Scientific proof that God exists?

[DroidR17A]

One could just as easily argue that mankind was created by aliens. If you look at the original Sumerian genesis story, we were created by the gods (plural), who came from the region around Orion's Belt and mixed their DNA with that of the lower form humanoids developing at the time. Might sound crazy, but it's no more ridiculous that believing that an old white dude with a big beard sitting on a throne in the skies created us.

[qwik2learn]

One could just as easily argue that mankind was created by aliens. If you look at the original Sumerian genesis story, we were created by the gods (plural), who came from the region around Orion's Belt and mixed their DNA with that of the lower form humanoids developing at the time. Might sound crazy, but it's no more ridiculous that believing that an old white dude with a big beard sitting on a throne in the skies created us.

ET intervention in human evolution:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.0

[qwik2learn]

True. For hundread of years religion is used to explain the unexplainable at the moment.

Science can explain parapsychological research but not if it is bound to the mainstream orthodoxy of materialism.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg23329271#msg23329271

Or is simply not true, who knows  

This kind of talk won't have an agreement between the talkers.
Same as sports talk. You have your opinion (saying it was fault, per example), and i have mine (saying it wasn't)..

Science doesn't care about opinions, what's real is real, magic is for kids.

Yeah, that's obvious. Thing is people like to mix religion and science and the result is 100% bullsh*t. Based on opinions, speculations, myths, faith, beliefs, etc we have religions. Based on facts, reality, proofs etc we got science. Thumbs up for science aka get rekt jesus.

The tests I posted all connect to each other. Astargath does not explain why they lack credibility, maybe he just prefers to ignore the science of mind because it would make him questions his Belief System (B.S..)...

[Astargath]

There are a ton of ''viable'' hypothesis, so what? Why would you chose some hypothesis when there are already scientific theories that just work better. You are not proving anything here.

Prove it. Prove that parapsychological research is explained better by theories not involving Orch OR and survival. Since the tests can be replicated it should be easy to prove that the mind cannot influence matter, as you claim.

''Theories that support this idea are: Orch OR and survival.'' Orch OR is not a theory, is a hypothesis and I don't see how it directly supports magic but whatever, again and you know this, there is no scientific theory about any of what you mention.

Not true, you are making shit up again. Orch OR is a theory, it makes testable predictions, thus it is a theory. While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases, Orch-OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules.

Survival is a hypothesis, it is useful in explaining the evidence of parapsychology, the two are related and have strong explanatory power. The same cannot be said for mainstream materialist theories. I posted my evidence, so where is yours? You cannot claim that your preferred theory is better without citing evidence for it.

A review of Orch OR theory:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188
Connecting QM to the survival of the personality and other parapsychological research:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a14
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a23
Tests that you refuse to address or even look at, yet you claim to have a better theory? Prove it!
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

You can do the research yourself, the problem with you people is that you find some obscure article or ''theory'' you believe it and then you ask for evidence against it, can't you look at it yourself? You also seem to always look at extremely biased links or articles towards what you are trying to prove.

https://www.quora.com/How-plausible-is-Penrose-and-Hameroffs-Orch-OR-theory-of-consciousness
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-are-the-problems-with-the-orch-or-consciousness-theory.783472/

The Orch OR ''theory'' is not a theory, not a scientific theory at least.


http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22
''Principles of quantum physics and quantum mechanics supports concepts found in NDEs including a universal light (the Big Bang), a creator of the cosmos (Gödel’s incompleteness theorem)''

How stupid does that sound? Concepts found in NDEs like the universal light, the big bang?? A creator of the cosmos, godel incompleteness theorem? What is this garbage?
https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-God

In the last link you have a ton of other answers
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true

[DroidR17A]

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. After all, none of us know for sure - unless you've somehow gone to the other side and somehow came back. However, I'll leave you with this thought...When polled, approximately 70% of the researchers at CRN expressed a belief in something greater than us. A creative force guiding the universe. Could be god, could be that we're in a giant simulator, truth is nobody knows, so in the meantime respect each others beliefs, because that's all they are until proven or disproven - which probably won't happen in this lifetime.

[blacksmith1976]

5 proofs I know that God exist:
1. The air I breath
2. The reason why I am still alive right now.
3. The reason why earth is still running on its right orbit.
4. The reason why Armageddon and apocalypse has not arrived yet
5. The blessing you I received everyday

If you don't received these 5 things, then you should start praying and ask for forgiveness.
Make your self closer to God because if you don't, the  one opposite to God is the one who is with you probably.

