Scientific proof that God exists?

[lenbala]

The scientific proof of God does not make sense. Religion is not a science.

[1714791120]

1714791120

[1714791120]

1714791120

[BADecker]

There you go, doing the exact thing that you claim I am doing.

Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, if nothing else. That isn't me. It is standard science.

Entropy is standard science and is visible everywhere.

Complexity is standard science and is visible everywhere.

I can't help it you are too biased against science to understand that these 3 things could not exist in a universe without God.

Now, don't misunderstand. The God of the universe is not being described by science very much. Perhaps even the word "God" is an improper word to use. If you feel that way, use other terms, like "Almighty, Divine Intelligence." or "The great First Cause," or "The Father of All," or any other words that describe God more accurately. But don't go on ignoring standard science which is all around you.

''these 3 things could not exist in a universe without God.'' You are saying those 3 things exist and they do but you are not proving how they all together prove god. How do you know they can't exist without a god?

They prove God in the way they exist, scientifically.

You can't have cause and effect, with complexity as it is, without a beginning as shown by entropy, all without God. The science of these three things prove it.

[Astargath]

There you go, doing the exact thing that you claim I am doing.

Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, if nothing else. That isn't me. It is standard science.

Entropy is standard science and is visible everywhere.

Complexity is standard science and is visible everywhere.

I can't help it you are too biased against science to understand that these 3 things could not exist in a universe without God.

Now, don't misunderstand. The God of the universe is not being described by science very much. Perhaps even the word "God" is an improper word to use. If you feel that way, use other terms, like "Almighty, Divine Intelligence." or "The great First Cause," or "The Father of All," or any other words that describe God more accurately. But don't go on ignoring standard science which is all around you.

''these 3 things could not exist in a universe without God.'' You are saying those 3 things exist and they do but you are not proving how they all together prove god. How do you know they can't exist without a god?

They prove God in the way they exist, scientifically.

You can't have cause and effect, with complexity as it is, without a beginning as shown by entropy, all without God. The science of these three things prove it.

No, ''The science of these three things prove it.'' The science of those things prove they exist, science has never said those 3 things combined prove god.

''all without God'' How do you know, what's the evidence?

[drmilind2004]

There is no scientific proof that 'God' exists outside the human imagination. On the other hand, all of scientific asessment to date has shown a total absence, and lack of need for, any concept of divinity or deity.

Where the developed West went yesterday, there China goes today, on a journey toward atheism. Tomorrow, India, LatAm, Africa, and the entire Middle East too will undertake that journey.  It seems impossible for us to contemplate this as a fact of the future, but that's the trendline of human civilisation, and it approaches scientific atheism.

[BADecker]

^^^ Think about empty space. How do we know that empty space exists? We know it by measuring relationships between "things" that exist within the massiveness that we call empty space. Yet, we don't have a real handle on what empty space is. Some of the theories of mathematical physicists might suggest what it is - Einstein theorizes that gravity is a warping of empty space - but we don't really know what the stuff of empty space is.

In a broadly similar way, combining cause and effect, along with entropy, along with complexity - all as they exist in this universe - can only be done by a Being that would match the definition of our word "God." It has to be a Being rather than some inanimate forces, because evidence around us shows that the intelligence of mankind can only be brought into existence by Something that is way more intelligent.

Empty space is something we can't easily get a handle on, but we know it exists. Same with God, just by looking at the universe.

[BADecker]

They prove God in the way they exist, scientifically.

You can't have cause and effect, with complexity as it is, without a beginning as shown by entropy, all without God. The science of these three things prove it.

No, ''The science of these three things prove it.'' The science of those things prove they exist, science has never said those 3 things combined prove god.

''all without God'' How do you know, what's the evidence?

The evidence is entropy and complexity. The science of these 3 things proves it evidently. No complexity in the magnitude within the universe without intelligence. Entropy shows that ultimately, there is always less complexity. Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists.

[BADecker]

The scientific proof of God does not make sense. Religion is not a science.

Science is too thorough in its detail. That is a weak point for science. Why? Because things are so extremely complex, that by the time science is able to find out what things are really about, entropy will have dissolved so much of complexity that it won't matter. Religion gives us the high points so we can make sense of the universe without the detail that we will never have anyway. Besides, if science had the detail, it would show us religion and God anyway.

