Scientific proof that God exists?

[Przemax]

There is only evidences that One god exist, and none other.

Why haven't you presented it in almost 400 pages?

Keeping us in suspense?

Electromagnetic force is for me the better evidence. I thought inteligent people would notice how electromagnetism is accuratly described in psalm 23 and other chapters.

I actually overstimated people inteligence so I kept on searching for some more flashy argument with red and green and scientific terms that people do not understand.

Is it enough for an answer?

You don't understand what counts as evidence for the existence of god. First of all I don't even think what you said is true but let's say it is, let's say the bible accurately describes electromagnetic force, how does that prove god is real?

What do you mean by evidence? Define it. You just say I do not understand. Maybe you do not.

Here is how it works, imagine you have a book written thousands of years ago where you find very accurate definitions of many things that were not even discovered at the time. Now the book also claims ghosts exist. There is no relation between the first and the second. The only evidence here is that the guy who wrote the book was very smart now you would still have to prove ghosts exist.

BUT God IS those things that described and defined in the Bible. The God is the governing forces that are defined in the Bible. You have wrong image of what the God is.

You think its "some ghost"? Based on what? Based on the Bible he is everywhere. And he is defined. HE IS THE LOGOS. That means the reason and laws of everything.

Someone has done you misfavour by wrongly defining God to you. Its defined in the Bible. And if science has similiar definition like Bible has - its speaking about the same thing. God as the unifying field of everything.

[Astargath]

There is only evidences that One god exist, and none other.

Why haven't you presented it in almost 400 pages?

Keeping us in suspense?

Electromagnetic force is for me the better evidence. I thought inteligent people would notice how electromagnetism is accuratly described in psalm 23 and other chapters.

I actually overstimated people inteligence so I kept on searching for some more flashy argument with red and green and scientific terms that people do not understand.

Is it enough for an answer?

You don't understand what counts as evidence for the existence of god. First of all I don't even think what you said is true but let's say it is, let's say the bible accurately describes electromagnetic force, how does that prove god is real?

What do you mean by evidence? Define it. You just say I do not understand. Maybe you do not.

Here is how it works, imagine you have a book written thousands of years ago where you find very accurate definitions of many things that were not even discovered at the time. Now the book also claims ghosts exist. There is no relation between the first and the second. The only evidence here is that the guy who wrote the book was very smart now you would still have to prove ghosts exist.

BUT God IS those things that described and defined in the Bible. The God is the governing forces that are defined in the Bible. You have wrong image of what the God is.

You think its "some ghost"? Based on what? Based on the Bible he is everywhere. And he is defined. HE IS THE LOGOS. That means the reason and laws of everything.

Someone has done you misfavour by wrongly defining God to you. Its defined in the Bible. And if science has similiar definition like Bible has - its speaking about the same thing. God as the unifying field of everything.

You would need to prove what the bible says it's true.

[Przemax]

There is only evidences that One god exist, and none other.

Why haven't you presented it in almost 400 pages?

Keeping us in suspense?

Electromagnetic force is for me the better evidence. I thought inteligent people would notice how electromagnetism is accuratly described in psalm 23 and other chapters.

I actually overstimated people inteligence so I kept on searching for some more flashy argument with red and green and scientific terms that people do not understand.

Is it enough for an answer?

You don't understand what counts as evidence for the existence of god. First of all I don't even think what you said is true but let's say it is, let's say the bible accurately describes electromagnetic force, how does that prove god is real?

What do you mean by evidence? Define it. You just say I do not understand. Maybe you do not.

Here is how it works, imagine you have a book written thousands of years ago where you find very accurate definitions of many things that were not even discovered at the time. Now the book also claims ghosts exist. There is no relation between the first and the second. The only evidence here is that the guy who wrote the book was very smart now you would still have to prove ghosts exist.

BUT God IS those things that described and defined in the Bible. The God is the governing forces that are defined in the Bible. You have wrong image of what the God is.

You think its "some ghost"? Based on what? Based on the Bible he is everywhere. And he is defined. HE IS THE LOGOS. That means the reason and laws of everything.

Someone has done you misfavour by wrongly defining God to you. Its defined in the Bible. And if science has similiar definition like Bible has - its speaking about the same thing. God as the unifying field of everything.

You would need to prove what the bible says it's true.

Define evidence ffs!

If someone has written abc is x. And there would be abc that would be the evidence for x exinstance for fuck sake..... Man.... define your terms. What do you mean by evidence? Have you read too much dawkins or what?

