Scientific proof that God exists?

[Astargath]

Watch the scientists prove that the things of nature are machines. Machines have makers. God is the Maker of all things.

Progress to scalable Molecular Machines

This molecular robot can be programmed to stereoselectively produce, in a sequential one-pot operation, an excess of any one of four possible diastereoisomers from the addition of a thiol and an alkene to an α,β-unsaturated aldehyde in a tandem reaction process. The stereodivergent synthesis includes diastereoisomers that cannot be selectively synthesized through conventional iminium–enamine organocatalysis. They anticipate that future generations of programmable molecular machines may have significant roles in chemical synthesis and molecular manufacturing.

Depending on which side the substrate is held for each reaction, a different stereoisomer of the product is formed. The reaction sequences are carried out in one pot and the robot can be programmed to produce selectively each isomer of the product by controlling the switch-state prior to each reaction of the substrate. Each molecular robot manipulates a single substrate molecule, but the process is massively paralleled with more than a million trillion molecular robots operated simultaneously by the scientists.

Read more at https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/progress-to-scalable-molecular-machines.html.

But you never proved machines have makers, you can only prove that human made machines have human makers.

Should I do that for you, now? Will you be able to take it?

Scientific topic, so, scientific proof, stated in the topic title.

Machines that have makers - millions.
Machines that don't have makers - unknown.

Millions:0

Scientifically proven.

Religion proven? - who knows?

Layman proven? - who knows?

Scientifically proven? - yes.

'' Machines that have makers - millions. ''

No, machines that have human makers - millions

Machines that don't have human makers and have others - unknown

"Machines that don't have human makers and have others - unknown"

No. Machines that don't have human makers and have others - God or the angels

How do you know?

How many times do we have to do this? Simply because of the greatness of the universe, the maker of it fits the definition of "God."

The greatness of the universe doesn't prove that it is designed, complexity does not imply design. There are thousands of complex, functional things that are not designed. Many would argue that if a god designed the universe he did a pretty poor job. Why would a God who is OMNIBENEVOLENT (all loving) and OMNIPOTENT (all powerful) make a world with volcanoes and earthquakes etc.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design#In_humans
In short, there are too many mistakes and flaws to consider that a ''god'' created the universe.

The universe runs like a "well-oiled" machine. It was designed, and designed extremely well.

As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.

[1713440291]

1713440291

[1713440291]

1713440291

[1713440291]

1713440291

[1713440291]

1713440291

[1713440291]

1713440291

[1713440291]

1713440291

[BADecker]

As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.

Well, actually, here is where you are wrong.

It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.

Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.

Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind. He had other purposes in mind, as well. So there is purpose for the machine. How do we know? The universe is a machine full of machines, and every machine is designed for some purpose.

Habitation of the earth isn't the problem. People working together is the problem. After all, look at the inhabitants of harsh Antarctica who work together, just so that they can inhabit it.

[salamyman]

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam lived thousands of years apart, they were not a couple.

The concept of “Natural Selection”, sometimes used synonymous with
"Survival of the Fittest”, is often touted as the magic process that when added to mutation will result in advancing steps of higher and higher species and the success of evolution.

This is completely wrong, there are several "forces" operating as natural selectors, not only "survival of the fittest", in many species sexual selection by the females dictates the future of the specie.

In Evolution there's no "higher and higher species."

But it is never a process that will give you a new species.

This is pretty big claim and proof of this will give Nobel prizes, a place in History and a ton of money.

This is a great idea.
OP should do a well researched paper and take it to the scientific community - and see what he gets: a Nobel prize or a kick to the behind?

[Astargath]

As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.

Well, actually, here is where you are wrong.

It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.

Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.

Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind. He had other purposes in mind, as well. So there is purpose for the machine. How do we know? The universe is a machine full of machines, and every machine is designed for some purpose.

Habitation of the earth isn't the problem. People working together is the problem. After all, look at the inhabitants of harsh Antarctica who work together, just so that they can inhabit it.

''It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.''

Just like stating the universe is designed because it's ''great''

''Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind'' If that was true then again he did a terrible job considering nearly anything can kill humans in the universe. The universe is not a machine and even if it was, it doesn't prove it has a designer. Where is your evidence for it? You keep claiming god did it yet you never present any type of evidence.

''Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.'' How?

[BADecker]

As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.

Well, actually, here is where you are wrong.

It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.

Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.

Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind. He had other purposes in mind, as well. So there is purpose for the machine. How do we know? The universe is a machine full of machines, and every machine is designed for some purpose.

Habitation of the earth isn't the problem. People working together is the problem. After all, look at the inhabitants of harsh Antarctica who work together, just so that they can inhabit it.

''It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.''