[canadinhano]

I only see these things in movies, in real life I have not seen anything to prove that god exists.

[Astargath]

They prove God in the way they exist, scientifically.

You can't have cause and effect, with complexity as it is, without a beginning as shown by entropy, all without God. The science of these three things prove it.

No, ''The science of these three things prove it.'' The science of those things prove they exist, science has never said those 3 things combined prove god.

''all without God'' How do you know, what's the evidence?

The evidence is entropy and complexity. The science of these 3 things proves it evidently. No complexity in the magnitude within the universe without intelligence. Entropy shows that ultimately, there is always less complexity. Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists.

What's the evidence that complexity requires intelligent design? ''Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists.'' Even if that was the case, it doesn't mean it's an omnipotent all knowing god, something more intelligent than what btw?

[BADecker]

If he had scientific proof then why did the author not write a scientific paper? He could have subjected his theory to the same peer review that has led to other scientific breakthroughs. Instead he published it in his blog. Why? Because you must be scientifically illiterate to not see the problems with these counter-theories. Not that life is well understood. There are still some huge questions like, "where did life come from"?
Today all modern biology is based on the theory of evolution. That includes modern medicine, our understanding of DNA, etc. It has been over 150 years since Darwin's theory. In that time there has not been any finding that contradicts it. You will find that the answers to your examples are known and understood to not contradict evolution.  

Why write a scientific paper for something that is as scientifically evident as the machine qualities of the universe, and the fact that machines have makers? Nobody needs a scientific paper to see for himself that God exists. All he has to do is look at nature.

[Yonji]

Your brain. Try look forward. How can your brain is not like buffalo's brain? Even though both have brain. Because god  filled our brain with mind. Mind is in our brain but not on other living things

[BADecker]

The evidence is entropy and complexity. The science of these 3 things proves it evidently. No complexity in the magnitude within the universe without intelligence. Entropy shows that ultimately, there is always less complexity. Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists.

What's the evidence that complexity requires intelligent design? ''Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists.'' Even if that was the case, it doesn't mean it's an omnipotent all knowing god, something more intelligent than what btw?

The evidence is the examples in nature, especially those of human beings. If there was any great amount of evidence opposing these examples, there might be cause to think that complexity could arise on its own. But there isn't.

In other words, when we examine and correlate the intelligence behind the great numbers machines of intelligent man, plus the few simple machines of a few slightly intelligent animals, we see that intelligence makes machines, right? And the greater the intelligence, the greater the machines, right?

Which of the structures of any of the natural things on earth is not made up of machines? None of it. Even the complexities of subatomic particles reacting with each other is leverages upon leverages reacting with other leverages, both in material ways and in energy ways. This is what machines are! All, 100% of nature, is machines upon machines combined in a gigantic machine universe. And all, 100%, of our machines uses the examples of machinery found in nature, and the machines of nature themselves, one way or another in their design and operation.

Machines have makers. So, why would anyone think that the great machinery of nature, which has tremendously intelligent design to it, not have an Intelligent Designer behind it? We have no example of any intelligently designed "thing" that doesn't have an intelligent designer behind it. The closest we can come is to say that we don't know who the designer is.

[Astargath]

The evidence is entropy and complexity. The science of these 3 things proves it evidently. No complexity in the magnitude within the universe without intelligence. Entropy shows that ultimately, there is always less complexity. Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists.

What's the evidence that complexity requires intelligent design? ''Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists.'' Even if that was the case, it doesn't mean it's an omnipotent all knowing god, something more intelligent than what btw?

The evidence is the examples in nature, especially those of human beings. If there was any great amount of evidence opposing these examples, there might be cause to think that complexity could arise on its own. But there isn't.

In other words, when we examine and correlate the intelligence behind the great numbers machines of intelligent man, plus the few simple machines of a few slightly intelligent animals, we see that intelligence makes machines, right? And the greater the intelligence, the greater the machines, right?

