Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

It isn't a scenario of not leading the horse to water. It is a scenario of the horse not drinking, of its own volition.

Right - so every single horse in the world refuses to drink, of it's own volition.

OOOOOOR - you are delusional. 

No. Only horses who think that "every single horse in the world refuses to drink, of it's own volition."

But, those horses aren't really horses. They are donkeys.

 

[BADecker]

More scientific proof that God exists:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KP1vWkQ6Y

3. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system.

Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology.

Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false.

Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God.

[wxxyrqa]

I observe that until now everything, anything, but not because of his mind. That's just all this excitement around the evidence of the existence of God, it makes no sense for real believing people. In most cases, these questions are discussed either by atheists or fanatics who have long since lost all the sanctity of the soul.

[BADecker]

I observe that until now everything, anything, but not because of his mind. That's just all this excitement around the evidence of the existence of God, it makes no sense for real believing people. In most cases, these questions are discussed either by atheists or fanatics who have long since lost all the sanctity of the soul.

Quite the opposite. Almost all faith in God exists because there is some logical reason why He must exist.

[allohha]

I observe that until now everything, anything, but not because of his mind. That's just all this excitement around the evidence of the existence of God, it makes no sense for real believing people. In most cases, these questions are discussed either by atheists or fanatics who have long since lost all the sanctity of the soul.

Quite the opposite. Almost all faith in God exists because there is some logical reason why He must exist.

guys hello, And why not be trusted for the sake of faith itself? It seems to me that a person must believe in something always and at the same time do not necessarily go on about many religions. I know people who believe in God, but only in their own way.

[Vod]

No. Only horses who think that "every single horse in the world refuses to drink, of it's own volition."

But, those horses aren't really horses. They are donkeys.

Ok, so every single donkey in the world refuses to drink, of it's own volition.

OR, you are just living in a fairy tale.

Which makes more sense?

[BADecker]

No. Only horses who think that "every single horse in the world refuses to drink, of it's own volition."

But, those horses aren't really horses. They are donkeys.

Ok, so every single donkey in the world refuses to drink, of it's own volition.

OR, you are just living in a fairy tale.

Which makes more sense?

In your religion of no God, you have yet to show any scientific contradiction to the scientific proofs that God DOES exist. All you have done so far is blab.

You and your religion can't believe that God doesn't exist strongly enough to make things happen that way. God's faith in Himself is way stronger than your faith against Him. Satan tried your route, and it only served to get him sent to Hell. You will only prove to destroy yourself.

Many scientists understand from science that God at least might exist. Many others of them understand that He DOES exist. Many have faith in Him for what they are unable to prove. You are banging your head against a wall that you can't destroy.

[BADecker]

I observe that until now everything, anything, but not because of his mind. That's just all this excitement around the evidence of the existence of God, it makes no sense for real believing people. In most cases, these questions are discussed either by atheists or fanatics who have long since lost all the sanctity of the soul.

Quite the opposite. Almost all faith in God exists because there is some logical reason why He must exist.

guys hello, And why not be trusted for the sake of faith itself? It seems to me that a person must believe in something always and at the same time do not necessarily go on about many religions. I know people who believe in God, but only in their own way.

Psalm 19:1-4

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. read more.


Hebrews 3:4

For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.


Romans 1:18-20

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.


Acts 17:29

"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

[Vod]

In your religion of no God, you have yet to show any scientific contradiction to the scientific proofs that God DOES exist. All you have done so far is blab.

Do I need to do anything else besides blab?

You are the one claiming a fairy tale is real.  Show some evidence - why are you keeping us in suspense for 430 pages?

[Astargath]

More scientific proof that God exists:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KP1vWkQ6Y

3. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system.

Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology.

Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false.

Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God.

I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems, I didn't say anything about any rebuttals. I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.

[BADecker]

More scientific proof that God exists:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KP1vWkQ6Y

3. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system.

Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology.

Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false.

Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God.

I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems,

It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things.

I didn't say anything about any rebuttals.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work.

I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work.

Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science."

[Phillip_Olamide]

I really doubt there is any scientific proof to describe god existence.

Who need proofs about unicorn or flying spaghetti monster?

So true.
That's why its called a religion. That's why there are many religions. That's why there was mythology.
It's just a matter of believing, not proof-concept of existence.

I guess this caps it all, it's a matter of individual beliefs that leads us to the path we choose to stick to.

[Astargath]

More scientific proof that God exists:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KP1vWkQ6Y

3. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system.

Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology.

Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false.

Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God.

I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems,

It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things.

I didn't say anything about any rebuttals.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work.

I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work.

Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science."

Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition.

[BADecker]

More scientific proof that God exists:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KP1vWkQ6Y

3. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system.

Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology.

Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false.

Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God.

I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems,

It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things.

I didn't say anything about any rebuttals.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work.

I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work.

Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science."

Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition.

As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy?

[Vod]

As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy?

Same thing I say - as long as you continue to have your own definition of scientific proof, why would anyone care if you have scientific proof?

[Astargath]

More scientific proof that God exists:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KP1vWkQ6Y

3. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system.

Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology.

Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false.

Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God.

I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems,

It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things.

I didn't say anything about any rebuttals.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work.

I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work.

Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science."

Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition.

As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy?

?? Provide an example of what you mean. You have not only used entropy to ''prove'' god but also used entropy to ''disprove'' evolution. You were wrong in both of them as I pointed out, yet you don't acknowledge that. The law states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time. An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing. To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler.
The earth is not a isolated system since large amounts of electromagnetic radiation reaches earth from the sun, visible light, infrared and ultraviolet mainly.  Some is reflected back out into space.

[BADecker]

More scientific proof that God exists:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KP1vWkQ6Y

3. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system.

Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology.

Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false.

Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God.

I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems,

It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things.

I didn't say anything about any rebuttals.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work.

I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.

Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work.

Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science."

Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition.

As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy?

?? Provide an example of what you mean. You have not only used entropy to ''prove'' god but also used entropy to ''disprove'' evolution. You were wrong in both of them as I pointed out, yet you don't acknowledge that. The law states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time. An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing. To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler.
The earth is not a isolated system since large amounts of electromagnetic radiation reaches earth from the sun, visible light, infrared and ultraviolet mainly.  Some is reflected back out into space.

How many different things do you want to express about entropy? How many different ways do you want to say them? You can get out loads of books right on the Internet, and copy and paste all kinds of things about entropy. But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is a simplifying of complexity, perhaps you should start an entropy thread.

Complexity is breaking down. Entropy is what is doing it. The time when complexity was the greatest is the beginning time. Throw cause and effect into the mix, and you prove that there is a God.

As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory.

[Vod]

Complexity is breaking down. Entropy is what is doing it. The time when complexity was the greatest is the beginning time. Throw cause and effect into the mix, and you prove that there is a God.

But you prove it only to yourself.

If you were able to prove it the masses, the debate would be over.

[BADecker]

Complexity is breaking down. Entropy is what is doing it. The time when complexity was the greatest is the beginning time. Throw cause and effect into the mix, and you prove that there is a God.

But you prove it only to yourself.

If you were able to prove it the masses, the debate would be over.

Your non-scientific religion is working fine for you. Of course, it will destroy you. But as long as you are happy in your destruction.

How do we know your stuff is a non-scientific religion? Because you don't bring anything scientific up at all.

You're in the wrong thread, buddy.

[Vod]

How do we know your stuff is a non-scientific religion? Because you don't bring anything scientific up at all.

Trying to define science before I argue it with you. 

If it is observable and repeatable, it is scientific proof.

It is not just proof because you keep posting it is.