Scientific proof that God exists?

[Undah00d]

From what I've read here, there is some god damn good point's, some interesting as hell shit, and inbetween, some damn good writer's.

A good 60% of responses seem to be nothing more than trolls trolling because they really dont have a clue, and those who do are silenced, either by the church of god, or by the church of satan. Either way, I'd say out of the top three posters in this thread, one is clearly fucked in the head enough to tell you the truth, the other two, are just as interesting in that they keep out of the trolling, but offer good answer's to the layman.

As for the self appointed administrating members who's only religion is slander... Oh Well...

How ironic that the most accurate truth's come from an athiest who found both god and the devil.

Im my opinion, scientific proof that god exists comes in the form of reality, a reality in which we are discussing god, and as such, we create him.

[1715028784]

1715028784

[1715028784]

1715028784

[1715028784]

1715028784

[Astargath]

''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.  Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design.  By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s).  But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all.  It just moves the mystery back a step.''

God was outside of the universe to have been able to make it.
If He was the same as the universe, the universe would have already been there in God.
Entropy shows that there was a beginning, so God was/is not of the universe.
Because of this, we don't know if complexity and designing apply to the nature of God at all.

It doesn't matter that god was outside the universe, being outside the universe doesn't automatically make you have no cause. My argument still stands

All it does is shows that if cause exists outside the universe, it is different than cause for one inside. Therefore, universe cause doesn't apply outside the universe. If it were cause as exists within the universe, it would be part of the universe, and not outside.

''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity.  But this is certainly mistaken.  We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature.  In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.

This is an example that shows God. God, being different than humanity, designs differently. God's machinery is different than the machinery of mankind. Yet it is similar in the fact that approximately 100% of man's machinery uses the machines of God, and uses examples of the way the machines of God work to make mans' machinery work.

I don't know if you understood my point here. My point was that your method to determine whether something is designed or not is flawed.

You have a nice opinion, there.

For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed.  Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed.  How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures?  Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp.  We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture.

One of the purposes why God designed sharp rocks was so that man could use the example of them for cutting... for learning how to cut.
Another was for the beauty in the blending of their complexity... multitudes of atoms and molecules blended in all kinds of ways in each rock, always moving as machinery works - because absolute zero isn't quite attainable that we know of.
The markings on mans' tools are often different from those on God's machines, because the goals and usages are for different purposes, even though the general appearance of the tools may be similar.

How do you know that god designed the rocks?

By the fact that rocks are made up of machines... if in no other way than the fact that their parts move within them with ambient heat, according to set laws, just like all machines. Machines have makers.

Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''

There is really no simplicity in nature. The appearance of simplicity may seem to be there at first glance. But detailed scientific examination is proving that simplicity doesn't exist. In fact, the universe is so complex that to the simple minded there is simplicity, but to the complexly minded there is complexity.
The fact that mankind is not able to separate anything of the universe, to be a self-enclosed universe unit, completely separate from the universe, thereby making it to be its own universe that is the same as this universe but not part of it, shows that every part of the universe is complex with regard to the whole that it is part of.

No one said there is simplicity in nature. My point is that the method for establishing design is difference from nature and not complexity. The fact that something is complex does not always indicate design, hence the rock example.

That's a wonderful but faulty assumption on your part.

''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture.  Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''

The whole structure of the universe is the sign that it was designed. An art museum proves that people design differently among themselves. Certainly the Designer of all things is going to design differently than people can even imagine at times. Complexity certainly shows design.

How is the whole structure of the universe a sign that it was designed? An art museum proves nothing because we know people made the paintings/art. We don't know whether someone designed the universe or not. My whole argument is to show that complexity does not show design, hence again, the rock example and many many more.

The universe is machinery. Machinery is designed.

Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is''

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390

Nice quote. I like it.


'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)

That is the problem with modern science. It is so weak at this stage that it is unable to dabble with things outside of the universe. In fact, it can barely determine that something outside of the universe can even exist.

