Scientific proof that God exists?

[Melena Sains]

I believe in God

[Astargath]

I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.

That's understandable. People of the past saw it.

First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe.

A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons.

God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not.

Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago.

Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars.

The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.

The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing.

However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing.

There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic.

Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly.

Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet.

[BADecker]

I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.

That's understandable. People of the past saw it.

First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe.

A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons.

God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not.

Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago.

Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars.

The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.

The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing.

However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing.

There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic.

Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly.

Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet.

Your deception/idiocy is showing. Or have you been able to track an electron lately? You know, like you tag a deer, and follow its travels through the woods? What? You haven't been able to track even one electron? And you so seriously think that you can understand the Source of all cause and effect enough to apply your logic to IT correctly!? LOL!

Why, you can't even remain on topic. Consider your post in the Health and Religion thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22320497#msg22320497:

What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say.

Wrong thread for that, buddy. In fact, you use reverse logic. In the face of the scientific proof that God exists, you assume that He doesn't exist. And then you go and stick it in the wrong thread. You are falling apart, and your logic and ideals right along with you.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh at you like I do now and again. The devil has you trapped in a false religion, and you constantly show it. So, (without continued laughing) I offer you the admonition to re-evaluate science so that you can understand that all of the universe and nature prove that God exists.

[Astargath]

I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.

That's understandable. People of the past saw it.

First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe.

A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons.

God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not.

Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago.

Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars.

The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.

The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing.

However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing.

There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic.

Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly.

Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet.

Your deception/idiocy is showing. Or have you been able to track an electron lately? You know, like you tag a deer, and follow its travels through the woods? What? You haven't been able to track even one electron? And you so seriously think that you can understand the Source of all cause and effect enough to apply your logic to IT correctly!? LOL!

Why, you can't even remain on topic. Consider your post in the Health and Religion thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22320497#msg22320497:

What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say.

Wrong thread for that, buddy. In fact, you use reverse logic. In the face of the scientific proof that God exists, you assume that He doesn't exist. And then you go and stick it in the wrong thread. You are falling apart, and your logic and ideals right along with you.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh at you like I do now and again. The devil has you trapped in a false religion, and you constantly show it. So, (without continued laughing) I offer you the admonition to re-evaluate science so that you can understand that all of the universe and nature prove that God exists.

I debunked your links several times, your answers are always the same ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Maybe the devil has trapped you and you believe in the bible instead of the quran, who knows.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

[BADecker]

I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.

That's understandable. People of the past saw it.

First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe.

A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons.

God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not.

Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago.

Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars.

The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.

The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing.

However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing.

There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic.

Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly.

Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet.

Your deception/idiocy is showing. Or have you been able to track an electron lately? You know, like you tag a deer, and follow its travels through the woods? What? You haven't been able to track even one electron? And you so seriously think that you can understand the Source of all cause and effect enough to apply your logic to IT correctly!? LOL!

Why, you can't even remain on topic. Consider your post in the Health and Religion thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22320497#msg22320497:

What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say.

Wrong thread for that, buddy. In fact, you use reverse logic. In the face of the scientific proof that God exists, you assume that He doesn't exist. And then you go and stick it in the wrong thread. You are falling apart, and your logic and ideals right along with you.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh at you like I do now and again. The devil has you trapped in a false religion, and you constantly show it. So, (without continued laughing) I offer you the admonition to re-evaluate science so that you can understand that all of the universe and nature prove that God exists.

I debunked your links several times, your answers are always the same ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Maybe the devil has trapped you and you believe in the bible instead of the quran, who knows.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Your debunking debunks itself by circular logic, or incomplete logic, or by logic that doesn't really exist, or by statements that cannot be proven factual, and often they say, themselves, that they are not factual. Because of this, your "stuff" is the stuff of religion, not science. You constantly bring religion into this science thread. What's the matter? You like your religion better than the religion of reality - science?

[Astargath]

I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.

That's understandable. People of the past saw it.

First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe.

A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons.

God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not.

Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago.

Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars.

The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.

The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing.

However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing.

There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic.

Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly.

Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet.

Your deception/idiocy is showing. Or have you been able to track an electron lately? You know, like you tag a deer, and follow its travels through the woods? What? You haven't been able to track even one electron? And you so seriously think that you can understand the Source of all cause and effect enough to apply your logic to IT correctly!? LOL!

Why, you can't even remain on topic. Consider your post in the Health and Religion thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22320497#msg22320497:

What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say.

Wrong thread for that, buddy. In fact, you use reverse logic. In the face of the scientific proof that God exists, you assume that He doesn't exist. And then you go and stick it in the wrong thread. You are falling apart, and your logic and ideals right along with you.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh at you like I do now and again. The devil has you trapped in a false religion, and you constantly show it. So, (without continued laughing) I offer you the admonition to re-evaluate science so that you can understand that all of the universe and nature prove that God exists.

