Scientific proof that God exists?

[Pachacouti]

Shall we try a different approach?

Let's see what many different Astrological Star-sign software, both Lunar and Solar, Say about YOU. (to no one in particular)

Know thyself. So use only YOUR details in every astro app you can find.

Now use mine.

Do you seriously think I'd write so much about this son of god, or whatever diety is to return, if I did not think it relevant?

It seems that if we were EVER to stand a chance of scientific proof, it would be to find the names, dates, and places of possible returns of said saviour(s) so that we can obtain said scientific evidence, so my approach is 1000% valid, especially when my numbers are the only numbers belonging to any human alive today, who MAY in fact be, what you are still looking for.

You don't like my numerical FACTS, or scientific proof,  because it turns out to be ME. And I AM.. ALIVE.

If I hit you over the head hard enough will it fix your pineal perspective?

If you ask me, you can only deny my truth because it's beyond your comprehension.

You dont have to live with it. And couldn't possibly imagine it.

If you could you'd have understood, that there are those who know EXACTLY what I've written, and those in denial, are those who never made it past the third degree of freemasonry.


I have proven in this thread that it is EITHER Jesus, or Lucifer who is to RETURN

In all church's, the angel at 11 oclock is the aquarian monkey born in the 11'th moon, and hence it's position in the picture.

I contend that the MONKEY KING is EITHER jesus, or lucifer, according to all the literature I've read. 3 diety's, all due to return at same time.

Hmmm...

To obtain scientific proof, find them. They are alive now, all three. According to masonic and religious literature, at least...

I cant go any further here... getting sick of fools trying to bring me down to their biblical level.

Remember: The jews are blowing up palestine cause they believe their diety will return. (There...)

Keeps the armies from the original Isle-of-Ra, the Lord's ISLAND (Is(le)-(of)Ra-(EL, The LORD), aka, the un-united kingdom.

Without ancient txt's, your book is nothing.

The Giants in those days lived on the ISLE of Ra, the Lord. They had One eye. (Actual Cyclops!) Their land is the (meteor) that landed on the land of the chalk people, (england) giving it a red head, the red rock of Scotland. As befit's the red haired born there since.. The cyclops were from Tiamat, and when it was destroyed, it wasn't just lava that fell from heaven to earth, but big bits, big enough to live on, chunk's of planet, with giant's, who fell to earth. Through time, they shed their physical form. Cyclops ARE the EYE, from the planet Tiamat, aka Lucifer. This is what is meant in the Emerald Tablet's, 'only to be replaced by the spawn of a lower star...' - The giant could not FIT in the womb until EVE was created. The Giant was not of earth. Before it died, it had a rib detached to create a smaller female body to house the next best thing for a GIANT Spirit, housed in the spawn of a lower star, a smaller male body..

Tiamat is the Original VENUS which was torn apart, 7.000 years ago, before this, star charts show pluto as a moon of Jupiter.

Todays venus..? Is NOT the original

Ps, God is NOT religious. Nor religion.

The Sequoia Tree's alive today saw Venus Destroyed!

And the most interesting fact of all!

The ancient txts describe Tartarus (Planet of the Titans, and Thanos of kids hero movies, Actual Name Thantanos), as being

..as far from Pluto, as Pluto is from the Sun.

Who remembers wondering how the hell they will fit into that tiny wee space only to have it invert and surround you?

Remember the Giant who had to fall to earth just to enter an egg and thus be reborn into yet another dimension external to that which he shall return?

So many people in that tiny pineal world - and so many Giants! It's so hard to believe there's ultimately only one of them.

And thus I cannot deny the possibility that the earth monkey in me, is the monkey king, can I?

And neither can you.

[BADecker]

What does any of your mumbo-jumbo ranting have to do with scientific proof for God?

Well, you say Jesus is the son of Yahweh. I have proven Yahweh is 7th from the throne of almighty GOD, and thus, not GOD, though I admit, that does NOT make him NOT jesus's FATHER.

Finding a scientific proof of the existence of a god is impossible. I would be much more interested in seeing each of you prove (scientifically) that the other's religion is a hoax.

Only because science has turned into a religion that is trying to disprove God.

