Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

You just assume all equations can be proven.  I agree that assumption cannot be proven.

Therefore your conclusion that a god exists is just an assumption. 

Bravo! An A+ in political science for you. More and more political science from you is all we need. The more you blab, the more you show that you are stupidity's excuse for existence.

 

All your proof is circular reasoning that when applied to something else can prove something else.

Most of your talk is political science blabbing, since you can't use any factual science to show that cause and effect, entropy, and complexity don't prove the existence of God.

[1713872714]

1713872714

[1713872714]

1713872714

[1713872714]

1713872714

[1713872714]

1713872714

[PolinaVodovatova]

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

[Astargath]

assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

You just assume all equations can be proven.  I agree that assumption cannot be proven.

Therefore your conclusion that a god exists is just an assumption. 

Bravo! An A+ in political science for you. More and more political science from you is all we need. The more you blab, the more you show that you are stupidity's excuse for existence.

 

All your proof is circular reasoning that when applied to something else can prove something else.

Most of your talk is political science blabbing, since you can't use any factual science to show that cause and effect, entropy, and complexity don't prove the existence of God.

The factual science that doesn't say everything has a cause? In what science does it say that everything has a cause?

[BADecker]

assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

You just assume all equations can be proven.  I agree that assumption cannot be proven.

Therefore your conclusion that a god exists is just an assumption. 

Bravo! An A+ in political science for you. More and more political science from you is all we need. The more you blab, the more you show that you are stupidity's excuse for existence.

 

All your proof is circular reasoning that when applied to something else can prove something else.

Most of your talk is political science blabbing, since you can't use any factual science to show that cause and effect, entropy, and complexity don't prove the existence of God.

The factual science that doesn't say everything has a cause? In what science does it say that everything has a cause?

All science shows it. It doesn't have to be said. The greater the scientist, the more he/she uses cause and effect.

[BADecker]

this concerns the trust of each person. every religion will show proof of the existence of their god in its own way.

The science religion tries to show the proof of its god... mankind. But instead it shows the proof of the creator God.

[Astargath]

assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

You just assume all equations can be proven.  I agree that assumption cannot be proven.

Therefore your conclusion that a god exists is just an assumption. 

Bravo! An A+ in political science for you. More and more political science from you is all we need. The more you blab, the more you show that you are stupidity's excuse for existence.

 

All your proof is circular reasoning that when applied to something else can prove something else.

Most of your talk is political science blabbing, since you can't use any factual science to show that cause and effect, entropy, and complexity don't prove the existence of God.

The factual science that doesn't say everything has a cause? In what science does it say that everything has a cause?

All science shows it. It doesn't have to be said. The greater the scientist, the more he/she uses cause and effect.

Name one science that says or shows that everything has a cause and I will agree with you even though it wont prove god.

[synchronizations]

so far there is no scientific proof that accurate, only depends on belief. this will be related to the religion of the person adopted. their religion has taught its believer to be sure to god.

[marysay12]

assuming that an entity is perfect, that entity will be free of all needs. The need of companionship imply that he is not perfect particularly if it is a tremendous big need (he created tremendously large number of different entities).

Moreover those entities will not match His greatness because are all inferior, this could imply that He need to boss them (worst need than the first).

furthermore, if we assume that he is good and forgiving, how he could inflict eternal damnation to his creatures when they misbehave (according to His law) ? inflicting eternal sufferings and being good does not match

[natokanu]

and this fallacies and misinformation are.....?
I will be interesting to hear which facts in this articles are false and why.
Otherwise, I will have to confess that this articles really made impact on me.

[QuestionAuthority]

Scientology is the one true religion and L. Ron Hubbard is the one true God.  LOL

[cryptocurrentdan]

The only doubts i have about god (because i believe there is something that is bigger and greater than all of us) is that if he loves everyone and is willing to forgive everyone then why have things like cancer? i know its a question that has been asked by thousands but how can someone that is meant to love and protect people give innocent children and people horrible terminal diseases like cancer etc?

[nomadedigital]

religious people are weaktards, they need to believe in imaginary beings/powers/things to find meaning in life, while the one truth is all over the place, nature.
Mother nature is our "god" and the best part, there´s no need for fancy expensive untaxed temples, she teach us the value of life, she feed us and she can kill us, that´s true power, not some random old book that some religious weaktard wrote out of air to keep controling people´s minds. And that is for all fucking religions.
cheers.

[Edgar9]

Furthermore, if anyone claims that there is scientific proof of such an entity (I'm looking at you BADecker), then they are either deluded, or confused as to what the scientific method actually accomplishes.

[Nicolas9]

If someone does wish to claim such a thing, I would ask that they provide irrefutable evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in a reasonably reputable scientific journal (preferably in an academic journal, concerning physics, biology or chemistry).

[Bertram89]

I am an atheist myself, as I have not seen any compelling evidence for the existence of a god-entity/creator. If such evidence were to emerge, I would be happy to change my stance based on that evidence. Until then, I treat the existence of a god/creator as I would Russell's Teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn.

[Milcahh]

GOD could be thought of as a hypothesis which can solve important issues like the Origin of Life and many other mysteries. According to the scientific digest "A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics", science has shown that there is something very mysterious at the origin of time and space. The cutting edge science papers from Stuart Hammeroff and Deepak Chopra explain the quantum origin of mind and contain some of the latest knowledge.

[Eulalila]

The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit. [6.1.19]

[Rowane]

Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts. [6.1.21]

[Emilytran]

The active intellect works on the passive intellect which somehow shadows what the former is doing and helps us as a medium. [6.1.22]

[Calibee]

I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical. [6.2.12]