I debunked your links several times, your answers are always the same ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Maybe the devil has trapped you and you believe in the bible instead of the quran, who knows.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Your debunking debunks itself by circular logic, or incomplete logic, or by logic that doesn't really exist, or by statements that cannot be proven factual, and often they say, themselves, that they are not factual. Because of this, your "stuff" is the stuff of religion, not science. You constantly bring religion into this science thread. What's the matter? You like your religion better than the religion of reality - science?

Did I predict that or what? ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning''

Is that what you do when you see your ''science'' getting destroyed by simple logic?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

[BADecker]

I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.

That's understandable. People of the past saw it.

First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe.

A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons.

God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not.

Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago.

Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars.

The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.

The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing.

However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing.

There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic.

Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly.

Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet.

Your deception/idiocy is showing. Or have you been able to track an electron lately? You know, like you tag a deer, and follow its travels through the woods? What? You haven't been able to track even one electron? And you so seriously think that you can understand the Source of all cause and effect enough to apply your logic to IT correctly!? LOL!

Why, you can't even remain on topic. Consider your post in the Health and Religion thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22320497#msg22320497:

What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say.

Wrong thread for that, buddy. In fact, you use reverse logic. In the face of the scientific proof that God exists, you assume that He doesn't exist. And then you go and stick it in the wrong thread. You are falling apart, and your logic and ideals right along with you.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh at you like I do now and again. The devil has you trapped in a false religion, and you constantly show it. So, (without continued laughing) I offer you the admonition to re-evaluate science so that you can understand that all of the universe and nature prove that God exists.

I debunked your links several times, your answers are always the same ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Maybe the devil has trapped you and you believe in the bible instead of the quran, who knows.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Your debunking debunks itself by circular logic, or incomplete logic, or by logic that doesn't really exist, or by statements that cannot be proven factual, and often they say, themselves, that they are not factual. Because of this, your "stuff" is the stuff of religion, not science. You constantly bring religion into this science thread. What's the matter? You like your religion better than the religion of reality - science?

Did I predict that or what? ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning''

Is that what you do when you see your ''science'' getting destroyed by simple logic?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Well, you didn't really predict it. I have been showing it to you for a long time now.

[Astargath]

I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.

That's understandable. People of the past saw it.

First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe.

A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons.

God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not.

Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago.

Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars.

The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.

The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing.

However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing.

There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic.

Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly.

Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet.

Your deception/idiocy is showing. Or have you been able to track an electron lately? You know, like you tag a deer, and follow its travels through the woods? What? You haven't been able to track even one electron? And you so seriously think that you can understand the Source of all cause and effect enough to apply your logic to IT correctly!? LOL!

Why, you can't even remain on topic. Consider your post in the Health and Religion thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22320497#msg22320497:

What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say.

Wrong thread for that, buddy. In fact, you use reverse logic. In the face of the scientific proof that God exists, you assume that He doesn't exist. And then you go and stick it in the wrong thread. You are falling apart, and your logic and ideals right along with you.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh at you like I do now and again. The devil has you trapped in a false religion, and you constantly show it. So, (without continued laughing) I offer you the admonition to re-evaluate science so that you can understand that all of the universe and nature prove that God exists.

I debunked your links several times, your answers are always the same ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Maybe the devil has trapped you and you believe in the bible instead of the quran, who knows.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Your debunking debunks itself by circular logic, or incomplete logic, or by logic that doesn't really exist, or by statements that cannot be proven factual, and often they say, themselves, that they are not factual. Because of this, your "stuff" is the stuff of religion, not science. You constantly bring religion into this science thread. What's the matter? You like your religion better than the religion of reality - science?

Did I predict that or what? ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning''

Is that what you do when you see your ''science'' getting destroyed by simple logic?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Well, you didn't really predict it. I have been showing it to you for a long time now.

Nah, you just have been saying the same stuff because it's the easiest way to dismiss the science that shows your proof is nothing but garbage. You just want to call anything god for some reason even if what created the universe is the universe itself, for example, in your mind it's still god.

[BADecker]

I still don't see how entropy shows there was greater intelligence in the past.

That's understandable. People of the past saw it.

First of all even if god existed, he would be outside the universe meaning he is not part of the universe, even if he was extremely intelligent intelligent it wouldn't matter because he is not a part of the universe.

A pool shark might be able to tap the cue ball in just the right way so that it hits a second ball which hits a third ball which hits a fourth ball which knocks a designated fifth ball into a designated pocket. But the pool shark can't do this with atoms, or electrons or protons or neutrons.

