Scientific proof that God exists?

[qwik2learn]

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

People may have delusions and false, even illogical beliefs, but consider this: is the survival hypothesis actually mistaken for a fact?

 I think the evidence speaks for itself but like any new idea it will take some dedicated study to learn the full context. I post information that I have found directly to this thread in order to ease the intellectual toil of those who are seeking the truth.
 There are some important experiments that have been ridiculed by "skeptics" in a quiet cover-up; however, such individuals do not have a clue about why they disbelieve the survival hypothesis in the first place! I challenge atheists to explain the hard evidence and to start their study of this information.

[phreeksta]

There is no such thing as outer space.

Extremely few have even been to outer space.

Troll?   Troll.

What?? Badecker doesn't believe in outer space??

The point wasn't outer space. The point had to do with science.

Very few people can PROVE that outer space exists. The average person only has the ability to listen to what others say about outer space. Sure, he can look at the stars, but what are they? Even the ISS isn't beyond that Van Allen belts, and is, therefore, not in outer space.

God, on the other hand, can be proven by multitudes of  people all over the place. Cause and effect is used by all the people all the time. And all they need to do is think about it to see that this is true.

Simple forms of entropy exist all over the place. The fact of old age is a simple form of entropy. Everyone understands entropy.

Complexity in the world is by far the most evident of the three. Any child can understand complexity.

Put these three together with a little thought, and they prove that God exists.

When scientists and wise people put these three together, they can't help but see that God exists.

But nobody knows what that is up there without building rockets to go and see. People might have all kinds of theories that it is outer space, but without the rockets, they could never prove it.

Regarding outer space, your average, everyday person doesn't know what it is without somebody telling him. But your average, everyday person can prove that God exists with all kinds of stuff that he uses daily.

Once again ... the question here is SCIENTIFIC PROOF! Space was already explored and analyzed. We know exactly what out space is made of. And before we had rockets etc. we couldn't explain outer space completely, but we knew it was there because we could at least see it. And although no one is going every to the Sun ...  we still know it is there... because we can see it and put it in perspective.

You can't scientific prove god because you can't see or measure him. Just because someone said, that there is a god, doesn't mean there must be one. If I would tell you that I have an invisible toaster, would you believe me? Would you just take my word, because I said so? There is also no scientific proof for that.

You can prove God because you can see and measure the things that exist. These things, by their existence, prove the existence of God, without laying hands on God... something which is impossible, anyway.

First of all, we are STILL talking about the SCIENTIFIC proof of god. You can't prove god's existence by things, that he supposed to create. There is no science in that ^^ ... and furthermore it proves nothing.

[qwik2learn]

First of all, we are STILL talking about the SCIENTIFIC proof of god. You can't prove god's existence by things, that he supposed to create. There is no science in that ^^ ... and furthermore it proves nothing.

To know the process of creation is to possess "revealed" knowledge. Spiritual traditions have emphasised the rebirth of the personality into a new body as a fact of life and now scientific studies are validating this ancient wisdom.
Creation is the result of a trinity, the creation is a unity brought about by the existence of a trinity. Just like space is a unity of 3 dimensions, the dimensions are a transfirmations of length (a scalar). Herbert Spencer explained that all of the three human ideas for a theory of origin must refer to the Infinite for its root cause but if infinity is transformed into our finite experience then there is context for understanding GOD (INfinite INtelligence).

https://www.quora.com/Bhagavad-Geeta-says-Krishna-is-Supreme-God-but-aint-Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh-are-superior
The first answer in this link has a good explanation, here are some other philosophical and revealed sources to consider:
The Content-Source Problem in Modern Mediumship Research (Cunningham), Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics (Higgo), First Principles (Herbert Spencer), Phoenix Journal #36: HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN

[phreeksta]

First of all, we are STILL talking about the SCIENTIFIC proof of god. You can't prove god's existence by things, that he supposed to create. There is no science in that ^^ ... and furthermore it proves nothing.

