Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

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.

Empty space/nothingness/vacuum is something that we can't put our hands on for scientific investigation. Yet we do not debate its existence, even though we don't know if it follows any laws of the universe, or any laws at all.

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.

The closest that we come for proving the existence of "nothing" is, we measure relationships and qualities of "things" which are not "nothing." When one proves that God exists by measuring "things" in one way or another, what's the difference?

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.

Exactly the idea I was trying to get across. Regarding the proof for God, the "machinery" of the universe uses all the laws and many more, that we use when we build our machines. The only example we have of our machines being built is, they have people as builders. The machines of the universe are so far in advance of our machines that they prove that there was a Supremely Greater Builder than mankind. This fits the definition of God.

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?

Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation that was not produced by cause and effect, proves programming. Programming proves a programmer. We have have seen no other example in the universe of programming where a programmer doesn't exist? C&E programming is the core of the universe that we have seen. Why do I call it programming? Look at the next paragraph.

Complexity as great as it is, proves that the whatever caused all things to exist as they do was extremely great. Who but someone that fits the definition of God could set in place the countless C&E operations to produce things as great as the intelligence of man, man's emotion, and multitudes of complex operations in the universe? After all, you don't grab a handful of sand, toss it into the air, and a computer is the result. There is no evidence of anything like this ever coming close to happening. There is always planning, and a whole lot of work that goes into making a computer and programming it. Why would anyone think that this was not true for the setting up of the universe, as well?

On top of this, there is no random that we have observed in the universe. What we call random is simply complexity that is so great that we don't know how to follow the "operations" of it. There is no random in the universe.

The logic of the C&E operations in the universe is so extremely great, that it almost proves God all by itself.

Entropy shows that there was a beginning. Why is this important? Without a beginning, one might conclude that C&E operations existed forever, and that they were the norm without God. Entropy shows that this idea is flawed. Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea, that things could grow to be more complex rather than growing to be less complex. There is no evolution. There is only devolution. Entropy proves it... the breaking down of complexity.

This all proves that God exists. Does "nothing/emptiness/empty-space" exist? Yes, even though we cannot do any hands-on experiments of it to show that it exists. We understand it by seeing the relationships between the things that we can lay hands on. Does God exist? Yes, even though we cannot do any hands-on experiments of Him to show that He exists. We understand Him by understanding the relationships between cause and effect, complexity, and entropy.

[Astargath]

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.

Empty space/nothingness/vacuum is something that we can't put our hands on for scientific investigation. Yet we do not debate its existence, even though we don't know if it follows any laws of the universe, or any laws at all.

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.

The closest that we come for proving the existence of "nothing" is, we measure relationships and qualities of "things" which are not "nothing." When one proves that God exists by measuring "things" in one way or another, what's the difference?

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.

Exactly the idea I was trying to get across. Regarding the proof for God, the "machinery" of the universe uses all the laws and many more, that we use when we build our machines. The only example we have of our machines being built is, they have people as builders. The machines of the universe are so far in advance of our machines that they prove that there was a Supremely Greater Builder than mankind. This fits the definition of God.

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?

Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation that was not produced by cause and effect, proves programming. Programming proves a programmer. We have have seen no other example in the universe of programming where a programmer doesn't exist? C&E programming is the core of the universe that we have seen. Why do I call it programming? Look at the next paragraph.

Complexity as great as it is, proves that the whatever caused all things to exist as they do was extremely great. Who but someone that fits the definition of God could set in place the countless C&E operations to produce things as great as the intelligence of man, man's emotion, and multitudes of complex operations in the universe? After all, you don't grab a handful of sand, toss it into the air, and a computer is the result. There is no evidence of anything like this ever coming close to happening. There is always planning, and a whole lot of work that goes into making a computer and programming it. Why would anyone think that this was not true for the setting up of the universe, as well?

On top of this, there is no random that we have observed in the universe. What we call random is simply complexity that is so great that we don't know how to follow the "operations" of it. There is no random in the universe.

The logic of the C&E operations in the universe is so extremely great, that it almost proves God all by itself.