So you agree with me?

About what? Seems like you are disagreeing with yourself.

There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)''

We are aware of only one universe, and, therefore, only one first cause. Nobody can tell if there were or weren't many first causes. We barely even know a little about our universe. Do you expect us to be going beyond it?
Note that it is "machineS," not "machine." Note that there isn't just one person who makes a machine. Rather there are many people who have made machines.
Polytheism, when the gods join entirely together, becomes monotheism. Is this part of the scientific proof for the existence of God, or are we getting into religion?

One universe can have more than one cause. Just like a mountain forming has different causes and all of them play an important role.

In a small way, perhaps. But the complexity, and the fact that it is all acting together, eliminates anything more that one First Cause.

''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.

The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.

When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.''

Nice.


You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now.

Thank you. But you are slightly mistaken. Not knowing what the First Cause is, has to do with not knowing what He is scientifically. One of the attributes we can apply to Him is that He is God. So from an extremely general, scientific standpoint, we know what He is. He is scientifically God.

''can apply to Him '' Why to him, how do you know the first cause is a him, how do you know the first cause has awareness?

If you would rather play with words, you are really falling apart fast. However, I have gone far beyond the simple proof for the existence of God. I have proof that God is "He," and I have provide glimpses of it in other posts. You will have great difficulty determining things about God if you can't even understand that He exists.

The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this?

Imagine that you were in God's "realm," completely aware of God. If God has a cause from the standpoint of His realm, you might know it, and maybe even know what it is. But you would be entirely different than what you are now if you were in God's realm. Why? Because if you were the same as you are now, you would be part of the universe, and God's realm would be this universe.
From the standpoint of our knowledge in the universe, scientifically we probably can't know if God has a cause or not. The word "cause" is of this universe. The cause concept didn't necessarily exist until the universe existed. I don't see how science in its limited ability could have determined if cause could have existed or not before the universe existed. Even the concept of "before" might not have existed "before" the universe.
Causation is an integral part of the universe. Perhaps it the universe DID come about without a cause. Such a concept would go a great deal further in making God scientifically "palatable" to us.
Do you understand that when we talk about subjects or concepts that are outside of our ability to comprehend, that the talk isn't always going to be clear?

Just curious. Have you been diagnosed with Alzheimer's? Or at least dementia? After all, you seem to forget that you have asked your questions multiple times in the past, and received my answers multiple times in the past. You need to start keeping notes.

Everything can be resumed in 1 small argument. All your proof of the existence of god ends up with 1 conclusion. There is a creator and that creator created the universe. Your whole argument does nothing to explain what the creator/creators are and if the creator is indeed sentient or not. You are just assuming after all your conclusions that the creator is god but like I said several times that doesn't have to be the case. Your whole argument doesn't dismiss the possibility of different creators or different causes, it also doesn't prove that what created the universe is indeed sentient/aware. You claim that nature is designed but my argument clearly shows that there is no way for us to know whether nature is designed or not because we don't know if something is designed based on complexity.

[BADecker]

''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer.  Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design.  By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s).  But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all.  It just moves the mystery back a step.''

God was outside of the universe to have been able to make it.
If He was the same as the universe, the universe would have already been there in God.
Entropy shows that there was a beginning, so God was/is not of the universe.
Because of this, we don't know if complexity and designing apply to the nature of God at all.

It doesn't matter that god was outside the universe, being outside the universe doesn't automatically make you have no cause. My argument still stands

All it does is shows that if cause exists outside the universe, it is different than cause for one inside. Therefore, universe cause doesn't apply outside the universe. If it were cause as exists within the universe, it would be part of the universe, and not outside.

''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity.  But this is certainly mistaken.  We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature.  In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.