To know the process of creation is to possess "revealed" knowledge. Spiritual traditions have emphasised the rebirth of the personality into a new body as a fact of life and now scientific studies are validating this ancient wisdom.
Creation is the result of a trinity, the creation is a unity brought about by the existence of a trinity. Just like space is a unity of 3 dimensions, the dimensions are a transfirmations of length (a scalar). Herbert Spencer explained that all of the three human ideas for a theory of origin must refer to the Infinite for its root cause but if infinity is transformed into our finite experience then there is context for understanding GOD (INfinite INtelligence).

https://www.quora.com/Bhagavad-Geeta-says-Krishna-is-Supreme-God-but-aint-Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh-are-superior
The first answer in this link has a good explanation, here are some other philosophical and revealed sources to consider:
The Content-Source Problem in Modern Mediumship Research (Cunningham), Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics (Higgo), First Principles (Herbert Spencer), Phoenix Journal #36: HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN

We are running in a circle here. You can post so many esoteric articles you want, but it will never SCIENTIFICALLY proof the existence of god. Your articles would be more appropriate in a thread called "Is there a god?" but not here. In this thread, only scientific facts matter and there are none. And the argument "We are here" ... so there must be a god ...is also not proof ... or .. there is no scientific explanation for the big bang ... that means it must have been some higher power / god. You can come to this conclusion ... still not a scientific proof.

[Astargath]

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

People may have delusions and false, even illogical beliefs, but consider this: is the survival hypothesis actually mistaken for a fact?

 I think the evidence speaks for itself but like any new idea it will take some dedicated study to learn the full context. I post information that I have found directly to this thread in order to ease the intellectual toil of those who are seeking the truth.
 There are some important experiments that have been ridiculed by "skeptics" in a quiet cover-up; however, such individuals do not have a clue about why they disbelieve the survival hypothesis in the first place! I challenge atheists to explain the hard evidence and to start their study of this information.

The problem with you people is that you think that scientists always try to hide magical and supernatural things when in fact they don't, they just don't believe in stupid shit, simple as that. A lot of scientists have been interested in telekinesis and all that but everything in science says it doesn't work so they move on, only a few crazy people still believe in that.

[BADecker]

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

People may have delusions and false, even illogical beliefs, but consider this: is the survival hypothesis actually mistaken for a fact?

 I think the evidence speaks for itself but like any new idea it will take some dedicated study to learn the full context. I post information that I have found directly to this thread in order to ease the intellectual toil of those who are seeking the truth.
 There are some important experiments that have been ridiculed by "skeptics" in a quiet cover-up; however, such individuals do not have a clue about why they disbelieve the survival hypothesis in the first place! I challenge atheists to explain the hard evidence and to start their study of this information.

The problem with you people is that you think that scientists always try to hide magical and supernatural things when in fact they don't, they just don't believe in stupid shit, simple as that. A lot of scientists have been interested in telekinesis and all that but everything in science says it doesn't work so they move on, only a few crazy people still believe in that.

That is an ignorant remark, that scientists don't believe in stupid shit. Scientists are people like everyone else. Just because they are scientists, doesn't necessarily make them perfect in their beliefs.

One of the greatest examples of scientists believing in stupid shit, is their belief that evolution exists, even though there is contradictory evidence all over the place. In fact, evolution completely fails at the one following point, and yet scientists continue to believe in it:

Cause and effect show that everything is programmed. We have found countless cause and effect operations in all of nature, even in basic physics. We have found nothing that we can say for certain does not operate through cause and effect... that is, that operates through spontaneity. This means that there is no such thing as random selection. The whole Theory of Evolution fails at this, one point.

Since science understands cause and effect entirely, science knows that evolution is simply a fanciful science fiction story. When it is portrayed as reality, evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

There is no such thing as outer space.

Extremely few have even been to outer space.

Troll?   Troll.

What?? Badecker doesn't believe in outer space??

The point wasn't outer space. The point had to do with science.

Very few people can PROVE that outer space exists. The average person only has the ability to listen to what others say about outer space. Sure, he can look at the stars, but what are they? Even the ISS isn't beyond that Van Allen belts, and is, therefore, not in outer space.