[Astargath]

There is only evidences that One god exist, and none other.

Why haven't you presented it in almost 400 pages?

Keeping us in suspense?

Electromagnetic force is for me the better evidence. I thought inteligent people would notice how electromagnetism is accuratly described in psalm 23 and other chapters.

I actually overstimated people inteligence so I kept on searching for some more flashy argument with red and green and scientific terms that people do not understand.

Is it enough for an answer?

You don't understand what counts as evidence for the existence of god. First of all I don't even think what you said is true but let's say it is, let's say the bible accurately describes electromagnetic force, how does that prove god is real?

What do you mean by evidence? Define it. You just say I do not understand. Maybe you do not.

Here is how it works, imagine you have a book written thousands of years ago where you find very accurate definitions of many things that were not even discovered at the time. Now the book also claims ghosts exist. There is no relation between the first and the second. The only evidence here is that the guy who wrote the book was very smart now you would still have to prove ghosts exist.

BUT God IS those things that described and defined in the Bible. The God is the governing forces that are defined in the Bible. You have wrong image of what the God is.

You think its "some ghost"? Based on what? Based on the Bible he is everywhere. And he is defined. HE IS THE LOGOS. That means the reason and laws of everything.

Someone has done you misfavour by wrongly defining God to you. Its defined in the Bible. And if science has similiar definition like Bible has - its speaking about the same thing. God as the unifying field of everything.

You would need to prove what the bible says it's true.

Define evidence ffs!

If someone has written abc is x. And there would be abc that would be the evidence for x exinstance for fuck sake..... Man.... define your terms. What do you mean by evidence? Have you read too much dawkins or what?

I didn't say anything about evidence. I said that you need to prove what is written in the bible is factual and you haven't. I don't care how god is defined on the bible or what he does because I don't know if it's true.

[Przemax]

There is only evidences that One god exist, and none other.

Why haven't you presented it in almost 400 pages?

Keeping us in suspense?

Electromagnetic force is for me the better evidence. I thought inteligent people would notice how electromagnetism is accuratly described in psalm 23 and other chapters.

I actually overstimated people inteligence so I kept on searching for some more flashy argument with red and green and scientific terms that people do not understand.

Is it enough for an answer?

You don't understand what counts as evidence for the existence of god. First of all I don't even think what you said is true but let's say it is, let's say the bible accurately describes electromagnetic force, how does that prove god is real?

What do you mean by evidence? Define it. You just say I do not understand. Maybe you do not.

Here is how it works, imagine you have a book written thousands of years ago where you find very accurate definitions of many things that were not even discovered at the time. Now the book also claims ghosts exist. There is no relation between the first and the second. The only evidence here is that the guy who wrote the book was very smart now you would still have to prove ghosts exist.

BUT God IS those things that described and defined in the Bible. The God is the governing forces that are defined in the Bible. You have wrong image of what the God is.

You think its "some ghost"? Based on what? Based on the Bible he is everywhere. And he is defined. HE IS THE LOGOS. That means the reason and laws of everything.

Someone has done you misfavour by wrongly defining God to you. Its defined in the Bible. And if science has similiar definition like Bible has - its speaking about the same thing. God as the unifying field of everything.

You would need to prove what the bible says it's true.

Define evidence ffs!

If someone has written abc is x. And there would be abc that would be the evidence for x exinstance for fuck sake..... Man.... define your terms. What do you mean by evidence? Have you read too much dawkins or what?

I didn't say anything about evidence. I said that you need to prove what is written in the bible is factual and you haven't. I don't care how god is defined on the bible or what he does because I don't know if it's true.

You don't understand what counts as evidence for the existence of god.

I suggest you should speak to yourself. Double speak? First you say my evidence does not count, then you say you do not mean evidence... I ask you to define evidence you say you want me to prove. So ok... define what is a proof :/.

[BADecker]

While cause and effect is programming in nature...

... and programming means that there must be a programmer...

... cause and effect, itself, while stronger proof than any other science...

... is not scientific proof at all...

... even though it is seen throughout nature...

... and true random and spontaneity has never been seen...

... because cause and effect, and all science may not exist.

What might exist rather than science? God directing things to happen in such a way that they look like they are scientific... so that they look like cause and effect is happening.

Przemax has suggested something like this in at least one of his posts. And for all we really know, this may actually be the way that things happen. If it is, not only is evolution a hoax, but all science is a hoax, and God is really all there is.

