Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

if you ask the scientific evidence about the existence of god then you already know the answer, for example like yourself, try to think, you are so smart and great, logically there must be other intelligence that created you and that is proof that god exist.

Which god?

The real God that science shows exists, and Whose nature is clearly explained in the Bible, and Who possibly shouldn't even be called "God," because He is unfathomably greater than anything we think of when we say "God."

[1713483799]

1713483799

[1713483799]

1713483799

[Astargath]

if you ask the scientific evidence about the existence of god then you already know the answer, for example like yourself, try to think, you are so smart and great, logically there must be other intelligence that created you and that is proof that god exist.

Which god?

The real God that science shows exists, and Whose nature is clearly explained in the Bible, and Who possibly shouldn't even be called "God," because He is unfathomably greater than anything we think of when we say "God."

In the Quran* He is the real god, not your silly bible god, be careful or you will go to hell for saying these things, please, do not disrespect the real god, allah.

[Astargath]

God definitely exists. You guys need to look into the real world guys this is not the real world this world is nothing compared to the real world in heaven. And yes there is a hell. The hell fire is 20x times worse than Volcano Lava Fire.

How do you know that, though?

The kind of complexity. If there were no human life and spirit complexity, even though there might be some complexity that approaches it, then we might be able to conclude that we needed something more than complexity. But because the complexity is of the mankind type, and is a complexity beyond mankind's ability to figure out, the beyond-mankind thing that made this complexity fits the definition of God.

Complexity forms naturally, like a seed into a plant, it doesn't need a god or anyone, complexity does not indicate creation, sorry.

[BADecker]

God definitely exists. You guys need to look into the real world guys this is not the real world this world is nothing compared to the real world in heaven. And yes there is a hell. The hell fire is 20x times worse than Volcano Lava Fire.

How do you know that, though?

The kind of complexity. If there were no human life and spirit complexity, even though there might be some complexity that approaches it, then we might be able to conclude that we needed something more than complexity. But because the complexity is of the mankind type, and is a complexity beyond mankind's ability to figure out, the beyond-mankind thing that made this complexity fits the definition of God.

Complexity forms naturally, like a seed into a plant, it doesn't need a god or anyone, complexity does not indicate creation, sorry.

Do you find the complexity of a car or computer forming naturally, without some intelligent guidance?

[belphegory]

if you ask the scientific evidence about the existence of god then you already know the answer, for example like yourself, try to think, you are so smart and great, logically there must be other intelligence that created you and that is proof that god exist.

Which god?

The real God that science shows exists, and Whose nature is clearly explained in the Bible, and Who possibly shouldn't even be called "God," because He is unfathomably greater than anything we think of when we say "God."

In the Quran* He is the real god, not your silly bible god, be careful or you will go to hell for saying these things, please, do not disrespect the real god, allah.

ROFL 

[belphegory]

God definitely exists. You guys need to look into the real world guys this is not the real world this world is nothing compared to the real world in heaven. And yes there is a hell. The hell fire is 20x times worse than Volcano Lava Fire.

How do you know that, though?

The kind of complexity. If there were no human life and spirit complexity, even though there might be some complexity that approaches it, then we might be able to conclude that we needed something more than complexity. But because the complexity is of the mankind type, and is a complexity beyond mankind's ability to figure out, the beyond-mankind thing that made this complexity fits the definition of God.

Complexity forms naturally, like a seed into a plant, it doesn't need a god or anyone, complexity does not indicate creation, sorry.

Do you find the complexity of a car or computer forming naturally, without some intelligent guidance?

Wow...just wow.....its like they feed of each other?? Its super fun to watch.

[Astargath]

God definitely exists. You guys need to look into the real world guys this is not the real world this world is nothing compared to the real world in heaven. And yes there is a hell. The hell fire is 20x times worse than Volcano Lava Fire.

How do you know that, though?

