Scientific proof that God exists?

[BCEmporium]

''We are greater intelligence making lesser intelligence.'' That depends, if you have a son and he is more intelligent than you, does that mean you are able to make greater intelligence with lesser intelligence? Even If I agree with all your points and everything suggests that there has to be a greater intelligence that created the universe, your argument never mentions or shows why that being  would be god and not something else. There is nothing to suggest your god did it and not some other entity.

People don't make their children. They get them started by having fun, and nature takes over and makes the kids. Your deception only helps to strengthen the fact that there is proof that god exists.

The reason the being would be God is that He is supremely capable, not only in the ways that we are, but in multitudes of ways we are not enabled. Why is He that way? He is that way because He programmed everything by cause and effect. Such programming is not even fathomable by people. I have shown and told this to you on many occasions, but you just slide by it and ignore it.

So, thanks for strengthening the fact that God exists... in the minds of others.

So the reason that being would be god is because god is supremely capable, you see the circular reasoning there right? You can't say the reason the creator of the universe has to be god because god bla bla. You have to prove god, you can prove god with god, that's nonsense

No circular reasoning. Don't use the word "God" for a moment. Imagine that big bang made the universe. Wouldn't big bang have to be extremely capable to make something like the universe? We are so week in our theory making, that there is only a tiny amount of stuff in BB theory that fits what it would take to make the universe and all the complexity therein. There isn't any of the strength, knowledge, capability in BB to make a universe like ours.

Whatever made the universe fits the definition of God regarding the power, intelligence, personal identity, emotion, and a whole lot of other factors that BB would need to accomplish this gigantic feat.

Cause and effect combined with complexity shows us that there is no other way to approach this subject. If there is, show it to us. Or are you saying we just don't know and probably never will? Any other way would have to include pure random.

''Whatever made the universe fits the definition of God'' Which god, certainly not your god (Bible god) If we can't know who did it exactly then there is no point, you are just defining god as the creator of the universe, ok, so? What other attributes does he posses, is he like us, from another universe, we can't know anything about him/her/it, you can just say it's god but there is nothing else after that, you don't have any type of evidence to indicate what he really is, you just keep calling him god.

God: creator of the universe
Your argument: Well the creator of the universe is god
Me: Who is god
You: god is the creator of the universe

Circular reasoning.

Science is fundamentally circular as well. God vs no god is thus no more than entertainment that some people choose to take way too seriously. The whole idea of a God is definitely made up and expressed by humans.

However, at the same time there definitely exists an omnipresent and omniscient something, namely the entirety of existence. Calling that entirety God is perfectly legitimate and something that most rampant atheists are too ignorant and/or arrogant to realize.
Whether or not that entirety is conscious is a different question (and an odd one at that, as there wouldn't be any change to be conscious of for something that is everything - temporal, spatial, etc. - at once), but we can't even answer what human consciousness means in any satisfactory way. Alas, any and every God debate is no more than a mental exercise or just yet another way to pass time as a human being at best, and a way to manipulate others at worst.

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

[1714920899]

1714920899

[1714920899]

1714920899

[1714920899]

1714920899

[1714920899]

1714920899

[1714920899]

1714920899

[Astargath]

''We are greater intelligence making lesser intelligence.'' That depends, if you have a son and he is more intelligent than you, does that mean you are able to make greater intelligence with lesser intelligence? Even If I agree with all your points and everything suggests that there has to be a greater intelligence that created the universe, your argument never mentions or shows why that being  would be god and not something else. There is nothing to suggest your god did it and not some other entity.

People don't make their children. They get them started by having fun, and nature takes over and makes the kids. Your deception only helps to strengthen the fact that there is proof that god exists.

The reason the being would be God is that He is supremely capable, not only in the ways that we are, but in multitudes of ways we are not enabled. Why is He that way? He is that way because He programmed everything by cause and effect. Such programming is not even fathomable by people. I have shown and told this to you on many occasions, but you just slide by it and ignore it.

So, thanks for strengthening the fact that God exists... in the minds of others.

