Scientific proof that God exists?

[Nonbaca]

in my opinion this is not entirely correct

[Ikpirijor7]

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.[1] But I encourage you to read up on what Natural Selection is all about and see that it will NOT lead to evolution. Check out the examples that are given, and see for yourself what a fanciful argument this is for evolution of molecules to man. Actually you can't even start with molecules because Natural Selection ONLY works on a species once it can reproduce.

What they actually mean by "natural selection" is what we believers in God totally accept and we call it adaption to the environment. It’s a wonderful God-given quality in Nature that creatures have that allows them to better survive. But it is never a process that will give you a new species.
you can read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2013/05/35-natural-selection.html

[KingScorpio]

look volks the universe has indeed some form of inteligent imperative i can also proof that if you would at least listen.

[Astargath]

''you could point out a flaw in scientific fashion.'' Easy, as I said your ''proof'' is not scientific because it cannot be tested or falsified. Unless you can tell me what experiment I can perform that would confirm your assumptions that entropy+complexity+c&e = god. Is there such an experiment? Can you test or falsify god? If not, it's not a scientific proof.

My proof is used every day in millions of circumstances. The only thing people don't do is consider such usage a test... at least not very often, percentage-wise.

For example. You get into your car, start the engine, and drive away. Cause and effect works throughout the whole operation; as the fuel burns, a simple form of entropy is taking place; and the whole car is complex enough that you would have an impossible task on your hands, if you ever tried to build one just like it, all by yourself, from scratch.

But if you wanted to test, you could doubt that the car would work this time, and anxiously await the proof that it did work, as you turned the key.

As has been pointed out, the fact that these three are in the same universe, and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three (if it could even exist at all), proves God by the continual operation of all three in the same universe.

The proof that it is God and not complex happenstance, is the intelligent design in everything. We are the example of what it takes to have intelligent design. The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching, is the proof that the designer is greater than we, so that He matches our definition of the word "God."

Thank you for helping to prove God exists.

Ye ye, it's not cause and effect or entropy what you have to prove, it's that the 3 of them combined = god. Each one of them exists but the assumption that all of them combined lead to god is not proven, it's just assumed by you. ''and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three'' The universe would be different without many things, that's not proof.

'' is the intelligent design in everything'' Then you have to prove that everything is intelligently designed, human bodies have a lot of flaws http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body
These flaws certainly do not indicate ''intelligent design''.

''The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching'' the processor in the computer you used to write this, likely contains billions of transistors. It's so complex no single individual can possibly understand it as a whole, but humans made it. Not to mention the fact that an even more complex being would be needed for god to exist and so on to infinity.

[RenatoVillarinJr]

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

[belphegory]

SBB strikes again! Thanks for the laugh bud, appreciate it.

"You can't refute my scientific proof with your scientific proof so therefore god exists" Rofl!

Its amazing the twists and turns and double backs and hairpin turns you guys have to justify your nonsense fairytales.

And exactly what Asgarth said in his post before mine is what I have been saying all along.

I've had a good chuckle at your responses SBB....you have been so overwhelmed and shot down more times than I can count in this thread alone, never mind the Health and Religion thread. Yet you continue to hang in there grimly, like your "dog" hanging onto its last meager bone. Got to give you props for sticking it out.

[Antonina]

If the Bible, the Koran, and other scriptures are not that God. If there is no God, there is no way. Our civilization is still very young, and much more we can not explain.

[Rieri]

i haven't read all thread, but i have an easy question: why a perfect entity had the urge to create men?

honestly i have a bunch of simple questions since my childhood that never got a satisfing answers; maybe someone here could shake my opinions ...

[sirazimuth]

You can't seem to talk science. Even your links are religious. You are in the wrong thread.

dude, quite frankly, I think you maybe are in the wrong thread.
Why don't you go spout your "scientific proof for god's existence blah blah blah"  ..,."cause, effect blah blah blah" crap you've been repeating obsessively in here
for past 4 years, in a real science forum thread where your audience might be a tad more educated on the subject.
After all, you got your links there all ready, (that you've posted like ten million times in here.)
You never know, you might get educated. (I'm not holding my breath tho...)
Me thinks you won't because you know you'd have your ass handed to you. (if not laughed at as just another know it all bible godswill nutjob)

That was very unscientific of you. Just like Astargath, you talk against science, but you don't have any science that can refute my science. Come on. Astargath, at least, would say that he has rebutted my science... even though he can't explain his rebuttal. All you do is blab nonsense.

