Scientific proof that God exists?

[Decimation]

You used to many big words, I shit you not that second sentence to me is only making a little sense.

[Sub1]

God is there, we'll see we are in this world and still breathe this time because god, that's some of the other proof

[Decimation]

God is there, we'll see we are in this world and still breathe this time because god, that's some of the other proof

There is no proof in that statement at all. I feel sorry for you, you were 99.99% brought up into a family of religion and brainwashed by your parents to believe in God as a little kid, now all grown up, able to make your own decisions, gather intelligence, and you are still stuck in a imaginary puzzle made thousands of years ago.

[Astargath]

Look man, if you want to believe in magic for some reason, go ahead, you don't have to convince me in a thread about proving god scientifically. If you are so so convinced, where the fuck are all these people moving stuff with their minds?

I already pointed you to the evidence for PK; there are many tests that show significant results; so why would you ask me for more?
This thread is about science and these tests are interesting. You did not give a valid reason to reject these results (these results are contrary to your beliefs, so you reject them first and try to find reasons to support your beliefs, but the reasons you gave were fallacious and unscientific). I have every expectation that you will irrationally reject other important research on related subjects.
The effect can be measured; the results are mysterious but the tests are methodologically sound. If you are not willing to consider this brief paper, why would you take the effort to study and understand the scientific evidence that points to GOD?
Your claims about PK and NDE are made without any scientific evidence, you are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of new paradigms.
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a35

''Your claims about PK and NDE are made without any scientific evidence, you are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of new paradigms.'' I don't need to, I'm not an expert in this field, if the tests were accurate you wouldn't need to try to convince people of it but they are not, that's the scientific consensus no matter how much you don't like it. You are not an expert either so how are you judging the experiments?

You found articles of some scientists saying it's true because they have done experiments and you believed them, why? You can also find a lot of other articles talking about how scientists have been studying these ''paranormal'' stuff for decades and they eventually concluded that it's not real, why would you not believe them instead?

[qwik2learn]

''Your claims about PK and NDE are made without any scientific evidence, you are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of new paradigms.'' I don't need to, I'm not an expert in this field, if the tests were accurate you wouldn't need to try to convince people of it but they are not, that's the scientific consensus no matter how much you don't like it. You are not an expert either so how are you judging the experiments?

I gave you the quora link, it comes from an expert. The paper is one expert responding to another one. The evidence will not be overcome by your appeals to authority. I have to post this evidence because people do not even know it exists, and many refuse to read about it since they call it "woo" to avoid the reality of these tests. You did not post any research, but I was able to find quality papers, anyone who knows how to read a science paper can evaluate the paper for themselves.

You found articles of some scientists saying it's true because they have done experiments and you believed them, why? You can also find a lot of other articles talking about how scientists have been studying these ''paranormal'' stuff for decades and they eventually concluded that it's not real, why would you not believe them instead?

I found that these researchers rebutted the claims of skeptics and that the skeptics admitted that these tests were of high methodological quality.

[lutfi-hasan]

What do you think?
Please share your opinion about this article.


101 Proofs For God

A growing list of common sense Proofs for God.

Proof for God, #65 Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam

 Genetic scientists seem to be in general agreement that we are all descendants of one woman and one man. This research was fairly recent, starting about 1978. They, of course, do not believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, but their conclusions are getting closer and closer.

In case you have not heard about this, it makes very interesting reading. But I think it raises a number of profound challenges to the Theory of Evolution.

The scientists base the above conclusions on the known facts of human reproduction, specifically on properties of the sperm and egg. .....
Full article read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/65-mitochondial-eve-and-y-chromosome.html

Scientific evidence of the existence of god is the existence of day and night. God is fair, because daylight can be used by man to work, and at night to rest.

[Astargath]

''Your claims about PK and NDE are made without any scientific evidence, you are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of new paradigms.'' I don't need to, I'm not an expert in this field, if the tests were accurate you wouldn't need to try to convince people of it but they are not, that's the scientific consensus no matter how much you don't like it. You are not an expert either so how are you judging the experiments?

I gave you the quora link, it comes from an expert. The paper is one expert responding to another one. The evidence will not be overcome by your appeals to authority. I have to post this evidence because people do not even know it exists, and many refuse to read about it since they call it "woo" to avoid the reality of these tests. You did not post any research, but I was able to find quality papers, anyone who knows how to read a science paper can evaluate the paper for themselves.