So the reason that being would be god is because god is supremely capable, you see the circular reasoning there right? You can't say the reason the creator of the universe has to be god because god bla bla. You have to prove god, you can prove god with god, that's nonsense

No circular reasoning. Don't use the word "God" for a moment. Imagine that big bang made the universe. Wouldn't big bang have to be extremely capable to make something like the universe? We are so week in our theory making, that there is only a tiny amount of stuff in BB theory that fits what it would take to make the universe and all the complexity therein. There isn't any of the strength, knowledge, capability in BB to make a universe like ours.

Whatever made the universe fits the definition of God regarding the power, intelligence, personal identity, emotion, and a whole lot of other factors that BB would need to accomplish this gigantic feat.

Cause and effect combined with complexity shows us that there is no other way to approach this subject. If there is, show it to us. Or are you saying we just don't know and probably never will? Any other way would have to include pure random.

''Whatever made the universe fits the definition of God'' Which god, certainly not your god (Bible god) If we can't know who did it exactly then there is no point, you are just defining god as the creator of the universe, ok, so? What other attributes does he posses, is he like us, from another universe, we can't know anything about him/her/it, you can just say it's god but there is nothing else after that, you don't have any type of evidence to indicate what he really is, you just keep calling him god.

God: creator of the universe
Your argument: Well the creator of the universe is god
Me: Who is god
You: god is the creator of the universe

Circular reasoning.

Science is fundamentally circular as well. God vs no god is thus no more than entertainment that some people choose to take way too seriously. The whole idea of a God is definitely made up and expressed by humans.

However, at the same time there definitely exists an omnipresent and omniscient something, namely the entirety of existence. Calling that entirety God is perfectly legitimate and something that most rampant atheists are too ignorant and/or arrogant to realize.
Whether or not that entirety is conscious is a different question (and an odd one at that, as there wouldn't be any change to be conscious of for something that is everything - temporal, spatial, etc. - at once), but we can't even answer what human consciousness means in any satisfactory way. Alas, any and every God debate is no more than a mental exercise or just yet another way to pass time as a human being at best, and a way to manipulate others at worst.

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point.

[BCEmporium]

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point.

The big bang is not something that was observed whatsoever... That statement makes the rest of your post largely irrelevant since it indicates that you don't even understand what the Big Bang really is about. And as far as misunderstandings go, it's obvious that you haven't gotten my point, since you're just rephrasing the same false statement that I've already addressed previously.
You're also putting words into my mouth that I've never said or implied.

[Astargath]

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point.

The big bang is not something that was observed whatsoever... That statement makes the rest of your post largely irrelevant since it indicates that you don't even understand what the Big Bang really is about. And as far as misunderstandings go, it's obvious that you haven't gotten my point, since you're just rephrasing the same false statement that I've already addressed previously.
You're also putting words into my mouth that I've never said or implied.

No, the big bang has evidence that backs it up, god DOES NOT, neither have been observed, ton of things haven't been observed because it's impossible, the point again is that god is something made up and the big bang is not, whether you want to understand that or not it's up to you.

[BCEmporium]

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point.

The big bang is not something that was observed whatsoever... That statement makes the rest of your post largely irrelevant since it indicates that you don't even understand what the Big Bang really is about. And as far as misunderstandings go, it's obvious that you haven't gotten my point, since you're just rephrasing the same false statement that I've already addressed previously.
You're also putting words into my mouth that I've never said or implied.

No, the big bang has evidence that backs it up, god DOES NOT, neither have been observed, ton of things haven't been observed because it's impossible, the point again is that god is something made up and the big bang is not, whether you want to understand that or not it's up to you.

The big bang is made up. It's just one hypothetical concept that could possibly explain the creation of the universe. There are various competing hypothesis other than the big bang as well and nobody knows which one is actually true. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that even if the big bang started our universe, we wouldn't know anything about what caused the big bang itself. Which is where the post I've made two posts earlier comes in, that clearly went way over your head. You don't know what you are talking about and you refuse to go back, sit down and try to figure it out instead of just rephrasing the same false statement yet another time.

[Astargath]

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point.

The big bang is not something that was observed whatsoever... That statement makes the rest of your post largely irrelevant since it indicates that you don't even understand what the Big Bang really is about. And as far as misunderstandings go, it's obvious that you haven't gotten my point, since you're just rephrasing the same false statement that I've already addressed previously.
You're also putting words into my mouth that I've never said or implied.

