Scientific proof that God exists?

[Astargath]

In the same way that you don't know that there are machines that don't have makers.

However, in the vastness of the machine world, the evidence that all machines have makers is so great, that you would have a difficult time finding a machine without a maker.

I'll help you. There is that ancient Greek machine that turns out to be the oldest computer in the world - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html - that was found on an ancient Greek galleon. Just because it was found there, on a sunken Greek galleon, doesn't mean we know that it had a maker. But try to tell that to any scientist, and they will laugh you right into a funny farm.

This is the same argument as ''everything is designed'' which I already debunked. You told me to look for the definition of machine: ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Now if the universe can be a machine, then so can a volcano, for example. Now how do you know a volcano has a maker? We don't. We only know ''machines'' have makers because those makers are humans, all the machines that have makers are humans, that doesn't prove god or that all machines have makers, it only proves, in any case, that all machines have human makers.

Consider AI. It is a machine made by mankind. Yet it can teach itself to play chess better than a human, even in ways that a human can't match. Our crude AI isn't really alive, doesn't really have sentience. Yet it acts in ways that seem uncontrolled... at least as far as we are concerned. But the work that it does is not controlled directly.

AI is a machine made up of many smaller machines, doing work that is not controlled by us directly - not even entirely understood by us. Yet the Master Machine Maker understands every, last erg of energy and force in a volcano, via cause and effect. He set it up. He also understands every last working of our AI. None of this means that He has to focus on all of it all the time, with the essence of His "I AM."

You have in no way debunked the idea that everything is designed. What you are doing is debunki9ng yourself. Soon you will be gone forever... if you do not change and take hold of the offering of eternal life from God.

You didn't answer at all here. I asked you how do you know that everything is designed or made by a sentient being. Yes we know our machines are designed by us, obviously just like we know a watch or a chair is designed by humans because nature does not produce such things. You are claiming that trees, rocks, planets, everything is designed by something else, my question is, how do you know?

Did you forget the complexity already? Our examples of machine making show us that the weaker thinkers among us don't really design the more complex machines. Yet all the machines and "levers" that we make come from nature and examples in nature. Nature, being full of machines that are way more complex than the machines of man, were made by Someone way smarter and more capable than man.

Machines and their complexity and the greatness/intelligence of those who make them is one of the greatest examples that God exists.

Perhaps you fit into my previous post along with VOD.

Did you forget that I already showed you that complexity does not show design? It's right here:

''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.

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.

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. ''

''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.''

Did you notice that all you showed was the writings of someone else who doesn't have anything concrete to back up what he says? Rather, the exact things that he is trying to use to show lack of intelligent design in complexity are the things that uphold intelligent design in complexity.

The argument is simple, how do you know that all complex things require a designer? You claim that complexity shows that everything is designed but how do you know? We only know our things are designed because they are made by us, humans and we know these things are designed by us by comparing them to nature.

This argument, by the way, is a well known flawed argument, discussed plenty of times.

''The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is an argument for the existence of God (or life-engineering aliens) that may be summarized as follows: When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed. This act of comparing two objects and drawing similar conclusions based on similarities (while ignoring important differences) is a prime example of a false analogy.''

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_above
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html

All things are machinery, because we take all our machines from examples in nature. Machines have makers. More complex machines have more complex makers. The complexity of machine universe is so great that the Maker of it fits the definition of God.

It's as simple as that. There is nothing that shows anything that is opposite to it. this makes all your talk to be political science.

^^^

But how do you know that all machines have makers, what makes you think that and do you have any evidence for it?

There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.

You lost badecker, just stop.

[BADecker]

There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.

You lost badecker, just stop.

You are losing, personally, just because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence and proof for the fact that the universe is a machine full of machines.

Come on out of your false religion, into the truth of reality.

[Astargath]

There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.

You lost badecker, just stop.

You are losing, personally, just because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence and proof for the fact that the universe is a machine full of machines.

Come on out of your false religion, into the truth of reality.

Where is the evidence that all machines are designed though? We know things that we created are designed because WE (humans) created them but how do YOU know that all the others are also designed?

[BADecker]

There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.

You lost badecker, just stop.

You are losing, personally, just because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence and proof for the fact that the universe is a machine full of machines.

Come on out of your false religion, into the truth of reality.

Where is the evidence that all machines are designed though? We know things that we created are designed because WE (humans) created them but how do YOU know that all the others are also designed?

The methods that God uses are not necessarily design. But the obvious thing is that His ways are way far in advance of ours, just like one would expect from the real God. Such a thing as God making the universe without designing it shows how great His power really is. People can't simply "plop" some machine into existence. But if God can do it without designing it ahead of time, He is so far ahead of us that we can never hope to catch up.

[Astargath]

There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.

You lost badecker, just stop.

You are losing, personally, just because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence and proof for the fact that the universe is a machine full of machines.

Come on out of your false religion, into the truth of reality.