You found articles of some scientists saying it's true because they have done experiments and you believed them, why? You can also find a lot of other articles talking about how scientists have been studying these ''paranormal'' stuff for decades and they eventually concluded that it's not real, why would you not believe them instead?

I found that these researchers rebutted the claims of skeptics and that the skeptics admitted that these tests were of high methodological quality.

Yes, we want to avoid the reality for some weird reason, are you dumb? No one cares, just stop, go make a thread about your magic, there is no such thing as telekinesis. How many people have you seen using it, how dumb can you be?

[qwik2learn]

Yes, we want to avoid the reality for some weird reason,

Exactly. Radin, et al wrote this paper to show that those who claim that PK is "not proven" are wrong. You did not show that the tests are methodologically unsound. You could not discredit these tests and skeptics could not account for the results with their "File Drawer" explanation. I am pretty sure that you never bothered to read this paper.

A scientist claims there is no life after death because the laws of physics make it impossible.

I'd now like to see the "completely understood" scientific explanation of how physical matter creates consciousness.

Any such explanation would be complete bullshit because it's not understood.

It's not understood because the question isn't valid. Consciousness is fundamental NOT an emergent property of matter.

Because consciousness is fundamental the possibility of awareness persisting beyond death cannot scientifically be ruled-out.

Just because there is a debate does not mean your opinion is the right one, it just means there is disagreement. You would need to provide evidence to back up your opinion, otherwise it has no merit. Where is the evidence that backs up your opinion of the paper by Radin, et al and the Eisenbeiss case? Your links claim that a test is not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs. That is unheard of in any other branch of science.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19336271;topicseen#msg19336271

[Astargath]

Yes, we want to avoid the reality for some weird reason,

Exactly. Radin, et al wrote this paper to show that those who claim that PK is "not proven" are wrong. You did not show that the tests are methodologically unsound. You could not discredit these tests and skeptics could not account for the results with their "File Drawer" explanation. I am pretty sure that you never bothered to read this paper.

A scientist claims there is no life after death because the laws of physics make it impossible.

I'd now like to see the "completely understood" scientific explanation of how physical matter creates consciousness.

Any such explanation would be complete bullshit because it's not understood.

It's not understood because the question isn't valid. Consciousness is fundamental NOT an emergent property of matter.

Because consciousness is fundamental the possibility of awareness persisting beyond death cannot scientifically be ruled-out.

Just because there is a debate does not mean your opinion is the right one, it just means there is disagreement. You would need to provide evidence to back up your opinion, otherwise it has no merit. Where is the evidence that backs up your opinion of the paper by Radin, et al and the Eisenbeiss case? Your links claim that a test is not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs. That is unheard of in any other branch of science.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19336271;topicseen#msg19336271

Again you are asking me something that I'm not able to provide. As I said I'm not an expert in any of these fields and I can't evaluate whether the tests are valid or not and you aren't either. If such thing is true, why haven't we heard about it? Why are we not seeing it everyday, where are the applications?

[qwik2learn]

Again you are asking me something that I'm not able to provide. As I said I'm not an expert in any of these fields and I can't evaluate whether the tests are valid or not and you aren't either.

The experts from both sides of the debate did evaluate that, it is right in the abstract of the paper I linked you to.

H. Bo¨sch, F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller’s (2006) review of the evidence for psychokinesis confirms many
of the authors’ earlier findings. The authors agree with Bo¨sch et al. that existing studies provide statistical
evidence for psychokinesis, that the evidence is generally of high methodological quality, and that effect
sizes are distributed heterogeneously

If such thing is true, why haven't we heard about it? Why are we not seeing it everyday, where are the applications?

[Astargath]

Again you are asking me something that I'm not able to provide. As I said I'm not an expert in any of these fields and I can't evaluate whether the tests are valid or not and you aren't either.

The experts from both sides of the debate did evaluate that, it is right in the abstract of the paper I linked you to.

H. Bo¨sch, F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller’s (2006) review of the evidence for psychokinesis confirms many
of the authors’ earlier findings. The authors agree with Bo¨sch et al. that existing studies provide statistical
evidence for psychokinesis, that the evidence is generally of high methodological quality, and that effect
sizes are distributed heterogeneously

If such thing is true, why haven't we heard about it? Why are we not seeing it everyday, where are the applications?

They claim they did but that doesn't mean it's true, again if you believe so strongly in telekinesis and it really exists it shouldn't be too hard to provide a real life example, no?