God, on the other hand, can be proven by multitudes of  people all over the place. Cause and effect is used by all the people all the time. And all they need to do is think about it to see that this is true.

Simple forms of entropy exist all over the place. The fact of old age is a simple form of entropy. Everyone understands entropy.

Complexity in the world is by far the most evident of the three. Any child can understand complexity.

Put these three together with a little thought, and they prove that God exists.

When scientists and wise people put these three together, they can't help but see that God exists.

But nobody knows what that is up there without building rockets to go and see. People might have all kinds of theories that it is outer space, but without the rockets, they could never prove it.

Regarding outer space, your average, everyday person doesn't know what it is without somebody telling him. But your average, everyday person can prove that God exists with all kinds of stuff that he uses daily.

Once again ... the question here is SCIENTIFIC PROOF! Space was already explored and analyzed. We know exactly what out space is made of. And before we had rockets etc. we couldn't explain outer space completely, but we knew it was there because we could at least see it. And although no one is going every to the Sun ...  we still know it is there... because we can see it and put it in perspective.

You can't scientific prove god because you can't see or measure him. Just because someone said, that there is a god, doesn't mean there must be one. If I would tell you that I have an invisible toaster, would you believe me? Would you just take my word, because I said so? There is also no scientific proof for that.

You can prove God because you can see and measure the things that exist. These things, by their existence, prove the existence of God, without laying hands on God... something which is impossible, anyway.

First of all, we are STILL talking about the SCIENTIFIC proof of god. You can't prove god's existence by things, that he supposed to create. There is no science in that ^^ ... and furthermore it proves nothing.

We are not talking about "... things, that he is supposed to create." We are talking about things that exist and how they could exist together.

Nature is full of countless cause and effect actions. Nobody has ever found anything that exists outside of cause and effect. Science even attempts to show that the things that happen in the stars happen because of cause and effect... one thing making another thing to happen which causes a third thing to happen, etc.

The thing that we do not see in nature or anywhere else is the "starter" of cause and effect. But we DO understand that cause and effect is like complex-beyond-understanding programming. Where else in the world do we see programming? In computers, that are programmed by intelligent design. This is the clearest example of a "starter" of programming that we have.

When we combine the programming of cause and effect with entropy and complexity in a scientific manner, they prove God. They don't prove anything about what He is. They don't suggest if He is some kind of nebulous gas, or something. They basically just prove that He exists, whatever He might be.

[Astargath]

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

People may have delusions and false, even illogical beliefs, but consider this: is the survival hypothesis actually mistaken for a fact?

 I think the evidence speaks for itself but like any new idea it will take some dedicated study to learn the full context. I post information that I have found directly to this thread in order to ease the intellectual toil of those who are seeking the truth.
 There are some important experiments that have been ridiculed by "skeptics" in a quiet cover-up; however, such individuals do not have a clue about why they disbelieve the survival hypothesis in the first place! I challenge atheists to explain the hard evidence and to start their study of this information.

The problem with you people is that you think that scientists always try to hide magical and supernatural things when in fact they don't, they just don't believe in stupid shit, simple as that. A lot of scientists have been interested in telekinesis and all that but everything in science says it doesn't work so they move on, only a few crazy people still believe in that.

That is an ignorant remark, that scientists don't believe in stupid shit. Scientists are people like everyone else. Just because they are scientists, doesn't necessarily make them perfect in their beliefs.

One of the greatest examples of scientists believing in stupid shit, is their belief that evolution exists, even though there is contradictory evidence all over the place. In fact, evolution completely fails at the one following point, and yet scientists continue to believe in it:

Cause and effect show that everything is programmed. We have found countless cause and effect operations in all of nature, even in basic physics. We have found nothing that we can say for certain does not operate through cause and effect... that is, that operates through spontaneity. This means that there is no such thing as random selection. The whole Theory of Evolution fails at this, one point.

Since science understands cause and effect entirely, science knows that evolution is simply a fanciful science fiction story. When it is portrayed as reality, evolution is a hoax.