This is an example that shows God. God, being different than humanity, designs differently. God's machinery is different than the machinery of mankind. Yet it is similar in the fact that approximately 100% of man's machinery uses the machines of God, and uses examples of the way the machines of God work to make mans' machinery work.

I don't know if you understood my point here. My point was that your method to determine whether something is designed or not is flawed.

You have a nice opinion, there.

For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed.  Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed.  How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures?  Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp.  We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture.

One of the purposes why God designed sharp rocks was so that man could use the example of them for cutting... for learning how to cut.
Another was for the beauty in the blending of their complexity... multitudes of atoms and molecules blended in all kinds of ways in each rock, always moving as machinery works - because absolute zero isn't quite attainable that we know of.
The markings on mans' tools are often different from those on God's machines, because the goals and usages are for different purposes, even though the general appearance of the tools may be similar.

How do you know that god designed the rocks?

By the fact that rocks are made up of machines... if in no other way than the fact that their parts move within them with ambient heat, according to set laws, just like all machines. Machines have makers.

Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''

There is really no simplicity in nature. The appearance of simplicity may seem to be there at first glance. But detailed scientific examination is proving that simplicity doesn't exist. In fact, the universe is so complex that to the simple minded there is simplicity, but to the complexly minded there is complexity.
The fact that mankind is not able to separate anything of the universe, to be a self-enclosed universe unit, completely separate from the universe, thereby making it to be its own universe that is the same as this universe but not part of it, shows that every part of the universe is complex with regard to the whole that it is part of.

No one said there is simplicity in nature. My point is that the method for establishing design is difference from nature and not complexity. The fact that something is complex does not always indicate design, hence the rock example.

That's a wonderful but faulty assumption on your part.

''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture.  Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''

The whole structure of the universe is the sign that it was designed. An art museum proves that people design differently among themselves. Certainly the Designer of all things is going to design differently than people can even imagine at times. Complexity certainly shows design.

How is the whole structure of the universe a sign that it was designed? An art museum proves nothing because we know people made the paintings/art. We don't know whether someone designed the universe or not. My whole argument is to show that complexity does not show design, hence again, the rock example and many many more.

The universe is machinery. Machinery is designed.

Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is''

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390

Nice quote. I like it.


'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)

That is the problem with modern science. It is so weak at this stage that it is unable to dabble with things outside of the universe. In fact, it can barely determine that something outside of the universe can even exist.

So you agree with me?

About what? Seems like you are disagreeing with yourself.

There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)''

We are aware of only one universe, and, therefore, only one first cause. Nobody can tell if there were or weren't many first causes. We barely even know a little about our universe. Do you expect us to be going beyond it?
Note that it is "machineS," not "machine." Note that there isn't just one person who makes a machine. Rather there are many people who have made machines.
Polytheism, when the gods join entirely together, becomes monotheism. Is this part of the scientific proof for the existence of God, or are we getting into religion?

One universe can have more than one cause. Just like a mountain forming has different causes and all of them play an important role.

In a small way, perhaps. But the complexity, and the fact that it is all acting together, eliminates anything more that one First Cause.

''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.

The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.

When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.''

Nice.


You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now.

Thank you. But you are slightly mistaken. Not knowing what the First Cause is, has to do with not knowing what He is scientifically. One of the attributes we can apply to Him is that He is God. So from an extremely general, scientific standpoint, we know what He is. He is scientifically God.

''can apply to Him '' Why to him, how do you know the first cause is a him, how do you know the first cause has awareness?

If you would rather play with words, you are really falling apart fast. However, I have gone far beyond the simple proof for the existence of God. I have proof that God is "He," and I have provide glimpses of it in other posts. You will have great difficulty determining things about God if you can't even understand that He exists.

The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this?