[Pachacouti]

No. Science is a tool, not an ability, although it can be.

In the end, piece by piece, day by day, year in year out, the science has amounted to one thing that CAN in fact be proven.

I exist.

Badecker say's this Jesus Christ of his is due to return. I offer the Possibility that, according to all the books from a multitude of culture's, all saying the same thing, all pointing to my name, d.o.b, star sign, astological sign, you name it, I fit.

The Gematria of my name is 925, = Jesus Christ.
The Gematria of my D.o.b = 0, signature of God.

Born on 08.02.1969 @ 17:37pm, a night of the 11th waning moon.

Making me an EARTH monkey, born in the day's of tomorrow, known as the Age of Aquarius, making me Aquarian.

Most have already claimed this second coming has not happened.

Reborn in 2012, initiation started 6th jan 2015.

It was like this. Bro N.S.S asks of my dreams. I mention the one with fire falling from the sky, and the planet blowing up, and N.W. say's she had same dream, he look's to her, back to me, and ask's, so you've never been initiated, I say's no, to which he ask's 'what do you want?'

 - I knew he couldn't provide cause I already knew we live the same life over and over, it was his reply that played out a mental image of a video filing cabinet having all the missing video's of my life that I missed, as they fell into place... with the realisation I remember what you all forgot.

Most deny it has happened.

Then there's the secret Reiki Rebirth... you know, the one where a secret master wakes you up, your view in the water of a stone just begging for you to grab it, of course, if you do, expect to drown, expect the same route as the void, black hole, whatever you call the falling force in your dreams...

Most, don't have a clue.

Imagine, you look to see if you can find this elusive person who is supposed to return, having previously gone back before, in order to return, in order for those prophets of those days, to predict the event in the first place. That very event written of in the druid books, in the bileble, hey, and it is known that this age is in FACT the age of Aquarius, CALLED Lucifer, correct?

So the Jesus/Lucifer is actually the good giving way to what the bileble claims is evil.

So names a telescope after... lucifer... does the church... not Jesus..?

And then along comes the new human. Antagonist to the dark brothers, according to the emerald tablets. The Bro's are the dark bro's if you've not figured it by now. Spot the antagonistic MONKEY.

Every thousand years the light must shine on my body.

Typical of the monkey to throw a spanner in the work's, huh?

Look to the Ankh. An + Ke...

There are three strains of dna in the anunnaki, one is the an, one is the ke, and the other is the nephilim

This particular earth monkey aquarian, god with 6 wing's, aka RA AMEN, a nephilim.

There is a psychological term for the an and ke's serpent fear of the monkey.

Quite simply. They fear the height of mans intelligence.

And what the monkey does to new toys when he realise's they are no good to him, Hulk Smash stylee...

Now lets call the new world order, this 'new' toy, belonging to this new human, some call jesus, some call lucifer, some say is just james.

The person writing this IS your proof. To obtain the scientific proof, come see it in person.

I win, hands down, hold you on a cross one day...

And at this point I'd ike to point out, a monkey king is also due to return, not just the mayan/aztec/pachacouti tribe's monkey, but the egyptian

Monkey King called THOTH, aka Thought!!!!!!

[BADecker]

Science is many things to many people. Many scientists are disgusted with the way some scientists make science theories and then believe in them (thereby turning science into religion for themselves, because theories are not know to be factual).

The scientific proof for God is, Cause-and-Effect, Entropy, and Complexity can't exist without God in the same universe.

The easy science is simply the fact of machine-universe, and that machines have makers.

[Masplanc]

I don't really know if I can give you scientific proof. But just take a look at natural things around you such like sky, ocean , animals then ask your self if all this things just happened like that and they do not have beginning. Just try imagine if things can just form by itself if not God

[odolvlobo]

I don't really know if I can give you scientific proof. But just take a look at natural things around you such like sky, ocean , animals then ask your self if all this things just happened like that and they do not have beginning. Just try imagine if things can just form by itself if not God

Ignorance is not proof. Your lack of imagination is not proof.

[BADecker]

I don't really know if I can give you scientific proof. But just take a look at natural things around you such like sky, ocean , animals then ask your self if all this things just happened like that and they do not have beginning. Just try imagine if things can just form by itself if not God

Ignorance is not proof. Your lack of imagination is not proof.