Stfu globtard, the earth is flat.

[BADecker]

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

People may have delusions and false, even illogical beliefs, but consider this: is the survival hypothesis actually mistaken for a fact?

 I think the evidence speaks for itself but like any new idea it will take some dedicated study to learn the full context. I post information that I have found directly to this thread in order to ease the intellectual toil of those who are seeking the truth.
 There are some important experiments that have been ridiculed by "skeptics" in a quiet cover-up; however, such individuals do not have a clue about why they disbelieve the survival hypothesis in the first place! I challenge atheists to explain the hard evidence and to start their study of this information.

The problem with you people is that you think that scientists always try to hide magical and supernatural things when in fact they don't, they just don't believe in stupid shit, simple as that. A lot of scientists have been interested in telekinesis and all that but everything in science says it doesn't work so they move on, only a few crazy people still believe in that.

That is an ignorant remark, that scientists don't believe in stupid shit. Scientists are people like everyone else. Just because they are scientists, doesn't necessarily make them perfect in their beliefs.

One of the greatest examples of scientists believing in stupid shit, is their belief that evolution exists, even though there is contradictory evidence all over the place. In fact, evolution completely fails at the one following point, and yet scientists continue to believe in it:

Cause and effect show that everything is programmed. We have found countless cause and effect operations in all of nature, even in basic physics. We have found nothing that we can say for certain does not operate through cause and effect... that is, that operates through spontaneity. This means that there is no such thing as random selection. The whole Theory of Evolution fails at this, one point.

Since science understands cause and effect entirely, science knows that evolution is simply a fanciful science fiction story. When it is portrayed as reality, evolution is a hoax.

Stfu globtard, the earth is flat.

Say, thanks for understanding. Happy day to you.     

[qwik2learn]

First of all, we are STILL talking about the SCIENTIFIC proof of god. You can't prove god's existence by things, that he supposed to create. There is no science in that ^^ ... and furthermore it proves nothing.

To know the process of creation is to possess "revealed" knowledge. Spiritual traditions have emphasised the rebirth of the personality into a new body as a fact of life and now scientific studies are validating this ancient wisdom.
Creation is the result of a trinity, the creation is a unity brought about by the existence of a trinity. Just like space is a unity of 3 dimensions, the dimensions are a transfirmations of length (a scalar). Herbert Spencer explained that all of the three human ideas for a theory of origin must refer to the Infinite for its root cause but if infinity is transformed into our finite experience then there is context for understanding GOD (INfinite INtelligence).

https://www.quora.com/Bhagavad-Geeta-says-Krishna-is-Supreme-God-but-aint-Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh-are-superior
The first answer in this link has a good explanation, here are some other philosophical and revealed sources to consider:
The Content-Source Problem in Modern Mediumship Research (Cunningham), Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics (Higgo), First Principles (Herbert Spencer), Phoenix Journal #36: HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN

We are running in a circle here. You can post so many esoteric articles you want, but it will never SCIENTIFICALLY proof the existence of god. Your articles would be more appropriate in a thread called "Is there a god?" but not here. In this thread, only scientific facts matter and there are none. And the argument "We are here" ... so there must be a god ...is also not proof ... or .. there is no scientific explanation for the big bang ... that means it must have been some higher power / god. You can come to this conclusion ... still not a scientific proof.

Hold on, I did post some science:

"Testable" and "observable"; for example, mediumship "is the only phenomenon that is directly relevant to the survival problem that can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control". That is interesting because it means there is evidence and a means to study it scientifically.

I posted a test and observations of telekinesis seen on camera and on EEG, but skeptics in this thread tried to dismiss the scientific evidence:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/

Skeptics in this thread see no fault in dismissing science that does not fit their own made-up definition.

2 examples that are testable, that is scientific evidence that stands and evidences survival, and since all rational atheists reject survival, it is a telling sign about who is right about the god(s) question. The TK EEG experiment is a good test and makes "skeptics" uncomfortable even if it is not directly relevant to the survival hypothesis.