[LoveInThisCryptoClub]

This is another one, very good example, from the same site:
#35 Natural Selection
The concept of “Natural Selection”, sometimes used synonymous with “Survival of the Fittest”, is often touted as the magic process that when added to mutation will result in advancing steps of higher and higher species and the success of evolution.[1] But I encourage you to read up on what Natural Selection is all about and see that it will NOT lead to evolution. Check out the examples that are given, and see for yourself what a fanciful argument this is for evolution of molecules to man. Actually you can't even start with molecules because Natural Selection ONLY works on a species once it can reproduce.

What they actually mean by "natural selection" is what we believers in God totally accept and we call it adaption to the environment. It’s a wonderful God-given quality in Nature that creatures have that allows them to better survive. But it is never a process that will give you a new species.

Full story you can read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2013/05/35-natural-selection.html

This is bullshit!

Natural selection makes so much sense. If you are fit enough for survival, you can pass on your DNA to the next offspring. It's common sense. If you are not fit, you will die and cannot pass on your DNA... so your whole species dies eventually

[jackandrew]

The best proof that God exist, it's me

[qwik2learn]

They claim they did but that doesn't mean it's true,

You are using a double standard:
On the one hand, you claim that experts concluded that PK is not real, so you trust the experts...
Yet when I cite experts who concluded that these PK tests are methodologically sound, you reject the opinion of these experts, even though I am pointing to experts on BOTH sides of this debate.
The use of double standards by skeptics is a common practice, but it is fallacious reasoning, just like when you move the goalposts for this thread:

again if you believe so strongly in telekinesis and it really exists it shouldn't be too hard to provide a real life example, no?

A scientific test is not a real-life example? What about the Eisenbeiss case; how is that not a real-life example? Consciousness cannot be directly measured, observed nor verified, yet these results show a statistical anomaly that deserves explanation. Just admit that I showed you the evidence and move on; stop trying to argue around it when you obviously did not even read up on it. IF these tests are not methodologically sound, then YOU should have no problem finding an expert who supports your opinion with hard evidence. Your links claim that a test is not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs and also include other fallacious comments that do not address what is in this paper. You simply wish to ignore the reality that is being pointed out by experts because you think you know everything already.

[qwik2learn]

This is bullshit!

Natural selection makes so much sense. If you are fit enough for survival, you can pass on your DNA to the next offspring. It's common sense. If you are not fit, you will die and cannot pass on your DNA... so your whole species dies eventually

One needn’t be a creationist to question Darwin’s theory, for example regarding sexual reproduction. Dawkins finds sex ‘counter-productive, throwing away half one’s genes with every reproduction’. In The Cooperative Gene, evolutionary biologist Mark Ridley writes ‘Sex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists’.

Duh! Sex feels good. The Darwinian/Dawkins idea that behavior promotes survival of ‘uncaring’ genes doesn’t add up. And if genes are ‘programmed’ to survive, programmed by whom?
‘Darwin Versus Deepak’: Which Came First, Feelings, or the Brain?

[DroidR17A]

Yes, we want to avoid the reality for some weird reason,

Exactly. Radin, et al wrote this paper to show that those who claim that PK is "not proven" are wrong. You did not show that the tests are methodologically unsound. You could not discredit these tests and skeptics could not account for the results with their "File Drawer" explanation. I am pretty sure that you never bothered to read this paper.

A scientist claims there is no life after death because the laws of physics make it impossible.

I'd now like to see the "completely understood" scientific explanation of how physical matter creates consciousness.

Any such explanation would be complete bullshit because it's not understood.

It's not understood because the question isn't valid. Consciousness is fundamental NOT an emergent property of matter.

Because consciousness is fundamental the possibility of awareness persisting beyond death cannot scientifically be ruled-out.

Just because there is a debate does not mean your opinion is the right one, it just means there is disagreement. You would need to provide evidence to back up your opinion, otherwise it has no merit. Where is the evidence that backs up your opinion of the paper by Radin, et al and the Eisenbeiss case? Your links claim that a test is not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs. That is unheard of in any other branch of science.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19336271;topicseen#msg19336271

Actually, matter is an emergent property of consciousness. As in matter has no form until it is observed or brought in contact with other matter. Let's face it, the universe is just f'ing weird, and we're scratching at the surface trying to convince ourselves that we know what it's all about, when we really know jack $#1t. That's why we reinvent our history and world view every few decades. There is no proof either way, but we're too arrogant and insecure to admit what we don't know. The phenomenon attributed to God can also be explained through quantum entanglement, transportation and "spooky action at a distance".