No, the big bang has evidence that backs it up, god DOES NOT, neither have been observed, ton of things haven't been observed because it's impossible, the point again is that god is something made up and the big bang is not, whether you want to understand that or not it's up to you.

The big bang is made up. It's just one hypothetical concept that could possibly explain the creation of the universe. There are various competing hypothesis other than the big bang as well and nobody knows which one is actually true. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that even if the big bang started our universe, we wouldn't know anything about what caused the big bang itself. Which is where the post I've made two posts earlier comes in, that clearly went way over your head. You don't know what you are talking about and you refuse to go back, sit down and try to figure it out instead of just rephrasing the same false statement yet another time.

Let me say something first, I'm not claiming the big bang is exactly what happened but the big bang is not hypothetical is a theory (and you told me I don't know what I'm talking about, go figure lol) I'm not a big bang expert whatsoever nor I am a scientist but it is the most prevailing theory for the existence of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence There is a lot of evidence to support it, again I'm not claiming it is exactly what happened and it is true that we don't know what happened before the big bang. My point again was simply that even If I agree with badecker that the universe needs a creator, we don't know what the creator is and we don't gain anything by saying it's god and describing god as the creator of the universe, there is no information gained from that, there is no observational evidence for god.

[BCEmporium]

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point.

The big bang is not something that was observed whatsoever... That statement makes the rest of your post largely irrelevant since it indicates that you don't even understand what the Big Bang really is about. And as far as misunderstandings go, it's obvious that you haven't gotten my point, since you're just rephrasing the same false statement that I've already addressed previously.
You're also putting words into my mouth that I've never said or implied.

No, the big bang has evidence that backs it up, god DOES NOT, neither have been observed, ton of things haven't been observed because it's impossible, the point again is that god is something made up and the big bang is not, whether you want to understand that or not it's up to you.

The big bang is made up. It's just one hypothetical concept that could possibly explain the creation of the universe. There are various competing hypothesis other than the big bang as well and nobody knows which one is actually true. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that even if the big bang started our universe, we wouldn't know anything about what caused the big bang itself. Which is where the post I've made two posts earlier comes in, that clearly went way over your head. You don't know what you are talking about and you refuse to go back, sit down and try to figure it out instead of just rephrasing the same false statement yet another time.

Let me say something first, I'm not claiming the big bang is exactly what happened but the big bang is not hypothetical is a theory (and you told me I don't know what I'm talking about, go figure lol) I'm not a big bang expert whatsoever nor I am a scientist but it is the most prevailing theory for the existence of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence There is a lot of evidence to support it, again I'm not claiming it is exactly what happened and it is true that we don't know what happened before the big bang. My point again was simply that even If I agree with badecker that the universe needs a creator, we don't know what the creator is and we don't gain anything by saying it's god and describing god as the creator of the universe, there is no information gained from that, there is no observational evidence for god.

Look, I've repeatedly pointed out that I understand exactly where you're coming from and that you keep repeating it with different words. You can just keep saying the same stuff over and over, even though you know yourself that you're no scientist and thus don't really understand the details of the hypothesis of the big bang, or you can actually take some time to re-read my initial post attentively and actually try to get my point (which you currently clearly do not). The devil is in the details, and you've skimmed over my post so quickly that you've completely missed the point and based all of your further comments on your assumption of what you believe I've said.

[Astargath]

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point.

The big bang is not something that was observed whatsoever... That statement makes the rest of your post largely irrelevant since it indicates that you don't even understand what the Big Bang really is about. And as far as misunderstandings go, it's obvious that you haven't gotten my point, since you're just rephrasing the same false statement that I've already addressed previously.
You're also putting words into my mouth that I've never said or implied.

No, the big bang has evidence that backs it up, god DOES NOT, neither have been observed, ton of things haven't been observed because it's impossible, the point again is that god is something made up and the big bang is not, whether you want to understand that or not it's up to you.