[qwik2learn]

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

People may have delusions and false, even illogical beliefs, but consider this: is the survival hypothesis actually mistaken for a fact?

 I think the evidence speaks for itself but like any new idea it will take some dedicated study to learn the full context. I post information that I have found directly to this thread in order to ease the intellectual toil of those who are seeking the truth.
 There are some important experiments that have been ridiculed by "skeptics" in a quiet cover-up; however, such individuals do not have a clue about why they disbelieve the survival hypothesis in the first place! I challenge atheists to explain the hard evidence and to start their study of this information.

The problem with you people is that you think that scientists always try to hide magical and supernatural things when in fact they don't, they just don't believe in stupid shit, simple as that. A lot of scientists have been interested in telekinesis and all that but everything in science says it doesn't work so they move on, only a few crazy people still believe in that.

There is no evidence to back up your claim that "everything in science says it [TK] doesn't work", I posted this experiment and it is quite valid, so where is your excuse? You probably think that "everything in science says that the personality does not survive death", but there is abundant evidence which you neglect to address. Your argument relies on a double standard meant to exclude valid experimental research.

[Vod]

One of the greatest examples of people believing in stupid shit, is their belief that a god exists, even though there is contradictory evidence all over the place. In fact, religion completely fails at many places, and yet people continue to believe in it:

Cause and effect show that everything obeys the laws of science. We have found countless cause and effect operations in all of nature, even in basic physics. We have found nothing that we can say for certain does not operate through cause and effect... that is, that operates through spontaneity. This means that there is no such thing as "creation". The whole Theory of Religion fails at this, one point.

Since science understands cause and effect entirely, science knows that gods are simply a fanciful science fiction story. When it is portrayed as reality, god is a hoax.

(Remember - Baddecker is a troll) 

[Astargath]

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

People may have delusions and false, even illogical beliefs, but consider this: is the survival hypothesis actually mistaken for a fact?

 I think the evidence speaks for itself but like any new idea it will take some dedicated study to learn the full context. I post information that I have found directly to this thread in order to ease the intellectual toil of those who are seeking the truth.
 There are some important experiments that have been ridiculed by "skeptics" in a quiet cover-up; however, such individuals do not have a clue about why they disbelieve the survival hypothesis in the first place! I challenge atheists to explain the hard evidence and to start their study of this information.

The problem with you people is that you think that scientists always try to hide magical and supernatural things when in fact they don't, they just don't believe in stupid shit, simple as that. A lot of scientists have been interested in telekinesis and all that but everything in science says it doesn't work so they move on, only a few crazy people still believe in that.

There is no evidence to back up your claim that "everything in science says it [TK] doesn't work", I posted this experiment and it is quite valid, so where is your excuse? You probably think that "everything in science says that the personality does not survive death", but there is abundant evidence which you neglect to address. Your argument relies on a double standard meant to exclude valid experimental research.

I still don't know why you want to believe so hard in magic, you think life is boring without it or what is it, what do you gain from it?

[qwik2learn]

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

People may have delusions and false, even illogical beliefs, but consider this: is the survival hypothesis actually mistaken for a fact?

 I think the evidence speaks for itself but like any new idea it will take some dedicated study to learn the full context. I post information that I have found directly to this thread in order to ease the intellectual toil of those who are seeking the truth.
 There are some important experiments that have been ridiculed by "skeptics" in a quiet cover-up; however, such individuals do not have a clue about why they disbelieve the survival hypothesis in the first place! I challenge atheists to explain the hard evidence and to start their study of this information.

The problem with you people is that you think that scientists always try to hide magical and supernatural things when in fact they don't, they just don't believe in stupid shit, simple as that. A lot of scientists have been interested in telekinesis and all that but everything in science says it doesn't work so they move on, only a few crazy people still believe in that.

There is no evidence to back up your claim that "everything in science says it [TK] doesn't work", I posted this experiment and it is quite valid, so where is your excuse? You probably think that "everything in science says that the personality does not survive death", but there is abundant evidence which you neglect to address. Your argument relies on a double standard meant to exclude valid experimental research.