[Astargath]

They claim they did but that doesn't mean it's true,

You are using a double standard:
On the one hand, you claim that experts concluded that PK is not real, so you trust the experts...
Yet when I cite experts who concluded that these PK tests are methodologically sound, you reject the opinion of these experts, even though I am pointing to experts on BOTH sides of this debate.
The use of double standards by skeptics is a common practice, but it is fallacious reasoning, just like when you move the goalposts for this thread:

again if you believe so strongly in telekinesis and it really exists it shouldn't be too hard to provide a real life example, no?

A scientific test is not a real-life example? What about the Eisenbeiss case; how is that not a real-life example? Consciousness cannot be directly measured, observed nor verified, yet these results show a statistical anomaly that deserves explanation. Just admit that I showed you the evidence and move on; stop trying to argue around it when you obviously did not even read up on it. IF these tests are not methodologically sound, then YOU should have no problem finding an expert who supports your opinion with hard evidence. Your links claim that a test is not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs and also include other fallacious comments that do not address what is in this paper. You simply wish to ignore the reality that is being pointed out by experts because you think you know everything already.

I trust the opinion of the majority of experts not just 2 guys. The majority of experts/scientists have clearly said that telekinesis is not real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis

From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.

The ideas of psychokinesis and telekinesis violate several well-established laws of physics, including the inverse square law, the second law of thermodynamics, and the conservation of momentum.[15][27] Because of this, scientists have demanded a high standard of evidence for PK, in line with Marcello Truzzi's dictum "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".[10][28] The Occam's razor law of parsimony in scientific explanations of phenomena suggests that the explanation of PK in terms of ordinary ways — by trickery, special effects or by poor experimental design — is preferable to accepting that the laws of physics should be rewritten.

A 1952 study tested for experimenter's bias with respect to psychokinesis. Richard Kaufman of Yale University gave subjects the task of trying to influence eight dice and allowed them to record their own scores. They were secretly filmed, so their records could be checked for errors. Believers in psychokinesis made errors that favored its existence, while disbelievers made opposite errors. A similar pattern of errors was found in J. B. Rhine's dice experiments, which were considered the strongest evidence for PK at that time.

In 1984, the United States National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the US Army Research Institute,[ambiguous] formed a scientific panel to assess the best evidence for psychokinesis. Part of its purpose was to investigate military applications of PK, for example to remotely jam or disrupt enemy weaponry. The panel heard from a variety of military staff who believed in PK and made visits to the PEAR laboratory and two other laboratories that had claimed positive results from micro-PK experiments. The panel criticized macro-PK experiments for being open to deception by conjurors, and said that virtually all micro-PK experiments "depart from good scientific practice in a variety of ways". Their conclusion, published in a 1987 report, was that there was no scientific evidence for the existence of psychokinesis.

[qwik2learn]

Actually, matter is an emergent property of consciousness. As in matter has no form until it is observed or brought in contact with other matter. Let's face it, the universe is just f'ing weird, and we're scratching at the surface trying to convince ourselves that we know what it's all about, when we really know jack $#1t. That's why we reinvent our history and world view every few decades. There is no proof either way, but we're too arrogant and insecure to admit what we don't know. The phenomenon attributed to God can also be explained through quantum entanglement, transportation and "spooky action at a distance".

I agree with this. I found a detailed explanation of these ideas from the near-death.com webmaster:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/12/22/quantum-theory-wont-save-soul/#comment-1179083570

Because NDEs have many common core elements, this suggests that they are spiritual voyages outside of the body. However, a rational atheist will reject the entire line of spiritual thinking, in spite of the evidence.

What happens to religion when you mix science and faith?

People thought that science would absolutely refute atheism, but once you have domesticated God and reduced God to a mere fact, atheism is only a matter of time. Religious language must always point beyond itself into the silence of transcendence. If it becomes an end in itself, religion becomes idolatry.

[qwik2learn]

I trust the opinion of the majority of experts not just 2 guys. The majority of experts/scientists have clearly said that telekinesis is not real.

If your experts did not address these specific tests then your whole argument about experts is a non-sequitor. The real experts in this instance are those who are fully appraised of the particular evidence at hand.
Nowhere in your post did you address the paper by Radin, et al. Earlier you had cited the paper by Bosch, et al which admits that these particular tests are of high methodological quality, and I see nothing in your post to contradict that earlier citation. So you have made a straw man argument.