The big bang is made up. It's just one hypothetical concept that could possibly explain the creation of the universe. There are various competing hypothesis other than the big bang as well and nobody knows which one is actually true. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that even if the big bang started our universe, we wouldn't know anything about what caused the big bang itself. Which is where the post I've made two posts earlier comes in, that clearly went way over your head. You don't know what you are talking about and you refuse to go back, sit down and try to figure it out instead of just rephrasing the same false statement yet another time.

Let me say something first, I'm not claiming the big bang is exactly what happened but the big bang is not hypothetical is a theory (and you told me I don't know what I'm talking about, go figure lol) I'm not a big bang expert whatsoever nor I am a scientist but it is the most prevailing theory for the existence of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence There is a lot of evidence to support it, again I'm not claiming it is exactly what happened and it is true that we don't know what happened before the big bang. My point again was simply that even If I agree with badecker that the universe needs a creator, we don't know what the creator is and we don't gain anything by saying it's god and describing god as the creator of the universe, there is no information gained from that, there is no observational evidence for god.

Look, I've repeatedly pointed out that I understand exactly where you're coming from and that you keep repeating it with different words. You can just keep saying the same stuff over and over, even though you know yourself that you're no scientist and thus don't really understand the details of the hypothesis of the big bang, or you can actually take some time to re-read my initial post attentively and actually try to get my point (which you currently clearly do not). The devil is in the details, and you've skimmed over my post so quickly that you've completely missed the point and based all of your further comments on your assumption of what you believe I've said.

You can say it as many times as you want but the big bang is a scientific theory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
Your first post was meaningless, ''And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence'' So what? What if we can't prove anything 100% Science does as much as it can, that doesn't mean you should believe anything just because the other thing is not proved 100% either. That doesn't mean it's logical to believe god exists instead of the big bang simply because it wasn't proved to be 100% true. The big bang has evidence supporting it, god doesn't.

''By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false.''
No again, that is not my argument, my argument is that what we call the universe is something that we have described with observational evidence, like a glass, you observe the glass, you touch it, you measure it and then you define it (a hard, brittle, noncrystalline, more or less transparent substance produced by fusion, usually consisting of mutually dissolved silica and silicates that also contain soda and lime, as in the ordinary variety used for windows and bottles.)
Now the glass has value because its description is real. The description of god is made up, we haven't observed things and then concluded ok, all these things together point to this thing which we are going to call god, we can't observe god, we can't touch it, measure it, etc etc. Badecker is simply giving god the description of the creator of the universe and then saying that the creator of the universe is god because god is the creator of the universe.

[qwik2learn]

The big bang has evidence supporting it

  what we call the universe is something that we have described with observational evidence,

Psychic powers have been described with observational evidence. Survival has evidence to support it.

The universe is based on consciousness, this means that philosophical materialism is incorrect.

[qwik2learn]

Even the pope - the leader of the christian cult - now says evolution and the big bang is true.   

Darwin believed that "materialism is an irrational philosophy". Wallace believed in mediumship based on his own experiments.

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_darwin
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_wallace

[Astargath]

The big bang has evidence supporting it

  what we call the universe is something that we have described with observational evidence,

Psychic powers have been described with observational evidence. Survival has evidence to support it.

The universe is based on consciousness, this means that philosophical materialism is incorrect.

You can claim they have but they haven't. We don't have a telekinesis theory as far as I know. If there was indeed observational evidence we would have discovered and studied long ago, we would have a ton of applications for it, we would have special schools teaching it, yet in real life there is nothing like that. Ghosts are also described with observational evidence (allegedly) do you believe in ghosts? Demons? Wake up to reality.

[RayvenPierre]

I don't think that there will ever be a scientific proof that God exists. With all due respect but no matter how many times those religions claim that their god exists, the only proof they have is their beliefs. I just really dont think that there really is a god if there is no scientific proof which seems to be very unlikely to happen.

[qwik2learn]

The big bang has evidence supporting it

  what we call the universe is something that we have described with observational evidence,

Psychic powers have been described with observational evidence. Survival has evidence to support it.

The universe is based on consciousness, this means that philosophical materialism is incorrect.