Imagine that you were in God's "realm," completely aware of God. If God has a cause from the standpoint of His realm, you might know it, and maybe even know what it is. But you would be entirely different than what you are now if you were in God's realm. Why? Because if you were the same as you are now, you would be part of the universe, and God's realm would be this universe.
From the standpoint of our knowledge in the universe, scientifically we probably can't know if God has a cause or not. The word "cause" is of this universe. The cause concept didn't necessarily exist until the universe existed. I don't see how science in its limited ability could have determined if cause could have existed or not before the universe existed. Even the concept of "before" might not have existed "before" the universe.
Causation is an integral part of the universe. Perhaps it the universe DID come about without a cause. Such a concept would go a great deal further in making God scientifically "palatable" to us.
Do you understand that when we talk about subjects or concepts that are outside of our ability to comprehend, that the talk isn't always going to be clear?

Just curious. Have you been diagnosed with Alzheimer's? Or at least dementia? After all, you seem to forget that you have asked your questions multiple times in the past, and received my answers multiple times in the past. You need to start keeping notes.

Everything can be resumed in 1 small argument. All your proof of the existence of god ends up with 1 conclusion. There is a creator and that creator created the universe. Your whole argument does nothing to explain what the creator/creators are and if the creator is indeed sentient or not. You are just assuming after all your conclusions that the creator is god but like I said several times that doesn't have to be the case. Your whole argument doesn't dismiss the possibility of different creators or different causes, it also doesn't prove that what created the universe is indeed sentient/aware. You claim that nature is designed but my argument clearly shows that there is no way for us to know whether nature is designed or not because we don't know if something is designed based on complexity.

So you think that cars, boats, computers, trains, planes, rockets and a thousand other things that mankind has invented and put together, are all simply accidents, like freaks of nature, right? Especially when cause and effect shows that they were all programmed into the universe from the beginning, right?

So, that is why we should not become emotional with each others responses, because emotion is simply programming, right?

Have I been posting responses to an advanced AI that has no soul or spirit, but only cold, unemotional responses? Are you AI, Astargath?

[Astargath]

No I don't think cars or planes are accidents. I know they are human made but how do we know this? We know this by comparing them to nature. How do we know nature is designed or not? What do we compare nature to? You are assuming nature is also designed just because it's complex but that's not the method used to determine if cars are designed, we don't just simply look at the complexity of a car, we just compare it to nature to see whether it was designed or not. There is nothing that indicates complexity needs a designer.

[QuestionAuthority]

This is the best troll thread on this forum. I used to think PinkiePie and MatthewNWright were the king trolls here but you are the true king BADecker.  The best part is that you know you’re full of shit and it’s obvious.  Props to you troll master. LOL

[Vod]

This is the best troll thread on this forum. I used to think PinkiePie and MatthewNWright were the king trolls here but you are the true king BADecker.  The best part is that you know you’re full of shit and it’s obvious.  Props to you troll master. LOL

I have managed to outwit the king of trolls.   

[Libbbbbbb]

It's just a matter of believing, not proof-concept of existence.

[Vod]

It's just a matter of believing, not proof-concept of existence.

Right.  This thread isn't about if you believe any god exists.

It's about scientific proof - which there isn't any. 

[rezinmbois]

my opinion is the same as the song titled "Buta Tuli" by Bang Haji

[Astargath]

This is the best troll thread on this forum. I used to think PinkiePie and MatthewNWright were the king trolls here but you are the true king BADecker.  The best part is that you know you’re full of shit and it’s obvious.  Props to you troll master. LOL

He is not trolling. Why would someone troll for so long. They are delusional just like the dude from the flat earth thread, I thought he was a troll too but after you read his posts over and over you realize that he just has problems.

[Vod]

He is not trolling. Why would someone troll for so long. They are delusional just like the dude from the flat earth thread, I thought he was a troll too but after you read his posts over and over you realize that he just has problems.

No one doubts he is a brainwashed fool, but I believe he is also trolling.  The way he makes up his own definitions, uses circular reasoning and never really answers anything - those are common traits of a troll.

[Peter Murr]

Science is hard proven data. Religion is faith into something that can't be proven or disproved.