Just like stating the universe is designed because it's ''great''

''Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind'' If that was true then again he did a terrible job considering nearly anything can kill humans in the universe. The universe is not a machine and even if it was, it doesn't prove it has a designer. Where is your evidence for it? You keep claiming god did it yet you never present any type of evidence.

''Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.'' How?

Examination shows the machine nature. Machines have makers.

[BADecker]

Thank you for all this prompting that you give me, so that I can prove that God exists to all the people who are interested, but haven't thought these things through before. I mean, if you didn't prompt me like this, I might just drop the subject, and go on to other things.

[Astargath]

As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.

Well, actually, here is where you are wrong.

It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.

Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.

Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind. He had other purposes in mind, as well. So there is purpose for the machine. How do we know? The universe is a machine full of machines, and every machine is designed for some purpose.

Habitation of the earth isn't the problem. People working together is the problem. After all, look at the inhabitants of harsh Antarctica who work together, just so that they can inhabit it.

''It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.''

Just like stating the universe is designed because it's ''great''

''Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind'' If that was true then again he did a terrible job considering nearly anything can kill humans in the universe. The universe is not a machine and even if it was, it doesn't prove it has a designer. Where is your evidence for it? You keep claiming god did it yet you never present any type of evidence.

''Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.'' How?

Examination shows the machine nature. Machines have makers.

You have never proved that machines have makers. Since the only machines that have makers are human machines, the other ''machines'' may or may not have makers, we don't know, unless you have evidence for it.

[jeluhtajem]

the existence of the earth is evidence of a god
then which god favor do you deny?

[BADecker]

As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.

Well, actually, here is where you are wrong.

It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.

Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.

Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind. He had other purposes in mind, as well. So there is purpose for the machine. How do we know? The universe is a machine full of machines, and every machine is designed for some purpose.

Habitation of the earth isn't the problem. People working together is the problem. After all, look at the inhabitants of harsh Antarctica who work together, just so that they can inhabit it.

''It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.''

Just like stating the universe is designed because it's ''great''

''Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind'' If that was true then again he did a terrible job considering nearly anything can kill humans in the universe. The universe is not a machine and even if it was, it doesn't prove it has a designer. Where is your evidence for it? You keep claiming god did it yet you never present any type of evidence.

''Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.'' How?

Examination shows the machine nature. Machines have makers.

You have never proved that machines have makers. Since the only machines that have makers are human machines, the other ''machines'' may or may not have makers, we don't know, unless you have evidence for it.

Since the only things that exist are machines, we can apply the example of the machines that we know the makers of, to the big machine that we don't see the maker of, to show that it has a Maker.

[Astargath]

As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.

Well, actually, here is where you are wrong.

It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.

Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.

Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind. He had other purposes in mind, as well. So there is purpose for the machine. How do we know? The universe is a machine full of machines, and every machine is designed for some purpose.

Habitation of the earth isn't the problem. People working together is the problem. After all, look at the inhabitants of harsh Antarctica who work together, just so that they can inhabit it.

''It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.''

Just like stating the universe is designed because it's ''great''

''Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind'' If that was true then again he did a terrible job considering nearly anything can kill humans in the universe. The universe is not a machine and even if it was, it doesn't prove it has a designer. Where is your evidence for it? You keep claiming god did it yet you never present any type of evidence.

''Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.'' How?

Examination shows the machine nature. Machines have makers.

You have never proved that machines have makers. Since the only machines that have makers are human machines, the other ''machines'' may or may not have makers, we don't know, unless you have evidence for it.

Since the only things that exist are machines, we can apply the example of the machines that we know the makers of, to the big machine that we don't see the maker of, to show that it has a Maker.

Why, though? Those machines have nothing to do with the machines humans make. I don't see why we can apply the example of our machines which have a purpose and a job to nature ''machines'' as you call them. Nothing indicates a rock is designed.

[ChaikaNord]

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

I believe in this, but as long as he existed, but he died and now he helps us to find the right path from heaven.

[BADecker]

As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.

Well, actually, here is where you are wrong.

It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.

Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.

Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind. He had other purposes in mind, as well. So there is purpose for the machine. How do we know? The universe is a machine full of machines, and every machine is designed for some purpose.

Habitation of the earth isn't the problem. People working together is the problem. After all, look at the inhabitants of harsh Antarctica who work together, just so that they can inhabit it.

''It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.''

Just like stating the universe is designed because it's ''great''

''Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind'' If that was true then again he did a terrible job considering nearly anything can kill humans in the universe. The universe is not a machine and even if it was, it doesn't prove it has a designer. Where is your evidence for it? You keep claiming god did it yet you never present any type of evidence.

''Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.'' How?

Examination shows the machine nature. Machines have makers.