You can claim they have but they haven't. We don't have a telekinesis theory as far as I know. If there was indeed observational evidence we would have discovered and studied long ago, we would have a ton of applications for it, we would have special schools teaching it, yet in real life there is nothing like that. Ghosts are also described with observational evidence (allegedly) do you believe in ghosts? Demons? Wake up to reality.

I provided the evidence,  you only provided your beliefs.
 Survival is a viable theory, same with Orch OR. Materialism is not viable. You did not explain the evidence using science or reason.
For those who are new to all of this:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics

[kekeh87]

No one can prove this thread valid or not.. Relax folks. Ether way, it's all good..

[Aureliusy]

Pascal -- French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability theorist (1623-1662) -- argues that if we do not know whether God exists then we should play it safe rather than risk being sorry

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/

[qwik2learn]

Our consciousness is a part of the universe--therefore it rational to say that the mind is a receiver of the universal consciousness.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201004/is-the-universe-conscious

[Astargath]

The big bang has evidence supporting it

  what we call the universe is something that we have described with observational evidence,

Psychic powers have been described with observational evidence. Survival has evidence to support it.

The universe is based on consciousness, this means that philosophical materialism is incorrect.

You can claim they have but they haven't. We don't have a telekinesis theory as far as I know. If there was indeed observational evidence we would have discovered and studied long ago, we would have a ton of applications for it, we would have special schools teaching it, yet in real life there is nothing like that. Ghosts are also described with observational evidence (allegedly) do you believe in ghosts? Demons? Wake up to reality.

I provided the evidence,  you only provided your beliefs.
 Survival is a viable theory, same with Orch OR. Materialism is not viable. You did not explain the evidence using science or reason.
For those who are new to all of this:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics

No, I'm not a scientist. If there was enough evidence then we would have a scientific theory of your beliefs, there is no survival scientific theory for magic, as far as I know, if you show it to me then I will believe you. You claim what you have is evidence but it's not, all those tests are flawed, personal experiences and can't be repeated. Again if there was sufficient evidence scientists would have made a scientific theory, you are trying to convince people that magic is real in a bitcoin forum, off topic section in a thread that is called ''scientific proof of god'' You are desperate to feel validated by others so you can still believe in what you believe.

[rudel777]

The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).

That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.

How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.

Additional resource: https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=45619

[pranshu11]

Well i am a hindu and there are many proofs of existence of hindu gods...hindu which is the oldest ever religion on earth

[BADecker]

The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.

If you wave your hand through the empty air, are you not waving it through empty space as well? After all, the fact that the air is less dense than water, or less dense than the ground you are standing on, or less dense than a rock, or less dense than a chunk of iron, indicates that the air simply has more empty space between its molecules, right?

Or suppose you become an astronaut and ride a rocket 100 miles up. Are you not in space, then? And is not space made out of nothing?

Does "nothing" exist? After all, nothing is only the absence of something, like darkness is only the absence of light. So, does nothing really exist? You can't grab hold of nothing. You can't take it into your laboratory to measure its properties by chemically dissolving it. The only way you can analyze it is to analyze the relational properties of material or energy "things." Through the measurement of various material relationships, you can prove that nothing exists, even though you can't do anything with nothing at all, directly.

Same with darkness. You analyze light. But you can't analyze or measure darkness. Yet you can prove darkness exists because you can measure aspects of light and other electromagnetic radiation.

In a similar way, you can measure all kinds of aspects of the things that we know about the universe to prove that God exists, even though we can't grab hold of Him and chemically tear Him apart in the lab to find out what He is made of.

- Cause and effect in everything in the universe is like programming.
- Complexity in everything shows how great the programming is.
- Entropy shows that there was a beginning.
- Combining these 3 things, scientifically proves that God exists, although it doesn't prove much about what He is.

Words don't always convey a meaning well. But you can look throughout this thread to find many words that explain how these 3 things prove the existence of God. Several links to explanations are here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

One other thing that yo will find is, those who want to prove that God doesn't exist, or that the 3 basics listed above don't prove that God doesn't exist, can't do so satisfactorily. Yet they continue to talk and act like they think that God doesn't exist. While their words don't express directly or clearly that they hate God, after a time, their whole group of words expresses it.