You are about as unscientific as they come. If you became organized in your blabbing, you would have the start of a religion. Try it. They say there is money to be made in religion.

 I'm talking against science by suggesting you go to real science forum and spout your godswill?? unscientific of me? wtf are you on about dude?
you did not address any of my points, just your usual nonsense ...no surprise, it's why I don't bother reading your obsessive silly thread here anymore
except for the occasional troll and belly laugh....

[BADecker]

You can't seem to talk science. Even your links are religious. You are in the wrong thread.

dude, quite frankly, I think you maybe are in the wrong thread.
Why don't you go spout your "scientific proof for god's existence blah blah blah"  ..,."cause, effect blah blah blah" crap you've been repeating obsessively in here
for past 4 years, in a real science forum thread where your audience might be a tad more educated on the subject.
After all, you got your links there all ready, (that you've posted like ten million times in here.)
You never know, you might get educated. (I'm not holding my breath tho...)
Me thinks you won't because you know you'd have your ass handed to you. (if not laughed at as just another know it all bible godswill nutjob)

That was very unscientific of you. Just like Astargath, you talk against science, but you don't have any science that can refute my science. Come on. Astargath, at least, would say that he has rebutted my science... even though he can't explain his rebuttal. All you do is blab nonsense.

You are about as unscientific as they come. If you became organized in your blabbing, you would have the start of a religion. Try it. They say there is money to be made in religion.

 I'm talking against science by suggesting you go to real science forum and spout your godswill?? unscientific of me? wtf are you on about dude?
you did not address any of my points, just your usual nonsense ...no surprise, it's why I don't bother reading your obsessive silly thread here anymore
except for the occasional troll and belly laugh....

You didn't show any scientific points for me to address. And you were off topic with your bad mouthing of me, just like you are doing again. We can throw stones all day long. We can call each other names, and say the other person is stupid all day long. What for? Let's get down to the nitty gritty of it and show the science. After all, this is a science thread.

I have been showing science that is not some "eccentric" science. What I have been showing science that is understood all over the world, and is found in massive quantities all over the world. Okay, you don't like it. But bad mouthing me because you don't like some science fact only shows how ignorant you are. Dispute the points, themselves, if you think they are wrong:
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.
Dispute them with science that contradicts them. At least Astargath tries to do this some of the time.

[BADecker]

SBB strikes again! Thanks for the laugh bud, appreciate it.

"You can't refute my scientific proof with your scientific proof so therefore god exists" Rofl!

Its amazing the twists and turns and double backs and hairpin turns you guys have to justify your nonsense fairytales.

And exactly what Asgarth said in his post before mine is what I have been saying all along.

I've had a good chuckle at your responses SBB....you have been so overwhelmed and shot down more times than I can count in this thread alone, never mind the Health and Religion thread. Yet you continue to hang in there grimly, like your "dog" hanging onto its last meager bone. Got to give you props for sticking it out.

You are correct in saying that if you can't refute science with science, the science stands.

The science I am talking about is not some eccentric, off-the-wall science that nobody understands. It is science that is in common use by both, all the scientists around the world, and everyone else, as well.

You don't have to like science. There is nobody requiring that you like science. But badmouthing me just because you can't find a scientific method to rebut the basic science of the world that I have shown, shows the bad faith in your heart, and the troll that you are.

I expect you don't even realize that you are a troll when you talk science down like this. So, refute the science with science. Here it is again so that you can begin:
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.

[BADecker]

''you could point out a flaw in scientific fashion.'' Easy, as I said your ''proof'' is not scientific because it cannot be tested or falsified. Unless you can tell me what experiment I can perform that would confirm your assumptions that entropy+complexity+c&e = god. Is there such an experiment? Can you test or falsify god? If not, it's not a scientific proof.