Where is the evidence that all machines are designed though? We know things that we created are designed because WE (humans) created them but how do YOU know that all the others are also designed?

The methods that God uses are not necessarily design. But the obvious thing is that His ways are way far in advance of ours, just like one would expect from the real God. Such a thing as God making the universe without designing it shows how great His power really is. People can't simply "plop" some machine into existence. But if God can do it without designing it ahead of time, He is so far ahead of us that we can never hope to catch up.

But how do you know he did it, though?

[thrylos]

Creation and the laws of nature, and I think even mathematics.

[BADecker]

There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.

You lost badecker, just stop.

You are losing, personally, just because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence and proof for the fact that the universe is a machine full of machines.

Come on out of your false religion, into the truth of reality.

Where is the evidence that all machines are designed though? We know things that we created are designed because WE (humans) created them but how do YOU know that all the others are also designed?

The methods that God uses are not necessarily design. But the obvious thing is that His ways are way far in advance of ours, just like one would expect from the real God. Such a thing as God making the universe without designing it shows how great His power really is. People can't simply "plop" some machine into existence. But if God can do it without designing it ahead of time, He is so far ahead of us that we can never hope to catch up.

But how do you know he did it, though?

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

[hicaribou]

Its ridiculous that people are trying to proof something beyond their brain with their brain.
Arrogant people.
If just you can create a real human like making a robot, then you have a shot.

[Vod]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Machines don't need to be designed.  Evolution shows this. 

[musaqua10]

Creating the earth can be tried and covered by the universe.

[Si nenglon]

if scientifically there is god is because there is day and night. this is the closest example
 

[Vod]

if scientifically there is god is because there is day and night. this is the closest example
 

So the best evidence your cult has for existence of a god is that there is a day and night? 

 

[Nassim Allam]

As for the atheist sect and the belief that there is no God, my argument and my scientific proof in the creatures of animals and humans, how does the embryo develop, and all this is not from the deeds of nature, but from the act of God distinct from everything, but from the creation of the thing and advise you to read the Quran

[Astargath]

There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.

You lost badecker, just stop.

You are losing, personally, just because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence and proof for the fact that the universe is a machine full of machines.

Come on out of your false religion, into the truth of reality.

Where is the evidence that all machines are designed though? We know things that we created are designed because WE (humans) created them but how do YOU know that all the others are also designed?

The methods that God uses are not necessarily design. But the obvious thing is that His ways are way far in advance of ours, just like one would expect from the real God. Such a thing as God making the universe without designing it shows how great His power really is. People can't simply "plop" some machine into existence. But if God can do it without designing it ahead of time, He is so far ahead of us that we can never hope to catch up.

But how do you know he did it, though?

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god? You keep saying the same thing again for no reason, I already showed you that complexity does not imply design but you keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over again, are you insane? How does complexity imply design?

Given how much bad design there is in the world, I think it’s more likely to have been designed by a confused committee of gods than a single, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god or aliens or a ton of other possibilities, endless possibilities really.

[genset88]

What do you think?
Please share your opinion about this article.


101 Proofs For God

A growing list of common sense Proofs for God.

Proof for God, #65 Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam

 Genetic scientists seem to be in general agreement that we are all descendants of one woman and one man. This research was fairly recent, starting about 1978. They, of course, do not believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, but their conclusions are getting closer and closer.

In case you have not heard about this, it makes very interesting reading. But I think it raises a number of profound challenges to the Theory of Evolution.

The scientists base the above conclusions on the known facts of human reproduction, specifically on properties of the sperm and egg. .....
Full article read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/65-mitochondial-eve-and-y-chromosome.html

In my God does not exist in real life, God exists only in the soul of every human being

[Vod]

In my God does not exist in real life, God exists only in the soul of every human being

So you have some evidence/proof/theory/guess on a human soul?

[BADecker]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

[GreatFelix]

There can't be a scientific proof. I don't know what else I could write down on this topic. Everyone is forging their own luck - and I don't need a higher power than me, myself and I to do good, be good and have a meaning in my life.

[Astargath]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

''the definition of whatever made the universe still is God'' Not really because I suggested that it could be a few different gods or a few different aliens so no, that does not fit the definition of god, so you lost.
You are using the complexity argument again after I debunked it, why are you doing this?

You assume that evidence of design is an objective quality obvious to all viewers. In reality, the ability to discern design is largely a function of familiarity and cultural context. ''Not to mention the multitude of phenomena we now know are natural, but which in the past were explained through intelligent design or benevolent creation, such as the Giant's Causeway, the rock upon which the Kyaiktiyo Pagoda has been built, or the numerous legends explaining how various glacial erratics ended up in their current positions.''

To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape.

Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again.

[Glorious04]

I dont need science to prove there is God. Things around us are enough to prove there is and our very existence too. My heart can’t lie and i dont care if other people do not believe but i know and deep with in me i know He exists and is in control of everything.