Thanks for telling us what your religion is.     

[Chato1977]

I don't really know if I can give you scientific proof. But just take a look at natural things around you such like sky, ocean , animals then ask your self if all this things just happened like that and they do not have beginning. Just try imagine if things can just form by itself if not God

Ignorance is not proof. Your lack of imagination is not proof.

Thanks for telling us what your religion is.     

What should it be? 

i rather have huge imaginary than being Ignorance 

[BADecker]

I don't really know if I can give you scientific proof. But just take a look at natural things around you such like sky, ocean , animals then ask your self if all this things just happened like that and they do not have beginning. Just try imagine if things can just form by itself if not God

Ignorance is not proof. Your lack of imagination is not proof.

Thanks for telling us what your religion is.    

What should it be?  

i rather have huge imaginary than being Ignorance  

A person's religion should start with knowing that God exists. Much of the rest, which he believe rather than knows, is his religion.

You can't make a universe like ours exist without God. The scientific proof is found in combining cause-and-effect with entropy (reduction of complexity), and with the amount of complexity we have. Only God could make something like this happen scientifically.

The second is that the universe is a machine made up of machines. All machines that we know of have makers. God is the universe machine Maker. We have no evidence of any machine having been made without a maker.

[hornetsnest]

The earth hangs in the darkness and rotates without intervention while revolving around the sun at a precise distance from the moon. The tide comes in and goes out while the dawn turns to dusk and the rain falls on both the good and the wicked while even the expelled spirits roam the dry arid place for rest. Reasons and seasons tell even the beasts that God exists but debased men puffed with foolish pride cannot find wisdom in humility.

Amen to that brother ^

[odolvlobo]

You keep repeating these "proofs", but simply repeating them does not make them true.

You can't make a universe like ours exist without God. The scientific proof is found in combining cause-and-effect with entropy (reduction of complexity), and with the amount of complexity we have.

You assume that the original complexity of the universe could only come from a god, and therefore a god must exist. That is a logical fallacy called "begging the question".

The second is that the universe is a machine made up of machines. All machines that we know of have makers. God is the universe machine Maker. We have no evidence of any machine having been made without a maker.

I have already demonstrated that the water cycle is a machine with no known maker. Therefore, you cannot claim that "all machines that we know of have makers". Furthermore, the lack of evidence of the water cycle being created without a maker is not proof that it has a maker. Inability to prove a statement is not proof that the opposite of the statement is true.

[Love3angle]

The world is just too perfect to happen to be a byproduct of big bang theory.

[BADecker]

You keep repeating these "proofs", but simply repeating them does not make them true.

You can't make a universe like ours exist without God. The scientific proof is found in combining cause-and-effect with entropy (reduction of complexity), and with the amount of complexity we have.

You neglect to consider that scientific proofs include our identities... like "I am" or "I exist." This is only an extension of complexity, that is so far beyond the complexities that we know, that it almost proves God by itself.

You assume that the original complexity of the universe could only come from a god, and therefore a god must exist. That is a logical fallacy called "begging the question".

The second is that the universe is a machine made up of machines. All machines that we know of have makers. God is the universe machine Maker. We have no evidence of any machine having been made without a maker.

I have already demonstrated that the water cycle is a machine with no known maker. Therefore, you cannot claim that "all machines that we know of have makers". Furthermore, the lack of evidence of the water cycle being created without a maker is not proof that it has a maker. Inability to prove a statement is not proof that the opposite of the statement is true.

The water cycle is a tiny machine in the loads of machines that make up the universe. Machines have makers. A maker great enough to make the universe is consistent with the definition of our word "God."

[MainJade]

In past scientists created a god element that could mimic any element but it was unstable and couldn't last for a long time.

[odolvlobo]

The second is that the universe is a machine made up of machines. All machines that we know of have makers. ...

I have already demonstrated that the water cycle is a machine with no known maker. Therefore, you cannot claim that "all machines that we know of have makers". Furthermore, the lack of evidence of the water cycle being created without a maker is not proof that it has a maker. Inability to prove a statement is not proof that the opposite of the statement is true.

