Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

However since you don't even understand entropy correctly, your assumptions can't be scientifically correct.

Actually, it's that you don't quite understand science correctly.

There are two parts to science:
1. That which is readily known;
2. Theory, which isn't readily known, although it may come close at times.

The part of entropy that you are talking about is theory.

The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known.

Your problem is that you constantly try to imply that entropy theory is readily known to be fact, when it is not. Consider your stupid idea that the beginning happens over and over. Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it, even though scientifically speaking, it might happen. Maybe the moon is made of green cheese, and all the tests of moon rocks are flawed in some way. Could happen, but not likely by a long shot.

[1714182145]

1714182145

[1714182145]

1714182145

[1714182145]

1714182145

[Neytiri]

truely god exist he is the only creater of this world and we shall return to him

[Astargath]

However since you don't even understand entropy correctly, your assumptions can't be scientifically correct.

Actually, it's that you don't quite understand science correctly.

There are two parts to science:
1. That which is readily known;
2. Theory, which isn't readily known, although it may come close at times.

The part of entropy that you are talking about is theory.

The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known.

Your problem is that you constantly try to imply that entropy theory is readily known to be fact, when it is not. Consider your stupid idea that the beginning happens over and over. Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it, even though scientifically speaking, it might happen. Maybe the moon is made of green cheese, and all the tests of moon rocks are flawed in some way. Could happen, but not likely by a long shot.

''Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it'' You mean God?

You simply didn't understand entropy correctly. You think that evolution can't happen because of entropy which again is simply wrong, evolution does not violate any scientific law. You also think people can't get smarter or we can't advance because of entropy which is again just plain wrong and there is plenty of evidence that we can indeed advance.

''The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known.'' You mean wrong? Just admit that you didn't understand entropy correctly lol, stop being so pathetic.

[waichi]

The only scientific proof that God exist is us. The earth. The Sun. The water. We are the living scientific proof that God really exist. And he's watching over us.

[protokol]

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.

You can easily show scientific evidence that empty space/nothing exists, I already mentioned one example - adding sodium chloride to water causes the volume of water to decrease.

You can use things like vacuum chambers to electronically or chemically analyze the vacuum, for example by measuring how quickly light passes through it. Quantum theory is another example of evidence for empty space in between subatomic particles - we can predict exactly how atoms will behave, based on our knowledge of their structure (i.e. a nucleus, with electron clouds very far away, and a huge amount of empty space between).

I don't know where you've got this idea from, you don't need to be able to grab hold of something to show it exists... 

So BADecker, you understand that you can prove the existence of empty space?

The focus isn't proving that empty space exists. The focus is the way we prove that empty space exists. How do we prove that empty space exists?

We don't prove that empty space exists is by "grabbing hold" of empty space and analyzing it. We don't really even have a way of doing this "grabbing hold." Well, if not by "grabbing hold," then how do we prove empty space exists?

Here's how. We analyze material and energy, and the relationships between material and energy, and we can prove that empty space exists by this analysis, right?

Same with God. We analyze the relationships between material and energy in cause and effect activity, and we prove that God exists through this analysis. Complexity simply shows that God is definitely a Supreme Being. And Entropy shows that there was a beginning, which rules out that this is the way things always were.

The word "God" and its definitions are a weak word to use when considering the Supreme Being scientifically. As I have said in other posts, use "The Great First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Almighty Power," or any one of a number of words that better describe the Supreme Being.

But understand one thing. Whatever He/It is, He/It is an entity that is supremely (probably infinitely) far advanced and capable beyond what we are.

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

[BADecker]

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

[Astargath]

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)

[BADecker]

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)

You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all.

[Vod]

You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all.

You've never provided proof against the existence of the tooth fairy.   

[Florg]

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)

This was the one thing that I never really understood about origin arguments based on god.  If god existed in the beginning, then it to must have been created somehow, so it's also just as likely that the universe itself was there at the beginning. 

The best logical idea I have that allows for a god is that god exists outside of the universe, like a programmer running a simulation able to make tweaks.  However for such a large scale simulation then it is likely utilizing something like procedural generation where the programmer does not have full control. Even in that scenario we are left with the question of how the higher level univers of the gods was created.  Ultimately, it just ends up looping back on itself until you accept that SOMETHING is simply the original state.

