you claim being paganism ..

That's how socratic method works ..

Just because I use words does not mean Im wordist.

I use word sophistry because thats what you do. I would be platonist if I would use dialectic as a form of argument. I do not do that.

You ignored the piece about self discipline of the body

The one about the scale of the Lord

The one about witnessing wickeds and siner with your eyes while remaining in the Lord shadow

I have said what I think about the first one and the third. What was the second one?

And that's only a few but at this stage I guess you already contradicted much more bible sayings ..

Thats unfair. You can't say that. Either say what I did and where or be silent.

You are bashing hinduism, catholics,  methaphysics, arab,jesuits, cabalist, free mason, sophists and what's not ..

Im not bashing them Im saying they are contradicting the Bible message, and that the christian message is not dependant on them or refferant in any means to them. Some of them had been rebuked by Jesus himself like cabalists. Some rebuke themselves like jesuits and catholics.

That's quite a stray you got here, im just doing a service to you as showing it while you complain about christian bashing...

If you had felt I had bashed any of those Im sorry. I only ment to show how unfit they are with the Christian message.
Im quite possitive about arabs... but saying it was highly scientific society would mean they should still be highly scientific now.

That's what jesus said no ?

Yes.

[IadixDev]

The thing is there is often confusion between science and logic.

Logic is not science, mathematics is not science.

Natural science was highly developed in arabic worlds, and is a branch of methaphysics.

Logic and mathematics is a whole another thing.

The coincidence between natural science and mathematics is purely accidental.


But both metaphysics and mathematics have been developped highly throught monotheist or monist belief.

Algebra was developed throught spiritual principle, with al jabir, book of balance, as a branch of metaphysics / chemistry / alchemy.

Newton was actually an alchemist. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies ).

All his theory are derived from stuff studied mostly in arabic worlds before.

Most mathematicians are god believers in a way or another.

Geometry was also a very mystical study at the origin.

It's said there are Pythagorean encoding in the bible.

Its very hard to actually dissociate science from religion, either science is meant as logic / mathematics, or metaphysics / algebra.

[Przemax]

The thing is there is often confusion between science and logic.

Logic is not science, mathematics is not science.

Natural science was highly developed in arabic worlds, and is a branch of methaphysics.

Logic and mathematics is a whole another thing.

The coincidence between natural science and mathematics is purely accidental.


But both metaphysics and mathematics have been developped highly throught monotheist or monist belief.

Algebra was developed throught spiritual principle, with al jabir, book of balance, as a branch of metaphysics / chemistry / alchemy.

Newton was actually an alchemist. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies ).

All his theory are derived from stuff studied mostly in arabic worlds before.

Most mathematicians are god believers in a way or another.

Geometry was also a very mystical study at the origin.

It's said there are Pythagorean encoding in the bible.

Its very hard to actually dissociate science from religion, either science is meant as logic / mathematics, or metaphysics / algebra.

All of what you said could be just a pure coincidence. There is no hard correlation in a development of civilisation which you seem to believe. Pardon me if thats not what you mean.

You just gives coincidences. What is a hard evidence of the roots of modern science is the works and the observations of people such as F. Bacon and such.

I do not believe in what you say. And sorry in my opinion you have to believe thats true as there is no hard evidences for it.

I could want to prove they all had eat pancakes - that could be coincidence. Or anything else that some of them might have eaten.

[IadixDev]

When you study their work and how the ideas are developed it's not coincidence at all. It's completely intricate with each other, all the time, since the begining.

Not sure what you call evidence other than all the books that the scientist and mathematician ever wrote work on concept of god, of intelligence and reason in nature, in some harmonious ratio between things, that all metaphysics leading to algebra come from islamic world, work related to justice, balance in nature etc

There is no evidence of the contrary  ..

No genuine student of history of science would deny this ..


Only industrials seeing only money and profits as finality of everything who are not really scientists. . Just exploiter of existing science and mathematics for their own profit ..

[Przemax]

When you study their work and how the ideas are developed it's not coincidence at all. It's completely intricate with each other, all the time, since the begining.

Not sure what you call evidence other than all the books that the scientist and mathematician ever wrote work on concept of god, of intelligence and reason in nature, in some harmonious ratio between things, that all metaphysics leading to algebra come from islamic world, work related to justice, balance in nature etc

There is no evidence of the contrary. ..

You have no evidences. You cannot go 2300 years ago and start to trace origins of something that started only 600 years ago. Thats just impossible to prove. Its story telling. You want to believe them for some reason. In my opinion that reason is christian bashing. I dont say you are - thats just my opinion.