God does it with countless electrons, countless protons, countless neutrons, countless photons, and every other particle and wave in the universe, to produce complexity, like intelligence and emotion, which come into being in multitudes of people, many years (13-14 billion if you are a standard scientist) after initially tapping these particles into motion. The point? Your puny thinking can't come close to guessing what God can and can't do... if He can be in the universe or outside of it or not.

Our intelligence is by far increasing, I would talk about millions of years ago but you don't believe we have existed for so long so I will just limit to a few thousands of years ago.

Intelligence is complexity. Entropy is breaking complexity/intelligence down. Our intelligence is decreasing. All you have to do is read, for example, Blackstone's Commentaries to see that our intelligence is weaker. Or try Josephus, or any of the ancient scholars.

The difference between people now and then is huge, we are more intelligent mostly because of all the knowledge we have and have access to. In any case our intelligence is definitely not decreasing.

The intelligence you are talking about is not individual intelligence. Rather, it is cumulative intelligence based on recorded findings by many people. Individual intelligence is decreasing.

However, such modern intelligence is destroying the world. At least people of the past were intelligent enough to not join their intelligence like we have, so that they started to destroy the world like we are doing.

There is no doubt that a modern human is far far more intelligent than a homo habilis, for example. If god made the universe he had to be outside it otherwise he couldn't have made it. You can't be part of the universe and then create the universe because that would mean the universe was already created, it's pretty simple logic.

Your logic about God isn't good enough to suggest anything about God other than what simple nature and science shows us. Consider. When you build a house, you are within it some of the time, and outside it part of the time. But God can't do this with the universe? You talk so silly.

Are you stupid? God can be in the universe but he couldn't have been part of it before creating it. It doesn't matter if he can get in and out, he won't apply to the entropy of the universe. I can't be inside the house if I haven't built it yet.

Your deception/idiocy is showing. Or have you been able to track an electron lately? You know, like you tag a deer, and follow its travels through the woods? What? You haven't been able to track even one electron? And you so seriously think that you can understand the Source of all cause and effect enough to apply your logic to IT correctly!? LOL!

Why, you can't even remain on topic. Consider your post in the Health and Religion thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22320497#msg22320497:

What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say.

Wrong thread for that, buddy. In fact, you use reverse logic. In the face of the scientific proof that God exists, you assume that He doesn't exist. And then you go and stick it in the wrong thread. You are falling apart, and your logic and ideals right along with you.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't laugh at you like I do now and again. The devil has you trapped in a false religion, and you constantly show it. So, (without continued laughing) I offer you the admonition to re-evaluate science so that you can understand that all of the universe and nature prove that God exists.

I debunked your links several times, your answers are always the same ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning'' Maybe the devil has trapped you and you believe in the bible instead of the quran, who knows.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Your debunking debunks itself by circular logic, or incomplete logic, or by logic that doesn't really exist, or by statements that cannot be proven factual, and often they say, themselves, that they are not factual. Because of this, your "stuff" is the stuff of religion, not science. You constantly bring religion into this science thread. What's the matter? You like your religion better than the religion of reality - science?

Did I predict that or what? ''Oh no that's just circular reasoning''

Is that what you do when you see your ''science'' getting destroyed by simple logic?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684

Well, you didn't really predict it. I have been showing it to you for a long time now.

Nah, you just have been saying the same stuff because it's the easiest way to dismiss the science that shows your proof is nothing but garbage. You just want to call anything god for some reason even if what created the universe is the universe itself, for example, in your mind it's still god.

The kind of science you use to rebut the proof for God isn't really science. It's just a bunch of people playing science-like games with their minds. Pure science is found in cause and effect, entropy, and complexity. Combining them as they are found in the universe is unrebuttable proof that God exists.

[SocialVerifier]

For Catholic, it doesn't need to have so called "proof" as long God is in your heart and you believed he exist.

[protokol]

I've commented in this thread before, but let me just again try and explain concisely why "Scientific proof that God exists" is philosophically impossible.

Firstly, if there is a god, then by definition it does not follow the same laws as the universe, as we know them. It must reside outside the laws of physics and science in general, because the god would have to have magical powers to do the things it is claimed it can do. Many philosophers, for thousands of years have pondered this question, and most, if not all of them are probably more intelligent than you or I. As far as I know, none of these great minds have found any scientific proof.

If the god does not follow the laws of physics that we observe in this universe, then it is logically impossible for there to be scientific proof that it exists, at least in this universe. You cannot scientifically prove the existence of an entity that does not follow the laws of known science. This is a logical fact.

Furthermore, if anyone claims that there is scientific proof of such an entity (I'm looking at you BADecker), then they are either deluded, or confused as to what the scientific method actually accomplishes.

If someone does wish to claim such a thing, I would ask that they provide irrefutable evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in a reasonably reputable scientific journal (preferably in an academic journal, concerning physics, biology or chemistry).