You have never proved that machines have makers. Since the only machines that have makers are human machines, the other ''machines'' may or may not have makers, we don't know, unless you have evidence for it.

Since the only things that exist are machines, we can apply the example of the machines that we know the makers of, to the big machine that we don't see the maker of, to show that it has a Maker.

Why, though? Those machines have nothing to do with the machines humans make. I don't see why we can apply the example of our machines which have a purpose and a job to nature ''machines'' as you call them. Nothing indicates a rock is designed.

Much of the machinery in a rock has to do with the machinery that we make. Even the simple electromagnetic forces between the subatomic particles of a rock, are the same kinds of forces between the subatomic particles that make up our machines. Or consider the levers of nature that we apply in many of our machines. Not one of our machines could exist if it were not at least a partial copy of a machine of nature. All of our machinery is patterned after aspects of the machinery of nature. It's all machinery. It's all machines.

[EnaksiS]

The scientist never ever created even a cell. So there must be a God, who created the whole humans,trees,mountains etc. I'll believe until world collapses.

[matedrink24]

i really doubt that they can prove that god exists i always believe that there's something greater than us, we have to realize this we are so small in this infinite universe.

[Astargath]

As I said the greatness of the universe doesn't prove it's designed. Also your analogy is wrong because machines have a purpose or a job, what is the universe job or purpose? If it is to contain life, for example, then it does a poor job considering most of it it's inhabitable even a big part of earth.

Well, actually, here is where you are wrong.

It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.

Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.

Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind. He had other purposes in mind, as well. So there is purpose for the machine. How do we know? The universe is a machine full of machines, and every machine is designed for some purpose.

Habitation of the earth isn't the problem. People working together is the problem. After all, look at the inhabitants of harsh Antarctica who work together, just so that they can inhabit it.

''It is stating that the universe is great that doesn't prove its design. Why not? Because stating such doesn't show anything at all. Stating such is simply political science.''

Just like stating the universe is designed because it's ''great''

''Some of the purpose of God in creating the universe, was to express His love for mankind'' If that was true then again he did a terrible job considering nearly anything can kill humans in the universe. The universe is not a machine and even if it was, it doesn't prove it has a designer. Where is your evidence for it? You keep claiming god did it yet you never present any type of evidence.

''Showing the greatness through examination of it proves the design.'' How?

Examination shows the machine nature. Machines have makers.

You have never proved that machines have makers. Since the only machines that have makers are human machines, the other ''machines'' may or may not have makers, we don't know, unless you have evidence for it.

Since the only things that exist are machines, we can apply the example of the machines that we know the makers of, to the big machine that we don't see the maker of, to show that it has a Maker.

Why, though? Those machines have nothing to do with the machines humans make. I don't see why we can apply the example of our machines which have a purpose and a job to nature ''machines'' as you call them. Nothing indicates a rock is designed.

Much of the machinery in a rock has to do with the machinery that we make. Even the simple electromagnetic forces between the subatomic particles of a rock, are the same kinds of forces between the subatomic particles that make up our machines. Or consider the levers of nature that we apply in many of our machines. Not one of our machines could exist if it were not at least a partial copy of a machine of nature. All of our machinery is patterned after aspects of the machinery of nature. It's all machinery. It's all machines.

Yes we got inspired by nature to create stuff but that still doesn't mean that nature itself is designed, there is no way to tell. We can only tell our stuff is designed/made because we know about it or we can compare it to nature, however when you look at nature and you try to guess if it's designed or not, you can't. There is nothing to compare it to, there is nothing that says it's designed.

[qwik2learn]

The Case Against Naturalism

Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists


For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the possibility or necessity of the existence of God. But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

Researchers have cracked the "GOD CODE", they used computers to validate the axioms that refute Naturalism and confirm the necessity of the existence of GOD.

[Astargath]

The Case Against Naturalism

Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists


For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the possibility or necessity of the existence of God. But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

Researchers have cracked the "GOD CODE", they used computers to validate the axioms that refute Naturalism and confirm the necessity of the existence of GOD.

No, no, no. Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is just a result about the limitations of axiom systems. That's all. It is particularly worrying when people state that they have little knowledge of mathematics (let alone of mathematical logic) yet feel certain that there is something metaphysically profound going on here.

All the misinterpretations out there of Gödel's results on incompletenesss prompted the late Swedish logician Torkel Franzén to write a book called
Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof#Criticism

[JavaScriptus]

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

God exists only in our souls, there are many who believe that there is a god, for me it is not, I only believe in science, if science proves that God exists, then I will believe in it

what if science tells that you are a faggot

[mrcrusher6]

There's no proof that god is real but you can feel it the way you trust god and pray for it. you will have good heart

[Ralphson]

Taste small death and see..lol