Scientific proof that God exists?

[Blackmet]

God is just something that many people can't even imagine that's why they have no proofs about exisiting of him or her or maybe even it. People are strange.

[jamalisa]

for the moment I have not been able to explain because the science that I have not completed the goal there

[BADecker]

Again, the scientific proof for God is shown here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.
Get the info from the links, and research it.

Science is starting to even teach in their schools that there is a Something out there somewhere, that put this whole universe together.

[Janinjo11]

For those who believe in God - if there is a God than the Earth is flat! Right?

[BADecker]

For those who believe in God - if there is a God than the Earth is flat! Right?

Well, almost. Since we are talking science, and scientific proof, then your wording should be, "If you believe there is a God, then you believe the earth is flat, right?"

You are off topic. You are talking religion, not scientific proof... just like the FE people.

[realtoken]

i dont think that this makes any sense

[BADecker]

i dont think that this makes any sense

But do you have any scientific proof that it doesn't?   

[1-DevelopEX]

I have this feeling under me after i read some pointers in the comments here in your thread, and amaze how people disagree about God existence and talk about nothingness and meaninglessness assuming what they say is meaningful.

[temorkebun]

So this is the new discovery of the scientists who will break Darwin's theory? Is not this already described in the book, for example as in the Gospels and the Qur'an. I think it's just a matter of Faith.

[sirazimuth]

Answer to the OPs title: There is no proof.

There is difficulty in proving anything. The evidence for God is extremely great.

Scientists and medical researchers are finding that all of nature acts like a gigantic machine. This nature-machine is extremely complex, way beyond man's present understanding. Yet, they can't find a source that could have built the machine. So they try to attribute it to millions and billions of years of happenstance. The only thing that we see over long periods of time is decay. Never an increase in complexity.

Consider Bitcoin. How many thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of years will it take to crack the encryption in the blockchain? We all accept the complexity involved in Bitcoin. Yet it has taken years for people, "machine makers," to figure the Bitcoin thing out. The best programming technicians might be able to do the programming, but it doesn't make them able to crack the encryption.

Nature is like this, except that we haven't even come close to figuring out the programming, yet. And for sure, if we EVER figured out the programming, it would be untold, unimaginable eons of ADDITIONAL time before we could crack the encryption. But if we could crack the encryption, could we ever figure out what the Programmer of the universe was truly like?

The point is, Whoever, Whatever the Programmer of the universe is, He/She/It is way beyond anything that we will ever find on our own. And this is the reason why we use the word "God." The only way we will ever understand God is if He stoops down and reveals Himself to us (He did it in the Bible).

The REAL question isn't something like, "Are you serious that you think God exists?" Rather, the question is, "What are you doing involving yourself with Bitcoin if you, even slightly, think that God does NOT exist?" Bye!

i dont think that this makes any sense

he hasn't been making any sense in this thread for almost 3 and a half  years.
you think he's gonna start now?  

[miyaka1014]

The bible is the living proof that God exists... It's just like the wind,  you don't see it but you can feel it that's why you believe that there's a wind.

[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.

I find it strange that atheists and skeptics in this thread did not address the computerized proof of GOD that I referenced. After all, is this not exactly the sort of proof that an atheist would expect and demand to see?

[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.

I find it strange that atheists and skeptics in this thread did not address the computerized proof of GOD that I referenced. After all, is this not exactly the sort of proof that an atheist would expect and demand to see?

I actually did, quite in detail actually: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg27336707#msg27336707

You might have missed it.

Godel's proof consists of the following argument

God is defined as that which is greater than anything else

We can imagine God

Since a real God is greater than an imaginary God, and God by definition is greater than everything

God must be real

The German scientists took this argument, translated it to math, and proved it works. However, they took Godel's argument as sound, so naturally the came out with the same result. However, his argument has flaws:

1) How do we know God is greater than anything else? Before we have proof of God, we are incapable of defining him.