I am an atheist myself, as I have not seen any compelling evidence for the existence of a god-entity/creator. If such evidence were to emerge, I would be happy to change my stance based on that evidence. Until then, I treat the existence of a god/creator as I would Russell's Teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn.

[BADecker]

I've commented in this thread before, but let me just again try and explain concisely why "Scientific proof that God exists" is philosophically impossible.

Philosophers might have all kinds of philosophical explanations for things that science has proof for. That's a kinda backward idea you have there.

Firstly, if there is a god, then by definition it does not follow the same laws as the universe, as we know them. It must reside outside the laws of physics and science in general, because the god would have to have magical powers to do the things it is claimed it can do. Many philosophers, for thousands of years have pondered this question, and most, if not all of them are probably more intelligent than you or I. As far as I know, none of these great minds have found any scientific proof.

That's because their great minds are far too inadequate for analyzing something as great as God is.

Many witnesses of the past have been subject to the the strength of God. A few of them have written down what they witnessed in the Bible. Other religious books have writings of witnesses to God's power.

Many people today experience God's power and "moving" in their lives.

If the god does not follow the laws of physics that we observe in this universe, then it is logically impossible for there to be scientific proof that it exists, at least in this universe. You cannot scientifically prove the existence of an entity that does not follow the laws of known science. This is a logical fact.

God made the laws of physics. He didn't make the physics of this universe to be something that contains all possible laws. Because of this, He can mover through the universe using other laws, and even things that are not laws. After all, the garage builder is within and without the garage He is building, but He is never part of it.

Consider outer space... or empty space in general. You can prove it exists by observing the way material and energy act within it. But you can't prove emptiness or nothing by analyzing it directly. God is proven in the same way. "Nothing" is not the source of everything; God is.

Furthermore, if anyone claims that there is scientific proof of such an entity (I'm looking at you BADecker), then they are either deluded, or confused as to what the scientific method actually accomplishes.

Sounds like you are using the scientific method in the way you want to use it, rather than the way that it works with everything.

If someone does wish to claim such a thing, I would ask that they provide irrefutable evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in a reasonably reputable scientific journal (preferably in an academic journal, concerning physics, biology or chemistry).

Did Isaac Newton have peer reviewed papers? Scientists use complexity all the time in their scientific examination, but do they have peer reviewed papers for complexity? If they have these papers, get them out and read them. They prove God exists.

I am an atheist myself, as I have not seen any compelling evidence for the existence of a god-entity/creator. If such evidence were to emerge, I would be happy to change my stance based on that evidence. Until then, I treat the existence of a god/creator as I would Russell's Teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn.

As you said. You are blind. Just because you think you are an atheist almost literally proves it.

[protokol]

I've commented in this thread before, but let me just again try and explain concisely why "Scientific proof that God exists" is philosophically impossible.

Philosophers might have all kinds of philosophical explanations for things that science has proof for. That's a kinda backward idea you have there.

Firstly, if there is a god, then by definition it does not follow the same laws as the universe, as we know them. It must reside outside the laws of physics and science in general, because the god would have to have magical powers to do the things it is claimed it can do. Many philosophers, for thousands of years have pondered this question, and most, if not all of them are probably more intelligent than you or I. As far as I know, none of these great minds have found any scientific proof.

That's because their great minds are far too inadequate for analyzing something as great as God is.

Many witnesses of the past have been subject to the the strength of God. A few of them have written down what they witnessed in the Bible. Other religious books have writings of witnesses to God's power.

Many people today experience God's power and "moving" in their lives.

If the god does not follow the laws of physics that we observe in this universe, then it is logically impossible for there to be scientific proof that it exists, at least in this universe. You cannot scientifically prove the existence of an entity that does not follow the laws of known science. This is a logical fact.

God made the laws of physics. He didn't make the physics of this universe to be something that contains all possible laws. Because of this, He can mover through the universe using other laws, and even things that are not laws. After all, the garage builder is within and without the garage He is building, but He is never part of it.

Consider outer space... or empty space in general. You can prove it exists by observing the way material and energy act within it. But you can't prove emptiness or nothing by analyzing it directly. God is proven in the same way. "Nothing" is not the source of everything; God is.

Furthermore, if anyone claims that there is scientific proof of such an entity (I'm looking at you BADecker), then they are either deluded, or confused as to what the scientific method actually accomplishes.

Sounds like you are using the scientific method in the way you want to use it, rather than the way that it works with everything.

If someone does wish to claim such a thing, I would ask that they provide irrefutable evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in a reasonably reputable scientific journal (preferably in an academic journal, concerning physics, biology or chemistry).

Did Isaac Newton have peer reviewed papers? Scientists use complexity all the time in their scientific examination, but do they have peer reviewed papers for complexity? If they have these papers, get them out and read them. They prove God exists.