There maybe no scientific proof that God exist. But remember this, It doesn't mean that because you don't see it, its means that it's not there... 
God moves is MYSTERIOUS ways....

[qwik2learn]

You can do the research yourself, the problem with you people is that you find some obscure article or ''theory'' you believe it and then you ask for evidence against it, can't you look at it yourself? You also seem to always look at extremely biased links or articles towards what you are trying to prove.

https://www.quora.com/How-plausible-is-Penrose-and-Hameroffs-Orch-OR-theory-of-consciousness
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-are-the-problems-with-the-orch-or-consciousness-theory.783472/

The Orch OR ''theory'' is not a theory, not a scientific theory at least.

Sorry but quantum biology is a real field of study and that evidence begs to differ. If someone has found that Orch-OR is implausible and unscientific then why have they not mentioned this to Penrose and Hameroff for their evaluation? I am sure that this is how science actually works. Hameroff is capable of defending his theory, and has done so numerous times.

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22
''Principles of quantum physics and quantum mechanics supports concepts found in NDEs including a universal light (the Big Bang), a creator of the cosmos (Gödel’s incompleteness theorem)''

How stupid does that sound? Concepts found in NDEs like the universal light, the big bang?? A creator of the cosmos, godel incompleteness theorem? What is this garbage?
https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-God

How is it stupid? You do not offer an explanation for how all these concepts are connected and neither does materialist science. All closed systems depend on something outside the system. All logical systems depend on something outside the system. Materialism assumes the universe is a closed, logical system.

In the last link you have a ton of other answers
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true

Oh really? Where in those links do you actually refute any of the tests I presented?

[Astargath]

You can do the research yourself, the problem with you people is that you find some obscure article or ''theory'' you believe it and then you ask for evidence against it, can't you look at it yourself? You also seem to always look at extremely biased links or articles towards what you are trying to prove.

https://www.quora.com/How-plausible-is-Penrose-and-Hameroffs-Orch-OR-theory-of-consciousness
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-are-the-problems-with-the-orch-or-consciousness-theory.783472/

The Orch OR ''theory'' is not a theory, not a scientific theory at least.

Sorry but quantum biology is a real field of study and that evidence begs to differ. If someone has found that Orch-OR is implausible and unscientific then why have they not mentioned this to Penrose and Hameroff for their evaluation? I am sure that this is how science actually works. Hameroff is capable of defending his theory, and has done so numerous times.

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22
''Principles of quantum physics and quantum mechanics supports concepts found in NDEs including a universal light (the Big Bang), a creator of the cosmos (Gödel’s incompleteness theorem)''

How stupid does that sound? Concepts found in NDEs like the universal light, the big bang?? A creator of the cosmos, godel incompleteness theorem? What is this garbage?
https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-God

How is it stupid? You do not offer an explanation for how all these concepts are connected and neither does materialist science. All closed systems depend on something outside the system. All logical systems depend on something outside the system. Materialism assumes the universe is a closed, logical system.

In the last link you have a ton of other answers
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true

Oh really? Where in those links do you actually refute any of the tests I presented?

What tests, I already debunked your whole thing, what more do you want lol. ''Sorry but quantum biology is a real field of study and that evidence begs to differ'' And sorry but Orch OR theory is not a scientific theory
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272175
http://ursa.browntth.com/the-blog/psa-theres-no-such-thing-as-quantum-consciousness

They are scamming you and you are falling for it.
''How is it stupid?'' If you don't see how that's stupid no wonder you believe all this crap.

http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html

I'm not an expert in bullshit and I can't go and look at all your retarded links one by one, bottom line is, science does not recognize telekinesis as real and there is a reason for that. You think scientists wouldn't be amazed by something like telekinesis, you think they are just lying about it or what do you think is happening. Are you a scientist?

[Stroustrup]

5 proofs I know that God exist:
1. The air I breath
2. The reason why I am still alive right now.
3. The reason why earth is still running on its right orbit.
4. The reason why Armageddon and apocalypse has not arrived yet
5. The blessing you I received everyday

If you don't received these 5 things, then you should start praying and ask for forgiveness.
Make your self closer to God because if you don't, the  one opposite to God is the one who is with you probably.