The kind of complexity. If there were no human life and spirit complexity, even though there might be some complexity that approaches it, then we might be able to conclude that we needed something more than complexity. But because the complexity is of the mankind type, and is a complexity beyond mankind's ability to figure out, the beyond-mankind thing that made this complexity fits the definition of God.

Complexity forms naturally, like a seed into a plant, it doesn't need a god or anyone, complexity does not indicate creation, sorry.

Do you find the complexity of a car or computer forming naturally, without some intelligent guidance?

I know a car and a computer are man made, what do you mean?

[belphegory]

Hes talking about the complexity fallacy:

Fallacy 1: The World Needs God As Creator Fallacy
A traditional and still popular notion is that the world is so complex that it needed God to create it. Our origins fascinated even ancient societies and various myths described creation. Monotheists started from ancient times to claim God was necessary as the Creator. This has continued through Thomas Aquinas and William Paley even to Antony Flew who eventually converted to theism because he came to see a need for a creator God as designer of our world.

However the notion that a sophisticated world needs God as its Creator and designer is logically fallacious in two major ways.

Even the most famous design argument and analogy, that of William Paley (1743-1805) who wrote just as a sophisticated watch (unlike a rock) implies a watchmaker, a complex world implies a Creator who is God, has this fallacy. Suppose, as Paley did, that a watch implies a watchmaker, that watchmaker is not God and is not immortal. Likewise even supposing the world has a Creator, that Creator need be neither God nor even immortal. Furthermore, unlike in Paley’s day we are aware not just of evolutionary processes but also of robotic manufacture and artificial computer-like intelligences. Yes, there is a mystery concerning our ultimate genesis, but God is not needed as the solution.

The other fallacy is if one claims the world required a more sophisticated being, God, to create it, one is attempting to solve a problem by creating a yet greater problem. If we are in need of a creator God who is more powerful and greater than us to bring us into existence, that greater God being more wondrous than us would be even more in need than us of some Creator to create and explain it! Indeed as, unlike us, God would be immortally God, it could not develop nor evolve to its present glory over time but must be from the very beginning omnipotent and omniscient – an extraordinary phenomenon, far more inexplicable than even us. Far from solving or explaining the problem of our ultimate origin, the concept of God is actually massively enhancing the problem.

So the notion that God is needed to or even can satisfactorily explain existence as we see it is logically fallacious.

Source: http://www.godfallacies.com/

[Astargath]

Hes talking about the complexity fallacy:

Fallacy 1: The World Needs God As Creator Fallacy
A traditional and still popular notion is that the world is so complex that it needed God to create it. Our origins fascinated even ancient societies and various myths described creation. Monotheists started from ancient times to claim God was necessary as the Creator. This has continued through Thomas Aquinas and William Paley even to Antony Flew who eventually converted to theism because he came to see a need for a creator God as designer of our world.

However the notion that a sophisticated world needs God as its Creator and designer is logically fallacious in two major ways.

Even the most famous design argument and analogy, that of William Paley (1743-1805) who wrote just as a sophisticated watch (unlike a rock) implies a watchmaker, a complex world implies a Creator who is God, has this fallacy. Suppose, as Paley did, that a watch implies a watchmaker, that watchmaker is not God and is not immortal. Likewise even supposing the world has a Creator, that Creator need be neither God nor even immortal. Furthermore, unlike in Paley’s day we are aware not just of evolutionary processes but also of robotic manufacture and artificial computer-like intelligences. Yes, there is a mystery concerning our ultimate genesis, but God is not needed as the solution.

The other fallacy is if one claims the world required a more sophisticated being, God, to create it, one is attempting to solve a problem by creating a yet greater problem. If we are in need of a creator God who is more powerful and greater than us to bring us into existence, that greater God being more wondrous than us would be even more in need than us of some Creator to create and explain it! Indeed as, unlike us, God would be immortally God, it could not develop nor evolve to its present glory over time but must be from the very beginning omnipotent and omniscient – an extraordinary phenomenon, far more inexplicable than even us. Far from solving or explaining the problem of our ultimate origin, the concept of God is actually massively enhancing the problem.