Entropy shows that there was a beginning. Why is this important? Without a beginning, one might conclude that C&E operations existed forever, and that they were the norm without God. Entropy shows that this idea is flawed. Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea, that things could grow to be more complex rather than growing to be less complex. There is no evolution. There is only devolution. Entropy proves it... the breaking down of complexity.

This all proves that God exists. Does "nothing/emptiness/empty-space" exist? Yes, even though we cannot do any hands-on experiments of it to show that it exists. We understand it by seeing the relationships between the things that we can lay hands on. Does God exist? Yes, even though we cannot do any hands-on experiments of Him to show that He exists. We understand Him by understanding the relationships between cause and effect, complexity, and entropy.

''Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation'' Not proved. In fact as I said 100 times already, there are processes which scientists believe are truly random (radioactive decay) This only proves god existence in your mind, can't you see that no one agrees with you? Get over it already.

Entropy might show there is a beginning but it doesn't show whether the beginning is happening over and over again, a universe that creates itself would have a beginning but not really.

''Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea'' AGAIN after explaining to you what entropy really is you keep using it as you like because you are dishonest. Entropy does not prevent humans from evolving or a house to be made, are you stupid?

[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.

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.

There is evidence from many lines of evidence and I posted quite a bit of it.
If Chopra is a moron, why is he being defended by Hammeroff, a brilliant scientist?
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7481048
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7515498

You allege that there is no evidence while ignoring all the ideas I presented. That is a skeptical fallacy.

[BADecker]

''Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation'' Not proved. In fact as I said 100 times already, there are processes which scientists believe are truly random (radioactive decay) This only proves god existence in your mind, can't you see that no one agrees with you? Get over it already.

Entropy might show there is a beginning but it doesn't show whether the beginning is happening over and over again, a universe that creates itself would have a beginning but not really.

''Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea'' AGAIN after explaining to you what entropy really is you keep using it as you like because you are dishonest. Entropy does not prevent humans from evolving or a house to be made, are you stupid?

Cause and effect has been proven in countless universal operations. Nobody is certain that spontaneity is even in evidence. When you study it, you will find that the concept of spontaneity doesn't fit in a universe such as ours.

There you are bringing religion into this topic again with "scientists believe."

The idea of a beginning that happens over and over isn't really a beginning except for the first time. You might as well talk about pixie dust.

Your explanation of "entropy" is based on theories which are essentially guesswork until they are proven. Thus, your explanations of entropy are false until they are proven. Language that shows theories to be factual is circular language. Until your theoretical entropy matches the facts of what we see entropy to be all around us, you might as well talk about pixie dust.

You aren't stupid. You are deceptive, and the things that you say easily show it. Hmmm. Maybe you are stupid.

[Astargath]

''Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation'' Not proved. In fact as I said 100 times already, there are processes which scientists believe are truly random (radioactive decay) This only proves god existence in your mind, can't you see that no one agrees with you? Get over it already.

Entropy might show there is a beginning but it doesn't show whether the beginning is happening over and over again, a universe that creates itself would have a beginning but not really.

''Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea'' AGAIN after explaining to you what entropy really is you keep using it as you like because you are dishonest. Entropy does not prevent humans from evolving or a house to be made, are you stupid?

Cause and effect has been proven in countless universal operations. Nobody is certain that spontaneity is even in evidence. When you study it, you will find that the concept of spontaneity doesn't fit in a universe such as ours.

There you are bringing religion into this topic again with "scientists believe."

The idea of a beginning that happens over and over isn't really a beginning except for the first time. You might as well talk about pixie dust.

Your explanation of "entropy" is based on theories which are essentially guesswork until they are proven. Thus, your explanations of entropy are false until they are proven. Language that shows theories to be factual is circular language. Until your theoretical entropy matches the facts of what we see entropy to be all around us, you might as well talk about pixie dust.

You aren't stupid. You are deceptive, and the things that you say easily show it. Hmmm. Maybe you are stupid.