At the moment, we are too spiritually or scientifically weak to know for a fact that this is NOT the way things really exist.

[Astargath]

There is only evidences that One god exist, and none other.

Why haven't you presented it in almost 400 pages?

Keeping us in suspense?

Electromagnetic force is for me the better evidence. I thought inteligent people would notice how electromagnetism is accuratly described in psalm 23 and other chapters.

I actually overstimated people inteligence so I kept on searching for some more flashy argument with red and green and scientific terms that people do not understand.

Is it enough for an answer?

You don't understand what counts as evidence for the existence of god. First of all I don't even think what you said is true but let's say it is, let's say the bible accurately describes electromagnetic force, how does that prove god is real?

What do you mean by evidence? Define it. You just say I do not understand. Maybe you do not.

Here is how it works, imagine you have a book written thousands of years ago where you find very accurate definitions of many things that were not even discovered at the time. Now the book also claims ghosts exist. There is no relation between the first and the second. The only evidence here is that the guy who wrote the book was very smart now you would still have to prove ghosts exist.

BUT God IS those things that described and defined in the Bible. The God is the governing forces that are defined in the Bible. You have wrong image of what the God is.

You think its "some ghost"? Based on what? Based on the Bible he is everywhere. And he is defined. HE IS THE LOGOS. That means the reason and laws of everything.

Someone has done you misfavour by wrongly defining God to you. Its defined in the Bible. And if science has similiar definition like Bible has - its speaking about the same thing. God as the unifying field of everything.

You would need to prove what the bible says it's true.

Define evidence ffs!

If someone has written abc is x. And there would be abc that would be the evidence for x exinstance for fuck sake..... Man.... define your terms. What do you mean by evidence? Have you read too much dawkins or what?

I didn't say anything about evidence. I said that you need to prove what is written in the bible is factual and you haven't. I don't care how god is defined on the bible or what he does because I don't know if it's true.

You don't understand what counts as evidence for the existence of god.

I suggest you should speak to yourself. Double speak? First you say my evidence does not count, then you say you do not mean evidence... I ask you to define evidence you say you want me to prove. So ok... define what is a proof :/.

I just said you need to prove the bible is true. Let me put it easier for you, why don't you believe in other religions that are far different than yours?

[Astargath]

While cause and effect is programming in nature...

... and programming means that there must be a programmer...

... cause and effect, itself, while stronger proof than any other science...

... is not scientific proof at all...

... even though it is seen throughout nature...

... and true random and spontaneity has never been seen...

... because cause and effect, and all science may not exist.

What might exist rather than science? God directing things to happen in such a way that they look like they are scientific... so that they look like cause and effect is happening.

Przemax has suggested something like this in at least one of his posts. And for all we really know, this may actually be the way that things happen. If it is, not only is evolution a hoax, but all science is a hoax, and God is really all there is.

At the moment, we are too spiritually or scientifically weak to know for a fact that this is NOT the way things really exist.

''While cause and effect is programming in nature...'' It's not, you are just using words for your benefit and then claiming that there must be a programmer lol. That's not how it works mate.

What might exist rather than science? If you don't know, then you don't know, argument from ignorance to say it was god.

[Przemax]

I just said you need to prove the bible is true. Let me put it easier for you, why don't you believe in other religions that are far different than yours?

Its you who have to define what is proof for me to able to adjust to you. There are various definitions of it. You could mean anything saying that.

Let me put it easier for you. You open the dictionary and pick your meaning of word proof, or evidence.

Unaffiliated christianity is not a religion per se. Having personal relationship with God is not a religion per se. If I would to pick a religion I would pick Greenleaf christian church. But why such a way not the other? I know a lot about every religion. They all seems to have wickedness in them mixed with the divine message, the Christ message is at least aware of wickedness of this world, and promise to solve it. How could I not believe that? If anyone believe in justice and truth its like automatic love with the message of the gospel.

I always loved the message of the Gospel, even as small child. I was decieved as you that it was all bs especially the Genesis that I was mocking. I was lucky enough to have a second look at the Bible when I had gained enough wisdom in life to know how the world is wicked and deceitful.

[Vod]

Its you who have to define what is proof for me to able to adjust to you. There are various definitions of it. You could mean anything saying that.

Actually, you are the one making foolish statements.  You need to define what your proof is so we can call you on it.

[Przemax]

Its you who have to define what is proof for me to able to adjust to you. There are various definitions of it. You could mean anything saying that.

Actually, you are the one making foolish statements.  You need to define what your proof is so we can call you on it.