I am an atheist myself, as I have not seen any compelling evidence for the existence of a god-entity/creator. If such evidence were to emerge, I would be happy to change my stance based on that evidence. Until then, I treat the existence of a god/creator as I would Russell's Teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn.

As you said. You are blind. Just because you think you are an atheist almost literally proves it.

Literally nothing you just said even attempted to address my points. Perhaps you need to read my post again and actually respond to what I'm saying, in a concise manner.

Edit: I'll break it down in the following post if you want, as you seem confused.

[Vod]

Literally nothing you just said even attempted to address my points. Perhaps you need to read my post again and actually respond to what I'm saying, in a concise manner.

Edit: I'll break it down in the following post if you want, as you seem confused.

The reason this thread has 400 pages - you can't actually discuss anything with him with all his BS.  :/

[qwik2learn]

Furthermore, if anyone claims that there is scientific proof of such an entity (I'm looking at you BADecker), then they are either deluded, or confused as to what the scientific method actually accomplishes.

If someone does wish to claim such a thing, I would ask that they provide irrefutable evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in a reasonably reputable scientific journal (preferably in an academic journal, concerning physics, biology or chemistry).

I am an atheist myself, as I have not seen any compelling evidence for the existence of a god-entity/creator. If such evidence were to emerge, I would be happy to change my stance based on that evidence. Until then, I treat the existence of a god/creator as I would Russell's Teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn.

GOD could be thought of as a hypothesis which can solve important issues like the Origin of Life and many other mysteries. According to the scientific digest "A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics", science has shown that there is something very mysterious at the origin of time and space. The cutting edge science papers from Stuart Hammeroff and Deepak Chopra explain the quantum origin of mind and contain some of the latest knowledge.

The evidence supporting survival is so overwhelming that it leads one to consider that GOD is a valid philosophical concept. What about the top 20 spirit-contact cases and the top 20 reincarnation cases? What about the important research of Cunningham indicating that the communication of anomalous information is verifiable by anyone willing to consider the evidence (Content-Source Problem)? What about the failures of skeptical research and the constant skeptical misdirection? Herbert Spencer explained that all theories of origin imply the inconceivable while other eminent researchers through their own observations documented the spiritual dimension of reality.

The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit. [6.1.19]

Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts. [6.1.21]

The active intellect works on the passive intellect which somehow shadows what the former is doing and helps us as a medium. [6.1.22]

I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical. [6.2.12]

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

I have pointed out some major problems in the Bible; I recommend that truth-seekers read the Phoenix Journals since they explain how the truth in the Bible has been modified; a seeker must learn about the omissions.

[protokol]

I've commented in this thread before, but let me just again try and explain concisely why "Scientific proof that God exists" is philosophically impossible.

Philosophers might have all kinds of philosophical explanations for things that science has proof for. That's a kinda backward idea you have there.

If you think this is a backwards idea, you misunderstand what philosophy means. It is primarily the study of existence, reason, knowledge and crucially, logic.

There is no such thing as a "philosophical explanation" for a thing that science has proof for. In fact, philosophy might argue semantically that a lot of science does not have true proof for many things, as a lot of science is based on a posteriori knowledge. This means it is based on empirical evidence, and can never be proven 100%. There are some exceptions, such as mathematical proofs (e.g. 2+2=4), which we call a priori, and is 100% true.

You could try applying this logic to your own belief in the Bible, as by definition this is a posteriori knowledge, and therefore cannot be 100% true.

Firstly, if there is a god, then by definition it does not follow the same laws as the universe, as we know them. It must reside outside the laws of physics and science in general, because the god would have to have magical powers to do the things it is claimed it can do. Many philosophers, for thousands of years have pondered this question, and most, if not all of them are probably more intelligent than you or I. As far as I know, none of these great minds have found any scientific proof.

That's because their great minds are far too inadequate for analyzing something as great as God is.

Many witnesses of the past have been subject to the the strength of God. A few of them have written down what they witnessed in the Bible. Other religious books have writings of witnesses to God's power.

Many people today experience God's power and "moving" in their lives.

If their great minds are too inadequate, then both mine and your's probably are too. However, this isn't the issue at hand - you don't need to be a genius to understand the logic behind the belief in a god, no matter how great and powerful that god might be. The key is understanding the logic and evidence to form an educated opinion about the entity, and how likely it is to exist. A scientific example would be the existence of black holes, dark matter and subatomic particles. No-one has seen them, but the evidence strongly points to their existence.

I'm not going to address your bullshit about "witnesses of the strength of god" or "people experiencing god's power", because this is the opposite of scientific evidence, and is simply anecdotal bollocks. This thread is about scientific evidence, lets keep it on topic.