''Your explanation of "entropy" is based on theories which are essentially guesswork until they are proven.'' No, thats what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can only increase over time for an isolated system, meaning a system which neither energy nor matter can enter or leave. The earth is not an isolated system. This means that an increase in order can occur on Earth as long as there is an energy input. If you take a pile of wood and a pile of nails and build a house the wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

The idea of a beginning that happens over and over isn't really a beginning except for the first time. You might as well talk about pixie dust. (The point being is that, that could be what's happening therefore no god is needed)

''Cause and effect has been proven in countless universal operations'' It hasn't been proved to exist in every operation therefore making it useless as proof for god, maybe radioactive decay is not random but maybe it is, we don't know, you don't know. No one knows if everything really has a cause.

[BADecker]

''Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation'' Not proved. In fact as I said 100 times already, there are processes which scientists believe are truly random (radioactive decay) This only proves god existence in your mind, can't you see that no one agrees with you? Get over it already.

Entropy might show there is a beginning but it doesn't show whether the beginning is happening over and over again, a universe that creates itself would have a beginning but not really.

''Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea'' AGAIN after explaining to you what entropy really is you keep using it as you like because you are dishonest. Entropy does not prevent humans from evolving or a house to be made, are you stupid?

Cause and effect has been proven in countless universal operations. Nobody is certain that spontaneity is even in evidence. When you study it, you will find that the concept of spontaneity doesn't fit in a universe such as ours.

There you are bringing religion into this topic again with "scientists believe."

The idea of a beginning that happens over and over isn't really a beginning except for the first time. You might as well talk about pixie dust.

Your explanation of "entropy" is based on theories which are essentially guesswork until they are proven. Thus, your explanations of entropy are false until they are proven. Language that shows theories to be factual is circular language. Until your theoretical entropy matches the facts of what we see entropy to be all around us, you might as well talk about pixie dust.

You aren't stupid. You are deceptive, and the things that you say easily show it. Hmmm. Maybe you are stupid.

''Your explanation of "entropy" is based on theories which are essentially guesswork until they are proven.'' No, thats what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can only increase over time for an isolated system, meaning a system which neither energy nor matter can enter or leave. The earth is not an isolated system. This means that an increase in order can occur on Earth as long as there is an energy input. If you take a pile of wood and a pile of nails and build a house the wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe. - You forgot to mention the other side. The other side is the building of the garage. The complexity that it takes to build the garage in the first place has been at least slightly reduced in the building of the garage. The universe is a closed system. There is always an increase in entropy.

The idea of a beginning that happens over and over isn't really a beginning except for the first time. You might as well talk about pixie dust. (The point being is that, that could be what's happening therefore no god is needed) - And the satellite of the third planet around Sol could be made of green cheese that sometimes looks blue, but most of the time looks yellow. And the equipment of the astronauts that landed on it malfunctioned to show that it was really made of rock.

If you want to use this kind of thinking, you can throw out almost 100% of any scientific investigation.

''Cause and effect has been proven in countless universal operations'' It hasn't been proved to exist in every operation therefore making it useless as proof for god, maybe radioactive decay is not random but maybe it is, we don't know, you don't know. No one knows if everything really has a cause.

The concept of pure random doesn't even fit the universe. The concept of God explains anything that might not be C&E (miracles). There are so many C&E operations, while no known pure random operations, that the odds of there being a pure random operation exist within the realm of what science considers impossible. C&E is what exists, scientifically.

Your whole talk here is moving in the direction of religion, again.

[Astargath]

''Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation'' Not proved. In fact as I said 100 times already, there are processes which scientists believe are truly random (radioactive decay) This only proves god existence in your mind, can't you see that no one agrees with you? Get over it already.

Entropy might show there is a beginning but it doesn't show whether the beginning is happening over and over again, a universe that creates itself would have a beginning but not really.

''Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea'' AGAIN after explaining to you what entropy really is you keep using it as you like because you are dishonest. Entropy does not prevent humans from evolving or a house to be made, are you stupid?

Cause and effect has been proven in countless universal operations. Nobody is certain that spontaneity is even in evidence. When you study it, you will find that the concept of spontaneity doesn't fit in a universe such as ours.

There you are bringing religion into this topic again with "scientists believe."

The idea of a beginning that happens over and over isn't really a beginning except for the first time. You might as well talk about pixie dust.

