Scientific proof that God exists?

[Buffer Overflow]

But often, if a person will simply not accept Him in faith, God will lock him into that non-acceptance in this life. Such people miss out on a glorious eternity, simply because they "want" to, without realizing what they want.

Proves my point. Religion was built on fear. Fear of what will happen if they don't believe. Fear of the unknown when they die.

Why would anyone fear death? Puzzles me. You can't stop it. It's nature. Why worry?
Naturally we all have the inbuilt survival mechanism, that's nature not fear.

Yeah, sure I fear of having a horrible painful one or fear I won't see my children grow up, but that isn't fear of the death.

[BADecker]

Let me get this right. You're searching for scientific evidence of a hypothesis that cannot be tested.

That's incredibly naive.

This thread should be called "Scientific proof that dragons exist"

It would make the same amount of sense.

God, like dragons is 100% man-made.

FUCK.

You see? That's the problem. The term "science" has taken on all kinds of meanings in the eyes of people, meanings beyond the simple meaning that pure science is.

Pure science doesn't make evidence. It only shows evidence. There is no evidence in pure science for where this complex universe came from - least not that we have seen. Because of this we have a choice. We can believe:
A. that our made-up stories - lies - are science;
B. that there is a God (since animals would consider people to be gods if they were to think in that direction at all);
C. that we simply cannot know because it is too far beyond us;
D. that there is a revelation about God somewhere, if only we can find it.

[Gimpeline]

So where is the evidence that you keep on about?
So far I havent seen anything.
Bodyparts connected to the right place is no evidence. Its called evolution.
Nature is no evidence. It can be explained thru biology
That people have written books and made up stories thru history. No evidence
So where is it?

Basically, the evidence is found in:
1. all the ways that nature proves that it is a highly complex and complicated machine;
2. that the only thing we see with regard to the machine of nature is a running-down, like a clock that is winding down, or a pendulum that is gradually swinging to its bottom-dead-center stop;
3. we have no evidence whatsoever of anything that could start such a thing as nature and the universe into the complexity that they are.

You don't need me to do your research for you.

Sorry nothing of that is evidence. As I said itcan be explained thru evolution and biologi
A supreme being that creates universes is much more complex than anything in nature.
If a creature like that can pop up from nothing surley the universe can

[BADecker]

So where is the evidence that you keep on about?
So far I havent seen anything.
Bodyparts connected to the right place is no evidence. Its called evolution.
Nature is no evidence. It can be explained thru biology
That people have written books and made up stories thru history. No evidence
So where is it?

Basically, the evidence is found in:
1. all the ways that nature proves that it is a highly complex and complicated machine;
2. that the only thing we see with regard to the machine of nature is a running-down, like a clock that is winding down, or a pendulum that is gradually swinging to its bottom-dead-center stop;
3. we have no evidence whatsoever of anything that could start such a thing as nature and the universe into the complexity that they are.

You don't need me to do your research for you.

Sorry nothing of that is evidence. As I said itcan be explained thru evolution and biologi
A supreme being that creates universes is much more complex than anything in nature.
If a creature like that can pop up from nothing surley the universe can

You are mistaken about evolution, and the age of the universe as well. When you examine the evidences for evolution, you find:
1. evidence that can be interpreted in many different ways, some that do not indicate evolution at all;
2. basics that are rooted in disclaimers like "if" and "maybe;"
3. lots of hyped-up propagandizing that the story of evolution and the age of the universe is true;

when, in reality, none of it is sound science at all.

[Decksperiment]

So many technically useless points regarding GOD.. hmm..

"Let me get this right. You're searching for scientific evidence of a hypothesis that cannot be tested. -
That's incredibly naive."

I would reply: GOD is not hypothetical, the fact we speak of him wether alive or dead, past or present, is evidence of the image of the diety existing. We all create 'that' image of whatever it is we are talking about, sharing the same reality, with each other, proving (if he exists lol) he does.

Yes you are indeed..