So the notion that God is needed to or even can satisfactorily explain existence as we see it is logically fallacious.

Source: http://www.godfallacies.com/

Yeah, well, I debunked his fallacies a few hundred posts ago but he always comes back saying the same stupid shit, not much you can do to convince a nutjob but that's a nice website.

[cris ronaldo]

I propose a seminar.. or at least a wee room filled with those that keep this topic going, with interesting comments.. lets see for ourselves the evidence both for and against. I say this, because I have offered to prove the existance of a diety some would call god. After providing the evidence, no one will have any doubt that even god fears what I will show.. and hence the silence with regards to my 'correct' points of view, that many want 'hushed up'.. hence they naysayers.. quite smply, if the devil exists, so does god.. light is his body, but light of the fire, hence the devil, or the ball above our heads, fact is they are two seperate entities in accordance with distance, and scientific fact, one will suck us into the earth to a hell, or one will drag us through space to burn in an even bigger light.

Right or wrong?

Set it up!!! I'll be there..

[naldal barcelona]

God dont punish suicide, it is their negative thoughts that provoking them. 

[BADecker]

God definitely exists. You guys need to look into the real world guys this is not the real world this world is nothing compared to the real world in heaven. And yes there is a hell. The hell fire is 20x times worse than Volcano Lava Fire.

How do you know that, though?

The kind of complexity. If there were no human life and spirit complexity, even though there might be some complexity that approaches it, then we might be able to conclude that we needed something more than complexity. But because the complexity is of the mankind type, and is a complexity beyond mankind's ability to figure out, the beyond-mankind thing that made this complexity fits the definition of God.

Complexity forms naturally, like a seed into a plant, it doesn't need a god or anyone, complexity does not indicate creation, sorry.

Do you find the complexity of a car or computer forming naturally, without some intelligent guidance?

I know a car and a computer are man made, what do you mean?

Where's your proof?   

[BADecker]

Hes talking about the complexity fallacy:

Yeah, well, I debunked his fallacies a few hundred posts ago but he always comes back saying the same stupid shit, not much you can do to convince a nutjob but that's a nice website.

The interesting thing is that all you can do is say you did some debunking. I, on the other hand, am continually debunking your stuff over and over in ways that you can not answer with any logic whatsoever.

Answer my question in my previous post, above, if you can.

[Flying Hellfish]

Hes talking about the complexity fallacy:

Fallacy 1: The World Needs God As Creator Fallacy
A traditional and still popular notion is that the world is so complex that it needed God to create it. Our origins fascinated even ancient societies and various myths described creation. Monotheists started from ancient times to claim God was necessary as the Creator. This has continued through Thomas Aquinas and William Paley even to Antony Flew who eventually converted to theism because he came to see a need for a creator God as designer of our world.

However the notion that a sophisticated world needs God as its Creator and designer is logically fallacious in two major ways.

Even the most famous design argument and analogy, that of William Paley (1743-1805) who wrote just as a sophisticated watch (unlike a rock) implies a watchmaker, a complex world implies a Creator who is God, has this fallacy. Suppose, as Paley did, that a watch implies a watchmaker, that watchmaker is not God and is not immortal. Likewise even supposing the world has a Creator, that Creator need be neither God nor even immortal. Furthermore, unlike in Paley’s day we are aware not just of evolutionary processes but also of robotic manufacture and artificial computer-like intelligences. Yes, there is a mystery concerning our ultimate genesis, but God is not needed as the solution.