Your explanation of "entropy" is based on theories which are essentially guesswork until they are proven. Thus, your explanations of entropy are false until they are proven. Language that shows theories to be factual is circular language. Until your theoretical entropy matches the facts of what we see entropy to be all around us, you might as well talk about pixie dust.

You aren't stupid. You are deceptive, and the things that you say easily show it. Hmmm. Maybe you are stupid.

''Your explanation of "entropy" is based on theories which are essentially guesswork until they are proven.'' No, thats what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can only increase over time for an isolated system, meaning a system which neither energy nor matter can enter or leave. The earth is not an isolated system. This means that an increase in order can occur on Earth as long as there is an energy input. If you take a pile of wood and a pile of nails and build a house the wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe. - You forgot to mention the other side. The other side is the building of the garage. The complexity that it takes to build the garage in the first place has been at least slightly reduced in the building of the garage. The universe is a closed system. There is always an increase in entropy.

The idea of a beginning that happens over and over isn't really a beginning except for the first time. You might as well talk about pixie dust. (The point being is that, that could be what's happening therefore no god is needed) - And the satellite of the third planet around Sol could be made of green cheese that sometimes looks blue, but most of the time looks yellow. And the equipment of the astronauts that landed on it malfunctioned to show that it was really made of rock.

If you want to use this kind of thinking, you can throw out almost 100% of any scientific investigation.

''Cause and effect has been proven in countless universal operations'' It hasn't been proved to exist in every operation therefore making it useless as proof for god, maybe radioactive decay is not random but maybe it is, we don't know, you don't know. No one knows if everything really has a cause.

The concept of pure random doesn't even fit the universe. The concept of God explains anything that might not be C&E (miracles). There are so many C&E operations, while no known pure random operations, that the odds of there being a pure random operation exist within the realm of what science considers impossible. C&E is what exists, scientifically.

Your whole talk here is moving in the direction of religion, again.

Again, i don't know if you are purposely trying not to understand it or you are just dumb. ''The universe is a closed system. There is always an increase in entropy.'' YES WE AGREE ON THAT. When you are building the house you are increasing the total entropy of the UNIVERSE but the house itself is still more ordered and complex than a pile of wood and nails. Is that so hard to understand?

''The concept of pure random doesn't even fit the universe.'' It doesn't matter if you think it fits or not, what matters is reality and the reality is that we don't know, we don't know whether everything has a cause or not, even if it did your argument fails miserably on answering what caused god, if god doesn't need a cause then the same can be applied to other things.

''If you want to use this kind of thinking, you can throw out almost 100% of any scientific investigation'' Which is what you are doing by assuming it was god?

[BADecker]

It is important essential to understand that BD has his own definition of "science" and "proof" than the rest of the world.

In his little world, everything is proof the FSM exists.  To the rest of us, there is no proof at all.

Don't be too hard on my brainwashed buddy.  His parents did it to him - he was innocent.

This is a science thread... not a religion thread. Show us the proof that the FSM made everything through cause and effect, entropy, and complexity as it exists. If you can, you will have brought your little speech out of religion into science, and you will have proven that the FSM is God.

[Astargath]

It is important essential to understand that BD has his own definition of "science" and "proof" than the rest of the world.

In his little world, everything is proof the FSM exists.  To the rest of us, there is no proof at all.

Don't be too hard on my brainwashed buddy.  His parents did it to him - he was innocent.

Yeah, I know. I already pointed out his miss use of entropy several times and that even if cause and effect is true for everything then god himself couldn't exist because what made god? It's a loop. He wont understand unfortunately.

[protokol]

It is important essential to understand that BD has his own definition of "science" and "proof" than the rest of the world.

In his little world, everything is proof the FSM exists.  To the rest of us, there is no proof at all.

Don't be too hard on my brainwashed buddy.  His parents did it to him - he was innocent.

This is a science thread... not a religion thread. Show us the proof that the FSM made everything through cause and effect, entropy, and complexity as it exists. If you can, you will have brought your little speech out of religion into science, and you will have proven that the FSM is God.

This is actually pretty funny, because even if you misinterpret the concepts of "cause and effect, and entropy" (as you do), there is still no logical reason why your god could not be the FSM. You yourself have stated many times that, and I paraphrase: "as lowly humans we cannot know or comprehend the true power and influence of God". You've even admitted you don't really know exactly who or what god is!