[Decksperiment]

I can most definatly say that I'm at a point in life where I have had reasonable time to come to the conclusion that when one comes in, one leaves this life. We can experience at any moment in time, the life of someone at the point of realising they are fucked (un-natural death). The problem is, (thankfully) we tend to concentrate on the day to day reality to understand this slightly off topic point. That 'be careful what you wish for, as a butterfly flaps it's wing's, there's a storm the other side of the world..' is (when you recognise it) actually evidence that not only can we become one with the person at the point of death, Hopefully not by choice) as we dream of the cause of death, at the point it happens. (Remix of a wee bitty hagakure..)

Though recognising it for what it is..

Would we really want that proof?

[Cortex7]

GOD is not hypothetical, the fact we speak of him wether alive or dead, past or present, is evidence of the image of the diety existing. We all create 'that' image of whatever it is we are talking about, sharing the same reality, with each other, proving (if he exists lol) he does.

God IS hypothetical.

Granted; god is a hypothesis shared by many, but it's a hypothesis nonetheless.

Also you refer to god as "he", so I feel you are succumbing to gender bias and anthropomorphism (you allude to god being a person, a male one at that). If this hypothetical god were to exist then I think the correct description would be "it" or simply stop at "god".

Dry debate talk aside, here's some music I hobby wrote some years back, your writings on sound and vibration reminded me of it, the track is called "cymatics":

https://www.cortex7.net/music/cymatics.mp3

The track uses a voice sample of Dr Peter Guy Manners:
http://www.drpeterguymanners.com/

[bluefirecorp]

Let me get this right. You're searching for scientific evidence of a hypothesis that cannot be tested.

That's incredibly naive.

This thread should be called "Scientific proof that dragons exist"

It would make the same amount of sense.

God, like dragons is 100% man-made.

FUCK.

You see? That's the problem. The term "science" has taken on all kinds of meanings in the eyes of people, meanings beyond the simple meaning that pure science is.

Pure science doesn't make evidence. It only shows evidence. There is no evidence in pure science for where this complex universe came from - least not that we have seen. Because of this we have a choice. We can believe:
A. that our made-up stories - lies - are science;
B. that there is a God (since animals would consider people to be gods if they were to think in that direction at all);
C. that we simply cannot know because it is too far beyond us;
D. that there is a revelation about God somewhere, if only we can find it.

You actually don't have any idea of what you're talking about. You really need to shut the fuck up. Like seriously.

We've simulated both the big bang and abiogenesis. Both events match up nearly perfectly with the results. I mean, no one even has to say anything about evolution, that's literally 5th grade science right there.

Just because you don't understand \"science\" doesn't mean other people doesn't understand science.

Inb4 you spout off more random shit that's totally not related to what I just said. That's exactly what you do, once one point is shot down, you move on the the next one, that one's shot down and you continue the fucking cycle. Eventually, you run out of things and say "you can't understand god". It's like "fucking really? Are you THAT retarded?" Honestly, you're going from arguing to going "nah, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you, nahnanananana"

[BADecker]

Would we really want that proof?

You are sooo good (capable and understanding).

Thermite is wonderful stuff. Many of the various alloys had their start in people playing with thermite with small amounts of other metals mixed in.

Yet, if you want proof that thermite is wonderful, you better mix the aluminum powder and rust powder in the proper ratios. If you don't, you just might wind up in the hospital (if you live, that is). Would that be proof enough for you (not you, Decksperiment, those others who are doubters)?

God IS hypothetical.

Granted god is a hypothesis shared by many, but it's a hypothesis nonetheless.

Also you refer to god as "he", so I feel you are succumbing to gender bias and anthropomorphism (you allude to god being a person, a male one at that). If this hypothetical god were to exist then I think the correct description would be "it" or simply stop at "god".

In the strict sense, God is hypothetical to people who haven't met Him, or to people who don't recognize that they have met Him.

Evidence is NOT proof. That's why we need faith. Same as the evolutionists need faith to believe that something as impossible as evolution might even have a chance of existing.

