Scientific proof that God exists?

[Leeminhe]

I have pointed out some major problems in the Bible; I recommend that truth-seekers read the Phoenix Journals since they explain how the truth in the Bible has been modified; a seeker must learn about the omissions.

[1713955454]

1713955454

[Murile]

I certainly agree that god can be thought of as a hypothesis that explains important issues about metaphysics and the origin of life. Except that it's a terribly weak hypothesis with no evidence.

[Kevala]

Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

[Fionoa]

If only that was so - we wouldn't have 400+ pages in this thread.

[Rosa bella]

We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe. Whatever could do the making, would fit the general description and definition of God. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to make something like the universe with all its "furnishings."

[Eliza beth]

''We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe.'' You are right badecker we don't, why do you claim you do then?

[Na xter]

Edit: Ah, Hameroff co-wrote the papers regarding the Orch-OR model of consciousness, with Roger Penrose. I've read a little into this hypothesis, and it is very interesting to say the least. But it is not conclusive evidence for any sort of consciousness controlled by quantum computation, their ideas have a lot of criticism.

[Marizy]

Their theory is the best one on the market, it helps explain the clever behavior of paramecium.

[Anthomy]

The criticism of Penrose/Hameroff's theory is outdated, more recent papers provide new evidence.

[Pegleku]

Chopra is not clueless about science since according to Hameroff his view is the right one!

[Ozinzin]

Mediumship can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control, see Cunningham's paper "The content source problem in modern mediumship research".

[Ursuka]

As you say, we don't have evidence of any thing that can make the complexity of the universe. That leaves room for God, only. God, not being a thing, or anything, has made the universe.

[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.

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

All the sciences shows that everything has a cause. Perhaps few say it.

[BADecker]

You do realise that the discussion going on in this thread has been discussed over and over and over for thousands of years?
No closer to any scrap of evidence or proof than we was 1000 years ago, and no further from any scrap of evidence or proof than we will be 1000 years from now.

That's because when scientists show that God exists, they don't like it. They turn to religion rather than stay with science. For them, their science becomes religion.

[BADecker]

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.

Non-religious people are weaktards. They need to believe that God doesn't exist, because if they don't, they will be scared sh**less by Him.

[BADecker]

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.

Or we could say that about anyone who ignores the scientific proof that God exists.

[woffingshire]

There is not, is amazing, I really can't believe people trust in churchs,

[BADecker]

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.

The fact of cause and effect almost proves the existence of God all by itself. Study it in detail, especially with to regard to the microcosm.

[BADecker]

I have pointed out some major problems in the Bible; I recommend that truth-seekers read the Phoenix Journals since they explain how the truth in the Bible has been modified; a seeker must learn about the omissions.

That's the problem. It is so easy to get mixed up in religion, when all we are looking for is scientific stuff.

[BADecker]

''We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe.'' You are right badecker we don't, why do you claim you do then?

The fact that we don't is part of the evidence.