There maybe no scientific proof that God exist. But remember this, It doesn't mean that because you don't see it, its means that it's not there... 
God moves is MYSTERIOUS ways....

WTF?

So the reason you are alive is God? So he can decide who lives and who don't? Based on what? So my grandfather died because God wants to? What's your argument regarding this? "His time ended" or "He did bad things", is that your same argument if a newborn baby dies? lol

So the earth is running "on its right orbit" because of God? What do you mean with right orbit? Do you realize that if the Sun disappeared (for no reason, just a "click" and gone), we would be drifting untill we find a star heavier than earth and gravity would pull us and we would be "on our right orbit" again. I mean, did you went to school? Did they teach you basic stuff like what gravity is? Or instead of studying/learning you were reading the bible?  At least respect 1 of our greatest scientists know as Sir Isaac Newton (notice the "Sir" ), and learn more about gravity.
Take a few links to know why our planet orbits the sun: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/planet-orbits.html & http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/57-our-solar-system/planets-and-dwarf-planets/orbits/243-why-do-the-planets-orbit-the-sun-beginner (and this has scientific proof.. not some bla bla bla from the bible).

And the apocalypse didnt't came yet because God doesn't want to? so he gives you a "blessing" aka "protects you" and will end the world with a click just because he woke up angry in the morning? Like seriously?
Who told you this bullshit? I mean this 5 arguments you've used looks some bla bla from someone who doesn't think properly or his IQ is really below the "standard". The only thing i read is:
1. Nonsense.
2. Nonsense.
3. Nonsense.
4. Nonsense.
5. Nonsense.

There maybe no scientific proof that God exist. But remember this, It doesn't mean that because you don't see it, its means that it's not there... 

This is the only sentence that i don't read Nonsense.
There is no scientific proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist, but remember.. if you don't see it, doesn't mean that's not there!!!
You should switch your religion. Pastafarianism is way better than Christianism.
And guess what, we have an official website! Cool huh? https://www.venganza.org/about/#note1

[qwik2learn]

You think scientists wouldn't be amazed by something like telekinesis, you think they are just lying about it or what do you think is happening. Are you a scientist?

Neither you nor I nor Randi are scientists, but after reading Sheldrake's papers about mind interacting with matter one gets the sense that this is an important discovery. The bottom line is that you refuse to read the papers relating these scientific experiments, but you still act like you know what is going on with those tests, you think that maybe by reading a tangential explanation from a skeptic you can validate your ideas without having to examine the evidence. Sorry, that is not how this works at all. I am not going to entertain ignorance, you need to step up and read these papers to see that mind does effect matter and that this testable phenomena is related to quantum processes. How many experimental findings are you willing to read about? That is the bottom line since scientific knowledge will not come to you by not-reading.

By the way, your own link showed that the theorists Hameroff and Penrose have thoroughly responded to skeptics, contrary to the claims of those who use Wikipedia as a source:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

[Astargath]

You think scientists wouldn't be amazed by something like telekinesis, you think they are just lying about it or what do you think is happening. Are you a scientist?

Neither you nor I nor Randi are scientists, but after reading Sheldrake's papers about mind interacting with matter one gets the sense that this is an important discovery. The bottom line is that you refuse to read the papers relating these scientific experiments, but you still act like you know what is going on with those tests, you think that maybe by reading a tangential explanation from a skeptic you can validate your ideas without having to examine the evidence. Sorry, that is not how this works at all. I am not going to entertain ignorance, you need to step up and read these papers to see that mind does effect matter and that this testable phenomena is related to quantum processes. How many experimental findings are you willing to read about? That is the bottom line since scientific knowledge will not come to you by not-reading.

By the way, your own link showed that the theorists Hameroff and Penrose have thoroughly responded to skeptics, contrary to the claims of those who use Wikipedia as a source:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

So that's the problem, the problem is you interpreting wrong these papers, the problem is you not expanding your views, you only read articles that are FOR telekinesis and magic, try to read articles against them and comeback here and tell us if you get a sense that they are important or true. if you are not a scientist, stop acting like one, why is your opinion more important than all the scientists that said telekinesis and paranormal stuff is pseudoscience? If you are not a scientist then you should not act like one, quit telling me about tests and articles you found, I can find just as easily hundreds of articles against what you claim is true, bottom line is the scientific consensus, and they all agree on this, is that there is not sufficient evidence for these claims.