ALL people live by faith to some extent. Much (most?) of the time faith produces good results. The people of Hiroshima in WWII overextended their faith, and then they were gone, something that their faith hadn't taken into account.

Consider the stranger you meet in the bar (or wherever). How do you know that this stranger isn't going to harm you? You don't in the strict sense. You take him/her on faith, simply by sitting down to buy your drink.

[Decksperiment]

GOD is not hypothetical, the fact we speak of him wether alive or dead, past or present, is evidence of the image of the diety existing. We all create 'that' image of whatever it is we are talking about, sharing the same reality, with each other, proving (if he exists lol) he does.

God IS hypothetical.

Granted; god is a hypothesis shared by many, but it's a hypothesis nonetheless.

Also you refer to god as "he", so I feel you are succumbing to gender bias and anthropomorphism (you allude to god being a person, a male one at that). If this hypothetical god were to exist then I think the correct description would be "it" or simply stop at "god".

Dry debate talk aside, here's some music I hobby wrote some years back, your writings on sound and vibration reminded me of it, the track is called "cymatics":

https://www.cortex7.net/music/cymatics.mp3

The track uses a voice sample of Dr Peter Guy Manners:
http://www.drpeterguymanners.com/

If you knew anything you'd see how something guided me in earlier threads to ensnare the weary.. gender bias? I believe in the straight path man/woman way of life, anything else is sadly, in my opinion, nothing more than sexual deviancy. And I'm not stupid enough to allure god to anyone or anything, i do however have to lower myself to the language you clearly have misperceptions of.. my point being that EVERYONE ALIVE call's god 'him', and not 'her', you to me are sexually bias, which shines brighter than any english language you use.. why do you think I as a scotsman want rid of the english?

Because I hate them?

This explains what you can say to me dude, it's the language I want rid of, and everything it stands for, since it is designed to cast the spit you try to get me to click on.. like I wanna see everything people link to? Nah, I'm on tis site cause i wanna be, not to look into your whatever degree in educated humour.. get a life and go homeless a few times.. then you'll want him.. if he lets you down, it's cause you know nothing of his language.

[manobra]

BITCOINtalk.org or WHATEVERtalk.org?

[BADecker]

You actually don't have any idea of what you're talking about. You really need to shut the fuck up. Like seriously.

We've simulated both the big bang and abiogenesis. Both events match up nearly perfectly with the results. I mean, no one even has to say anything about evolution, that's literally 5th grade science right there.

Just because you don't understand \"science\" doesn't mean other people doesn't understand science.

Inb4 you spout off more random shit that's totally not related to what I just said. That's exactly what you do, once one point is shot down, you move on the the next one, that one's shot down and you continue the fucking cycle. Eventually, you run out of things and say "you can't understand god". It's like "fucking really? Are you THAT retarded?" Honestly, you're going from arguing to going "nah, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you, nahnanananana"

What's the matter, poor baby? Finally you are getting something that your mixed up and lying science teachers can't answer? And you are having a hard time taking it, right?

Well, all you need to do is stop looking at topics like this. That way you can remain comfortable, for awhile, that all those whack jobs who believe in God are just, like, gone. Of course, that won't work when you meet Him. The fact that it bothers you at all shows that you are not as secure in your beliefs as you want to think that you are.

[BitcoinStuff]

I believe in God, science or not cience, proof or not proof.

[BADecker]

BITCOINtalk.org or WHATEVERtalk.org?

Welcome to the Off-topic section.

[Decksperiment]

Somewhere in this thread there IS evidence of god, and it outways the need for scientific proof.

The closest you'll come to it where a lab experiment can be conducted in order to prove the results, is the story of the hat. No scientific instruments required, since the 'proof ' would become the EVIDENCE you receive upon completion of the 'lab experiment'

Now if you'd like to pay me to show you in any laboratory of your choice, I will gladly prove that this 'diety' or false idol of higher intelligence.. nah..