If the god does not follow the laws of physics that we observe in this universe, then it is logically impossible for there to be scientific proof that it exists, at least in this universe. You cannot scientifically prove the existence of an entity that does not follow the laws of known science. This is a logical fact.

God made the laws of physics. He didn't make the physics of this universe to be something that contains all possible laws. Because of this, He can mover through the universe using other laws, and even things that are not laws. After all, the garage builder is within and without the garage He is building, but He is never part of it.

Consider outer space... or empty space in general. You can prove it exists by observing the way material and energy act within it. But you can't prove emptiness or nothing by analyzing it directly. God is proven in the same way. "Nothing" is not the source of everything; God is.

You've just proven yourself wrong with this paragraph. If god can move through the universe using other laws, and "even things that are not laws", then how can we possibly prove his existence with our own laws? As I said, it is logically impossible. Obtaining scientific proof of god with our current understanding of science is like asking how many hamburgers it would take to kill a ghost - it's a ridiculous notion.

Furthermore, if anyone claims that there is scientific proof of such an entity (I'm looking at you BADecker), then they are either deluded, or confused as to what the scientific method actually accomplishes.

Sounds like you are using the scientific method in the way you want to use it, rather than the way that it works with everything.

No, my definition and use of the scientific method is sound. Look at my previous paragraph to see why we cannot prove or disprove an entity which does not abide by our current understanding of the laws of physics.

If someone does wish to claim such a thing, I would ask that they provide irrefutable evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in a reasonably reputable scientific journal (preferably in an academic journal, concerning physics, biology or chemistry).

Did Isaac Newton have peer reviewed papers? Scientists use complexity all the time in their scientific examination, but do they have peer reviewed papers for complexity? If they have these papers, get them out and read them. They prove God exists.

Seeing as you are the one that is adamant that the existence of god is scientifically proven, the burden of proof is on you to show some academic literature that shows some evidence. Granted, Isaac Newtons papers may not have been peer-reviewed, but they have stood the test of time. Your sentences about "peer-reviewed papers for complexity" make no sense. As I said, the burden of proof is on you.

I am an atheist myself, as I have not seen any compelling evidence for the existence of a god-entity/creator. If such evidence were to emerge, I would be happy to change my stance based on that evidence. Until then, I treat the existence of a god/creator as I would Russell's Teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn.

As you said. You are blind. Just because you think you are an atheist almost literally proves it.



Another nonsense sentence, with no logical rebuttal.

To summarise, a supernatural god cannot be proven with current science because such a god, by definition, does not abide by the physical laws of our known universe.

PS quotes fucked up so I used a different colour.

[protokol]

Furthermore, if anyone claims that there is scientific proof of such an entity (I'm looking at you BADecker), then they are either deluded, or confused as to what the scientific method actually accomplishes.

If someone does wish to claim such a thing, I would ask that they provide irrefutable evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in a reasonably reputable scientific journal (preferably in an academic journal, concerning physics, biology or chemistry).

I am an atheist myself, as I have not seen any compelling evidence for the existence of a god-entity/creator. If such evidence were to emerge, I would be happy to change my stance based on that evidence. Until then, I treat the existence of a god/creator as I would Russell's Teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn.

GOD could be thought of as a hypothesis which can solve important issues like the Origin of Life and many other mysteries. According to the scientific digest "A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics", science has shown that there is something very mysterious at the origin of time and space. The cutting edge science papers from Stuart Hammeroff and Deepak Chopra explain the quantum origin of mind and contain some of the latest knowledge.

The evidence supporting survival is so overwhelming that it leads one to consider that GOD is a valid philosophical concept. What about the top 20 spirit-contact cases and the top 20 reincarnation cases? What about the important research of Cunningham indicating that the communication of anomalous information is verifiable by anyone willing to consider the evidence (Content-Source Problem)? What about the failures of skeptical research and the constant skeptical misdirection? Herbert Spencer explained that all theories of origin imply the inconceivable while other eminent researchers through their own observations documented the spiritual dimension of reality.

The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit. [6.1.19]

Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts. [6.1.21]

The active intellect works on the passive intellect which somehow shadows what the former is doing and helps us as a medium. [6.1.22]

I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical. [6.2.12]

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

I have pointed out some major problems in the Bible; I recommend that truth-seekers read the Phoenix Journals since they explain how the truth in the Bible has been modified; a seeker must learn about the omissions.

I certainly agree that god can be thought of as a hypothesis that explains important issues about metaphysics and the origin of life. Except that it's a terribly weak hypothesis with no evidence.

Then you mention "cutting edge science papers from Deepak Chopra".... and I'm done.

Deepak Chopra is a charlatan who does not understand the fundamentals of basic quantum physics - I understand more than him about quantum physics and I don't even have a degree. Look up some youtube videos of him trying to debate actual physicists, the guy is a moron.