I still don't know why you want to believe so hard in magic, you think life is boring without it or what is it, what do you gain from it?

Non-sequitor and assuming humanism; is this thread not about science? Any technology which is sufficiently advanced *will* resemble magic! You should address the evidence, you still have not put forth evidence suggesting that these experiences and experiments are not valid. Eisenbeiss, Seth, and Guy Balvi are the specific cases of tests, and I also posted about 100 more.

[Astargath]

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

In this thread: "skeptics" are eager to ridicule the idea of survival and ESP but not the evidence.

People may have delusions and false, even illogical beliefs, but consider this: is the survival hypothesis actually mistaken for a fact?

 I think the evidence speaks for itself but like any new idea it will take some dedicated study to learn the full context. I post information that I have found directly to this thread in order to ease the intellectual toil of those who are seeking the truth.
 There are some important experiments that have been ridiculed by "skeptics" in a quiet cover-up; however, such individuals do not have a clue about why they disbelieve the survival hypothesis in the first place! I challenge atheists to explain the hard evidence and to start their study of this information.

The problem with you people is that you think that scientists always try to hide magical and supernatural things when in fact they don't, they just don't believe in stupid shit, simple as that. A lot of scientists have been interested in telekinesis and all that but everything in science says it doesn't work so they move on, only a few crazy people still believe in that.

There is no evidence to back up your claim that "everything in science says it [TK] doesn't work", I posted this experiment and it is quite valid, so where is your excuse? You probably think that "everything in science says that the personality does not survive death", but there is abundant evidence which you neglect to address. Your argument relies on a double standard meant to exclude valid experimental research.

I still don't know why you want to believe so hard in magic, you think life is boring without it or what is it, what do you gain from it?

Non-sequitor and assuming humanism; is this thread not about science? Any technology which is sufficiently advanced *will* resemble magic! You should address the evidence, you still have not put forth evidence suggesting that these experiences and experiments are not valid. Eisenbeiss, Seth, and Guy Balvi are the specific cases of tests, and I also posted about 100 more.

Scientists, investigators and many more people would have addressed the evidence by now, I can't go around looking at all the claims for all the bullshit there is, you know how many people claim ghosts are real, the zodiac is real, demons are real, magic is real etc etc ? They are not valid, period.

[sirazimuth]

I am a little bit surprised why this is even a thing. Despite if god exists or not ... there can't be a SCIENTIFIC proof for the existence.

You make good points... unfortunately there can be scientific proof if you make up your own definition of "SCIENTIFIC".  

"Testable" and "observable"; for example, mediumship "is the only phenomenon that is directly relevant to the survival problem that can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control". That is interesting because it means there is evidence and a means to study it scientifically.

I posted a test and observations of telekinesis seen on camera and on EEG, but skeptics in this thread tried to dismiss the scientific evidence:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/

Skeptics in this thread see no fault in dismissing science that does not fit their own made-up definition.

In this thread: "skeptics" have no problem being critical of others' beliefs while neglecting to examine their own.

the telekinesis nonsense is still being discussed?  Oh good lord!! . face palm
your link was a good laugh.
 look up the definition of gullible...
ya know, if I were a con artist, you would be my first mark...

What exactly is so funny about the anomalous EEG spikes that were observed while the TK is caught on camera? I can tell that these anomalous phenomena are related because they happened simultaneously. Don't forget to check out the video of the TK; this magician claims that the TK is not a trick; you can browse his page on Wikipedia for more details.

ok!   I'll get right on that...

[BADecker]

There is no such thing as outer space.

Extremely few have even been to outer space.

Troll?   Troll.

What?? Badecker doesn't believe in outer space??

The point wasn't outer space. The point had to do with science.

Very few people can PROVE that outer space exists. The average person only has the ability to listen to what others say about outer space. Sure, he can look at the stars, but what are they? Even the ISS isn't beyond that Van Allen belts, and is, therefore, not in outer space.

God, on the other hand, can be proven by multitudes of  people all over the place. Cause and effect is used by all the people all the time. And all they need to do is think about it to see that this is true.