I can prove god exists. You cant.

Now let's say you could afford to pay me to prove the existance of what people will accept as proof of god, would you?

[BADecker]

Somewhere in this thread there IS evidence of god, and it outways the need for scientific proof.

The closest you'll come to it where a lab experiment can be conducted in order to prove the results, is the story of the hat. No scientific instruments required, since the 'proof ' would become the EVIDENCE you receive upon completion of the 'lab experiment'

Now if you'd like to pay me to show you in any laboratory of your choice, I will gladly prove that this 'diety' or false idol of higher intelligence.. nah..

I can prove god exists. You cant.

Now let's say you could afford to pay me to prove the existance of what people will accept as proof of god, would you?

+ 1

[Cortex7]

GOD is not hypothetical, the fact we speak of him wether alive or dead, past or present, is evidence of the image of the diety existing. We all create 'that' image of whatever it is we are talking about, sharing the same reality, with each other, proving (if he exists lol) he does.

God IS hypothetical.

Granted; god is a hypothesis shared by many, but it's a hypothesis nonetheless.

Also you refer to god as "he", so I feel you are succumbing to gender bias and anthropomorphism (you allude to god being a person, a male one at that). If this hypothetical god were to exist then I think the correct description would be "it" or simply stop at "god".

Dry debate talk aside, here's some music I hobby wrote some years back, your writings on sound and vibration reminded me of it, the track is called "cymatics":

https://www.cortex7.net/music/cymatics.mp3

The track uses a voice sample of Dr Peter Guy Manners:
http://www.drpeterguymanners.com/

If you knew anything you'd see how something guided me in earlier threads to ensnare the weary.. gender bias? I believe in the straight path man/woman way of life, anything else is sadly, in my opinion, nothing more than sexual deviancy. And I'm not stupid enough to allure god to anyone or anything, i do however have to lower myself to the language you clearly have misperceptions of.. my point being that EVERYONE ALIVE call's god 'him', and not 'her', you to me are sexually bias, which shines brighter than any english language you use.. why do you think I as a scotsman want rid of the english?

Because I hate them?

This explains what you can say to me dude, it's the language I want rid of, and everything it stands for, since it is designed to cast the spit you try to get me to click on.. like I wanna see everything people link to? Nah, I'm on tis site cause i wanna be, not to look into your whatever degree in educated humour.. get a life and go homeless a few times.. then you'll want him.. if he lets you down, it's cause you know nothing of his language.

I was actually trying to be friendly in a roundabout way.

But at least you entertained me, and probably others:

LAUGH1:
You thought I was calling you gay because I used the term "gender bias"

LAUGH2:(not certain but probable)
You dont know what anthropomorphism means

LAUGH3:
You read "allude" as "allure", is the Scottish dictionary like a travel version of the English one or are you just stupid?

LAUGH4:
You assume I could gain control of your system through an MP3 file, you are full of fear and ignorance. Perhaps if you pray to your Scottish god then he will fix it. (don't hold your breath)

[Decksperiment]

With regards to the big wig's, or boffins who created this big toy they think created the big bang.. hahaha.. f'n idiot's.. so you built a machine, every part meticulously built, precision engineering at it's finest to tell you 'expected' results from what you created? of course it will provide that which it was built to provide..

But you never got what you wanted.. when the light particle was split and passed through the slit, what happened? a third appeared unexpectadly no? you thought of every recording device on the planet but the one you cant create.. the one to record the appearance of the third light.. everytime you try to record it, you CANT.

Please explain to the masses why not..

Do I need to do everything myself?

[Cortex7]

Do I need to do everything myself?

Just the sex bit I would imagine.

[Cortex7]

...my point being that EVERYONE ALIVE call's god 'him', and not 'her'

Ever think to wonder why?

Did you never think that males play a smaller role in the creation we are able to observe (human birth) than do females.

Probably not...

You will find that ancient religeons always used "her", only modern military systems use "he"