I had not know you are the alt account of Astargath, but its good to know in the future.

[Vod]

Its you who have to define what is proof for me to able to adjust to you. There are various definitions of it. You could mean anything saying that.

Actually, you are the one making foolish statements.  You need to define what your proof is so we can call you on it.

I had not know you are the alt account of Astargath, but its good to know in the future.

I had not know you are the alt account of Badecker, but its good to know in the future.

[escapefrom3dom]

What do you think?
Please share your opinion about this article.

1st of all u should define god before asking such question.

either this ridiculous personified christian-jewish god from a collection of jewish tales, or u're talking about a more reasonable representation like pantheism.

[BADecker]

While cause and effect is programming in nature...

... and programming means that there must be a programmer...

... cause and effect, itself, while stronger proof than any other science...

... is not scientific proof at all...

... even though it is seen throughout nature...

... and true random and spontaneity has never been seen...

... because cause and effect, and all science may not exist.

What might exist rather than science? God directing things to happen in such a way that they look like they are scientific... so that they look like cause and effect is happening.

Przemax has suggested something like this in at least one of his posts. And for all we really know, this may actually be the way that things happen. If it is, not only is evolution a hoax, but all science is a hoax, and God is really all there is.

At the moment, we are too spiritually or scientifically weak to know for a fact that this is NOT the way things really exist.

''While cause and effect is programming in nature...'' It's not, you are just using words for your benefit and then claiming that there must be a programmer lol. That's not how it works mate.

What might exist rather than science? If you don't know, then you don't know, argument from ignorance to say it was god.

Well, explain it better, then. Cause and effect is set up just like a programming system in a computer, except that C&E is far more detailed, and fits all of nature. Ignoring the idea of a programmer for C&E is foolish, especially for people who are into scientific examination.

So, what is your answer? Big bang doesn't have any suggestions for loads of things that we see in nature, and that are extremely more complex than simple BB. To my knowledge, there isn't anything else that even comes close except a very great, intelligent, powerful being.

In the Star Trek 2009 movie, Spock repeated a long-cherished, scientific truth at about 1 hour 9 minutes into the movie, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

The point? BB, by not taking into account multitudes of things that would have to exist to make BB possible, is impossible in reality. Since C&E show that God is likely way above improbability, not only is it the remaining "thing" like Spock said, but God is the blatantly, and forwardly truth.

Do you have any other suggestions? Or are you going to say that we simply don't know?

[Vod]

So, what is your answer? Big bang doesn't have any suggestions for loads of things that we see in nature, and that are extremely more complex than simple BB. To my knowledge, there isn't anything else that even comes close except a very great, intelligent, powerful being.

Yes, we do have the Big Bang Theory.

Does your fairy tale have any theories, or just your personal flawed knowledge?

[BADecker]

So, what is your answer? Big bang doesn't have any suggestions for loads of things that we see in nature, and that are extremely more complex than simple BB. To my knowledge, there isn't anything else that even comes close except a very great, intelligent, powerful being.

Yes, we do have the Big Bang Theory.

Does your fairy tale have any theories, or just your personal flawed knowledge?

Since you don't know anything about my fairy tale(s), and since they are not part of this topic, why do you keep bringing the thought up?

Big bang theory will never be provable. Because of this, it should not even be suggested to be a theory.

[Vod]

Since you don't know anything about my fairy tale(s), and since they are not part of this topic, why do you keep bringing the thought up?

At least you admit you believe in fairy tales.

Without your brainwashed belief in childhood stories, this thread would not keep going.

[BADecker]

Since you don't know anything about my fairy tale(s), and since they are not part of this topic, why do you keep bringing the thought up?

At least you admit you believe in fairy tales.

Without your brainwashed belief in childhood stories, this thread would not keep going.

To say you don't believe in fairy tales is to suggest that they don't exist. Obviously you believe in science fiction... big band for example. It wouldn't be wrong to believe that the theory exists, because we all know they do. But to believe big bang has any relevance regarding reality, is believing in science fiction.

[Vod]

To say you don't believe in fairy tales is to suggest that they don't exist. Obviously you believe in science fiction

Correct,  Fairy tales, like science fiction exist, but they are not based on reality.

[BADecker]

To say you don't believe in fairy tales is to suggest that they don't exist. Obviously you believe in science fiction

Correct,  Fairy tales, like science fiction exist, but they are not based on reality.

So, can you even get on topic and show the proof for or against the existence of God? Or do you simply like to blab a lot?