Simple forms of entropy exist all over the place. The fact of old age is a simple form of entropy. Everyone understands entropy.

Complexity in the world is by far the most evident of the three. Any child can understand complexity.

Put these three together with a little thought, and they prove that God exists.

When scientists and wise people put these three together, they can't help but see that God exists.

But nobody knows what that is up there without building rockets to go and see. People might have all kinds of theories that it is outer space, but without the rockets, they could never prove it.

Regarding outer space, your average, everyday person doesn't know what it is without somebody telling him. But your average, everyday person can prove that God exists with all kinds of stuff that he uses daily.

Once again ... the question here is SCIENTIFIC PROOF! Space was already explored and analyzed. We know exactly what out space is made of. And before we had rockets etc. we couldn't explain outer space completely, but we knew it was there because we could at least see it. And although no one is going every to the Sun ...  we still know it is there... because we can see it and put it in perspective.

You can't scientific prove god because you can't see or measure him. Just because someone said, that there is a god, doesn't mean there must be one. If I would tell you that I have an invisible toaster, would you believe me? Would you just take my word, because I said so? There is also no scientific proof for that.

Some of the flaws in what you say are:

1. Did you explore space, especially outer space?

2. Who is the "we?" You know it because you did the exploration? What about the rest of the people? Don't tell me your great scientists all explored outer space.

3. Einstein says that space is emptiness... nothing there. How do you see something that is not there?

4. But you don't really know what you are seeing when you see the stars. Electric universe has some points to it that are far better explanations than nuclear reactions in stars.


5. Many police forensic operations prove that there was a crime committed, without the criminal having been found. Science proves God exists, even if we can't see Jim, or lay hands on Him.

6. If we set the police forensics department to examining the issue of your invisible toaster, they just might prove it exists. But they might prove it doesn't exist, as well.

[BADecker]

One of the greatest examples of people believing in stupid shit, is their belief that a god exists, even though there is contradictory evidence all over the place. In fact, religion completely fails at many places, and yet people continue to believe in it:

Cause and effect show that everything obeys the laws of science. We have found countless cause and effect operations in all of nature, even in basic physics. We have found nothing that we can say for certain does not operate through cause and effect... that is, that operates through spontaneity. This means that there is no such thing as "creation". The whole Theory of Religion fails at this, one point.

Since science understands cause and effect entirely, science knows that gods are simply a fanciful science fiction story. When it is portrayed as reality, god is a hoax.

(Remember - Baddecker is a troll)  

Part of the reason science keeps on looking for random happenings in the universe, is because they want to prove God doesn't exist. They all know He exists. They simply are not saying it.

When you talk about religion failing, according to the definition of religion at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t, you are simply stating part of your religion. This being a science thread, your religious talk is off-topic.

[BADecker]

Nobody can PROVE any god exists.  The average person only has the ability to listen to what others say about a god. Sure, he can look at the bible, but what is it? Just more words from people that can't prove it.

Space, on the other hand, can be proven by multitudes of people all over the place   Cause and effect is used by all the people all the time. And all they need to do is think about it to see that this is true.

Simple forms of entropy exist all over the place. The fact of old age is a simple form of entropy. Everyone understands entropy.

Complexity in the world is by far the most evident of the three. Any child can understand complexity.

Put these three together with a little thought, and they prove that science is true, and space exists.

When scientists and wise people put these three together, they can't help but see that space exists.

And space, being emptiness, doesn't do anything. So, it was God that did it all.

[BADecker]

^ ^

See?  Just by replacing a few words I can show how my brainwashed buddy doesn't have any proof at all.  He just talks in circles.




If you simply think some god exists for some reason or other, that's okay. People make mistakes all over the place.

But if you are adamant that god exists, and forcefully express it like some of the brainwashed people in this thread, contradicting yourself and science all over the place, you are either a pure propagandist, or you should be in a funny farm.

The point isn't "some god." The point is a Something that is so extremely great and intelligent, that our word "God" doesn't even approach the strength and greatness of that "Something."