There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.

According to evidence reviewed by Bosch, et al, these tests are of high methodological quality, and the data is heterogeneous; they tried to explain the heterogeneity of the data with a computer simulation. Radin, et al give a better explanation of this data and showed how the "File Drawer" effect alleged by Bosch, et al is not a viable explanation. Since these experts (Bosch, et al) actually took the time to review the evidence, their specific conclusion has more weight than the vague and incorrect claim that the effects of these tests are not repeatable.

The Occam's razor law of parsimony in scientific explanations of phenomena suggests that the explanation of PK in terms of ordinary ways — by trickery, special effects or by poor experimental design — is preferable to accepting that the laws of physics should be rewritten.

You did not provide an ordinary explanation that could be backed up by specific data; you cited Bosch, et al who gave it their best shot with their "File Drawer" explanation, later refuted by Radin, et al. Then you put forth a straw man by citing Wikipedia on PK and avoiding these papers.

A 1952 study tested for experimenter's bias with respect to psychokinesis. Richard Kaufman of Yale University gave subjects the task of trying to influence eight dice and allowed them to record their own scores. They were secretly filmed, so their records could be checked for errors. Believers in psychokinesis made errors that favored its existence, while disbelievers made opposite errors. A similar pattern of errors was found in J. B. Rhine's dice experiments, which were considered the strongest evidence for PK at that time.

What is your point in referencing tests with poor methods? Your own source has admitted that the methods used in these tests were of high quality!

virtually all micro-PK experiments "depart from good scientific practice in a variety of ways". Their conclusion, published in a 1987 report, was that there was no scientific evidence for the existence of psychokinesis.

Again you are contradicting the claim of your own source about these methods because you wish to abstract away from the specific evidence at hand. You are building a straw man since neither of the papers in question were mentioned anywhere in your post.

Your "copypasta" and straw man arguments were totally ineffective, you will definitely want to review this paper again:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

[Astargath]

I trust the opinion of the majority of experts not just 2 guys. The majority of experts/scientists have clearly said that telekinesis is not real.

If your experts did not address these specific tests then your whole argument about experts is a non-sequitor. The real experts in this instance are those who are fully appraised of the particular evidence at hand.
Nowhere in your post did you address the paper by Radin, et al. Earlier you had cited the paper by Bosch, et al which admits that these particular tests are of high methodological quality, and I see nothing in your post to contradict that earlier citation. So you have made a straw man argument.

There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.

According to evidence reviewed by Bosch, et al, these tests are of high methodological quality, and the data is heterogeneous; they tried to explain the heterogeneity of the data with a computer simulation. Radin, et al give a better explanation of this data and showed how the "File Drawer" effect alleged by Bosch, et al is not a viable explanation. Since these experts (Bosch, et al) actually took the time to review the evidence, their specific conclusion has more weight than the vague and incorrect claim that the effects of these tests are not repeatable.

The Occam's razor law of parsimony in scientific explanations of phenomena suggests that the explanation of PK in terms of ordinary ways — by trickery, special effects or by poor experimental design — is preferable to accepting that the laws of physics should be rewritten.

You did not provide an ordinary explanation that could be backed up by specific data; you cited Bosch, et al who gave it their best shot with their "File Drawer" explanation, later refuted by Radin, et al. Then you put forth a straw man by citing Wikipedia on PK and avoiding these papers.

A 1952 study tested for experimenter's bias with respect to psychokinesis. Richard Kaufman of Yale University gave subjects the task of trying to influence eight dice and allowed them to record their own scores. They were secretly filmed, so their records could be checked for errors. Believers in psychokinesis made errors that favored its existence, while disbelievers made opposite errors. A similar pattern of errors was found in J. B. Rhine's dice experiments, which were considered the strongest evidence for PK at that time.

What is your point in referencing tests with poor methods? Your own source has admitted that the methods used in these tests were of high quality!

virtually all micro-PK experiments "depart from good scientific practice in a variety of ways". Their conclusion, published in a 1987 report, was that there was no scientific evidence for the existence of psychokinesis.

Again you are contradicting the claim of your own source about these methods because you wish to abstract away from the specific evidence at hand. You are building a straw man since neither of the papers in question were mentioned anywhere in your post.

Your "copypasta" and straw man arguments were totally ineffective, you will definitely want to review this paper again:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.