Even if your flawed "scientific evidence" for the proof of god (which has been debunked by myself, and many others) was sound, it cannot specify what type of god you are talking about.

So, by your own logic, your god could indeed be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all hail His divine noodly appendage!)...

And no, the Bible is not a sound rebuttal. Because it's just a fucking book, written by some dudes. I could argue, with similar integrity, that the Egyptian Book of the Dead proves the existence of the many Egyptian gods. The integrity of the evidence is identical - It's a book written by some other dudes.

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

[Vod]

It is important essential to understand that BD has his own definition of "science" and "proof" than the rest of the world.

In his little world, everything is proof the FSM exists.  To the rest of us, there is no proof at all.

Don't be too hard on my brainwashed buddy.  His parents did it to him - he was innocent.

Nice - copy/paste my words.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg21818420#msg21818420

[Zeatorius]

Better to believe in god than to not because if he is real you're safe if he isn't when you find out it won't matter.

[Astargath]

It is important essential to understand that BD has his own definition of "science" and "proof" than the rest of the world.

In his little world, everything is proof the FSM exists.  To the rest of us, there is no proof at all.

Don't be too hard on my brainwashed buddy.  His parents did it to him - he was innocent.

Nice - copy/paste my words.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg21818420#msg21818420

Lol what the fuck? Oh I just checked and he does that all the time, his last posts are all copy paste of other posts.

[gbosah]

It depends on what you believe with yourself, cos science have their limitations

[qwik2learn]

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

Mediumship is a phenomenon that can be tested. A supernatural or discarnate entity can be shown to be the simplest explanation of certain evidence, like in the paper "The Problem of Seth's Origin" or the case of the dead chessmaster who communicated details of his life and played a game characteristic of the prior personality. The hypothesis that is used to explain the existence of this type of personality is called 'survival'.
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

[BADecker]

It is important essential to understand that BD has his own definition of "science" and "proof" than the rest of the world.

In his little world, everything is proof the FSM exists.  To the rest of us, there is no proof at all.

Don't be too hard on my brainwashed buddy.  His parents did it to him - he was innocent.

This is a science thread... not a religion thread. Show us the proof that the FSM made everything through cause and effect, entropy, and complexity as it exists. If you can, you will have brought your little speech out of religion into science, and you will have proven that the FSM is God.

This is actually pretty funny, because even if you misinterpret the concepts of "cause and effect, and entropy" (as you do), there is still no logical reason why your god could not be the FSM. You yourself have stated many times that, and I paraphrase: "as lowly humans we cannot know or comprehend the true power and influence of God". You've even admitted you don't really know exactly who or what god is!

Even if your flawed "scientific evidence" for the proof of god (which has been debunked by myself, and many others) was sound, it cannot specify what type of god you are talking about.

So, by your own logic, your god could indeed be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all hail His divine noodly appendage!)...

And no, the Bible is not a sound rebuttal. Because it's just a fucking book, written by some dudes. I could argue, with similar integrity, that the Egyptian Book of the Dead proves the existence of the many Egyptian gods. The integrity of the evidence is identical - It's a book written by some other dudes.

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

Poor, little protokol. Didn't you even notice that all the things you say are religious talk? None of them has much if anything to do with proof for or against the existence of God.

Since you can't even recognize that you are way off topic, how are you going to even start to recognize scientific proof?

[BADecker]

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

How do you prove that empty space/nothing/outerspace exists? After all, you can't really grab hold of space/nothing/outerspace and analyze it chemically or electronically or something. You prove it is there by analyzing the material things within it or that it is inside of.

Same with God. We see no source for the complexity of the universe. Such complexity can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

[Vod]

Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

If only that was so - we wouldn't have 400+ pages in this thread.

[BADecker]

Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

If only that was so - we wouldn't have 400+ pages in this thread.

We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe. Whatever could do the making, would fit the general description and definition of God. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to make something like the universe with all its "furnishings."

[Lykes]

 We don't need a proof for tge existence of our God.
As long as you believe in God, you don't have to question anything about him. God is the mightiest. As long as you have faith in God, you must not be worry.