[qwik2learn]

So that's the problem, the problem is you interpreting wrong these papers,

Not true, I interpret them according to how the authors interpret their own results AND according to how they reply to criticism. You do not interpret these tests at all, you only read the tangential commentary of skeptics who, like you, have never read these papers and never did any experiments on this particular subject either. It's easy to say that I'm wrong but more difficult to specifically state why a particular experiment is wrong.
For example, in this paper that I linked you to, the skeptics are refuted in their interpretation of the evidence. Where is your reply?
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

the problem is you not expanding your views, you only read articles that are FOR telekinesis and magic, try to read articles against them and comeback here and tell us if you get a sense that they are important or true.

I have done that, and I found that skeptics like you are typically using misdirection, such as making the fanciful claim that because the researcher "believes in God also", then his research is not credible.--similar to the skeptical claim that is examined in the above-linked paper. It is you who is not reading any scientific literature, as a matter of FACT. The researchers I pointed to have replied to skeptics, yet you are going to use the skeptics' outdated, ill-informed, and tangential commentaries to form the basis of your opinion without any further inquiry? That is a very shallow analysis and you are in no position to tell me that I did not do my homework; you did not read the primary material and now you continue to make excuses.

if you are not a scientist, stop acting like one, why is your opinion more important than all the scientists that said telekinesis and paranormal stuff is pseudoscience?

I pointed out some solid research which is repeatable, skeptics took no action. This thread is about experimental research, so why must you tell me to stop posting science articles? What is needed is for you to come clean about who has actually taken the time to reply specifically to these tests. I have no need to read material which fails to address the specific evidence at hand.

If you are not a scientist then you should not act like one, quit telling me about tests and articles you found, I can find just as easily hundreds of articles against what you claim is true, bottom line is the scientific consensus, and they all agree on this, is that there is not sufficient evidence for these claims.

If that is true then you should easily find skeptics who directly critique these papers since that is the norm in science. I already pointed out that skeptics of Orch-OR have been robustly refuted by Hameroff and Penrose, yet you persist in claiming that Orch-OR is pseudoscience, merely because you have read some outdated skeptical commentary and accepted it without further reading.

I already made all of these claims earlier, yet you persist in your intellectual laziness by appealing to authority.

Yeah well I just like to post the links because I know it makes him mad and can't even respond to them, keep trolling, we wont convince him anyways.

Can I convince you with test results?
I like to post these tests that you refuse to address or even look at.
Scientists discuss evidence to reach a conclusion, ignoring evidence is unscientific. An appeal to authority simply will not suffice when these repeatable test results are available.
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

[trako]

the knowledge that the world of science has with the present technology is written hundreds of years ago in the holy books. also the Muslim Muhammad tells us that he divides the moon in the sky into two halves. a survey was made on the moon.

[shrutip]

God exist and we dont need science to prove it.

[Astargath]

So that's the problem, the problem is you interpreting wrong these papers,

Not true, I interpret them according to how the authors interpret their own results AND according to how they reply to criticism. You do not interpret these tests at all, you only read the tangential commentary of skeptics who, like you, have never read these papers and never did any experiments on this particular subject either. It's easy to say that I'm wrong but more difficult to specifically state why a particular experiment is wrong.
For example, in this paper that I linked you to, the skeptics are refuted in their interpretation of the evidence. Where is your reply?
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

the problem is you not expanding your views, you only read articles that are FOR telekinesis and magic, try to read articles against them and comeback here and tell us if you get a sense that they are important or true.

I have done that, and I found that skeptics like you are typically using misdirection, such as making the fanciful claim that because the researcher "believes in God also", then his research is not credible.--similar to the skeptical claim that is examined in the above-linked paper. It is you who is not reading any scientific literature, as a matter of FACT. The researchers I pointed to have replied to skeptics, yet you are going to use the skeptics' outdated, ill-informed, and tangential commentaries to form the basis of your opinion without any further inquiry? That is a very shallow analysis and you are in no position to tell me that I did not do my homework; you did not read the primary material and now you continue to make excuses.

if you are not a scientist, stop acting like one, why is your opinion more important than all the scientists that said telekinesis and paranormal stuff is pseudoscience?

I pointed out some solid research which is repeatable, skeptics took no action. This thread is about experimental research, so why must you tell me to stop posting science articles? What is needed is for you to come clean about who has actually taken the time to reply specifically to these tests. I have no need to read material which fails to address the specific evidence at hand.