[BADecker]

I've commented in this thread before, but let me just again try and explain concisely why "Scientific proof that God exists" is philosophically impossible.

Philosophers might have all kinds of philosophical explanations for things that science has proof for. That's a kinda backward idea you have there.

If you think this is a backwards idea, you misunderstand what philosophy means. It is primarily the study of existence, reason, knowledge and crucially, logic.

There is no such thing as a "philosophical explanation" for a thing that science has proof for. In fact, philosophy might argue semantically that a lot of science does not have true proof for many things, as a lot of science is based on a posteriori knowledge. This means it is based on empirical evidence, and can never be proven 100%. There are some exceptions, such as mathematical proofs (e.g. 2+2=4), which we call a priori, and is 100% true.

You could try applying this logic to your own belief in the Bible, as by definition this is a posteriori knowledge, and therefore cannot be 100% true.

Anything that science has proof for, gives the philosophers far better understanding for forming correct philosophy about it. Why? Because they know it is true. They don't have to guess about it. They only have to determine the philosophical reason why it works the way it does.

One of the things that philosophy understands is that because there is no absolute science proof for anything, there is no absolute proof for philosophy, as well. It all might be game-playing. Playing the game is fun.

Bible philosophy is based in witness accounts of what happened. Then the philosophy is developed for why it happened.

Firstly, if there is a god, then by definition it does not follow the same laws as the universe, as we know them. It must reside outside the laws of physics and science in general, because the god would have to have magical powers to do the things it is claimed it can do. Many philosophers, for thousands of years have pondered this question, and most, if not all of them are probably more intelligent than you or I. As far as I know, none of these great minds have found any scientific proof.

That's because their great minds are far too inadequate for analyzing something as great as God is.

Many witnesses of the past have been subject to the the strength of God. A few of them have written down what they witnessed in the Bible. Other religious books have writings of witnesses to God's power.

Many people today experience God's power and "moving" in their lives.

If their great minds are too inadequate, then both mine and your's probably are too. However, this isn't the issue at hand - you don't need to be a genius to understand the logic behind the belief in a god, no matter how great and powerful that god might be. The key is understanding the logic and evidence to form an educated opinion about the entity, and how likely it is to exist. A scientific example would be the existence of black holes, dark matter and subatomic particles. No-one has seen them, but the evidence strongly points to their existence.

I'm not going to address your bullshit about "witnesses of the strength of god" or "people experiencing god's power", because this is the opposite of scientific evidence, and is simply anecdotal bollocks. This thread is about scientific evidence, lets keep it on topic.

Since you mention "belief," try to remain on topic with science rather than religion. There might be a bunch of science, such as black holes, dark matter and subatomic particles, but foundational science is cause and effect, complexity, and entropy. When combined as they are in this universe, there is no alternative other than a Supreme Being. The term "God" is simply used for brevity... because it fits.

If the god does not follow the laws of physics that we observe in this universe, then it is logically impossible for there to be scientific proof that it exists, at least in this universe. You cannot scientifically prove the existence of an entity that does not follow the laws of known science. This is a logical fact.

God made the laws of physics. He didn't make the physics of this universe to be something that contains all possible laws. Because of this, He can mover through the universe using other laws, and even things that are not laws. After all, the garage builder is within and without the garage He is building, but He is never part of it.

Consider outer space... or empty space in general. You can prove it exists by observing the way material and energy act within it. But you can't prove emptiness or nothing by analyzing it directly. God is proven in the same way. "Nothing" is not the source of everything; God is.

You've just proven yourself wrong with this paragraph. If god can move through the universe using other laws, and "even things that are not laws", then how can we possibly prove his existence with our own laws? As I said, it is logically impossible. Obtaining scientific proof of god with our current understanding of science is like asking how many hamburgers it would take to kill a ghost - it's a ridiculous notion.

What you are essentially saying is that outer space isn't known to exist. And when you evacuate nearly 100% out of a vacuum chamber, the "nothing" in there is not really known to exist. We prove that "nothing" or outer space exist, by analyzing the things that DO exist, and their relationships. Same with proving God.

[/color]

Furthermore, if anyone claims that there is scientific proof of such an entity (I'm looking at you BADecker), then they are either deluded, or confused as to what the scientific method actually accomplishes.

Sounds like you are using the scientific method in the way you want to use it, rather than the way that it works with everything.

No, my definition and use of the scientific method is sound. Look at my previous paragraph to see why we cannot prove or disprove an entity which does not abide by our current understanding of the laws of physics.

Well, are you really trying to say that science has no proof that outer space exists? Are you really trying to say that the empty space between the electrons and the nucleus of an atom doesn't exist? You better rethink your definition of scientific proof.

If someone does wish to claim such a thing, I would ask that they provide irrefutable evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in a reasonably reputable scientific journal (preferably in an academic journal, concerning physics, biology or chemistry).

