Scientific proof that God exists?

[qwik2learn]

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

Rational atheists will rely on their assumption that life after death is imppssible.
This assumption is not justified by the evidence.
The research into "anomalous information" should be seriously considered.
An excellent paper to start learning about this is called "The Content-Source Problem in Modern Mediumship Research":
http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Publications/CunninghamJP_Fall-2012-Vol-76-(2)-295-319.pdf

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg24561351#msg24561351

As I said, plenty of evidence showed that is not real or at least not proven to be true yet. You believe some research done by some people because you want to. You are not a scientist or an expert, you simply believe what you read. Quit calling me an atheist because I'm not one. Research has been done already, it started a long time ago and AGAIN I REPEAT scientists from all over the world concluded those things are not real OR at least not proven yet. You can find plenty of ''claimed research'' of almost anything and pass it here as true. I can find research of ghosts, aliens, sirens, demons etc etc and just because some specific research hasn't been disproved by scientists doesn't mean it's true, it's just that scientists are not interested in them anymore. If these things were true and already proved beyond doubt, we wouldn't be here discussing whether they are true or not.

I already addressed these arguments and I never claimed that "you are an atheist". The research by Cunningham is very interesting, but you would have to read and comprehend it to have a discussion on it; making indirect arguments of a general nature does not adequately address the facts and evidence.

[Silasa]

If I were to say to you that our sun is a binary star orbiting it's own dark star, would you believe me? NO.

[Cooperto]

This is most likely because there is no (scientific) evidence..

[Brodika]

If I were to say that Sirius is a binary star orbiting it's own dark star, would you believe me, YES, 'cause the Dogon tribe of Mali says so..

[Kenely]

But the dogon also point out that the binary sirius is a mirror of our own sun.. meaning ours is a binary star.

[gonhunter]

But our sun is not a binary star according to science.

[Murile]

So how anyone expects to prove the existance of god when all possible science explaining the truth above is..

[Rowane]

I love how even when he's trying to convince himself he makes contradictions in the same post.

[Fionoa]

Scientific proof and God in the same sentence. That's rather an oxymoron.

[Astargath]

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

Rational atheists will rely on their assumption that life after death is imppssible.
This assumption is not justified by the evidence.
The research into "anomalous information" should be seriously considered.
An excellent paper to start learning about this is called "The Content-Source Problem in Modern Mediumship Research":
http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Publications/CunninghamJP_Fall-2012-Vol-76-(2)-295-319.pdf

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg24561351#msg24561351

As I said, plenty of evidence showed that is not real or at least not proven to be true yet. You believe some research done by some people because you want to. You are not a scientist or an expert, you simply believe what you read. Quit calling me an atheist because I'm not one. Research has been done already, it started a long time ago and AGAIN I REPEAT scientists from all over the world concluded those things are not real OR at least not proven yet. You can find plenty of ''claimed research'' of almost anything and pass it here as true. I can find research of ghosts, aliens, sirens, demons etc etc and just because some specific research hasn't been disproved by scientists doesn't mean it's true, it's just that scientists are not interested in them anymore. If these things were true and already proved beyond doubt, we wouldn't be here discussing whether they are true or not.

I already addressed these arguments and I never claimed that "you are an atheist". The research by Cunningham is very interesting, but you would have to read and comprehend it to have a discussion on it; making indirect arguments of a general nature does not adequately address the facts and evidence.

Why would I read it if I don't have the scientific knowledge to know whether is true or not and you don't have it either. Why do you believe it is the real question. I would ask you again, are you a scientist or expert in these things? If not, why believe any of these papers?

[MiKaRi]

I do believe that God exists.I don't question that because there is really a creator that sometimes cannot explain by science. 😊😁

[Johnreybayer]

God exists for without God we are nothing..where do we get the energy,power,minirals if God does not exist.

[Ursuka]

The guys back then would have thought the smartphone I'm writing this post on is godly if they have had any chance to see it.

[Pegleku]

I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything.  As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.

[Brodika]

Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly

[Kenely]

Unfortunately, the argument may not look as good to the unconvinced as it does to the believer.

[Cooperto]

Smartphone wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. No way to charge the battery, and no cell towers. 

[BADecker]

But a smartphone 200 years ago would have intrigued many people by its intricacy of design, even if it didn't have a use.

[Astargath]

But a smartphone 200 years ago would have intrigued many people by its intricacy of design, even if it didn't have a use.

Yes, that's the point. They would think it's magic or a god did it because they don't know better. That's why we have gods. Thanks to our ignorance.

[qwik2learn]

Why would I read it if I don't have the scientific knowledge to know whether is true or not

How come you are not educated? In today's world the Internet allows free access to all of human knowledge. Typically a paper can be understood by reading the references.

and you don't have it either.

This research paper is not comprehensible? Why not? It is written in English. Your claim has zero substance; in fact, research papers can be understood by anyone, even technical papers can be easily grasped in a general sense. Just because I am not qualified to "peer review" a paper does not make it impossible to undersrand by the general public.

Why do you believe it is the real question. I would ask you again, are you a scientist or expert in these things? If not, why believe any of these papers?

Everyone learns about science in school, anyone who went to college can read and understand a research paper, even one outside their field, given enough study.
Why believe any paper at all for that matter? Published papers are written by experts and there is no difficulty in understanding them even if one is not an expert oneself. Your latest "argument" is totally circular and not based on evidence.