If you are not a scientist then you should not act like one, quit telling me about tests and articles you found, I can find just as easily hundreds of articles against what you claim is true, bottom line is the scientific consensus, and they all agree on this, is that there is not sufficient evidence for these claims.

If that is true then you should easily find skeptics who directly critique these papers since that is the norm in science. I already pointed out that skeptics of Orch-OR have been robustly refuted by Hameroff and Penrose, yet you persist in claiming that Orch-OR is pseudoscience, merely because you have read some outdated skeptical commentary and accepted it without further reading.

I already made all of these claims earlier, yet you persist in your intellectual laziness by appealing to authority.

Yeah well I just like to post the links because I know it makes him mad and can't even respond to them, keep trolling, we wont convince him anyways.

Can I convince you with test results?
I like to post these tests that you refuse to address or even look at.
Scientists discuss evidence to reach a conclusion, ignoring evidence is unscientific. An appeal to authority simply will not suffice when these repeatable test results are available.
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

And I pointed out that the scientific community said it's not real, the tests are not repeatable. ''If that is true then you should easily find skeptics who directly critique these papers since that is the norm in science.''
No I don't, I don't have to find anything, you can search for it yourself. Real scientists are not interested in this anymore, there was a huge debate about telekinesis and this stuff long ago, they did experiments and tests and they came to the conclusion that it's not real. Scientists can't be bothered to read and examine all your ridiculous ''tests'' or ''evidence''. You know how many people claim to have discovered something like magic, aliens, ghosts. There is no time to examine all the ridiculous claims.

''yet you persist in claiming that Orch-OR is pseudoscience, merely because you have read some outdated skeptical commentary and accepted it without further reading.''

Quit talking about ''skeptics'' This is the scientific consensus not just some random internet skeptics.

''An appeal to authority simply will not suffice when these repeatable test results are available.'' You claim they are but what background do you have to claim that? If you are not a scientist or an expert in any of this then what right do you have to claim the tests are enough or good?

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.

[qwik2learn]

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.

Then simply read the papers I linked. Your appeal to authority has no bearing on facts substantiated through experiment. The paper I linked showed how the claims of Radin, et al were examined by skeptical scientists and presents a rebuttal to that evaluation. That means there is lively discussion about this topic from both sides.
I linked to this discussion of the evidence by the relevant experts, and even the critics agreed that these tests were adequate and well-deaigned:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

[Astargath]

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.

Then simply read the papers I linked. Your appeal to authority has no bearing on facts substantiated through experiment. The paper I linked showed how the claims of Radin, et al were examined by skeptical scientists and presents a rebuttal to that evaluation. That means there is lively discussion about this topic from both sides.

Then simply read what the scientific consensus is regarding telekinesis and near death experiences. ''substantiated through experiment'' You say that but it doesn't mean it's true. Have you ever seen someone using telekinesis?

[qwik2learn]

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.

Then simply read the papers I linked. Your appeal to authority has no bearing on facts substantiated through experiment. The paper I linked showed how the claims of Radin, et al were examined by skeptical scientists and presents a rebuttal to that evaluation. That means there is lively discussion about this topic from both sides.

Then simply read what the scientific consensus is regarding telekinesis and near death experiences. ''substantiated through experiment'' You say that but it doesn't mean it's true. Have you ever seen someone using telekinesis?

You don’t even know how to measure PK, but the experts looked at the data and gave 2 interpretations, one of them is better than the other, so stop distracting from the evidence at hand:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

[Pabhi22]

God exists and science needs to prove it. Little science takes you away from God, but more of it takes you to him.

[Astargath]

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.

Then simply read the papers I linked. Your appeal to authority has no bearing on facts substantiated through experiment. The paper I linked showed how the claims of Radin, et al were examined by skeptical scientists and presents a rebuttal to that evaluation. That means there is lively discussion about this topic from both sides.

Then simply read what the scientific consensus is regarding telekinesis and near death experiences. ''substantiated through experiment'' You say that but it doesn't mean it's true. Have you ever seen someone using telekinesis?

You don’t even know how to measure PK, but the experts looked at the data and gave 2 interpretations, one of them is better than the other, so stop distracting from the evidence at hand:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/2r4c4t/study_analyzes_13_psychic_letters_from_brazilian/

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=24406

It's annoying to do research for you, don't you have google?