[Aljay7]

For example:look at your neighbor's house,ask him/her:did someone build your house?surely your neigbhor answered,YES,because does not exist if no one build it.Then look around you,your garden,the trees,the flowers,and all the living and non living things in the world,then ask your self:did someone create all of these?just the your neighbor's house,the answer is YES.(Genesis 1:1-31)

Another proof that god existed through the bible and explained and confirmed by science.
In harmony with the views of many scientists today, the ancient Hebrews also believed that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1. Also, some 3,500 years ago, God revealed to his servant Job that the earth ‘hangs on nothing,’ or is suspended in space. (Job 26:7) And finally, more than 2,500 years ago, the prophet Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle or sphere.—Isaiah 40:22.*

Yes, the Bible does harmonize with scientific truths about the natural world. In fact, the two fields of study are more than compatible—they beautifully complement each other. To disregard either one is to leave unopened a door to the knowledge of God.

[Florg]

For example:look at your neighbor's house,ask him/her:did someone build your house?surely your neigbhor answered,YES,because does not exist if no one build it.Then look around you,your garden,the trees,the flowers,and all the living and non living things in the world,then ask your self:did someone create all of these?just the your neighbor's house,the answer is YES.(Genesis 1:1-31)

Another proof that god existed through the bible and explained and confirmed by science.
In harmony with the views of many scientists today, the ancient Hebrews also believed that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1. Also, some 3,500 years ago, God revealed to his servant Job that the earth ‘hangs on nothing,’ or is suspended in space. (Job 26:7) And finally, more than 2,500 years ago, the prophet Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle or sphere.—Isaiah 40:22.*

Yes, the Bible does harmonize with scientific truths about the natural world. In fact, the two fields of study are more than compatible—they beautifully complement each other. To disregard either one is to leave unopened a door to the knowledge of God.

I think it must be true that some sort of creative force exists.  I think it is a stretch to assume that that force is something sentient.  It's very possible that our universe is simply a natural program with base rules at the lowest level.  Then through endless different permutations and combinations different elements are formed, then molecules, and so forth.  It's simply an assumption to say that all of those are consciously designed. If you look around the universe, you will see that everything organizes down to the same simple shapes and physical behaviors.  Very complex things can arise from very simple parts.

[Viiiii]

Just btw would the answer Yes, scientific proof that God exists! or No, scientific proof that God does not exists! change anything...poverty, injustice or any other men made problem we leave with? Would God suddenly keep his promise to protect the one who are in need?

Another thing i just remembered from a good interview were a guy sad something like:...Since the human race as a historical species worshiped around 10000 different gods and monotheist believe in just one,...atheist just believe in one less. No offense, this joke also does not represent my way of believe.  

[sirazimuth]

The only scientific proof that God exist is us. The earth. The Sun. The water. We are the living scientific proof that God really exist. And he's watching over us.

apparently you never studied science... or what constitutes proof. just like my buddy BADecker  


incoming pious word salad reply in 3..2...1.....

[BADecker]

The only scientific proof that God exist is us. The earth. The Sun. The water. We are the living scientific proof that God really exist. And he's watching over us.

apparently you never studied science... or what constitutes proof. just like my buddy BADecker  


incoming pious word salad reply in 3..2...1.....

https://i.imgur.com/UrCSU2u.jpg

Apparently you never thought about the science you studied. It proves that God exists, and is supremely powerful, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

[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

The problem with this type of research is that it's not repeatable, and in terms of scientific evidence it's very flimsy. Similar to the articles you posted about Deepak Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, they have various theories (some of which do make sense) but it's mostly just speculation. And I don't tend to trust speculation very much when it comes from Deepak Chopra, who as I said is clueless about things like quantum entanglement...

Don't know much about Hameroff, I'll look him up.

Edit: Ah, Hameroff co-wrote the papers regarding the Orch-OR model of consciousness, with Roger Penrose. I've read a little into this hypothesis, and it is very interesting to say the least. But it is not conclusive evidence for any sort of consciousness controlled by quantum computation, their ideas have a lot of criticism.

Their theory is the best one on the market, it helps explain the clever behavior of paramecium.
The criticism of Penrose/Hameroff's theory is outdated, more recent papers provide new evidence.
Chopra is not clueless about science since according to Hameroff his view is the right one!

There are replication studies in Parapsychology. Also:
Mediumship can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control, see Cunningham's paper "The content source problem in modern mediumship research".

I expected a response from YOU, protokol.

Since you did not reply then it is implied that you agree with me that Chopra is right to say that consciousness drives evolution. Also, you did not dispute the idea that a discarnate being is the simplest explanation for cases like Seth and the dead chessmaster.

Orch-OR theory has been validated by evidence. You can even test it yourself (like a real skeptic) by ingesting qubits which will dramatically improve the performance of your local quantum computer or "brain".

A very strong and simple method is just to put Raw Sea Salt in a bottle, say two spoons in a half liter empty mineral bottle, then to fill it with a good cooking oil; then after 2 days waiting, you can just put ONE DROP on your tongue and feel the effects … I was very surprised to find it SO STRONG ! I let you try.