Thats not evidences - that something you have to believe in. Its too many variables that you ignore.

All we can know is wrong ideas are wrong ideas. You cannot say that wrong ideas lead to good ideas. Good idea could become good by disagreeing with wrong ideas not developing them. But thats not what is a definition of a good idea,

No genuine student of history of science would deny this ..

That is an irony of all this, is that a historiosophy or however you call it, is not a science.

[IadixDev]

Im looking for boyle in wikipedia


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle

Robert Boyle was an alchemist;[23] and believing the transmutation of metals to be a possibility, he carried out experiments in the hope of achieving it; and he was instrumental in obtaining the repeal, in 1689, of the statute of Henry IV against multiplying gold and silver.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle#Theological_interests

In addition to philosophy, Boyle devoted much time to theology, showing a very decided leaning to the practical side and an indifference to controversial polemics. At the Restoration of the king in 1660, he was favourably received at court and in 1665 would have received the provostship of Eton College had he agreed to take holy orders, but this he refused to do on the ground that his writings on religious subjects would have greater weight coming from a layman than a paid minister of the Church.

As a director of the East India Company he spent large sums in promoting the spread of Christianity in the East, contributing liberally to missionary societies and to the expenses of translating the Bible or portions of it into various languages.


Probably another coincidence  





All available evidence show this,  after can always discard all reasonable evidence and studies to pretend otherwise ..


But all studies and evidences show this



After if we cant know anything, then it's true for jesus, bible, Boyle and everything else and any claims is just make believe babbling ..


But when studying actual evidence, how actual science was formed, the path of reasoning, it's what comes out of it.

[Przemax]

Probably another coincidence  Roll Eyes

Sorry but yes.

Thats what people did that time. Like wearing silly hats. I could prove that wearing silly hats had made them smarter.

Wrong ideas are wrong. What else should I tell you. You cannot make gold out of lead without enourmous input of energy..... You just can't Im sorry to destroy your dreams.

But all studies and evidences show this Wink

Only if you want to believe thats any evidences are not coincidences. You cannot prove they are one or another.

[IadixDev]

No serious alchemist is about turning lead to gold, only scamer fake alchemist.


Philosopher stone, there is a strong hint in the name.

Philosophy is not about making gold.


But many fake alchemist pretended to be able to do this. Mostly for greed and scam.

But it was never the objective of true alchemists.


Gold is metaphor used by occultist for something of value.

Alchemy is about increasing value of raw natural things. Including human spirit through philosophy.


It's what true alchemist refer to as the "great work" refining natural things to increase their worth through knowledge, wisdom, philosophy etc.


In the metaphor lead is the coarse, raw, common, vulgarisation,  heavy s, natural state of human spirit, that can be turned to more valuable using philosophy.

[Przemax]

No serious alchemist is about turning lead to gold, only scamer fake alchemist.


Philosopher stone, there is a strong hint in the name.

Philosophy is not about making gold.


But many fake alchemist pretended to be able to do this. Mostly for greed and scam.

But it was never the objective of true alchemists.


Gold is metaphor used by occultist for something of value.

Alchemy is about increasing value of raw natural things. Including human spirit through philosophy.


It's what true alchemist refer to as the "great work" refining natural things to increase their worth through knowledge, wisdom, philosophy etc.

How do you prove, that this have anything to do with science, and it not being an intellectual fashion of some kind.

Its like you wouldnt become famous not wearing a fancy hat and not speaking about fancy alchemy something.

[IadixDev]

Because there is no or very little science that actually exist today that is not derived from this lol

Alchemy is very old art, practiced since ancient egypt, and many were not fancied at all, many had to hide, and actually most published under fake name, or using metaphor to avoid issues ..


So it's more the opposite of this

[NikS13]

God doesn't exist, get over it

[Przemax]

Because there is no or very little science that actually exist today that is not derived from this lol

Alchemy is very old art, practiced since ancient egypt, and many were not fancied at all, many had to hide, and actually most published under fake name, or using metaphor to avoid issues ..


So it's more the opposite of this

Thats just a provable nonsense. Like it would not be nonsense enough to create a term protoscience you say that every protoscientist was a pursuer of the kings art or alchemy or whatever coincidental.

How about no?

How about you are almost right, as the alchemists are almost scientist ok?

God doesn't exist, get over it Cheesy

He does. And what about science then?