2) Why should a real God be greater than an imaginary God? I can imagine perfection, but I have yet to encounter it in real life. I would argue that imaginary things are often better than their real world counterparts.

Godel's argument uses flawed assumptions, and the German programmers used those same flawed assumptions

[Betheng10]

Science will never prove God's existence because no men is higher than God and no men's capability could be equal to God's.

[qwik2learn]

1) How do we know God is greater than anything else? Before we have proof of God, we are incapable of defining him.

GOD is creator, sustainer, and destroyer. GOD exists outside of the naturalistic schema, so a naturalist cannot conceive of a creator but that does not prevent a proof by analogy.
The basics were already explained here:

https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-have-ndes-while-brain-dead.html#a05

2) Why should a real God be greater than an imaginary God? I can imagine perfection, but I have yet to encounter it in real life. I would argue that imaginary things are often better than their real world counterparts.

Imaginary things are fictional, they cannot explain the creation and sustenance of the natural world.

Godel's argument uses flawed assumptions, and the German programmers used those same flawed assumptions

How do you know that? Is there an expert who has made these same arguments that you just put forth? I referenced some experts myself, but you are not willing to make a decent argument since according to you, a made-up ad-hoc argument is arguably even better!

[Vod]

All you are trying to do is suggest that creation and evolution are the same thing. You are the one who is a little (more than a little) crazy.

Yes, you have made it abundantly clear you believe anyone who will not stick their head in the sand is crazy and childish.

Luckily, science (and 465 pages) have proven gods doesn't exist. 

[QuestionAuthority]

All you are trying to do is suggest that creation and evolution are the same thing. You are the one who is a little (more than a little) crazy.

Yes, you have made it abundantly clear you believe anyone who will not stick their head in the sand is crazy and childish.

Luckily, science (and 465 pages) have proven gods doesn't exist.  

There’s nothing you can do about BADecker. I think his mommy raped his brain with a Bible when he was young and 50 years of therapy wouldn’t be enough to fix that.

Have you heard about this relatively new Christian cult called the quiverfull movement? Those “19 kids and counting” tv show nut jobs are a part of it. They actually claim (not in these words of course) that they are going to out breed nonbelievers until they overtake the world. They believe women should be completely subservient to men and be ruled by their husband like a pet. One of the kids on that show, Josh Dugger, cheated on his wife and fingerbanged his sisters when they were sleeping. His stupid wife didn’t leave him (because men are more important than women) but instead she shit him out another baby. Man, Christians are fucking hilarious.

[Astargath]

1) How do we know God is greater than anything else? Before we have proof of God, we are incapable of defining him.

GOD is creator, sustainer, and destroyer. GOD exists outside of the naturalistic schema, so a naturalist cannot conceive of a creator but that does not prevent a proof by analogy.
The basics were already explained here:

https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-have-ndes-while-brain-dead.html#a05

2) Why should a real God be greater than an imaginary God? I can imagine perfection, but I have yet to encounter it in real life. I would argue that imaginary things are often better than their real world counterparts.

Imaginary things are fictional, they cannot explain the creation and sustenance of the natural world.

Godel's argument uses flawed assumptions, and the German programmers used those same flawed assumptions

How do you know that? Is there an expert who has made these same arguments that you just put forth? I referenced some experts myself, but you are not willing to make a decent argument since according to you, a made-up ad-hoc argument is arguably even better!

Yes, there are a ton of experts that concluded his ''proof'' is flawed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof This is the ontological proof of godel, no one takes it seriously because it's bad.

[qwik2learn]

Many Scientists now believe the existence of God is not only possible but probable. From their perspective, an intelligent force predating our universe initiated creation.

Many eminent researchers were able to see the evidence of a higher power, of something outside of the naturalistic worldview. Even famous skeptics like Sartre and Anthony Flew ultimately saw the evidence for Infinite Intelligence.
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

[Vod]

Many Scientists now believe the existence of God is not only possible but probable.

You brainwashed fools never lie, do you?