Which of the structures of any of the natural things on earth is not made up of machines? None of it. Even the complexities of subatomic particles reacting with each other is leverages upon leverages reacting with other leverages, both in material ways and in energy ways. This is what machines are! All, 100% of nature, is machines upon machines combined in a gigantic machine universe. And all, 100%, of our machines uses the examples of machinery found in nature, and the machines of nature themselves, one way or another in their design and operation.

Machines have makers. So, why would anyone think that the great machinery of nature, which has tremendously intelligent design to it, not have an Intelligent Designer behind it? We have no example of any intelligently designed "thing" that doesn't have an intelligent designer behind it. The closest we can come is to say that we don't know who the designer is.

''we see that intelligence makes machines, right? And the greater the intelligence, the greater the machines, right?'' No we don't. If we examine nature we can see, plants for example, they grow and become complex but we don't see any intelligent being making them, same thing with a lot of natural occurrences like a mountain forming or a thunder.

[swordartisan]

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

The fact that science is existent means there was someone who created science and logic and everything. Everything originated from something and someone. And that is God. Science is the very proof of God's existence.

[trolltalk]

Science can prove that God is exist and the human being is one of the proof, why human is smarter than animals cause God create us same like him he loves humanity cause he treated us as his childrens.

[JennyatKW]

This is the manipulation to leave the number of believers that is constantly decreasing

[BADecker]

The evidence is the examples in nature, especially those of human beings. If there was any great amount of evidence opposing these examples, there might be cause to think that complexity could arise on its own. But there isn't.

In other words, when we examine and correlate the intelligence behind the great numbers machines of intelligent man, plus the few simple machines of a few slightly intelligent animals, we see that intelligence makes machines, right? And the greater the intelligence, the greater the machines, right?

Which of the structures of any of the natural things on earth is not made up of machines? None of it. Even the complexities of subatomic particles reacting with each other is leverages upon leverages reacting with other leverages, both in material ways and in energy ways. This is what machines are! All, 100% of nature, is machines upon machines combined in a gigantic machine universe. And all, 100%, of our machines uses the examples of machinery found in nature, and the machines of nature themselves, one way or another in their design and operation.

Machines have makers. So, why would anyone think that the great machinery of nature, which has tremendously intelligent design to it, not have an Intelligent Designer behind it? We have no example of any intelligently designed "thing" that doesn't have an intelligent designer behind it. The closest we can come is to say that we don't know who the designer is.

''we see that intelligence makes machines, right? And the greater the intelligence, the greater the machines, right?'' No we don't. If we examine nature we can see, plants for example, they grow and become complex but we don't see any intelligent being making them, same thing with a lot of natural occurrences like a mountain forming or a thunder.

Okay. You have figured out that cars and computers and nuclear power plants and ships and all the rest of the machines of mankind have come into being without intelligence, right? LOL! And mankind didn't use the machines of nature that are greater than theirs to figure all their stuff out, right? LOL! And mankind hasn't made all their machines out of the machines of natural subatomic particles in the least, right?

Nobody living saw the makers of many of the ancient machines of ancient countries like Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Consider the Antikythera mechanism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism. Nobody knows who could have designed such a mechanism, to say nothing about knowing who did it. Are you trying to tell us that it simply grew under water on a sunken galleon? Yet it is made out of the machines of nature in the materials it is made out of. The bronze and wood out of which the mechanism is made are parts of the natural machinery.

Our examples of machinery that we know about show intelligence behind them. Machines, even the machines of nature that we use to make our machines, have makers. We see nothing else. Machines have makers.

Would a trillion man-made machines be enough? Would a trillion trillion? There is a point where the odds in a direction overcome the possibility of something in the opposite direction.

We don't know by direct observation where the machines of nature come from. But there is tremendous intelligence in the way it all works. Since we see multitudes of man-made, and even animal made machines that show intelligence, and nothing that we know of that shows the opposite (like a car appearing out in the desert out of thin air), there is an Intelligent Designer behind the design of the whole universe. No other way.

[ansarose1]

example of scientific proof that god exist is that there are many unnamed species and fish that has not yet been discovered yet religion told us.

[Bruce | Atomine Support]

It's hard to live in ignorance. But it's even harder to live a lie. 

[Idaujotaite]

I think it’s a lot of misinformation and I personally don’t believe it