Scientific proof that God exists?

[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.

[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!

''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?

Again, you forget the simple idea of a corporation manufacturing cars. The corporation is made up of many people doing multitudes of jobs. If they don't work together as one, the pistons will be of different sizes. Not all the doors will fit the car. One window will be made of glass and another of plastic, and they will be of different shades. The car won't work.

Even if there are many entities in God, they all work together as one. And in the case of the complexity and interconnectivity of all the physics and parts of something as great as the universe, they would have to be One. That is what God is.

If your idea was that big bang made the universe, get together with Hawking, and figure out a theory of how there could be multitudes of big bangs, each one very different from every other, and still make a universe that has the same physics throughout.

Actually, this might have been done. But the complexity of such a theory wouldn't really be understandable in any way.

Astargath thinks he is God.

[BADecker]

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.

This is very good. Why? Because scientists who try to prove major things about the universe wind up finding that they are not able. The evidence for this is in the foolishness of evolution theory, and gigantic incompleteness of big bang theory.

But, since this is a thread for seeking scientific proof for or against God, standard proof doesn't always fit the topic.

[MattF24]

My belief is simple, God exists in a different dimension. God is not with us here on Earth.

[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?

Again, you forget the simple idea of a corporation manufacturing cars. The corporation is made up of many people doing multitudes of jobs. If they don't work together as one, the pistons will be of different sizes. Not all the doors will fit the car. One window will be made of glass and another of plastic, and they will be of different shades. The car won't work.

Even if there are many entities in God, they all work together as one. And in the case of the complexity and interconnectivity of all the physics and parts of something as great as the universe, they would have to be One. That is what God is.

If your idea was that big bang made the universe, get together with Hawking, and figure out a theory of how there could be multitudes of big bangs, each one very different from every other, and still make a universe that has the same physics throughout.

Actually, this might have been done. But the complexity of such a theory wouldn't really be understandable in any way.

Astargath thinks he is God.

Because the corporation is ''one''? No it's not, it just a lot of people working together on something just like a lot of different gods or aliens could be working together WITHOUT BEING ONE, just a lot of them working together, SO NO YOU ARE WRONG, AGAIN.

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.

[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!

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.''

Why do you assume that I assume.

Isn't it obvious that I can't assume something like that? I mean, look at how many times I have to explain the same thing over to you. If I assumed obviousness, I would simply pass all your talk off as a joke on your part, wouldn't I?

Because of the machine-nature of all natural things, all natural things were designed.

[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!

''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?

Again, you forget the simple idea of a corporation manufacturing cars. The corporation is made up of many people doing multitudes of jobs. If they don't work together as one, the pistons will be of different sizes. Not all the doors will fit the car. One window will be made of glass and another of plastic, and they will be of different shades. The car won't work.

Even if there are many entities in God, they all work together as one. And in the case of the complexity and interconnectivity of all the physics and parts of something as great as the universe, they would have to be One. That is what God is.

If your idea was that big bang made the universe, get together with Hawking, and figure out a theory of how there could be multitudes of big bangs, each one very different from every other, and still make a universe that has the same physics throughout.

Actually, this might have been done. But the complexity of such a theory wouldn't really be understandable in any way.

Astargath thinks he is God.

Because the corporation is ''one''? No it's not, it just a lot of people working together on something just like a lot of different gods or aliens could be working together WITHOUT BEING ONE, just a lot of them working together, SO NO YOU ARE WRONG, AGAIN.

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.

You are so extremely wrong in this, that you must be joking.

All nature shows us that everything that we think of as "one," is really made up of many parts. One rock is filled with many minerals. One molecule is filled with at least more than one atom. Most people know that one atom is made up of multiple parts of at least 3 kinds.

Yet all of these things work together as one.

If God is made up of many parts, He is still One, especially to have created such a complex universe as ours. We have no other example of this oneness, in nature or in the things that we make. One is always made up of parts that work together as one.

[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!

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.

When you examine the watch in the woods, and compare it with a rock, the complexity of both on the micro scale is beyond any simple understanding.

The difference is that the watch has a designer that includes mankind, while the rock doesn't... necessarily.