[QuestionAuthority]

This is the best troll thread on this forum. I used to think PinkiePie and MatthewNWright were the king trolls here but you are the true king BADecker.  The best part is that you know you’re full of shit and it’s obvious.  Props to you troll master. LOL

He is not trolling. Why would someone troll for so long. They are delusional just like the dude from the flat earth thread, I thought he was a troll too but after you read his posts over and over you realize that he just has problems.

The only anonymous inter-webs characters I’ve ever seen use the Joe Cool smiley at the end of every post and never get upset when someone attacks them in a post are trolls.

Real people become angered when someone attacks them or their beliefs. Trolls don’t because that’s exactly the type of reaction they want to get from the real people so they smile and move on.

                                 

[Astargath]

This is the best troll thread on this forum. I used to think PinkiePie and MatthewNWright were the king trolls here but you are the true king BADecker.  The best part is that you know you’re full of shit and it’s obvious.  Props to you troll master. LOL

He is not trolling. Why would someone troll for so long. They are delusional just like the dude from the flat earth thread, I thought he was a troll too but after you read his posts over and over you realize that he just has problems.

The only anonymous inter-webs characters I’ve ever seen use the Joe Cool smiley at the end of every post and never get upset when someone attacks them in a post are trolls.

Real people become angered when someone attacks them or their beliefs. Trolls don’t because that’s exactly the type of reaction they want to get from the real people so they smile and move on.

                                 

Could be but I think he is just too delusional and that's why he doesn't get mad. I believe his delusion is so strong that his brain just ignores good arguments and just keeps resetting.

[QuestionAuthority]

This is the best troll thread on this forum. I used to think PinkiePie and MatthewNWright were the king trolls here but you are the true king BADecker.  The best part is that you know you’re full of shit and it’s obvious.  Props to you troll master. LOL

He is not trolling. Why would someone troll for so long. They are delusional just like the dude from the flat earth thread, I thought he was a troll too but after you read his posts over and over you realize that he just has problems.

The only anonymous inter-webs characters I’ve ever seen use the Joe Cool smiley at the end of every post and never get upset when someone attacks them in a post are trolls.

Real people become angered when someone attacks them or their beliefs. Trolls don’t because that’s exactly the type of reaction they want to get from the real people so they smile and move on.

                                 

Could be but I think he is just too delusional and that's why he doesn't get mad. I believe his delusion is so strong that his brain just ignores good arguments and just keeps resetting.

I guess you could be right. That is, after all, how blind faith turns ‘live people’ into ‘dead people’.

[RoccoSiffredi]

For a change I could provide a divine proof that science exists.

[stefany101]

There is no scientific proof that God really exists but if you are an anti-christ you won't believe that God is real. We christians have faith that God is real without any proof.

[Vod]

There is no scientific proof that God really exists

THANK YOU!!!

That is the question the OP wanted answered.

Finally this thread can be closed!

[BADecker]

There wasn't any scientific proof for anything, until somebody developed the idea of scientific proof. Since then there is scientific proof for some things, but no scientific proof for many other things.

Just because somebody hasn't seen the scientific proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just saying that there isn't any scientific proof for God doesn't make it so, unless you can prove it. In the face of the scientific proof that has been shown:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380 ;
the proof has to be scientifically rebutted with real science. If it isn't, the proof stands.

[Astargath]

There wasn't any scientific proof for anything, until somebody developed the idea of scientific proof. Since then there is scientific proof for some things, but no scientific proof for many other things.

Just because somebody hasn't seen the scientific proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just saying that there isn't any scientific proof for God doesn't make it so, unless you can prove it. In the face of the scientific proof that has been shown:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380 ;
the proof has to be scientifically rebutted with real science. If it isn't, the proof stands.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg25792251#msg25792251

It has. Unfortunately none of that proves or shows what the creator is, if there is indeed a creator.