The water cycle is a tiny machine in the loads of machines that make up the universe. Machines have makers. A maker great enough to make the universe is consistent with the definition of our word "God."

Tiny or not, it means that you cannot claim that all machines have makers. Of course, there exist machines that have makers, but you can't use that statement to prove that the universe was made by a god (how ever you define "god"), because the universe can be one of those machines with no maker.

And while we are rehashing your broken proof, remember that we can't use probability as an argument here, since we have no way to measure it.

[BADecker]

The water cycle is a tiny machine in the loads of machines that make up the universe. Machines have makers. A maker great enough to make the universe is consistent with the definition of our word "God."

Tiny or not, it means that you cannot claim that all machines have makers. Of course, there exist machines that have makers, but you can't use that statement to prove that the universe was made by a god (how ever you define "god"), because the universe can be one of those machines with no maker.

And while we are rehashing your broken proof, remember that we can't use probability as an argument here, since we have no way to measure it.

Absolutely can! Consider. There are about 5,000 years of people history that we can confirm really happened on earth. Confirmation comes through examining speech patterns and applying them to what is written on ancient clay tablets. We also have a little DNA from the past.

In this 5,000 years we have found all kinds of machines and made-things. What do we know about these machines and made-things?
1. For some of them, we know who made them.
2. For some of them, we have a pretty good idea who made them... evidence.
3. For some we don't know who made them.
4. For many, if we want to stand off a little way and be objective, we don't know that they were made... and we don't know that they weren't made.

But here's the real clincher.
1. We have proof that multitudes of machines and made-things were made, often knowing who the makers were.
2. But we don't have proof that even one thing or machine was not made... just popped spontaneously into existence for no reason.

If there were only 5 things in the universe, and we only knew for a fact that one of them was made, where's the evidence that at least one of the 5 was not made?... since the other 4 might or might not have been made?

But the universe is full of things. And we have proof of billions of things having been made, because many of the makers are still alive. And we have strong evidence that the books that talk about the makers of other things are not lying. And even many of the things that we don't know were made, look like other things that we know WERE made.

So, find us the proof for something that was not made... so that we know absolutely that it exists without having been made. Prove it. Don't prove it for countless thousands of things. Don't turn to theories. Show us the proof for just one. Proof that it could absolutely not have been made and yet exists.

In other words, all we have is two things:
1. Billions of machines have makers;
2. We don't know.

We don't know of even one thing for a fact that doesn't have a maker. Some of us consider that all machines have makers. Some others just keep on playing the lottery.

[odolvlobo]

And we have proof of billions of things having been made, ...

You claim that there are billions of machines with provable makers. Fine. I claim that there are trillions of machines without provable makers. Therefore, the probability of a machine having a maker is 1/1000.

[BADecker]

And we have proof of billions of things having been made, ...

You claim that there are billions of machines with provable makers. Fine. I claim that there are trillions of machines without provable makers. Therefore, the probability of a machine having a maker is 1/1000.

That's where you make your mistake.

The trillions of machines without provable makers are really not only as you said, but also they are trillions of machines that easily might have makers. Those trillions cancel themselves out as being part of the equation.

Find five or ten machines that provably DON'T have a maker... or even one such machine... so we can pit them/it against the billions of machines that we KNOW have makers. That way we'll have a start in your direction.

[odolvlobo]

And we have proof of billions of things having been made, ...

You claim that there are billions of machines with provable makers. Fine. I claim that there are trillions of machines without provable makers. Therefore, the probability of a machine having a maker is 1/1000.

That's where you make your mistake.
The trillions of machines without provable makers are really not only as you said, but also they are trillions of machines that easily might have makers. Those trillions cancel themselves out as being part of the equation.
Find five or ten machines that provably DON'T have a maker... or even one such machine... so we can pit them/it against the billions of machines that we KNOW have makers. That way we'll have a start in your direction.

My real point here is that you can make up any numbers that you want (as you and I both demonstrated) and there is no way to validate them, so any claims of proof by probability cannot be valid.

[BADecker]

The dude who made the first post is just another storyteller, lol

Trouble is, he doesn't tell nearly enough of the story.