Scientific proof that God exists?

[Astargath]

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.

Everyone is educated enough to ''understand'' what's written there but you and I are not educated enough to actually know if the methods used were actually correct you dumbfuck. You claim you can read scientific papers with no scientific education in that specific matter and know whether they are good or not? Then you might be a fucking genius, why don't you admit that you just believe them?

''Why believe any paper at all for that matter? Published papers are written by experts and there is no difficulty in understanding'' So are the thousands of papers saying it's not real but you chose to believe those few ones that say it is real. You still haven't given me a reason on how you know the experiments performed there meet all the requirements and were done correctly.

[qwik2learn]

Everyone is educated enough to ''understand'' what's written there but you and I are not educated enough to actually know if the methods used were actually correct you dumbfuck.

That depends on the paper in question. With the PK studies reviewed by Radin/Bosch, the experts concluded that the methods are sound, experts from both sides of the debate manged to agree on that, yet you still claim that experts conclude the methods are not sound--you are confusing yourself, your own source (Bosch) said they are sound, read your own source! And what about Cunningham? You do not even know which methods he used so how can you question the soundness of those methods? You use argument from ignorance and hasty generalization again.

Just because you refuse to evaluate the specific methods using reason does not mean that you or I are precluded from using reason to judge the methods and arrive at a conclusion. That is an argument from authority and from ignorance:
"Only experts can judge the methods of a study", but when I point to Bosch, your own source, you are silent.
"You or I cannot know if the methods are correct", but we can use reason to evaluate the facts presented and draw a sound conclusion, and if we are curious we can in fact conduct a replication study.

[qwik2learn]

You do not have to be a "fucking genius" to know the rules of the game.
You are visibly upset by my pointing out your poor logic, so change your attitude and your arguments. Go get an education; "anyone can become an international expert by reading"!

[trelmaxkae]

Off Putting.. attention seeker with nothing.. :0

[kamilator]

Fine and dandy. The point is, there is no overpopulation.  Smiley

[uschangeus]

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

[Astargath]

Everyone is educated enough to ''understand'' what's written there but you and I are not educated enough to actually know if the methods used were actually correct you dumbfuck.

That depends on the paper in question. With the PK studies reviewed by Radin/Bosch, the experts concluded that the methods are sound, experts from both sides of the debate manged to agree on that, yet you still claim that experts conclude the methods are not sound--you are confusing yourself, your own source (Bosch) said they are sound, read your own source! And what about Cunningham? You do not even know which methods he used so how can you question the soundness of those methods? You use argument from ignorance and hasty generalization again.

Just because you refuse to evaluate the specific methods using reason does not mean that you or I are precluded from using reason to judge the methods and arrive at a conclusion. That is an argument from authority and from ignorance:
"Only experts can judge the methods of a study", but when I point to Bosch, your own source, you are silent.
"You or I cannot know if the methods are correct", but we can use reason to evaluate the facts presented and draw a sound conclusion, and if we are curious we can in fact conduct a replication study.

''The experts'' concluded that magic is not real long ago, why you still claim it's real? My own source SAID that even tho the experiments were done correctly THEY DIDN'T SHOW THAT MAGIC EXISTS, you should read it, not me.

 In an investigation of 380 studies a group of scientists (Bösch et al, 2006) have written a meta-analysis on the subject.[3] In their paper they wrote "statistical significance of the overall database provides no directive as to whether the phenomenon is genuine or not" and came to the conclusion that "publication bias appears to be the easiest and most encompassing explanation for the primary findings of the meta-analysis."[3] So contrary to what you might read in a parapsychology book, psychokinesis has not been scientifically proven.

Now fuck off.

[Spice-time]

Each person has his own God in his soul, and if there are atheists, then it is useless to prove and argue about the existence of God.

[Astargath]

Each person has his own God in his soul, and if there are atheists, then it is useless to prove and argue about the existence of God.

Technically even if everyone believed in different gods there still would be atheists (sort of) Christians are atheists on all the other religions, for example. It's the same with all religions.

[Penting]

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

[Urmip16]

Yes

[Pecinan]

The usual garbage full of fallacies and misinformation...

[Jukoknos]

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

[Kokkereng]

god is actually a name for aliens, we have missinterpreted it all these years

You can see every religion says the gods came from the stars, even the bible Smiley

And my hypotesis is that they came, they saw a smart species [apes] and they implemented a missing gene in them to make them evolve, to make us

[Captain Sneeze]

The usual garbage full of fallacies and misinformation...

Why don't you prove scientifically that the emergent complexity in question is actually a real possibility? Why do i bother mentioning this when you will obviously avoid any direct response. Who knows? Probably practice for concise explanation during future debates with competent opponents.

[nix_7878]

For now there is no 100% scientific proof of God existence, but I believe even science will lead us to God existence.

[BADecker]

For now there is no 100% scientific proof of God existence, but I believe even science will lead us to God existence.

Cause and effect exists in everything. There is no pure random. The thing we call random or probability arises from our inability to see tiny details, like which molecules move a leaf as it twists in the summer breeze.

Cause and effect are like programming. Cause and effect all by itself almost proves that God exists, and programed everything to be what it is.

When you add complexity and entropy to the way things exist and operate, the only way they could exist and operate is through God. If God didn't exist, none of the universe would exist as it does.

None of this explains what God is in detail. We can draw some conclusions about the nature of God from science and observation of nature. But the details are limited without direct revelation from God, Himself.

Whatever brought the universe into existence, no matter what form or qualities He has, It is still God.

[Behiri]

Nice  oops my bad.. c? now am soundin like him.. aaaaarfghh..

[Brodika]

It's difficult to understand exactly what you are talking about. And, you are making it so, intentionally, because you happen to want to play a little. So, what is there really to talk about, since all you want to do is play?

[Silasa]

There are two major groups in the camp that is called Christians. There are the people who are truly, sincerely religious, believing in God for ideals of peace and salvation. Then there are the wicked people who simply want to use the name "Christian" for evil purposes, or as a method for making money at the expense of others.