Anyway, for the scientists, it is THE PROOF THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE SEA SALT, and that when immersed in oil, it migrates to the oil ! And it has an immediate (after 2-3 minutes) effect on our human body after ingestion. You can even just put the oil on your skin and the ORMEs will make there way to your blood and you will also feel them very strongly after a short while.
That’s amazing no ? This ORMES/ORMUS are for real, and just next and whitin us.

[qwik2learn]

  Ultimately, it just ends up looping back on itself until you accept that SOMETHING is simply the original state.

That is correct, something must be the first cause since an infinite chain of causation is unthinkable.
The origin will always involve self-existence, but self-existence itself is inconceivable (unthinkable).
Regarding the origin, it is easy to see that ALL explanations are inconceivable and literally unthinkable.
This is all detailed in Herbert Spencer's treatise "First Principles". Spencer was agnostic.

[protokol]

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

The problem with this type of research is that it's not repeatable, and in terms of scientific evidence it's very flimsy. Similar to the articles you posted about Deepak Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, they have various theories (some of which do make sense) but it's mostly just speculation. And I don't tend to trust speculation very much when it comes from Deepak Chopra, who as I said is clueless about things like quantum entanglement...

Don't know much about Hameroff, I'll look him up.

Edit: Ah, Hameroff co-wrote the papers regarding the Orch-OR model of consciousness, with Roger Penrose. I've read a little into this hypothesis, and it is very interesting to say the least. But it is not conclusive evidence for any sort of consciousness controlled by quantum computation, their ideas have a lot of criticism.

Their theory is the best one on the market, it helps explain the clever behavior of paramecium.
The criticism of Penrose/Hameroff's theory is outdated, more recent papers provide new evidence.
Chopra is not clueless about science since according to Hameroff his view is the right one!

There are replication studies in Parapsychology. Also:
Mediumship can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control, see Cunningham's paper "The content source problem in modern mediumship research".

I expected a response from YOU, protokol.

Since you did not reply then it is implied that you agree with me that Chopra is right to say that consciousness drives evolution. Also, you did not dispute the idea that a discarnate being is the simplest explanation for cases like Seth and the dead chessmaster.

Orch-OR theory has been validated by evidence. You can even test it yourself (like a real skeptic) by ingesting qubits which will dramatically improve the performance of your local quantum computer or "brain".

A very strong and simple method is just to put Raw Sea Salt in a bottle, say two spoons in a half liter empty mineral bottle, then to fill it with a good cooking oil; then after 2 days waiting, you can just put ONE DROP on your tongue and feel the effects … I was very surprised to find it SO STRONG ! I let you try.

Anyway, for the scientists, it is THE PROOF THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE SEA SALT, and that when immersed in oil, it migrates to the oil ! And it has an immediate (after 2-3 minutes) effect on our human body after ingestion. You can even just put the oil on your skin and the ORMEs will make there way to your blood and you will also feel them very strongly after a short while.
That’s amazing no ? This ORMES/ORMUS are for real, and just next and whitin us.

OK I didn't reply, but not because I agree with Chopra. You are jumping to conclusions my friend, something that people like Chopra do... And yourself.

Your link about "ormus water" is full of spelling and grammar mistakes. This leads me to believe it is not a reliable source, and some of the chemistry is sketchy at best. It literally says

If you look in any physics or chemistry text book for an explanation of what’s going on here, you will look in vain.

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

Orch-OR is an interesting hypothesis, like I said, but there is not enough evidence for the concept to be taken as fact. This is similar to other hypotheses, such as string theory or the multiverse theory. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is not enough evidence to say you are right.

[protokol]

Your quote about sea salt and oil, having an effect on our bodies can easily be considered an anecdotal quote caused by the placebo effect.

Chopra's idea about consciousness driving evolution could be true, but the evidence is lacking. Also like I said, he is considered a laughing stock in the science community, because he misunderstands actual quantum theories, that have been proven by actual quantum physicists.

[Mintycash]

I don't know why 'we' need to come out with any proof that god exists. An ommipotent and all knowing entity could have done a better job at spreading its knowledge and making its presence clear.
If you think its presence is already clear, well, say that to all the people killed in religious wars, past and present. If it was that clear there won't be this mess religions and cults accross the planet, would it?
All the magical mysteries that have been found, have been found to be non-magical (Said someone) and resorting to a ''god did it'' or ''god will sort it out'' has not helped anyone ever.
Btw, please  , the bible is as divine or historical as my collection of Stephen King books... They also have historical collections of things that happened, doesn't mean they are divine though...