My proof is used every day in millions of circumstances. The only thing people don't do is consider such usage a test... at least not very often, percentage-wise.

For example. You get into your car, start the engine, and drive away. Cause and effect works throughout the whole operation; as the fuel burns, a simple form of entropy is taking place; and the whole car is complex enough that you would have an impossible task on your hands, if you ever tried to build one just like it, all by yourself, from scratch.

But if you wanted to test, you could doubt that the car would work this time, and anxiously await the proof that it did work, as you turned the key.

As has been pointed out, the fact that these three are in the same universe, and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three (if it could even exist at all), proves God by the continual operation of all three in the same universe.

The proof that it is God and not complex happenstance, is the intelligent design in everything. We are the example of what it takes to have intelligent design. The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching, is the proof that the designer is greater than we, so that He matches our definition of the word "God."

Thank you for helping to prove God exists.

Ye ye, it's not cause and effect or entropy what you have to prove, it's that the 3 of them combined = god. Each one of them exists but the assumption that all of them combined lead to god is not proven, it's just assumed by you. ''and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three'' The universe would be different without many things, that's not proof.

'' is the intelligent design in everything'' Then you have to prove that everything is intelligently designed, human bodies have a lot of flaws http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body
These flaws certainly do not indicate ''intelligent design''.

''The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching'' the processor in the computer you used to write this, likely contains billions of transistors. It's so complex no single individual can possibly understand it as a whole, but humans made it. Not to mention the fact that an even more complex being would be needed for god to exist and so on to infinity.

The thing that shouts "God" in these 3, is complexity. Man designs things using complexity. The fact that man is even greater complexity, and that man is able to reason, shows that the designer of man understands that kind of complexity thoroughly. That is what God is all about... a greater than man, man-like (in some ways) Being. Certainly the clarity of what God is all about does not exist. But throwing out the fact of His existence just because we don't understand all about Him, is totally against science.

[tabachnyidym]

There cant be a scientific proof that God exists or not since we are inside the ecosystem and we cant check what is beyond it. There might be a Jesus Christ, there might be Homer Simpson, might be noone and the universe created itself from nothing.

[pame_gera]

Proof or not god existence is purely a matter of belief.

My question is how life and space were made?

It is made by big bang ,it is a phenomena of nature laws some would say and who made nature please ?

[Astargath]

''you could point out a flaw in scientific fashion.'' Easy, as I said your ''proof'' is not scientific because it cannot be tested or falsified. Unless you can tell me what experiment I can perform that would confirm your assumptions that entropy+complexity+c&e = god. Is there such an experiment? Can you test or falsify god? If not, it's not a scientific proof.

My proof is used every day in millions of circumstances. The only thing people don't do is consider such usage a test... at least not very often, percentage-wise.

For example. You get into your car, start the engine, and drive away. Cause and effect works throughout the whole operation; as the fuel burns, a simple form of entropy is taking place; and the whole car is complex enough that you would have an impossible task on your hands, if you ever tried to build one just like it, all by yourself, from scratch.

But if you wanted to test, you could doubt that the car would work this time, and anxiously await the proof that it did work, as you turned the key.

As has been pointed out, the fact that these three are in the same universe, and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three (if it could even exist at all), proves God by the continual operation of all three in the same universe.

The proof that it is God and not complex happenstance, is the intelligent design in everything. We are the example of what it takes to have intelligent design. The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching, is the proof that the designer is greater than we, so that He matches our definition of the word "God."

Thank you for helping to prove God exists.

Ye ye, it's not cause and effect or entropy what you have to prove, it's that the 3 of them combined = god. Each one of them exists but the assumption that all of them combined lead to god is not proven, it's just assumed by you. ''and that the universe would be a totally different thing without these three'' The universe would be different without many things, that's not proof.

'' is the intelligent design in everything'' Then you have to prove that everything is intelligently designed, human bodies have a lot of flaws http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body
These flaws certainly do not indicate ''intelligent design''.

''The fact of universal intelligent design that we can't come close to matching'' the processor in the computer you used to write this, likely contains billions of transistors. It's so complex no single individual can possibly understand it as a whole, but humans made it. Not to mention the fact that an even more complex being would be needed for god to exist and so on to infinity.