The other fallacy is if one claims the world required a more sophisticated being, God, to create it, one is attempting to solve a problem by creating a yet greater problem. If we are in need of a creator God who is more powerful and greater than us to bring us into existence, that greater God being more wondrous than us would be even more in need than us of some Creator to create and explain it! Indeed as, unlike us, God would be immortally God, it could not develop nor evolve to its present glory over time but must be from the very beginning omnipotent and omniscient – an extraordinary phenomenon, far more inexplicable than even us. Far from solving or explaining the problem of our ultimate origin, the concept of God is actually massively enhancing the problem.

So the notion that God is needed to or even can satisfactorily explain existence as we see it is logically fallacious.

Source: http://www.godfallacies.com/

Ask old BaDecker who created his god, the answer is nothing short of hilarious.  Ironically enough the specious reasoning used by BD to try and prove his god exists is the same specious reasoning the flat earthers use, BD can understand the specious reasoning used in the FE thread but his religious indoctrination doesn't allow him to see it when he uses it.

Whenever I see someone argue so vehemently using specious reasoning I immediately think of Homer Simpson!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw

[BADecker]

Hes talking about the complexity fallacy:

Fallacy 1: The World Needs God As Creator Fallacy
A traditional and still popular notion is that the world is so complex that it needed God to create it. Our origins fascinated even ancient societies and various myths described creation. Monotheists started from ancient times to claim God was necessary as the Creator. This has continued through Thomas Aquinas and William Paley even to Antony Flew who eventually converted to theism because he came to see a need for a creator God as designer of our world.

However the notion that a sophisticated world needs God as its Creator and designer is logically fallacious in two major ways.

Even the most famous design argument and analogy, that of William Paley (1743-1805) who wrote just as a sophisticated watch (unlike a rock) implies a watchmaker, a complex world implies a Creator who is God, has this fallacy. Suppose, as Paley did, that a watch implies a watchmaker, that watchmaker is not God and is not immortal. Likewise even supposing the world has a Creator, that Creator need be neither God nor even immortal. Furthermore, unlike in Paley’s day we are aware not just of evolutionary processes but also of robotic manufacture and artificial computer-like intelligences. Yes, there is a mystery concerning our ultimate genesis, but God is not needed as the solution.

The other fallacy is if one claims the world required a more sophisticated being, God, to create it, one is attempting to solve a problem by creating a yet greater problem. If we are in need of a creator God who is more powerful and greater than us to bring us into existence, that greater God being more wondrous than us would be even more in need than us of some Creator to create and explain it! Indeed as, unlike us, God would be immortally God, it could not develop nor evolve to its present glory over time but must be from the very beginning omnipotent and omniscient – an extraordinary phenomenon, far more inexplicable than even us. Far from solving or explaining the problem of our ultimate origin, the concept of God is actually massively enhancing the problem.

So the notion that God is needed to or even can satisfactorily explain existence as we see it is logically fallacious.

Source: http://www.godfallacies.com/

Ask old BaDecker who created his god, the answer is nothing short of hilarious.  Ironically enough the specious reasoning used by BD to try and prove his god exists is the same specious reasoning the flat earthers use, BD can understand the specious reasoning used in the FE thread but his religious indoctrination doesn't allow him to see it when he uses it.

Whenever I see someone argue so vehemently using specious reasoning I immediately think of Homer Simpson!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw

However, what caused you to think and post the words that you did? We can understand some of those causations. One of them was your parents getting together so that you could have life and do anything at all, even post. Another was all the food you ate so that you could grow up as a child. Another was your parents/guardians and teachers who taught you to speak and write the language. Some of your teachers and others helped to spark the interest in certain phenomena so that you would be interested in posting in this thread.

Those are just a few of the outside cause. The far greater causes, both in number and quantity, were how the energies in your life moved your DNA around to produce you as your own individual. They also made the way you think, along with the chemicals and electrons that bounce around in your brain and nervous system, all without you ever having anything to do with making them work the way they do, or even having the ability to regulate how they work.

Why can't you even regulate how they work? Because if you try, you have even been induced by them to try.