Did Isaac Newton have peer reviewed papers? Scientists use complexity all the time in their scientific examination, but do they have peer reviewed papers for complexity? If they have these papers, get them out and read them. They prove God exists.

Seeing as you are the one that is adamant that the existence of god is scientifically proven, the burden of proof is on you to show some academic literature that shows some evidence. Granted, Isaac Newtons papers may not have been peer-reviewed, but they have stood the test of time. Your sentences about "peer-reviewed papers for complexity" make no sense. As I said, the burden of proof is on you.

Exactly! And I couldn't have said it better myself. They have stood the test of time, since the existence of cause and effect, complexity, and entropy have been understood for thousands of years. Scientifically they have been understood since, at least, Newton. More than anything else, they have stood the test of time. They are basic, foundational science.

I am an atheist myself, as I have not seen any compelling evidence for the existence of a god-entity/creator. If such evidence were to emerge, I would be happy to change my stance based on that evidence. Until then, I treat the existence of a god/creator as I would Russell's Teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn.

As you said. You are blind. Just because you think you are an atheist almost literally proves it.



Another nonsense sentence, with no logical rebuttal.

To summarise, a supernatural god cannot be proven with current science because such a god, by definition, does not abide by the physical laws of our known universe.

PS quotes fucked up so I used a different colour.

Thank you for the color. It certainly makes things easier. Since you are helping me prove that God exists, I thank you. Because if God doesn't exist through the scientific analysis of the things in nature and the universe, then the empty space in outer space doesn't exist, and the atoms do not exist, and lots of other things do not exist that science has proven to exist.

Since you are trying to say all these other things don't exist (because their existence is proven the same way as the existence of God, Who you deny), then what are scientists really trying to do with all their blabber and mathematical equations that they are constantly using and doing?... since they already know that "nothingness" has never been proven to exist, because they can't grab hold of it and analyze it scientifically.

Thanks for helping to show the proof that God exists.

[faceless_crypto]

recently watched this video, pretty old, but explains failure of evolution theory by means of genetics, highly recommend to watch this video to anyone who interested on this topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehpRVEA17nw

[protokol]

BADecker thanks for the reply, but we're not really getting anywhere here. I'll just address a couple of your points.

Your comments about philosophy are a little flawed, I still don't think you quite understand what it is. You talk about "no absolute proof of philosophy", this is an oxymoron. Philosophy itself, is an example of an a priori concept. The same could be said of any subject, for example theology, or even the study of Bigfoot. By it's own definition, it must logically exist without a doubt - we can use reason and logic alone to prove its existence, without evidence.

That's not to say all the ideas in any subject are absolutely proven. Only fields which rely on pure logic and reason, such as mathematics, boast facts that can be 100% proven.

My mention of "belief" was on topic, read my sentence again. My point was that it is possible for humans to debate the existence of entities which they don't fully understand, such as gods or black holes. The problem is obviously more tricky with a god, because it does not follow the laws of the universe. This is my whole point, and you're still not getting it.

Your last few paragraphs go on to take my words out of context, I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that I said outer space doesn't exist, or the space between atoms etc. And I also don't see how, even if this were true, that it would somehow be proof of god.

You absolutely can provide evidence for "nothing", such as the physical space between atoms, or the vacuum of outer space. The first simple example that comes to mind would be that dissolving salt in water actually decreases the volume of water. So there must be some empty space for that salt to occupy. There is a lot more evidence, I'll leave you to look it up if you want.

You certainly don't need to be able to "grab hold of something" to provide evidence for it, are you serious? Even if that were true, can you grab hold of your god?

Let me put my initial point another way, to try and help you understand:

1. Some things are 100% true, such as mathematical formulae (eg. 1+1=2) and tautological statements (eg. "all bachelors are unmarried"). We don't need empirical evidence to prove them, because the logic in the concepts automatically makes them true.

2. Established science laws and theories, are virtually 100% true. Things like the laws of thermodynamics, the theory of gravity etc. They can never be proven 100% because they rely on empirical evidence. However, evidence for them is overwhelming, they are falsifiable, and no-one has ever produced repeatable experiments that prove them wrong. So most people consider them as scientific fact - they are as close as we can get.

3. Then we have more fringe scientific ideas, such as String Theory (not a real scientific theory, because it cannot be tested and is therefore not currently falsifiable). It makes sense, the numbers add up, but we have no way of providing empirical evidence for it.

4. Lastly we have hypotheses about supernatural stuff, ideas that don't follow the laws of the universe as we currently understand them. Telepathy, ghosts, homeopathic medicine etc. The general point about these types of things is that repeatable experiments have shown them to be false. Not 100% false of course (a priori knowledge), but no solid empirical evidence for them exists.

Which of these 4 categories do you think the idea of a god would best fit into?



Then we have