Scientific proof that God exists?

[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

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?

You did not point to any research. Your links cast doubt on the results by using fallacious reasoning such as appeal to authority. The experiments are well designed and this much is admitted. Nowhere in those links is it explained how bias can actually account for the measured outcomes and I did not see any citation of the PDF I linked, so these critics probably never read this paper to begin with, they use the wrong calculations which Radin, et al have pointed out.

[StinchcombNancy]

I can see God in everything. I am a proof of God's existence

[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?

You did not point to any research. Your links cast doubt on the results by using fallacious reasoning such as appeal to authority. The experiments are well designed and this much is admitted. Nowhere in those links is it explained how bias can actually account for the measured outcomes and I did not see any citation of the PDF I linked, so these critics probably never read this paper to begin with, they use the wrong calculations which Radin, et al have pointed out.

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?

[West0813]

If you believe in God.  You don't need any scientific proof.

[qwik2learn]

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

[Decimation]

Evolution was proven like 4 years ago, no need for threads like these anymore. A chimpanzee's DNA is only a mere 2% different than our DNA. The human brain has increased massively in size throughout our understanding of time, this again, is PROVEN. 600-800,000 years ago our brains were similar in size to a chimpanzee, throughout evolution of our own species our brains have increased dramatically in size since we are learning tons of new information each and everyday we are alive. Not only have our brains increased in size, but humans in general have evolved to be much bigger than the average person say 100 years ago. This is mostly due to gmo's that are in everyday food that you consume, but nonetheless, our bodies and brains have increased in size dramatically.

Adam and Eve is dead ass the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Go watch a Family Guy episode on Adam and Eve. They debunk the whole Bible in literally 1 minute with a animated cartoon film. If you don't want to watch the Family Guy clip, here's a quick summary: They point out all the useless/non-sense statements in the Bible and how they contradict the statements in the Bible.

[qwik2learn]

Evolution was proven like 4 years ago, no need for threads like these anymore.

Since well before Charles Darwin was born, men of science knew full well that God did not create the Earth or anything else in the universe in six literal days. But to assert that publicly invited the same kind of censure that erupts today onto anyone who dares to challenge evolution openly. Dogma is dogma in any generation.

[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