This all means that you are completely, 100 percent controlled by your environment, to think and act in every little way you do, without having the least input into anything that happens to you. All your desire and will to act is produced by chemicals and bioelectrics that move you in every which way.

Since you have no control whatsoever, and since even the feeling of control is something that is induced by cause and effect, and since the same C&E hasn't let you even begin to understand it until now, all of your freedom is artificial freedom, and this far in your life you have simply lacked any understanding of this, until I have pointed it out to you right here and now.

What will the C&E processes do further regarding this? I don't know. But you will show us. The C&E processes might cause you to vehemently spout off that you are free and have your own free will. They might cause you to simply badmouth me. They might have already moved you on towards some other Internet project and you might not be back here for days. But the odds seem to be that you won't easily understand how your life is controlled in every little tiny way by the things that caused you to be and act and think and feel the way you do.

You are completely an artificial entity, with artificial free will... but more than likely, not even an entity at all.

Whatever you do, and whatever anyone else does, it has all been set in place to happen the way it does through cause and effect, from some past time that we might call the beginning, by some Entity that is so extremely great, that the simplest and smallest part of Him is way beyond our understanding.

Have fun as you move along in your ignorance.

[Astargath]

God definitely exists. You guys need to look into the real world guys this is not the real world this world is nothing compared to the real world in heaven. And yes there is a hell. The hell fire is 20x times worse than Volcano Lava Fire.

How do you know that, though?

The kind of complexity. If there were no human life and spirit complexity, even though there might be some complexity that approaches it, then we might be able to conclude that we needed something more than complexity. But because the complexity is of the mankind type, and is a complexity beyond mankind's ability to figure out, the beyond-mankind thing that made this complexity fits the definition of God.

Complexity forms naturally, like a seed into a plant, it doesn't need a god or anyone, complexity does not indicate creation, sorry.

Do you find the complexity of a car or computer forming naturally, without some intelligent guidance?

I know a car and a computer are man made, what do you mean?

Where's your proof?   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roertNcQTHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc0X92fZF1Y

This is my proof, what are you trying to argue here, you seem desperate as fuck to be honest.

[renaroa]

There are no scientific proof that God exists but it doesn't men that we should be disrespectful on other people's business.

[BADecker]

God definitely exists. You guys need to look into the real world guys this is not the real world this world is nothing compared to the real world in heaven. And yes there is a hell. The hell fire is 20x times worse than Volcano Lava Fire.

How do you know that, though?

The kind of complexity. If there were no human life and spirit complexity, even though there might be some complexity that approaches it, then we might be able to conclude that we needed something more than complexity. But because the complexity is of the mankind type, and is a complexity beyond mankind's ability to figure out, the beyond-mankind thing that made this complexity fits the definition of God.

Complexity forms naturally, like a seed into a plant, it doesn't need a god or anyone, complexity does not indicate creation, sorry.

Do you find the complexity of a car or computer forming naturally, without some intelligent guidance?

I know a car and a computer are man made, what do you mean?

Where's your proof?    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roertNcQTHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc0X92fZF1Y

This is my proof, what are you trying to argue here, you seem desperate as fuck to be honest.

Now you are dumping down denser than notbatman. At least notbatman manages to explain what is in the videos and how it applies. But you don't even know what is in the videos that you suggest... at least not enough to explain it.

[Jpti]

Do you know where the world ends?
Do you know how it all works? Entropy? Big Bang?
There's god.
Though it (the god) might not know we exist.

[BADecker]

There are no scientific proof that God exists but it doesn't men that we should be disrespectful on other people's business.

Prove that there is no scientific proof that God exists. After all, there have been lots of scientists at lots of times in the past who didn't think that there was proof for something, and then someone showed them that there was. For example, scientists back in the late 1800s said that everything regarding science that could be found had already been found. Wouldn't you agree that over 100 years later we have found a whole lot more?

Proof for the existence of god:
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.