The thing that shouts "God" in these 3, is complexity. Man designs things using complexity. The fact that man is even greater complexity, and that man is able to reason, shows that the designer of man understands that kind of complexity thoroughly. That is what God is all about... a greater than man, man-like (in some ways) Being. Certainly the clarity of what God is all about does not exist. But throwing out the fact of His existence just because we don't understand all about Him, is totally against science.

''Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways'' No, badecker, humans don't use ''complexity'' to design things, they use science. You might have another definition for complexity, though, feel free to state it.

''The fact that man is even greater complexity'' Man is greater complexity? Greater than what, what does this phrase even mean? There is nothing that indicates that you need to be more complex than the object you are making. If that was the case then god would need to be created by an even more complex being.

[BADecker]

I do not need proofs that god exists.

If i got proofs i would not need the faith then . Faith is more important not for god only but for anything

If a friend told you that there was this one rock in India, a rock that was a beautiful, towering rock, you might believe him. But if he showed you places on the Internet where other people talked about the rock, you would believe him more. If he showed you pictures that he had taken of the rock on his last visit to India, you would believe him even more strongly.

We will always need/have some faith without evidence. But we need evidence to keep some of our faith strong.

[Monyero]

Anyone is unlikely to prove the existence of a god. But almost everyone believes that God exists, because sometimes we have to believe that something invisible really exists. For example, water is invisible and not formed, but it really exists. also god is invisible and shapeless but really there. and I believe it.

[Astargath]

Anyone is unlikely to prove the existence of a god. But almost everyone believes that God exists, because sometimes we have to believe that something invisible really exists. For example, water is invisible and not formed, but it really exists. also god is invisible and shapeless but really there. and I believe it.

Water is not invisible, you can also touch water and you can do thousands of experiments with it, your argument is garbage.

[Ellis_Daniel]

There are quite a few videos that are back in the camera image of God, but scientists do not accept those images, and I do not believe in gods.

[belphegory]

SBB strikes again! Thanks for the laugh bud, appreciate it.

"You can't refute my scientific proof with your scientific proof so therefore god exists" Rofl!

Its amazing the twists and turns and double backs and hairpin turns you guys have to justify your nonsense fairytales.

And exactly what Asgarth said in his post before mine is what I have been saying all along.

I've had a good chuckle at your responses SBB....you have been so overwhelmed and shot down more times than I can count in this thread alone, never mind the Health and Religion thread. Yet you continue to hang in there grimly, like your "dog" hanging onto its last meager bone. Got to give you props for sticking it out.

You are correct in saying that if you can't refute science with science, the science stands.

The science I am talking about is not some eccentric, off-the-wall science that nobody understands. It is science that is in common use by both, all the scientists around the world, and everyone else, as well.

You don't have to like science. There is nobody requiring that you like science. But badmouthing me just because you can't find a scientific method to rebut the basic science of the world that I have shown, shows the bad faith in your heart, and the troll that you are.

I expect you don't even realize that you are a troll when you talk science down like this. So, refute the science with science. Here it is again so that you can begin:
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.

SBB, Im bad mouthing you cos you are just too easy.  Anything and everything you say is meant to prove that you are supposedly of such high intellect that only you can understand the science needed to prove your ridiculous god.

And so I stand by my previous statement: You are assuming things based on your beliefs and views. Your basic science is collective and coloured with YOUR opinion. I'm not badmouthing science, I love science. I refuse to refute your so called science purely because your putting your beliefs in certain scientific fields that YOU believe means god. Do you understand SBB? I have always been talking about the root cause of WHY and HOW you put your faith in your so called science-which-explains-god....not the actual science.

People could believe that the square root of the angle of the sun divided by the length of a bird's wings could mean god.....any of these things individually exists. Put them together and to THEM it means god. As does your collection of so called science mean god to YOU. None of these proves the scientific existence of god.

See SBB? Probably not....your prolly gonna come back with some witty comment about not talking science in a science thread when your JUST TOO DENSE to understand what I'm actually saying. Sorry I'm talking over your head, its that pesky cognitive dissonance again.